User talk:Mean as custard/Archive 9

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

Apologies[edit]

Hi, Sorry about my mistake. If you are talking about any of my edits, I assure you that I am not associated with any of the article owners or brands. Honestly, I'm even having a hard time searching for what I did. Once again though, sorry if it violated the rules of Wikipedia conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshVaidya (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AppViewX[edit]

The recent edits you have made on the AppViewX wikepedia page has factual errors. AppViewX is a separate company and has nothing to do with Payoda Technologies. Please see the press release - https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180108006435/en/AppViewX-Tops-Milestone-Year-Plans-Accelerate-Growth Kindly revert the content to the earlier version. Please consider checking the company's official website. There is no point in having this wikipedia page if all the information are outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devika.gokul (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in having this wikipedia page if all it contains is promotional rubbish like "AppViewX delivers greater business agility and efficiency at a lower cost". . . Mean as custard (talk)

Runcorn Air Cadets[edit]

It is a genuine Youth Organisation based in Runcorn and Across the country?

I know it is, but you can't advertise it on Wikipedia. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polytech Nantes France I don't know how to contact you : why are you undoing my page ? This is work !! I'm working in this School and just updating our information. Stop undoing my work each time, this is not serious ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polytech Nantes (talk • contribs) 10:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes read like they were copied direct from the college prospectus. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course because I'm working in Polytech and uploading all the changes according to our official website...:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polytech Nantes (talk • contribs) 10:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is against multiple Wikipedia rules. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


What promotional material?[edit]

Please note that there is no promotional material. I work at Portek and I am updating the latest information of the company, such as the new board of directors etc and the details of the company's port operations. The company was acquired a few years ago and there have been changes. I also plan to update the updated company logo once I figure out how to do it.

Instead of keep reverting the changes I make, please consider checking the company's official website. There is no point in having this wikipedia page if all the information are outdated.

I have just removed all the extra links to sections of the company website if that's what was considered as promotional. For your consideration please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortekSg (talk • contribs) 07:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you say there is no promotional material, you appear to have overlooked all the passages like "Through our operations in emerging markets, we strive to contribute towards the sustainable development of economies; thus our ethos of “Maximising Throughput and Accelerating Growth” for our clients, partners and communities around the world.". Changes reverted. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Field Engineer Marketplace[edit]

I notice that you have reverted a bunch of editors that are adding links to Field Engineer Marketplace. I created an SPI report regarding them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mir.Mustafa.Ali. If you have anything to add, please do. Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Vinayaka Missions[edit]

Hi,

Your edits on Vinayaka Missions page was not necessary. Its a different type of university and they require a bigger introduction. You have no idea about such unis , so please buzz off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aka9000 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's put me in my place. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit revert[edit]

Hi. You reverted my small edit on train wreck without explaining why in the edit summary. Can you explain? Thanks. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it had been grammatically correct, I felt it did not improve the article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well. Not much added anyway. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

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

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • 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) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

New Years new page backlog drive[edit]

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

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor[edit]

What is your feelings on this article? It seems to be someone associated with the project who is writing it(they initially simply copied text from elsewhere but it was later redacted) merely to tell the world about it. From my searches I can't find too much in the way of independent sources, even though it seems like it could be a notable project. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is badly in need of independent sources to show if it is notable, and seems to attract regular updates from people with a conflict of interest. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Management University[edit]

Hi mean as custard! I have been trying to add the standard universities international ranking infobox to SMU's page but bluesky999 keeps reverting it. I have tried to invite him to discuss it on the talkpage but to no avail. I do agree with you that the page sounds a little promotional.
bluesky999 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bluestsky99) has reverted the infobox again. he has not replied on SMU's discussion page again but he commented in his latest revert that 'infobox doesn't compare specialist university'. this is weird to me as the main point of QS and other international rankings (ARWU etc) is to try to fairly compare a diverse range of unversities in the world whether they are specialist/general/big/small universities. AFAIK the main rankings are usually based on research citations per faculty, teaching staff ratio, standing among employers, etc. The wiki pages for small specialist universities such as LSE and Caltech all include the standard infobox. My view is that the standard universities infobox can be included. Can you please take a look and moderate since you are on the page? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.209.221 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of adding a rankings infobox as your uni does not appear in the rankings. The article has a lot of more serious problems that could be sorted. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SMU does appear in QS in the standard rankings infobox. Being a young uni, it will probably appear in ARWU, THES etc soon as well and start to move up the rankings. I have been trying to add the main rankings infobox (which is used for nearly all universities pages) but I didn't anticipate anyone to object to it and keep reverting what is the standard-issue main rankings infobox. While the main rankings are deliberately excluded, a host of miscellaneous and even unknown rankings are included (mostly pro SMU), lol. Anyway, it is your call, I am out of that page. Thanks for reviewing it regardless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.209.221 (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe undoing my edits.[edit]

U seriously R mean, how is it that UR allowed to exist? Cheako (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mystery to me. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing my edit on Underscore[edit]

I don't see why the See also header at the top should link to the disambiguation page since there's not really anything else in the disambiguation page (besides in the See also section at the bottom) that's related to underscores. The Nth User Care to differ or discuss? 19:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a link to Macron below on the line above, so your edit appeared unnecessary. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But then why was there a link to the Macron disambiguation page? The Nth User Care to differ or discuss? 23:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Research Park[edit]

Hi,

I am currently trying to build the Stanford Research Park page. Every time I put up something, you take it out. Could you please refrain? This page is a work in process and the edits are forcing us to take a lot more time on this project. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:1C38:0:601E:CB7A:A5CA:CF6B (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add material with citations to independent reputable sources, and avoid promotional language. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning on doing this but it is a work in progress so everything will not be there at once and it is hard to work on when we log on every time and edits are removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:1C38:0:601E:CB7A:A5CA:CF6B (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could just click on "View history" to view the removed content. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 23:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reply to anonymous above: if you are planning to iterate on a page that is not "production ready" yet, you can create and edit it under your own User: namespace and only copy them in place when they are ready. bkil (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overdraft Page[edit]

Hi, In the Overdraft page, where it says that there are Fintech innovations that help tackle overdraft fees, the example which is given afterward is completely irrelevant. It's a promotion of Simple Bank you should really take that off. I have a non-profit website which is called http://overdraftapps.com and its purpose is to help consumers in the US cope with outrageous overdraft fees using extremely simple tools like apps and online services. It doesn't make sense that you allow Simple bank promote itself on Wikipedia while a non-profit organization like our is blocked from letting Consumers know about REAL solutions to their problem. We are not making money from this website nor are we affiliated with any of the products we cover. On the Overdraft Wiki page, Simple bank wrote that they allow opting out of overdraft, however, if you run a small research yourself, you will find that all US banks give you this option so there is no reason whatsoever for a specific bank to be promoted as a solution to overdrafts. The actual solution for consumers is to change their behavior but unfortunately this is not so simple... Enter overdraft apps that give you a small, no-interest line of credit and This is a real Fintech alternative. Thus, when the beginning of the sentence in that section is talking about Fintech innovation, it comes as natural to me to add a link to a list of actual Fintech innovations rather than a promotion for Simple bank which is both - not an alternative and not a Fintech innovation. Please bring back my last edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uri3000 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, WP:SELFPUBLISH seem to apply in Simple Banks case as well then. There is no reason in the world why anyone would referencce that bank specifically... its nowhere near the large banks in popularity. Just FYI. In addition, I don't need the self reference in that case, I just want people to be aware of that list of apps. Can I add it in the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uri3000 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

craps[edit]

Hello. You reverted my change in the craps table section. It's actually very important to note the different sizes of craps tables because that changes how the game is played and how the dice is thrown. Can you please let me know why you reverted it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddog9999 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference was a promotional one to a manufacturer, not a reliable source. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we leave the edit without the cite then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddog9999 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitraarnab[edit]

Sorry for leaving you that warning. I wanted to be fair to both parties, and I didn't realize at the time that this user was adding advertising to this article. Obviously I do now ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, Don't know how to open another section. I'm the director of Minitex and new to Wikipedia. Randomeditor has been advising me, and I think I have removed all the advertisements from the page. Could you look at it and see if you're comfortable removing the warning? Also, I'm worried that I have made it so bare-bones it won't make sense if you don't know our non-profit. Do you think it's clear what Minitex is? Sincerely and thanks, Valerie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmarzec (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks clear and non-promotional now, but could do with some references from mainstream sources, i.e. not educational or governmental, to show that it is notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


AMDON[edit]

Hi, I've removed the parts of article that appear to be promotional. Could you check for me if it is all right ? I am sorry, I am new to Wiki,if you are still not comfortable, could you point me which area I should rewrite and if you are confortable with the current article, could you remove the warning please? Thank you. Nay9a (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will put more info in the future and make sure it doesn't appear promotional. I will sound you out when completed and updated. Nay9a (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Force Motors[edit]

The article Force Motors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Advertising speech, tag since June 2017.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yann (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fish sludge Recovery System[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you deleted my entry under the acronym FRS. Fish sludge Recovery System is a solution for rinsing fish sludge in Norway, and has been in the press several occasions, and i also think this is interesting and accurate information. How should i proceed to add it to acronym FRS? I am asking you as I'm quite new to Wiki editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRams (talk • contribs) 12:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Write the article first. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Startup India[edit]

Hi Mean as custard, Thank for your review. I would like to make sure that the edits I made to this page are free from "content that is written like an advertisement". Can you please advise how to improve, what to remove? Best regards, Trent Roller 15:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanking you for your recent edit. Has actually provided me (still a rookie) with an improved understanding of how to write and contribute on Wikipedia ;-)

My link have been removed[edit]

Please provide me the reason of removing my links from Bengali wiki page Nitinlion (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted my link from city News bengali[edit]

Why this have reverted and please provide me some reason behind this.. This was valid and related to the page Nitinlion (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EL and WP:SPAM. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why are you bothered with my edits? I just don't get it[edit]

I am providing information about underwater archaeology projects we have done... why are you bothered? I just don't get it... am I "advertising" underwater archaeology in your mind? I am making all this information public, so it's useful for people and you are just bothered???? Can you please leave it alone?

You are hijacking an existing unrelated article and adding unreferenced material cut-and-pasted from your website. Wikipedia is not designed for this sort of self-promotion. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional page[edit]

Hi! Could you be so kind and tell me which parts of our page bother you? Thank you.

The whole thing read like an advertisement. And it isn't your page. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Iskra (company) should contain informations about our company, Iskra d.d. The old content is only a part of history and should not represent us, as we are today. Please put back content that we provided yesterday and instructions which part exactly should we correct. Thank you

No. Mean as custard (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited AussieBum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Package (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Hi, sorry. I was not aware of the rules for external links. I thought it was relevant to flash drive so I try to add it. Hats off to you guys for maintaining Wikipedia at this level, 1st time saw how Wikipedia works internally. Next time I would be careful, and will always ask you guys before adding any link if the links are relevant. And, I didn't try to add link repeatedly purposefully actually I was trying to add link with correct tags & wanted to remove citation related to my link from notes section that's why I had modifying it lots of times.

