Jump to content

User talk:Mean as custard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CrazyKaps (talk | contribs) at 13:15, 15 September 2015 (replied to- Mean as custard). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Self-Directed IRA Page

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

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

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

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

Ad tag on PatientsLikeMe

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

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

Lawrence D Marbury

FYI:

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

Re: The Citibank Malaysia Wikipage

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

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

Reference errors on 8 June

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

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

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

Reference errors on 9 June

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

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

Re: Curtis Australia

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

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

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

Reference errors on 14 June

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

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

TnA Cloud Time and Attendance

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

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

Threat/Brickbat

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

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

Help with Safe-In-Sound

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

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

RtDAcademy

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imsess

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

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

Reviewer rights granted

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

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

See also:

Why are you adding problems to my page?

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

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

Rozsateka

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

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

The Filipino hoax guy

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

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

June 2015

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Couple of Questions

Hiya!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red gold

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

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

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

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

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

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

I added link of the site http://www.rsisigns.com/ but you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mean_as_custard removed it, I dint' get why? even this site is very much related to real estate pages.

--Johnsteve24 (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)John[reply]

See WP:Spam and WP:EL. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

"License Manager"

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

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

Promotional Material

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

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

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

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

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

Merchant Cash Advance Removed

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

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

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

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

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

Why cannot add project to projects comparisons?

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

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

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

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

Too commercial/promotional

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

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

Improving Law Society of Ireland page

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

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

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

User:Prasanjith et al.

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

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

Why are you reverting me?

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

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

Undone Edits As Spam?

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

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

Promotional Content

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

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

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

Actors Studio India

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

Services for disabled people

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

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

GP Strategies Corporation

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

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

Citation Needed on Worldox Page

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

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

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

Backup and Restore

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

Hello

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

SEO ref spammers

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

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

Promotional material?

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

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

User talk:Lapoubelle1969

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

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

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

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

Tag removed by editor on Atomic Game Engine

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

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

Discuss your proposed changes first, please

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

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

Agree to Disagree

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

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

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

Why?

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

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


PLEASE ADVISE

To whom it may concern,

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

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

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

Below is a link to our current Wikipedia page:

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

Tagged as Promotional

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

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

Re: Edit