Thanks for your detailed explanation it helps to understand how things work on Wikipedia & Have A Great Day! Compose21 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Content removal[edit]

Hi, I added a company to the list of touch-solutions manufacturers. Could you elaborate why you have removed my addition? Jonas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonasx17 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link replacement removal[edit]

Hey

You just removed my edit on [Sim lock] page. The dead link replacement was to a relevant source that confirms the information that needs citation. Can you clarify why you undo my edit?

Thanks

As most of your other edits have been to add spam links, I assumed you had an ulterior motive in adding it. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I just try to add replace with relevant link/citations whenever I find dead links/citation on articles I read. Same happened here English landscape garden All of the websites I replace are not linked to me. They are mostly news sharing websites like this one https://www.aguidetoleeuwarden.nl/see-do/city-parks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvestersmyth (talk • contribs) 10:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That citation did not confirm the statement in the article, it merely showed a specific example. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for that. I will try to find more reliable and in-depth sources :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvestersmyth (talk • contribs) 10:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Branson[edit]

Hi, please can you tell me what was wrong with the addition re Branson's hotel? Thanks Kennelmaid (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem to be of lasting significance, as there are already Virgin hotels in the USA (though these US hotels might usefully be mentioned in the article). . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point is though first in the UK? Kennelmaid (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To blank or not to blank, that is the[edit]

Hello. Sorry to pop up at random like this. I'm not sure if this is accolades, brickbats and threats but if you like I'll try to make sure I do all three? :) I was wondering about this, where you undid a user's clearance of their own Talk page. Now, I am usually wrong about at least 50% of everything I say here but I thought that we didn't do this, because if they blank it then we assume they saw it. I know that there are exceptions like outstanding parking fines, expensive arty graffiti etc (or something) but I didn't think that such an exception was visible here.

I'd be the first to agree that the user is a royal pain (update: now indeffed!) and I wish that they had read carefully and acted on advice lovingly given them by some nice old chap. But they didn't, and that's another problem ... in the meantime, I still worry that undoing their blanking wasn't quite right. Please feel free to tell me why I'm an idiot and, like, totally wrong ... I have probably missed the point hugely here somehow! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I had just decided that none of this user's edits were constructive so reverted them all, including the talk page. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BONG! That’s so obvious, I’m sorry I didn’t twig. Duh. I am indeed an idiot, as advertised! Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you tagged the page Syllabus (legal) for speedy deletion with the reason "dictionary definition". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because WP:NOTDICTIONARY is not a valid speedy deletion criteria.. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, proposing the page for deletion if it appears to be an uncontroversial matter, or taking the page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for discussion on the merits. Thanks! Iffy★Chat -- 15:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chargebee[edit]

I just recommended this for deletion. I created it 4 years ago and since then it has been a platform for SPA and promotion, likely from the company itself. I was going to revert it back to a stub today but I took a look at references and don't feel this meets guidelines. My understanding of WP:NCORP back then obviously is not what it is. If it can be speedy deleted, great. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SE8 Group[edit]

Greetings, mean as custard...Would you please explain the rationale for your removal of the SE8 Group logo which I uploaded to the SE8 Group entry? You provided no explanation. By way of justification, I'd like to cite the wiki entry for,[1] which makes use of a prominent logo representation linked to the fairly promotional CBS website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS. Please adviseBusinessIdentity (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The logo designer appeared to be trying to promote their business. The CBS logo is supposedly considerd "iconic" (whatever that means), so it is probably justifiable including it in the article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ CBS

SE8 Group[edit]

Thanks for the information. I'm a newbie here so try and help me understand your thought process... I agree with you that "iconic" can become a slippery determination. Yet similar entries display key frames or logos in the information box. [1] Is the principal disqualifier here the possibly promotional link? [2] or a lack of notability? Would it be reasonable to proceed with the logo but a different link? I appreciate your guidance.13:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusinessIdentity (talk • contribs)

A logo on its own without any link would be fine. . .Mean as custard (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pee-wee%27s_Playhouse
  2. ^ http://www.dart-design.net/Work/Identity/index.html

Be nice to the newbies[edit]

Whilst I agree that EyesoftheFlash was rather premature in adding Draft:Geoff Green to Flinders University and TAFE South Australia, and I also agree that they needed reverting, it might have been nicer if the edit comment in your reverts contained some sort of platitude or explanation. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration to Canada citations removal[edit]

Hi, so after rephrasing an entire text and using several sources, you chose to remove a lot of them with the reason of "spam links". Now, it would be fine if you had replaced them with other links but you just left the information without any citations. I've looked for resources when I created the edit and there was a reason I added those citations - because they were the only ones I found. If you look more closely you will see that most of the citations are links to the official CA GOV website, and when I couldn't find a good citation for a certain info, I picked a citation from a company's website, true, but the info there was well written and detailed thus contributing to the cause of wiki. Please let me know if you found any other links that can help with resources to the info and I'll be happy to put them instead :) Shirley Swan (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cat cafe removal of edit[edit]

How can I add the information you took off about cat cafes in order not to have it deleted? Thanks. Catnip4130 (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It needs references to independent sources to show that it is notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goat_Island_(Auckland) webcam deletion[edit]

You deleted a link to the only webcam of Goat_Island_(Auckland)

Any particular reason for that?

Changes to Technical surveillance counter-measures[edit]

How is it when I add a creditable source for TSCM case studies to the external links page, this is almost instantly removed? Yet other links in the external section are clearly links to TSCM companies, one of which doesn't even have a description, just a link to a home page - so blatant advertisement links are prioritized over informational links?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSCMSec (talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have removed all the spam links, including yours. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onebro (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL. . .Mean as custard (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desjardin[edit]

I removed anything that would sound like promotional content on the Desjardin page. Hope the page is clean now. I will wait for comments from the community before removing the flag. ScienceGuard (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spotting socks[edit]

Hello. I spotted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Reene_23 and wondered how you produced that long list of users? Presumably not manually? It might be best to discuss via email if you're happy to - I'm smartsewiki@gmail.com. Mason Carter has started creating what looks like UPE, just like Atkins Cafa and Eadwald Gore. They've been CUd privately and it's clear that they know what they are up to. SmartSE (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were all noted over a period of weeks checking edits by new user accounts. Most are no longer active; a few have now started making more sensible edits, though still to random articles. The list on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Reene_23 was originally much longer, but I had to reduce it to those with definite evidence of collusion (I have never found User:Bbb23 very helpful). . .
(I presume UPE means Undeclared Paid Editing and not 'Use Plain English'). . .Mean as custard (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you are a dedicated investigator! Just curious whether you'd caught them with a program looking at new users' edits. I did notice the longer list and will go through and see what they've created. By the sounds of it they have gone to great lengths to avoid CU, which makes it fairly certain that they're created for nefarious reasons. And yes UPE = undisclosed paid editing, I wrongly presumed as a spam hunter you'd know what I was on about! SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review Newsletter No.10[edit]

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert O. Hunter, Jr.[edit]

I'm patrolling new pages and I saw the paid creation tag you put on the above article. What makes you think it was a paid creation? Natureium (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's editing profile closely matches those in the long list of names in "Spotting socks" above. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy[edit]

As a note, I changed your speedy deletion of Sportsline to a redirect to CBSSports.com. The CBS Interactive affiliation is enough as a credible claim of significance, but the topic was already covered well in the CBS article. Thanks, Appable (talk | contributions) 18:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Drury Hotels article[edit]

I'm simply curious why you felt my basic edit to the Drury Hotels article is inappropriate, yet chains like Embassy Suites by Hilton can have full amenities sections with completely unreferenced paragraphs? I feel like the format in this article, including the listing of breakfast times, is unnecessary to this platform, yet this section has existed for years. Maybe a little bias in the hotel world? Rethortics1 (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the Embassy Suites by Hilton article; I have removed a lot of the unreferenced puffery. On the other hand references that do not verify the information in the article, like in Drury Hotels, are just as bad as, if not worse than, no references at all. . . Mean as custard (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman Activity Centre[edit]

Hey, why did you interrupt my chat @ Rayman Activity Centre with ANZAC? RaymanFan1PizzaLover (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION ... On Jockey Wheel page[edit]

I like the user name, pre-empting reactions from people with a sarcastic wit, you joker.

However Sir, I am puzzled - why is it that I can't add information about jockey wheel manufacturers in your view, yet on numerous other pages of Wikipedia (here's one on Ski Boots... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_boot ) You can see many links, linking to company websites to give information.

If I linked to a website that was selling jockey wheels direct, a spammy link or whatever then I would understand. Both Al-Ko and Kartt are known as leading suppliers of jockey wheels so I appreciate it if you can help me re-phrase or restore part of a reverted edit... so to speak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Restoring_part_of_a_reverted_edit

Thank you.

The existence of spam links in one article does not mean they can legitimately be added to another article, it only means that they need to be removed from the first article. And a page that begins by saying "Welcome to your Kartt jockey wheel....it will give you years of trouble free service". . . is a spam link. Mean as custard (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply..

OK I see where you're coming from. So should I just mention the manufacturers without posting actual links to them? I do get that Wikipedia can't be just 'rinsed' for it's SEO value or it would be a pointless eco-system, it's about content. But if it is a literal fact that these two manufacturers are the leading jockey wheel manufacturers - not putting a link there (which makes the user experience better/easier) for the sake of it seems out of balance (personally). Should I mention them then without placing links or can you please suggest any more appropriate pages on Al-Ko and Kartt's site's that make more sense to link to?

I'm a product designer student and am studying manufacturing processes and presently designing a new jockey wheel for my 2nd year project (part of which I wanted to show the Wikipedia page and my additions to it) so was thinking of adding images of the inner workings of a jockey wheel, the ball bearings, a bit about motorized jockey wheels (some are remote control now) and nose weights etc. Thanks for your help. League888 (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable to mention which the main manufacturers are if you can verify this with a reference to a non-commercial source not directly connected to any particular manufacturer. Adding material about the workings of a jockey wheel is fine if it does not reference the manufacturer. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)[edit]

Hi M a c... Can you enlighten us as to why you reverted edits by Juanitabwhite on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Security_Cooperation_Agency page? If it’s rules were bending/breaking, please advise. Otherwise, edits are current and accurate. Thanks! gjliii 

Gjliii (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the independently referenced material was removed and replaced by corporate puffery. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, corporate puffery - like the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard or lemmings as they go off the cliff together. I see now. You’re not interested in what’s going on inside, you’re much more interested in speculation, opinion and innuendo “referenced” by those hangin’ around outside. Thanks for the enlightenment! Gjliii (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction[edit]

Hello, I made an addition to the page for HMP Belmarsh, this addition of a fake individual was the for the purposes of a film project. The addition was due to be removed later in the day, if you had added a message on my talk page I would have explained this. I do not believe that the comment constituted vandalism. Thompy42 (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. The vandalism warning stands. . .Mean as custard (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supercar[edit]

Regarding your edits at Supercar. Please read WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR, then discuss your differences at talk:Supercar#Edit warring. The article can be changed after the discussion.  Stepho  talk  22:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality review?[edit]

Hi, I was told you put the {{peacock}} template on Alpha Gamma Delta and I'd like to ask if you would review it to see if the issues still apply. Thanks! originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 02:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for checking! much appreciated :) originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 22:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, could you look at Alpha Phi and see if {{peacock}} still applies? Thanks! originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 06:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fondue[edit]

May I ask what's wrong with the text I added before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tornado789 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only the reference, which was unreliable and promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve modified it to a reliable source (Swiss media).Tornado789 (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes Communications[edit]

Hi, This is Jessica Schurtz and I am a marketing specialist here at Hughes. Thanks for this feedback. We noticed you reverted some of the promotion on our page, Hughes Communications, and wanted to call out that this draft would make the page dramatically shorter / less promotional. We’re happy to suggest changes individually but thought providing the full draft replacement would make your jobs easier. Please let us know how we will have the most success in setting up the page to accurately reflect our business offerings. Thank you! Jschurtz (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The value of Wikipedia articles is that they are (in theory) written by multiple independent editors and not by the marketing departments of their subjects, so I would be wary about accepting your draft, though you are welcome to suggest specific changes on the article talk page. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018[edit]

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darshan Academy[edit]

Kindly let me know what makes you feel that the page is portraying any sort of promotional content because according to me it just tells the very basic aspects of any school like the overview, motto of the school adopted and its branches.

Moreover, all the points mentioned are properly backed up with reliable citations from newspapers and websites.

All the information and statists added are factual.

You are kindly requested to help me build the page in a more unpromotional way instead of nominating it for speedy deletion. Please suggest changes so that the seemingly promotional content can be removed from the page instead of deleting it.--sheenamalhotra182 (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mission, vision statements, mottoes etc. are all promotional. Wikipedia deals in verifiable facts. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to add a citation[edit]

I am trying to add a citation to the car wash wiki page. I am getting flagged for some reason. Can you help me with this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColemanAsh (talk • contribs) 19:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Motimatic page[edit]

Hello. I got the notice of speedy deletion just before I went to bed last night and the page is already gone in the five hoursSJTatsu (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC) while I was sleeping so I was not given an opportunity to contest the deletion. I strongly disagree with the deletion and even more strongly disagree with not being given the opportunity to fix the article to address the issue. I am new to Wikipedia and that was one of my first articles so I realize the tone may be off, but I could have fixed that. Please forward me the deleted material or even better, please repost the page so that I can fix it. Thank you.[reply]

Deletion of Optimas OE Solutions update[edit]

Hello,

I’m writing to you in response to your decision to revert the Optimas OE Solutions page back to its previous state.

I appreciate that the value of Wikipedia is its independent status. When working on this page I spent a month trying to communicate with the moderating community to ask for advice and opinion on the copy we were producing. I created a talk and uploaded the proposed content there first. I also asked an engineering post graduate to with no affiliation to Optimas to write the copy in an attempt to make it factual and non-promotional.

I am happy to organise a re-write of the copy to meet any requirement you feel is necessary to work with the Wikipedia platform – but up until now we’ve had no luck in our communication attempts.

Thank you for your time!

Jordan.williams (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Optimas’ core values are teamwork, honesty, respect, excellence, accountability, and drive.". . "Optimas provides solutions for technically demanding applications". . Most of your changes sounded as though they came straight from the company sales brochure, not an independent encyclopedia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my query. Our first priority is to produce quality copy that fits with Wikipedia’s guidelines – we don’t want to skirt round the rules. Taking your feedback on board we have stripped the text of any language that we think might be seen as emotive or promotional – trying to leave only factual information in place.
Can you let me know the best process of uploading the revised text for a moderator to review, and maybe even post it themselves as i've seen that as a suggested idea to get content uploaded for topics that can be seen as self-promotion? Originally, I created a Talk Page and uploaded it there, but if you can let me know if this is the best practice to do, or suggest an alternative, i'd appreciate it.
If you feel that this updated text would be more appropriate, we will then establish a list of external references that backs up our statements.
Again, thank you for your help in this matter!
Jordan.williams (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Roger Westman[edit]

Hello Mean as custard. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Roger Westman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims to have been featured in multiple notable journals; also, fellowship in the Royal Society is an indicator of importance (see Fellow of the Royal Society for details). Thank you. SoWhy 14:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTC and SGS[edit]

Medway UTC- yes, I am happy now- that gives me the support I need for my next edit. Ofsted has given it such a damning assessment I was loathe to report it. Stockport Grammar School (Talk:Stockport Grammar School) and I have a little disagreement about use of promotional material. Perhaps you could take a look.

ClemRutter (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Stockport Grammar School article looks a lot better than most school articles. Could do with more references, but the material is generally appropriate for a school with a long history. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 18[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Risalpur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bristol Fighter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The DMZ at Ryerson University[edit]

Interesting that you would revert a post to a previous version with notable sourcing and advertising issues. I updated the page to include a greater number of sources external to the company website and to provide a more holistic view, moving away from the focus on specific individuals and outdated rankings (with little support for the claims involved).

If you have specific issues with the page that would be understandable. I don't claim to be the best page editor but to remove the whole page seems foolish. You could easily have flagged it by putting the COI template back on or making comments about the areas of issue.

Emmreads (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the material you added was unacceptably promotional in tone: "Its vision is to create a world powered by ambitious entrepreneurs by helping high-potential startups scale and grow into world-class businesses.". . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You decided to remove an entire page over a single example? Seems it would have been more effective to flag or remove that part of the page. Additionally, I don't think providing a company's mission statement is promotional. I could make it more direct rather than something I sourced from their webpage (this is something you also could have done rather than remove the whole page).

Please provide direct issues with the page. This seems to be a recurring theme on your talk page. If you were more constructive all of the pages would be better, and if that's not the whole point of Wikipedia I don't know what is. Emmreads (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right, if you want some more examples: - "acts as the playbook for startup growth and aims to change entrepreneurs’ lives". . . "welcome to apply online for membership". . . "available to all entrepreneurs building leading technologies". . . "develop a customized and scalable sales process". . . ."isolating the market for long-term growth". . . ."connects emerging talent with industry-leading experts and resources to help them turn their innovative ideas into a competitive tech business". . . "a vision to create sustainable revenue sources". . . ." tech leaders provide the DMZ with pivotal guidance and support". . . "celebrated its eight year anniversary". . . "be a playbook for startup growth". . . "growing ecosystem of startups". . . - these will all be a great help to me as examples of phrases to look for while tracking down other promotional articles. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hardened Gentoo for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hardened Gentoo 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/Hardened Gentoo 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. ... ( seems nominator has not notified you) 05:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Why did you blank huge amounts of the article about Christian Purslow?[edit]

Just to let to know, I had undone the edit for now. StrikoWriter1234 (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)StrikoWriter1234[reply]

Because it was about the club and not the individual. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hekma International School[edit]

I stubbed Al Hekma International School to eliminate the promotional material and removed your speedy. I think the article is okay as a stub-with-infobox now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules
  • New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
  • Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
  • Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
  • Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
  • The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate template[edit]

Next time, please check the page to see if the template already exists. Luftfall (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TeamBath and "advert"[edit]

In June you added an "ad" banner to TeamBath. I see the claim that it "best sports facilities" but this is cited (although behind a fire wall so I can't check it). The rest is largely a list of facilities, so I was wondering what specifically you think needs changing? I have only just got to looking at this as part of WikiProject Somerset clean up list so if you can say what the issues are I will do my best to address them.— Rod talk 14:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"some of the best sports facilities in a UK University", "top-level training and event environment", "state of the art underwater video analysis capabilities", "Significant gym with 105 work stations", "new multi-purpose sport halls". . . it all reads more like a prospectus than an encyclopedia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've had a go at removing/rewording some of this - could you take another look?— Rod talk 17:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS[edit]

I didn't mean to revert your edit lol--SeminoleNation (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Ballet article edits/deletions[edit]

I noted the rather massive edit of this article you made on 3 August 2018. I do not agree with most of your edits/deletions.

In your 3 August edit, you deleted nearly 70% of the article we authored in order to “tone down promotional material. Deletions included: - historical statements backed up by independent reliable sources, - specific ballet performance references with details about the choreographer, composer, guest artists, performance venue, etc., - accomplishments (awards, accolades, etc.) backed up by independent reliable sources, - short biographies of key personnel that describe their training and experience, - a list of company dancers, - descriptions of community engagement programs

The authors do not see any of these items as promotional but rather factual items that describe the history, organization, and functions of this institution.

I did a search for a definition of “promotional material” on the Wikipedia help page but was unable to locate one. Can you please provide this definition? We would also appreciate an explanation of how deleting major items and sections of this article equates to “toning down promotional material.”

If in fact such items are considered promotional, we believe Wikipedia is going to have to take a serious look at every Wikipedia article that is currently published for performing arts organizations worldwide as many of them have exactly the same or similar material in them. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Ballet for one example.

As background, this article was developed by the Kansas City Ballet (KCB) Guild Archive Committee as part of the company’s 60th Anniversary season. The committee is made up of community volunteers; all our time is donated. We thought it would be great to fully document the history of the KCB since its inception in 1957. The existing article was sparse at best, sorely out of date, and had been flagged by Wikipedia editors as relying too much on direct sources.

We started our project in the fall of 2017. Our first step was to review the existing Wikipedia articles of other American Ballet Companies to include the American Ballet Theatre, New York City Ballet, San Francisco Ballet, Houston Ballet, Miami Ballet, Cincinnati Ballet and Ballet West. We compared and contrasted both the structure and the content of these articles to come up with “best in practice” table of contents for the new KCB article. We did not invent anything, all the sections in the new KCB article (history, company description, short bios on key (especially artistic) personnel, school programs, and community programs came from this initial review.

Once we had a good table of contents, we went about finding material to populate each of the sections. We paid particular attention to identifying, wherever possible, independent and reliable (online) references to back up statements made in the new article. We specifically made an effort to give credit to and find sources for every choreographer, composer, and guest artist(s) referenced. When we could not find a reliable online source, we dug into the KCB Archives to find original source material.

In early April 2018, after six months of research, composing, and editing I published the new article on behalf of the Archive. Over the next month there were a series of relatively minor changes made to the new article by a number of Wikipedia editors dealing with issues such as spelling, typos, questionable references, photo rights, and html formatting. Most of these we accepted with thanks, a few we had questions about which we resolved via posts on the editors’ talk pages. Things settled down in early May and, since that time, we have monitored the article, made some minor updates, reorganized some sections, fixed broken links, etc.

Ontomeister (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article knowing nothing about the subject, but it was immediately clear that it differed from articles like New York City Ballet. It read more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article, with promotional phrases like "Ms. Berry brings a wealth of talent and experience"; "dance instruction in a supportive and encouraging setting"; "provide excellence in dance training"; " the dance company has grown in both size and quality and the school has grown dramatically"; "An accomplished choreographer"; "prepares students for the widest spectrum of opportunities"; "engage learners of all ages in a deeper understanding"; "reaching out to local audiences". . . There were also a vast number of external links embedded in the article, which are discouraged by Wikipedia:External links. Some parts of the article could probably be reinstated if these links were converted to proper references. It is also worth reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I now understand the issue, although I know from our original review that many other performing arts organizations have very similar wording. I'll also read the wiki links you provided, thanks. A little confused now about the number of links - original article was flagged for not having enough links, new article has too many? Ontomeister (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links to other Wikipedia articles are encouraged; links to external sites are not. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McCann edits[edit]

Because the McCann (company) Wikipedia page was filled with outdated, incomplete and in some cases incorrect information, we made some appropriate changes to it. These are all fact-based revisions and additions, and everything included is now extensively sourced with objective references (as opposed to what had previously been the case).

The changes/ additions are not particularly self-promotional, contrary to the 8/12/18 editor’s comment that eliminated all of the new accurate information that we had posted. Our entry does draw from McCann’s own historical research which was compiled and written by our corporate archivist, who has a Ph.D. in media history and is also a former editor at Adweek and Ad Age. And as an indication of its research value, if you do a search in Google Scholar, you will see that our core history book, “Truth Well Told: McCann Erickson and the Pioneering of Global Advertising,” is the respected source of information on the company that has been cited by scholars in at least 19 books and academic papers.

In recognition of Wikipedia’s collaborative spirit, we did not change the formatting that was there and simply added factual information into all of the categories that had already been organized (e.g., Notable Campaigns, Credo, Timeline, Popular Culture, and Notable Employees). These sections were generally incomplete or out of date, hardly encyclopedic. The Credo emblem that was there was one that is no longer used, but we respected its inclusion and simply added both the earlier and current versions to complement it.

Some of the information that was already there could be considered “promotional,” except from two decades ago (e.g., that McCann was named Adweek’s Agency of the Year in 1998, 1999 and 2001). Why would that type of information have been okay to include in a previous version of the company entry, but updating it to 2018 is not acceptable? Again, we respected Wikipedia’s requirements by retaining (but also enhancing) the existing categories, by including better sourcing than was there, and by including relevant cross-referencing and cross-linkage to other Wikipedia entries.

The Timeline that was there was clearly already based on McCann company information (we can tell from the way it was written and what was included) but without citation. It was incomplete and also only went up to the year 2000. Given that Wikipedia is meant to be an active information source, why leave that as it is?

The Notable Campaigns section was also incomplete. Some advertising campaigns that are covered in other Wikipedia entries (e.g., those on Miller Lite or L’Oréal) mention the advertising for those brands, so why shouldn’t those be included in the McCann entry with better cross-linkage and explanation? And why does it make sense only to mention the more recent “Fearless Girl” and “Dumb Ways to Die” campaigns with no information in the “See Also” category, but not include them in the Notable Campaigns section?

In Popular Culture, we left the Mad Men references intact, but the section was otherwise incomplete, as was the Notable Employees section. What is self-promotional about including a more complete list of Notable Employees, as opposed to a few that previous writers just happened to be aware of?

So we followed the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, by retaining the previous format and improving it with more accurate information and more extensive citations. Everything in the entry is factual. McCann was Agency of the Year and a top creative award-winner these past few years and, as Ad Age has written and is generally known, McCann was one of the first networks focused on global advertising.

If there are specific facts in the entry that you feel need to be better sourced, please let us know. But just because the information is provided by the company does not necessarily invalidate it, especially since, as mentioned, many scholars have already found this information objectively compiled by the company to be useful and have incorporated it into their research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.200.144.19 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you wouldn't want the introduction to one of your competitors' Wikipedia articles to begin ". . has created some of the best-known and most iconic advertising campaigns of the last century. Its strategic approach, evolved from its founding Truth Well Told philosophy, is built on the core belief that brand truths can serve as a catalyst for generating powerful ideas that succeed because they help brands to play a meaningful role in people’s lives. Recognized as a global marketing and advertising leader. . . ". Not all of the material you added was quite so blatantly promotional, but the author clearly has a conflict of interest, so it is safest to revert to the last clean version. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Bicycles[edit]

The company is currently established and I updated the page with the correct information. Why was this changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikeguy1 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Plz tell Sro23 I don't like him. CroJu (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


NEw Message about Mecahnical Probe station RGarrigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgarrigan (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Mechanical probe Station. I added hyperlinks and didnt realize the wikipedia site info. We are a technical probe station company and we founded this technology in 1956. I am happy to add only the images without links.[reply]

Bvlgari edits[edit]

It seems that users always write on your page about the same issue... You remove what you called "promotional material" on different pages without paying attention to the update information it represents (such as numbers, historical details or product's history). I plan to change Bvlgari page again, so the Wikipedians will have the most updated page as possible.

Instead of keep reverting the changes I make, please consider checking the company's official website. Then eventually, you could replace some words that sounds "advertising" to you. There is no point in having an empty, outdated, incomplete and vague Wikipedia page. Let's work intelligently. AndreaPrado10 —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but most of the users who write on my page about that issue have a conflict of interest with the subject. You can update factual information but any changes that are promotional in tone will be removed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mean as Custard[edit]

I just got the joke! EEng 17:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen International Airport[edit]

Hi there, I was wondering why you have reverted the Aberdeen International Airport redirect? This is now the official name of the airport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryskies (talk • contribs) 21:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a redirect is it does not preserve the article history. It could be moved to a new name, which does keep the history. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I will look into this. Angryskies (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Bloom - chocolate crystals art removed - why?[edit]

You removed two times my entry on the 'chocolate bloom' site, as I have added a new category of 'Chocolate Bloom Art (Chocolate Crystals Art)'. Why??? I am a global pioneer on this new subject an in the description I have not mentioned my name - only Austrian Master Chocolatier which is accordingly to the rules no advertisement, neither a name mentioned. As I am the only one in the world who published a book about this topic, I guess I have all the rights to add this category as well. And my book links at the notes section, are not different than the existing ones from Beckett or Minifie..! We all have an ISBN number, that means it is officially published and from a reliable source. May I ask what exactly your problem is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choco4u (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Global pioneers" in new subjects do not have a place in Wikipedia unless there is evidence from multiple independent sources to show that they are notable, and the article should be updated by someone without a conflict of interest with the subject. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you know that your argument is b....., right? How can a pioneer spread his new discoveries if you think he has no place at Wikipedia? I think as the "Master Chocolatier of the year 2017", voted at the "Golden Tier Competition" in New York", where the jury members are the 'who-is-who' of the global chocolate and Pastry industry, is testimony enough to be accepted as enough "evidence from multiple independent sources to show that they are notable". If you would have spent a minute to check myself out on my website or have googled my name and accomplishments you would revert your decision for sure and apologise for your mistake. What's the solution? Should we keep on going playing this game? I post, you delete? I strongly believe I have a good right to be here...;) Best regards, G — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choco4u (talk • contribs) 15:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vistamar School[edit]

Hello Mean as custard, You reverted changes by Albie Hoheb to the Vistamar School article. FYI most of what Albie added was copied word for word from the schools web pages. I've dropped a warning on him and will get to the revdel. Gab4gab (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need Assistance[edit]

I am adding citation and contributing to Wikipedia. I want to create articles on Women in Red Links. Can you provide some assistance. And how do I know that my articles that I create gets reviewed? I created an article few days back, so I am not able to figure out if my article has been reviewed yet or not, or if there are any mistakes. Please help. Thank You!!!--Rk566RUFine (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to GrabOnRent, I presume it has been reviewed, and nobody has added any maintenance tags to it or nominated it for deletion, so it is probably fine. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And about the Women in Red Link, how do I go with that? Because when I am searching information, some of them don't have any information at all. And I am afraid that if there are no references the page will be deleted. I have heard that wikipedia is very strict regarding this. So, please give me some insight as how to proceed on this.--Rk566RUFine (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Women in Red Link? . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

Hello, I've read your message about the rules of external links, and I disagree that the links I provided broke any of the rules. I understand that any content (including external links) must be appropriate and relevant to the topic at hand, and I believe the links I added provide useful, additional information, so please advise as to what I need to prove/do to have the links added back. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DsgnEdCr8v (talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the links you added were apparently intended to promote one particular company. This is not allowed on Wikipedia: WP:EL; WP:SPAM. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the external links are relevant to the page content and the particular company is an authority on a page topic, how is that considered spam? If I worked for IMDb and as part of my job, my only contribution to Wikipedia was to add IMDb as an external link to celebrity / other relevant pages, is that considered spam? Please advise. Thank you. --DsgnEdCr8v (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered spam if a single editor adds multiple links all to the same commercial enterprise. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you![edit]

Hello, I am a newbie here. I want your guidance while editing pages. Can we have a talk about my report regarding external links as well. I know Wikipedia is not about external links, but then I have came across so many of the wiki pages where there are more than 200 references and links. I am really confused right now. Saee Patil (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are comprehensive guidelines on Wikipedia:External links. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018[edit]

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Other
Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
  • If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
  • Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
  • The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
  • The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

  • Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
  • In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
  • MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
  • User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
  • User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
  • User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
  • User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research[edit]

Dear Mean as custard, first of all we would like to thank you for your efforts. Like Wikipedia, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (KISR) is None profit organization. KISR has a major change in its organizational structure 4 years ago, and the old information dose note reflect it any more,,,. Would you please allow to reset the website to the edited version dated (11:58, 3 September 2018 ) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuwait_Institute_for_Scientific_Research&oldid=857846214 if there is any problem with the page please let us know how can we fix it.

Kind Regards,

Falah Al-Falah Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research Marketing Planing Program & Monitoring Department — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falahku (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is far too promotional in tone and contains too many embedded external links. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✌

HELLO QUICK QUESTION IF I WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE OF ANY ARTICLE WERE IT SAY EDIT SUMMARY (BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR CHANGES) THANKS HAVE A GOOD DAY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson 78756 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on AAIB[edit]

Dear "Mean as custard",
Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Subject of vandlaism: Removing of valid link African Alliance Investment Bank from disambiguation page AAIB witout any explanation or discussion.
--MinesweeperFive (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my mistake - though I don't see how you classify it as vandalism. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RAF museum[edit]

Hi Mac I read your comment regarding potential soapboxing and promoting the Museum.

Feel free to highlight which sections you feel are biased and I will gladly edit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishendrix78 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes, with casual use of words like "iconic" and "amazing", made it sound more like the museum brochure than an unbiased encyclopedia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me but I have changed a lot of the words - including all the ones you have mentioned ! - but you did not bother reading my edit. It would be nice if you could help me instead of punishing me. I am trying my best, but feel you are attacking me personally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishendrix78 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I see no personal attack here. The comments above pertained strictly to your edits. See No personal attacks for information on what constitutes a personal attack. General Ization Talk 12:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{what}}[edit]

...you mean you've nver heard of the Mighty Vulcan  ;) :D

——SerialNumber54129 10:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Williston State College. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me; it was the previous editor. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted change[edit]

Hi, I was wondering why you changed back my edits, since in my opinion they improved the article. I also explained why. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing so if I should have done something differently, please let me know. Thank you. --Thomasb88 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Hello sir i have added a link related to offshore software development but you removed it .my article is totally based on the same topic but you still removed it. can you tell me the reason Shuvmajumder (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link was added in the form of a citation, but it did not verify any specific part of the article content. . .Mean as custard (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cirpack[edit]

Hello Mean as custard, I am a product manager at Cirpack and I am updating our wikipedia page. Why do you remove my updates, there is no promotional or advertising in my updates.

Thank you

None of the material you added had any references, though it was presumably copied direct from the company sales brochure, with stuff like "Deployed at the edge of VoIP network offering security, routing, emergency numbers, media transcoding, fraud detection and SIP trunking solutions". See WP:COI. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mean as custard The example you give "Deployed at the edge of VoIP network offering security, routing, emergency numbers, media transcoding, fraud detection and SIP trunking solutions" had already existed before the modification, kept during the modification, and still exists after you cancelled the modification. The aim of the modifications is just to update the company information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyMar18 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right, that was a bad example. Updating company information is fine as long as it is properly referenced and not promotional in tone. The last four users to edit the article did not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smartrac[edit]

Hi “mean as custard”,

you are obviously particularly sensitive regarding “blatantly promotional” content – something I can quite understand. Regarding the “Smartrac" article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartrac), you clearly overshoot the target IMHO. The version currently displayed is so blatantly outdated that it lacks even the slightest information value. In other words: it’s so old it’s wrong. To put my cards on the table, I am a freelance copywriter* and journalist that occasionally works for Smartrac – hence I would like to see a reasonable Smartrac entry and could also provide it. Since I hate wasting my time to write something that you instantly revert to current version, I have a few questions: - Do you consider RFID a (Wikipedia-)relevant technology? - Do you consider a major RFID player like Smartrac relevant? - If your answer is yes, could you provide me with some examples of corporate articles you consider “un-promotional” enough? - Are these good enough by your standards? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_Film_Electronics_ASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EVRYTHNG

Best regards Hartmutkarl

  • hence lacking the expertise to provide an awful lot of content. I created my account to provide some photos of landmarks in my area for the German Wiki, but it never really got that far.
    • Yes, Smartrac is probably a valid subject for a Wikipedia article, though more independent references are needed to show it is notable (see WP:GNG). The two corporate articles you quote look like good examples. Things to avoid are embedded external links (WP:EL), buzzwords like "solutions", links to sites like Twitter and Youtube, and sections like "Corporate Social Responsibility", which are considered promotional unless they are supported by independent sources and balanced by sections on criticism and controversy (if any). . .Mean as custard (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technician page edits[edit]

Just wondering why the removal of a bunch of my edits on Technician and School Science Technician. I'm a new user so just trying to understand why the removal. Thanks --TechnicianJourney (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits appeared unrelated to the main subject of the articles, a little promotional in tone and contained embedded external links which are discouraged. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calix[edit]

I need your help to understand why old data about Calix is preferred on Wikipedia. The current description of the portfolio is factually inaccurate. As for the market trends section as well as the updated list of current customer examples are also facts from the market and not promotional materials — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.neuman (talk • contribs) 14:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to update factual content, but unreferenced, promotional and irrelevant material is not encouraged. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me understand why the revenue reported to the street for 2017 is incorrect? It should be $510M not $422M. Why is the definition of Calix incorrect? We are not limited to network access equipment. Why is it incorrect to reference more recent customers and business partners? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.neuman (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me understand why you removed the external links to articles from WIRED.com? If I continue to post other 3rd party articles on the industry is that not considered valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.neuman (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The links were not independent 3rd party articles, they were PR pieces. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a grey area. Sponsoring a reporter to develop independent articles by interviewing and quoting both industry analysts and customers. I would argue this is not very different from a reporter pulling content from the wire. Although in that case they are not sponsored. But I can work from a range of news articles based on your definition. All I am trying to do is to make this page more informative to the reader. It is currently very thin on basic industry content.

TIM Group[edit]

Why are you repeatedly linking the word "solution" to chemical solutions and removing the linked homepage on the TIM Group article? Chemical solutions is clearly not the intended meaning there, nor do I see reason to remove the homepage. Change Turtle-Twenty (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main intention was to remove promotional content like "The company's software and services help investors achieve market-beating returns by connecting them with providers of investment insight." . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw that, but whats with the solutions link? Seems an odd vandalistic alteration. Turtle-Twenty (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:On Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Flights[edit]

Hi Custard,

I'm just beginning to correct the tone on the First Flights with Neil Armstrong article to remove the promotional language. The main problem seems to be with the episode summaries, which I'll fix. I'm wondering, though, about the word 'featured' in the "Featured Aircraft" and "Featured Pilots" bits; should these simply be called "aircraft" and pilots"? Mr leroy playpus (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Featured Aircraft" is fine. It is the main descriptions of the episodes which sound promotional (and which I would remove completely). . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snauwaert[edit]

Why did you undo the Snauwaert History content? I'm just trying to let the people know the history of a legendary brand in Tennis. Tenishistory (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was copied directly from the company website. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! So? The company made an effort to write the past of the brand. It is not promotional content, only information about the past of a legendary brand. Tenishistory (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company website shows "Copyright © 2018 Snauwaert", meaning material cannot be used on Wikipedia without explicit permission. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Tourism Bank[edit]

Hello Mean as custard. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tourism Bank, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: publicly traded banks are usually significant enough to warrant further discussion before deletion . Thank you. SoWhy 10:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Mean as custard,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
  • Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Mean as custard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SAI Global company page[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you reverted recent changes to the SAI Global company page. The company has undergone _significant_ change since the then-current Wikipedia entry. To avoid potential whole-page reversion, I've pasted in proposed changes to the talk page. Please review and comment (as I understand it, that's the preferred way to mete out changes/edits; if not, please kindly advise). Thank you. Kainleb (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure to review, as it could be dismissed in a few words. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10 December 2018 - Hello again. Thanks for the dialogue. To whom do I socialize the proposed content on the talk page to get the content considered for ratification/moving to the main page? Would you be one of those reviewers? Kainleb (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to wait until there s a consensus on the talk page that your proposed changes are acceptable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07 January 2019 - Hello once more. As we await socialization of the proposed changes on the talk page, can you please let us know what you personally consider to be 'marketing speak'? All of what is listed is indeed factually correct. And we tried very hard to avoid uses of superlatives like 'best' (since that can often be subjective). If you can provide more specific direction as to what needs to be edited, we can revert some sections that have no issue, and address the ones that are contentious. Thanks. Kainleb (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few examples of words and phrases to be avoided in an encyclopedia article: solutions, innovation, a recognized provider, a global leader, a leading, revitalized, a wealth of experience, helping organizations, comprehensive and reliable, offers companies, Most visionary. . . These are sprinkled throughout your suggested changes, so there is no way it could be accepted. Have you seen Wikipedia:Peer review/SAI Global/archive1?. .Mean as custard (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But SAI Global *does* provide solutions, they are a recognized leader (independently from a third-party), and they do have a wealth of experience (granted, it's a word choice issue), they do help organizations, and they do have comprehensive and reliable solutions. Those are purely factual statements, no? I see your point about global leader, revitalized, and most visionary.

I'll edit those (the latter half), but surely you can agree that the former ones I listed are true (because they are not superlatives, they are statements of fact according to the company's history). Kainleb (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. This is an encyclopedia article, not a company PR piece, and on Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We see that the SAI Global Wiki page has been deleted? How can we fix that? Trying to understand this exchange? Mean as custard — Preceding unsigned comment added by HFayed1019 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for deletion state: No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PROD AccessApps[edit]

I noticed you've done some work on AccessApps. I'm just letting you know that I've proposed that this article be deleted.CircleGirl (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Scarred by Beauty[edit]

Hello Mean as custard. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Scarred by Beauty, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: touring with multiple notable bands and (according to de-wiki) playing Midi Music Festival indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 13:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudoku variant: SudoKudo[edit]

Hello Mean as custard. Could you explain the reasons for your deletion about the SudoKudo variant in Sudoku? Thanks. —  Reveever (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an advertisement. Wikipedia does not accept advertising, paid or otherwise. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you took it as advertising because I used some complementary adjectives. What do you think of this:

SudoKudo SudoKudo is a sudoku puzzle designed from a drawing. It introduces graphical elements into classical sudoku. The first SudoKudo was created in 2013 as a lover's gift by a young couple who founded later Sudo'Kudo.

And please check the www.sudokudo.com if you have any doubt, I try to describe sudokudo as it is. And as far as I know, Sudo'Kudo is the first to weave graphical elements into sudokus. --Reveever (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok now as regards advertising, but needs independent references to show it is notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Mean as custard. My arguments are that:

I think these facts should be credible enough for introducing this new type of sudoku. Could you let me know your arguments or kindly advise? --Reveever (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources show notability, in fact the existence of 57 followers on instagram suggests a distinct lack of notability. What is needed is significant coverage by several independent authoritative sources to show that it is being widely talked about, not merely that it exists. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mean as custard, SudoKudo's work is not focused on instagram (only 23 publications as you can check). I mentioned it because it has some notable puslishers as followers. Now I understand that a fact itself is not enough to be listed on wikipedea - it must be very notable. But could you kindly let me know the reasons that you keep Sudoku#Kaodoku? Sure it's funny and original but there are only several pages on google mentioning it and 0 instagram follower. A notability violation? --Reveever (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaodoku removed, as it has no references and few google hits. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mean as custard. As I see it, the notability criterion is a bit severe for new things. Anyway, you applied it in a fair way and thanks for your patience. --Reveever (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018[edit]

Hello Mean as custard,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Microland page[edit]

Hi, I got your feedback. Could you please be specific and let me know what you thought was promotional content? This will help me improvise on the next version. I was just trying to update our company's history to make it more comprehensive. We even had links to most of the facts, yet you reverted it.

I didn't bother reading past the first sentence, which was ridiculously promotional: "...an IT services company that accelerates the digital transformation journey for global enterprises, enabling them to deliver high-value business outcomes and superior customer experience" . . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Can you help with reviewing the new content for the Microland page? If not, whom can I reach out to review the same? UshaMicroland (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit on Monaco page[edit]

Hi Mean as custard, hope you had great Christmas holidays. I don't really want to argue with you guys regarding wikipedia editing since you are very experienced contributors, that's probably the reason why the area of Monaco was initially 2.000 square kilometres instead of 2 square kilometres, had a bunch of broken and promotional links and still has links to the sources with ZERO informational value and a few promotional ones. I just want to point, that for the past few weeks I was in close contact with the tourism office of Monaco, since I was working on a research project for the Principality, adding that particular link was verbally "blessed" (and I can prove that if it needs to) by the tourism office themselves. The article does not sell anything or whatsoever, it has a decent informational value, if to compare to other links on that page it is one of a few that have any informational value, more of that it links to government sources. Finally, I do not particularly care about it, I just felt a little sad, that instead of minding my own business, I invested my time contributing to wikipedia, and you guys basically refused to accept my contribution without properly reviewing it or at least giving me little explanation.

Kind regrds.

CrimeBlink 15:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimeBlink (talk • contribs)

A beer for you![edit]

Hey, thanks for fixing a bunch of what I call the "Mariposa Kid" vandalism. It is really weird vandalism that has been going on for years. Basically new accounts keep adding stuff about "Mariposa Energy" or the "Sullivan Family" to energy related articles, but it's a WP:HOAX as there is no such company or family. Anyway, thanks for taking care of the latest round. Marquardtika (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

453d Electronic Warfare Squadron[edit]

Since you tagged 453d Electronic Warfare Squadron for peacock terms, I thought I'd let you review it to see if I have toned it down enough. It may still deserve a {{technical term|date=}} tag. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot better now so I have removed the tag, although I don't like the repeated use of the "warfighter" buzzword. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

URS Media Consulting PL[edit]

Hi Mean as custard this is regarding the URS media page. I have cut down on a lot of content. Do you think it meets the criteria of a non promotional piece. Let me know. Thanks a ton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVSujata (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The History section is still entirely promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BFSU problem[edit]

Hi. Nice to meet you. Thank you for your opinion but that was not an advertisement. I'm Asian American who is living in Seoul. I just wanted to share my knowledge about China, Japan, Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithinkimthebest (talk • contribs) 14:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So phrases like "As a renowned and prestigious specialist research university" are not advertising. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I grew up in Asia so my expressions could be kind of awkward. Please give me some feedback. I will edit it. Please do not delete. I am editing it. Thank you for telling me. Appreciate it!

Sir, Added credible sources and eliminated misleading expressions. Thank you for your help. I learned a lot. I will be keep writing like you said.

Information[edit]

Please dont remove information on the article, and stop your vandalism. This is not promotion, I am cleaning the article. See Silicon Valley, I am expanding the article. Paavada (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stop ur authorityPaavada (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

I am expanding the article, I am editing it, will you allow me to edit, I will not include any information about products, I will not include any promotional content, stop your non sense and allow me to delete promotional material. Paavada (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will give you some time to improve it, but if at the end of the process it is still promotional I may revert your edits. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cleaning up[edit]

Stop your monopoly, I am cleaning up the article, I am not going to put any information about product, I am only going to put geographical, and technical information on the likes of other articles such as Silicon Valley. You stop your monopoly and stop deletingPaavada (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC) bulk content and references. I am not going to put any promotional content.Paavada (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I have cleaned up the article, dont delete information about the structures, and buildings. Stop killing the main purpose of the article. NOTE: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it must provide information about business districts. Paavada (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems OK now I have removed some of the remaining nuggets of spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 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 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Makes Trex Sad?[edit]

I see you tagged Trex back in September as being written in a promotional manner. One of the things I like to do on Wikipedia is take sad pages like this and make them happy. So, is there any particular section or tone that sticks in your craw or should I just undertake a complete rewrite? Lemme know and I'll add this to my own personal list of pages to tackle. Not Wilkins (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)NotWilkins[reply]

It was probably the over-emphasis on awards and environmental credentials, as well as the over-use of Trade Mark symbols. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism fighting[edit]

Thanks for your efforts cleaning up after Veronica. Not quite clear if it's even vandalism, really; it might just be CIR. Anyhow, good job. One thing, though: she can sometimes get it right, whether on purpose or not, who knows; so don't forget to just have a quick look first, before reverting; this edit of hers at GE Energy Financial Services was actually correct, and shouldn't have been reverted. Thanks for fighting the good fight! Mathglot (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi, guys. @Mathglot: You said on Veronica's page that "Nothing you've done so far has been harmful", in the interest of tact, I presume, but fiddling with the name of a file does do harm (breaks the link) — please see my recent post on her page. I suppose she knows she has a talkpage? She created it herself, but has never posted on it since. I dunno. Bishonen | talk 12:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen:, Oops, you're right, I missed that one. "Never say never (or nothing)." Mathglot (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've got another notion, Mathglot: I saw some very odd changes Veronica made in foreign-language quotations. That would be understandable if they're using, and slavishly following, an English spellchecker. And it could also explain changing British spelling to American, changing "laterally" to literally", etc. (It can't explain adding "the" here and there, or changing quotes, though.) See my latest post on their page. I do think it's time to insist, and then perhaps to warn, and then.. well. Competence is required. Bishonen | talk 19:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Or, on second thoughts, since they have gone right ahead with the same kinds of edits, I'll just block indefinitely and invite a response. Thanks for your warning,[1] Mean as custard. Bishonen | talk 12:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Seems fair to me; not a vandal as such but certainly disruptive behaviour. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: Cant understand why this hasn't prompted a response by VeronicaWelsh24 (talk · contribs). Or, maybe she doesn't understand or hasn't read about the block, and...
for a second, I thought she might think she'd forgotten her password or something; but a block doesn't look like that, does it? You can still log in if you're blocked, right? but then what happens? What does it look like if you're blocked? Do the "Edit" tabs go away on articles, but you can still view the articles? Or, do the Edit tabs stay, but don't function? Or they do, but the "Publish" buttons go away, or what? Is there a "blocked" test user with an open password I can use, to see what it looks like? Mathglot (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: Not that I know of. I tested it by asking someone to block me in 2005; but even if I could remember what it looked like, which I can't, I'm 99% sure it looks different now. I don't think we were even able to edit our own talkpage when blocked, at that time. I do know you can log in when blocked, though, so that you can edit your own page. Ask about a test user at WP:VPT?
I'm kind of not surprised Veronica hasn't been heard from. She has never edited any talkpage, and she was also editing articles (=letting her spellcheck edit them) with abnormal speed — do you see the seven different articles edited in five minutes on Jan 31? That's all she does. She wasn't really what I'd call an "editor" at all. Also creating a new account would be simpler than grappling with the unblock template, or talking to people; maybe she's out there. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Possibly reincarnated as Marialinda94. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Surely there can't be two like that? To make sure, I've asked a CU. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Update: I've just been told privately by a CU that they're not the same. He was surprised too. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
There are now a number of accounts making similar edits, "correcting" grammar, adding pointless wikilinks, making minor formatting changes etc. In the past this pattern of editing has been the prelude to a spamming campaign, with multiple accounts establishing their credentials by making lots of trivial edits, then finally adding one or two spam links before disappearing. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh crap. Do they all have account names of the form "girl's name + two numerals"? Bishonen | talk 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
No, they're all different. Only a possible connection at this stage, but worth keeping an eye on. . . Mean as custard (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why UNDO??[edit]

Hi, I have posted the company's description that has been duplicated from the company's english website. I was going to link the sites to relative sentences, however, everything is gone. The website is 100% disclosed to the public and several descriptions to be added are to be the wordings that are officially announced by Financial Supervisory Services of Korea (will be translated in ENG). Please refer below citations for disclosures. Does it still appears to be promotional wordings although I was trying to give business information to whom tries to wiki our company? https://english.miraeassetdaewoo.com/ http://dart.fss.or.kr/dsaf001/main.do?rcpNo=20181114001821 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoonexmr (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is no longer promotional, but more references are needed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you keep on undoing when you mentioned that the wordings are no longer promotional??? This takes a lot of time and you need to re-undo my works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.109.122.46 (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because you ignored my advice and re-added all the promotional material after my message above. . .Mean as custard (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You said above that "the wording is no longer promotional" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.109.122.46 (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move from your userpage to talk page[edit]

Hello: Can you provide specifics on the content that is being described as "an advertisement" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACI_Worldwide?

This is an old page and this is the first time we are seeing the alert. We'd like to remove it but am not sure where to start with revisions.

ACI is a public company and about one year ago I updated the Nasdaq data and made a few corrections but since that time other people have also made changes. But as I examine those changes, I don't see anything that is promotional.

Thank you

rbrisco Rosemary Brisco, ToTheWeb (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is mostly ok; what I don't like is the multiple use of the term "solutions"[buzzword]. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

———————————

Thanks for your message

Does changing some of these instances of solution to software make a difference? The company makes packages software into solutions. You'll also note that many instances of "Solutions" appear in the acquisition area because word is part of the company name.

Once we make these revisions, how do I remove the alert? Thanks

Rosemary Brisco, rbrisco Rosemary Brisco, ToTheWeb (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:On Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else. You will need to wait until an editor with no conflict of interest reviews the article and decides it is no longer promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs[edit]

I've made some updates to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Wikipedia article and saw the revisions undone. As a newer Wikipedia user I'd like to know more about why these revisions were undone and what I can do to update the article in a way that allows the changes to remain. Thank you!Thunder1021 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It read like an advertisement, with phrase like "By working as a team and by providing the type of services and supports reflected in its mandate, the EUTC hopes to encourage and empower our clients". . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your warning on the CYM Group article[edit]

I am fixing the article of CYM Group after your warning of "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement". I removed some contents containing unnecessary and inappropriate information. Thank you! Midori Kha Han (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Wholesale[edit]

There is no promotional material on the Daisy Wholesale page, I have just corrected the information. Please do not revert these changes. MeanAsJam (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You removed all the referenced information and added your own changes with no references whatsoever. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added supporting references to the copy. I hope this is sufficient. MeanAsJam (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Mean as custard. You have new messages at WP:UAA.
Message added 17:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheWinRatHere! 17:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion page retrievial wish for First Media (company)[edit]

Hello, Mean as custard, I would like my page First Media (company) to be undeleted. First Media is not an advertisal company. It’s a company that made BabyFirst. And my idea was generated to create that page. And unfortunately, I couldn’t find any more references for that page when creating it. I would like it to be undeleted. HappyINC (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
thanks for your humor ~ you make it fun to learn~~ :)~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Manda 1993[edit]

AdusNow oleh Manda 1234? Mugo sike acb dnias deuju Qas wikipedia, --AdusNow (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy for you to say. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17[edit]

Hello Mean as custard,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Plamen Angelov[edit]

Hello Mean as custard. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Plamen Angelov, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: fellowship in the IEEE is a clear claim of notability which WP:NACADEMIC explicitly gives as an example . Thank you. SoWhy 14:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar[edit]

The Original Barnstar
For helping me know where to apply the mop. DlohCierekim 18:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Removing information from the hearing aid application article[edit]

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia. I recently created hearing aid application wiki page. Today you have removed most of the information from the article due to "advertising". The purpose of the article is to tell about hearing aid applications, their advantages, disadvantages, efficiency and principles of operation. The principles of operation and efficiency, as an example, were considered on the example of one of the applications, since the functionality of most applications is similar. Almost all the information for the article was taken from various authoritative sources - scientific publications. You have deleted most of the article due to advertising. I have nothing to do with the developers of any of the applications mentioned in the article and, even more so, the goal to advertise these applications in no way pursued. Please restore the deleted information or explain specifically why it cannot be restored. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.porhun (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is supposed to be a general article, but most of it was devoted to promoting a particular company's products, as was the only website in the external links section. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for help! I am sorry, but I have one more question. If I add more information about all the applications mentioned in the article (not only about one, as it was in previous version of the article) and add more general informtion on the topic of the article, will it be correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.porhun (talk • contribs) 09:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would probably be ok, if no company is given more favourable treatment. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I am curious as to why you reverted my edit on Bosx1ne? I thought I was fixing the removal of a reference. Also, there were brackets ([[) that were left unclosed by the previous editor(s). If I made a mistake, I would definitely like to know what it was. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteamboatPhilly (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should have put in an edit summary, but the reference did not verify any of the information in the article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add the original reference, I was just adding it back after someone else took it out. It does confirm that the subject of the article was in the band mentioned, though. And what about the brackets? SteamboatPhilly (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infopulse (company) description[edit]

Hey, I've noticed you added the "Ad" template to Infopulse page. Can you please clarify what is considered promotional content in this article, and parts of the article should be treated to make it more neutral and what external links should be removed/replaced? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimmmkko (talk • contribs) 13:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is the over-emphasis on the company's charitable activities, as well as phrases like "the company now enlists 1,900+ experts"; "vast access to the western market of IT services"; "globally competitive yet aiming at professional fulfillment"; "help war heroes". . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • got it, will edit this one then in the upcoming few weeks to make it sound more neutral and will get back to check up with you. Dimmmkko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bower dispute[edit]

I have blocked Georg Wurst for violating 3RR again. However, I have to say your own conduct was not helpful; you continually reverted them (though not enough to warrant a block) and have not opened any discussion beyond stock templates (in particular, if you've reminded the user once what the edit warring policies are, posting a duplicate reminder with the same text is superfluous and may be considered spam). Remember that administrators take no sides in disputes, and "but I was right!" and "but the other user behaved much worse!" won't be an excuse if you get sanctioned in the future. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woops[edit]

Hi,

I was looking at an old revision of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film) and it didn't show up your reversion here, so woops - my bad. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Layla Moran talk page[edit]

There is a rather spirited discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Layla Moran#Domestic Violence. Seeing as you are an experienced editor that recently edited the page, I would appreciate if you could chime in with your view, in the interests of finding a consensus one way or the other. Domeditrix (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm New to Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Mean as custard,

i'm not spamming any links i'm just trying to contribute links or editing the sentence pls help how to make edits i'm just confused knvrajesh (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lembit Öpik article[edit]

Hello! I saw that you had removed an information from Lembit Öpik article. It's information about his relevant activity. Sources about this activity are in both organisation's site and mass media. I don't think it needs removal. Roobinstein (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadish chandra Bose's Nationality[edit]

Sir Jagadish's Birthplace is Bikrampur which is now Munshiganj District in Bangladesh.So in birth right he is an Bangladeshi.Which issue are you refering to mention him as a Indian?Further don't do anything stupid like this Prince newborn (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You would need to establish a consensus on the article talk page before making this sort of fundamental change. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About my edit you reverted (I know now you did it with a reason)[edit]

I misunderstood what gametes meant, sorry. To avoid stuff like this happening in the future, I'm gonna check some more articles about the thing I don't understand. --Scrooosh (talk · contribs) 14:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tone down promotional material[edit]

Thanks for your editing assistance. I'm working on some Taiwanese companies pages marked as stubs. I understand the removal of buzzwords. Now, help me understand the reasoning behind the removal of corporate affairs sections: recent awards, arts foundation, and csr. It follows the structure of companies in a similar line of business such as Jabil, Pegatron, and Quanta Computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoandrept (talk • contribs) 10:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sections I removed had no references and were promotional in tone. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the references where I came across that information. Can you just edit that wording if you feel it's promotional instead of completely removing the content? Marcoandrept (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banglalink Page Edit[edit]

Hey,

Kindly requesting you to not undo the edits being done to Banglalink page. The page is being updated with latest information after garnering them from relevant sources. Undoing the edits will just keep the page backdated.


Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauhidirteza (talk • contribs) 18:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edit summary states: "The page has been restored to the last edit, with updated information from the company's PR team". See WP:COI. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?[edit]

Hello! I have added some further references to some British-Jewish theatre playwrights. The links reference the individual playwright's entry at the online database and joint research project (Technical University of Brunswick and Hebrew University, Jerusalem) on Contemporary British-Jewish Theatre. I received a warning that my links are considered as spam. I was wondering why, as we do not profit financially in any way from the webpage, and only seek to highlight British-Jewish playwrights? Best wishes

The warning didn't come from me, but I removed the links as they really added nothing to what was already in the articles. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18[edit]

Hello Mean as custard,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

~ Thanks for caring I'll work on it ~

Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boats Group[edit]

Good morning Mean as custard, after researching YachtWorld, it seems to me that YachtWorld, BoatTrader.com and boats.com should be merged with Boats Group ~ please let me know your thoughts. Thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Thpeeni and MOS:ERA. Jayjg (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019[edit]

Hello Mean as custard,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cynergy Bank[edit]

You seem to have removed all the references. Rathfelder (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, how sad, never mind. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of GO-Global[edit]

Notice

The article GO-Global has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, not sourced, and written like an advertisement.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.Rockphed (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CBRE Group Edits[edit]

Hi, I have followed the guidelines of wikipedia and also followed other sites with similar sections. Services provided, controversies and see also are very common sections other sites have.

I can understand if the dot points and a bit overwhelming and can summaries that into a paragraph but other than that, I don't see how this is promotional.

Cmdbuild deprod[edit]

HI, I removed your prod, because there was an AfD back in 2009. Well, it was withdrawn and closed as a redirect (which was later changed again in the article we have right now), but I think this can be treated as a reasonable opposition to a simple prod/deletion. New AfD is the right way to go. Pavlor (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Latif Jameel Page[edit]

Hi, I have noticed that you have deleted my new updated content from Abdul Latif Jameel page. Could you please tell me the reason for deleting the content?

Regards, Riddler (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Latif Jameel Page[edit]

Hi, I have noticed that you have deleted my newly updated content from Abdul Latif Jameel page. Could you please tell me the reason for deleting the content?

Regards, Riddler (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the overall tone was promotional, and the changes contained a vast number of external links - see WP:EL. "The Company has, today, evolved from its founder’s vision to improve consumer choice in personal transportation in Saudi Arabia, and support the wider infrastructural development of the country.". . Mean as custard (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Riddler (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC) A major chunk of the content is the company's history. We have not intended this content to be promotional, and were just stating information. Just to compare, take a look at the history section in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadbury However, if you could point out areas that you felt were promotional, it would help us revise the content better. Could you please point the same for external links.[reply]

DataArt[edit]

Hi, Mean. I see that over the past nine years you have from time to time attempted to deal with spam in the article DataArt, which has been continually spammed by numerous single-purpose accounts and IP addresses on behalf of the company. You may therefore be interested in my message here. If you see any more of the same I will be very grateful if you will let me know, and I will consider possible blocks and/or page protection. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somerville College, Oxford[edit]

Hi Mean as custard, I am curious why you want to remove the (slightly) notable "Stone-cold Jane Austen" and not the even less notable "Somerville wine" (red, white and sparkling)? TSventon (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shashanksinha93[edit]

Hi, Apollo Munich Health Insurance company has been acquired by HDFC Ergo, then what is the solution for the Apollo Munich's wikipedia page. Should the Apollo Munich's page be deleted and hence create a new page for HDFC Ergo when the merger completely happens in future or we add a write up in Apollo munich's page and then redirect people to HDFC Ergo's page initially and then later merge the pages?

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019[edit]

Hello Mean as custard,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jihan Wu for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jihan Wu 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/Jihan Wu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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) 18:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpay edits[edit]

Hello Mean as custard,

I'm not sure why you keep reverting my Pushpay page changes. What about my updates are promotional? I'm just trying to update our page to have recent, relevant information about our company. Please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerpadman (talk • contribs) 17:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The material you added was highly promotional: "Their leading solutions simplify engagement, payments and administration, enabling their customers to increase participation and build stronger relationships with their communities". . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

I editted J. B. Hunt and you reverted my edits, after re-reading my contributions I agree with you I might have used to many adjetives and praised the company. But I still find that there are a few factual information that might be important for the article improvement like: johnnie and his wife founded the company not just him, their application launch and description as it is a good innovation in the transport industry, they openned offices in Canada and Mexico taking their business abroad, and their Highway Services. I personally find interesting the Million mile walk ceremony its a cool signature event. I find it odd that one of the biggest companies in the US has such a poor article, was the recognition & award section out of place? what do you think? MasterWikiEdit (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few undeniable facts in your edits, but most of the additional content appeared highly promotional. A "recognition & award" section would be fine if it was supported by neutral sources and balanced by another section entitled "criticism and controversy". . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright second attempt, what do you think? I separated into sections and added some facts to the article but I did not change everything and I was sourcing everything to the best I can. I researched a little to create a criticism section but I did not find anything interesting there. MasterWikiEdit (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine now (though of course other editors might not agree. . .). . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter November 2019[edit]

Hello Mean as custard,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 814 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

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, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up Trex[edit]

I think I've cleaned up the Trex pagpage so it doesn't look, sound or read like a promotional page anymore. You had flagged it back in Sept 2018. In addition to taking out some puffery, I've updated the financials and added a mention that the product is more costly than natural wood. Please see if this meets your liking. If not, let me know what else you would like for this page to go from sad to happy. Not Wilkins (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)NotWilkins[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calpine[edit]

Mean as Custard,

You keep removing references to Calpine's retail subsidiaries. I understand your point about promotional/sales material, but Calpine's ownership of these subsidiaries is a fact and it adds important information about the company. Would you find it less offensive if we just mentioned these subsidiaries in text without links to their websites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherri Deatherage Green (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly mention subsidiaries, but not in the flowery promotional language copied from the company's press releases, and without all the superfluous links. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Just replace "solutions" with "software"[edit]

Instead of leaving tags for others to clean up, can you please replace the word "solutions" with "software" (or the phrase "software solutions" with "software" or "software products", as appropriate) in situations like this and this and this? Thanks. (Edited to add: I see that you did just that at least once, so thanks for that!) – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter December 2019[edit]

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weedmaps reversions[edit]

Could you point out which sections you take issue with instead of reverting to 6 year old, outdated content so we can all grow the page and quality of content together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A721:1800:6DDD:48FE:51C7:44A1 (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Today, through weedmaps.com and it's mobile apps, consumers can find local cannabis products, dispensaries and brands, check updated menus, find deals, order delivery online, review and discuss products and cannabis strains for adult-use and or medical-use marijuana. Weedmaps also provides a broad suite of cloud-based software as a service solutions for businesses in the cannabis industry including point of sale software, logistics, wholesale and order management solutions" - this section and others made the article sound like an advertisement. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed anything that could conceivably be construed as promotional, but updated for accuracy. Please point out if there's anything you still find problematic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.215.82 (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL[edit]

You are misapplying this guidance and are doing edits which far exceeds what WP:EL considers proper. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance in WP:EL begins "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."Mean as custard (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean removing {{revdel}} templates, removing official links in the external link sections, reverting to old out-of-date versions, or blindly removing links that should really be references. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to NIHR[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you added the advert warning to the National Institute for Health Research page in 2018. I'm wondering if you would be able to provide further assistance so we can improve the page, increase citations and ultimately remove the warning message? Or provide any feedback to enable this to happen?

Any help/advice greatly appreciated. Frumptarn (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020[edit]

Hello Mean as custard,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sennheiser changes[edit]

HI! I am sorry when my updates were to promotional. Could you point out which parts are critical so that I can rewrite or adapt to a more objective version? Actually, I thought most of the updates like adding cooperations or awards are facts and therefore non-critical. But I can change language in terms of objectivity. Would that be fine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareike Oer (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the language used read as highly promotional: "offers its customers comprehensive audio solutions"; "Shaping the future of the audio world and creating unique sound experiences for customers"; "a completely natural, immersive sound experience". This led me to believe that the main purpose of all your edits was to advertise the company. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry. That was not my intent, I am still new to Wikipedia and will be more careful in the future. The information are just not very up to date so I wanted to update these. I will provide a version which is not that promotional and hope that's okay for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareike Oer (talk • contribs) 08:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skoll Foundation[edit]

A couple of us did some extensive work on the Skoll Foundation article to remove promotional language and material provided by paid PR people. Is there some specific language you think we missed, that we could improve? JRandomF (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did a few more things and took off the maint tag. If you still think there's more to do, being specific would be helpful. JRandomF (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A slight improvement, but most of the descriptions of fields of work are very promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, the article itself about the Skoll Foundation is fine, but the "fields of work" citations are not. These are not about the foundation, but from the award announcements for these groups, about the award they received. I'll put in a preface noting that is where they come from. JRandomF (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The field of work disclaimer was already there, but I did a pass on all of the fields of work to remove ad-sounding language. I think it was an improvement, thanks for making the specific suggestion. JRandomF (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaffer District (Corning, New York)[edit]

Proposing deletion by calling a neighborhood a "slum" is controversial in itself. Go to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CANicoll (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Instead of telling me to stop posting promotional material, which I corrected on my subsequent edits, please provide the example of what you are referring to. Please be specific. Thank you.[reply]

How about the intro: "Airspan is a US, Florida based company with HQ in Boca Raton, with 25 Years of experience developing Radio Access Network technology. Airspan leverages its small cell and macro technology to deliver cellular solutions" - sounds like it's straight from the company's PR material. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTTR[edit]

Please don't template the regulars and grow some manners. You basically wiped all of the content of a famous music venue explaining why it's significant. I don't disagree with you that it wasn't well written and could be improved, but your version made the article emphatically worse. I'm very happy if you want to make helpful edits, but if you attempt to wipe the article again I will shoot it on sight. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I have added some templates to highlight the contentious areas. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelworks[edit]

Mean as Custard - The items we include for Pixelworks are not promotional and neutral. Can you point out where you feel our materials are promotional? They are facts about our company over the years.

Unverified content like "Pixelworks develops and markets semiconductor and software solutions that enable consistently high-quality, authentic viewing experiences" - any article unrelated to chemistry that uses the word "solution" twelve times is likely to be promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where Pixelworks is being promotional[edit]

"Mean as Custard" - can you advise where we are being too promotional in our new items. The details are factual and historical to our company. Please us know so we can correct specifics. Thank you.

You say "our company". Clearly you have a conflict of interest with the subject and should not be editing the article without first getting a consensus of approval of your proposed changes on the article talk page. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Research and Interdisciplinarity page[edit]

Dear "Mean as Custard", I tried to update informations on the Center for Research and Interdisciplinarity page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Center_for_Research_and_Interdisciplinarity but you removed it. Can you advise where I was being too promotional ? Because all the details I wrote are factual and the current page miss a lot of informations. Please let me know so I can correct specifics. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie CRI (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All your changes were highly promotional and read more like a school prospectus than an encyclopedia article: "We also receive support from an array of partners such as Ville de Paris and the INSERM, and we receive grants from. . ." - who is "we"?. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABQ BioPark Botanic Garden[edit]

Hi MaC, I made significant changes to ABQ BioPark Botanic Garden and subsequently removed the Advert tag. Please review and let me know if you approve. Best, Pratat (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

making sure you’ve seen it?

/* Additions to the Sobi page */[edit]

Hi. Curious about the removal of the information I added to the Sobi page. Can you please indicate which sections were promotional, so that I can adjust and resubmit? With the reversion, the post is now inaccurate, in regards to the state of the company, financial status, therapeutic areas, CEO. As an example, almost every element in this section is now incorrect or out of date: The product portfolio is primarily focused on Inflammation and Genetic diseases, with three late stage biological development projects within Haemophilia and Neonatology. The company also market a portfolio of specialty and rare disease products for partner companies. Sobi is active in protein biochemistry and biologics manufacturing. In 2013, Sobi had total revenues of SEK 2.2 billion (€253 M) and about 550 employees. As declared, I am employed by Sobi, but am doing what I can to help the page be accurate and absolutely non-promotional. Best, John JohnComSobi (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was some seriously promotional material like "The company's vision to “be recognised as a global leader in providing innovative therapies that transform the lives of people with rare diseases”"; "Sobi is a pioneer in biotechnology with world-class capabilities". The main concern was the lack of independent references, only external links to the company's own website. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Can remove the vision. The section on "pioneer with world-class capabilities" was in the version before mine, so I didn't want to delete it, was trying to limit my edits. Can adjust that section. When it comes to external sources, we as a pharmaceutical company are not allowed to provide links to sites that discuss our products or mention them by name. Hence the reliance on Sobi sources that do not breach this requirement. A discussion in the media about our haemophilia treatments often would mention the products by name, so we are legally not allowed to provide such a link. Do you have any suggestions about how to get around that issue? Really appreciate the help. Best, John JohnComSobi (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you acknowledge you are employed by the company, you need to read WP:COI. I think the best solution is for you to suggest improvements on the article talk page and hope someone without a conflict of interest will come along and make the changes. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a look if you’d like. Pratat (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both Mean as custard and Pratat. I will resubmit revisions to the Talk page. JohnComSobi (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academica (charter school)[edit]

Hi JJMC89, made very significant changes to a page you tagged as advertorial in the past. Would appreciate if you could take a look and approve. Best, Pratat (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Burke[edit]

in 2015 you made a significant change to this page. Do you think the page is at a point where the citations and advertisement tags can be removed? If not, could you make some specific recommendations for how to improve this page. Thank you for all the work you do on Wikipedia. BuffaloBob (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has certainly improved, but there is still a lot of uncited peacock language like "Perhaps a significant expression of the respect and appreciation for his talent among his peers". . Mean as custard (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion. I will work on that. Let me add that Andy Worhol respected his work enough to sit for a portrait by Burke in 1982. BuffaloBob (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some additional editing to this article. Is it ready to remove the tags? Thank you for your guidance. BuffaloBob (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has certainly improved, but there is still a lot of uncited peacock language like "Perhaps a significant expression of the respect and appreciation for his talent among his peers". . Mean as custard (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are we there yet? I keep trying BuffaloBob (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ICF International[edit]

Hi, Mean as custard. I am not sure if you saw, but I posted an edit request at the ICF International Talk page and pinged you specifically due to your previous work reviewing an edit request in 2017. There have also been COI requests that had been vetted and implemented by other editors since then. Shortly after my most recent request, an editor called Justlettersandnumbers rolled the article back to a version that is 3 years old; they said "Revert to last clean non-WP:COI version, however brief; enough of this messing about, we're not here to dance to the tune of WP:PAID editors – please see WP:COVERT for why their content cannot be accepted". This is confusing to me and I'm hoping other editors can help, which is why I'm reaching out. All of the edits requested to this article since 2017 have met Wikipedia's paid editing guideline. Editors who have proposed edits to the article on behalf of ICF International have done so transparently and not edited the article directly. The content of the page was quite simple and not promotional. It seems strange the page would be completely reverted to a version that is five sentences long, with an infobox that contains info from 2015. I understand Wikipedia editors' concerns over introducing marketing material into an article and I want to make sure ICF is attempting to update the article the right way. I saw you'd previously discussed this page with Justlettersandnumbers back in 2017, and wondered if you might have any advice? ICF Will (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall my reasons for originally getting involved with this article. I don't see why WP:COVERT applies in this case as contributors (paid or otherwise) with a conflict of interest have not tried to conceal their interest, and there is no suggestion that the content was promotional. Suggest you discuss with Justlettersandnumbers. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism[edit]

Did you see that you were reported on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page?--VVikingTalkEdits 14:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, they seem to have been permanently blocked now. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020[edit]

Hello Mean as custard,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for help in reducing promo tone. Gpeja (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie[edit]

2601:1C2:4E00:B89:D079:95A0:153D:FC43 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Swisslog[edit]

Hi Mean as Custard

I have seen that you keep removing my edits and deem them as promotional edits. However, I am correcting information in the article that is outdated and eventually just wrong and add specific sections that only are informational and are not promoting the business of Swisslog. Please let me know in regards to the article, what we can do in order it is not deemed promotional anymore. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianJorns (talk • contribs) 09:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Swisslog customers trust the competence of more than 14'000 passionate people working across the globe", "innovatice robot-based solutions to shape the future of intralogistics", "Swisslog has over 10 years' experience in delivering AutoStore", "automated logistics solutions", "committed to setting new starndards in warehouse automation to provide future-proof products and solutions.". . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have the updated the article with the sections you deemed as promotional, please let me know whether it is good like that, and otherwise inform me what needs to be changed. Thank you JulianJorns (talk • contribs) 16:13, 3 November 2020

It still reads more like the company's own advertising brochure than an independent encyclopedia article. . . .Mean as custard (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was adjusted again. Please let us know whether there are still phrases in there that are promotional. JulianJorns (talk • contribs) 11:47, 6 November 2020

Any article that uses the word "solution" six times and has nothing to do with chemistry is inherently promotional. . .Mean as custard (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solution in the industry is a widely-used term. It is in this regard not promotional, as it only describes what is implemented in the warehouse. In the automation logistics industry it is fairly rarley that only products are implemented. It is furthermore written in that way, as also the page logistics uses that term more than once. I hope you can reconsider. JulianJorns (talk • contribs) 12:01, 6 November 2020

Wikipedia:On Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other players in the market such as Dematic, use similar language, and use the word solution frequently. In my beliefs, it would be contrary to the Wikipedia standards to hold different articles to different standards. The article was adjusted to your requirements for several times, and any promotional phrases were taken from the artivle. I hope you can reconsider. JulianJorns (talk • contribs) 13:20, 10 November 2020

Thank you for pointing out the problems with Dematic. I have amended it. Just because someone has not yet got around to fixing every article does not mean Wikipedia has double standards. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Child Protection[edit]

Hello, Mean as Custard! Working for the Communications staff of the Centre for Child Protection, I have begun updating our wikipedia page and noticed there is a flag from 2016 for advertisement and promotional content. I've gone ahead with removing links that guide readers to our website and have also simplified the purpose statement to explain our goals as an educational center, while cutting things that seemed to promote a certain view of the Church and its response to abuse. Could you take a second look as see if it looks alright to you now and if so, remove the advert flag? Otherwise, please specify what changes I should make that would deem it non-promotional. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackdownonfakenews (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looping Back on Your Edit Recommendations (Clarabridge)[edit]

Hi Mean as Custard, I received your edit recommendations for Clarabridge and will implement them all as soon as possible—thank you for those, it is a big help. I want to make this right and up to standard as soon as possible. Cb-author-wiki (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Content[edit]

Hi Mean as custard: As I have previously contributed to the IESE Business School article, I have re-read the article after it was labelled as promotional, and have removed all text that I believe can be considered promotional. You know very well that we create this encyclopedia among many people and most of the time with good intentions; so it is very positive that other colleagues can contribute to improve the articles and to avoid that, among other issues, they are just a sales item. Thank you very much.--Miskito89 (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal Health Task Force[edit]

This is a mess. See WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sportstar[edit]

Any specific reason why you removed the URL from the Infobox here? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All part of the process of making the article less promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GigaSpaces[edit]

Hi Mean as custard. Thanks for your edit. However, the section you removed details the products and technology. It was meant to be factual. Can you suggest how to include product / technology facts without being promotional? Thanks.

Noamher (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of products read like it had been copied direct from the company brochure, although no sources were quoted. In this case someone needs to find unbiased coverage from an independent source. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol December Newsletter[edit]

Hello Mean as custard,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mean_as_custard/Archive_9&oldid=1145655536"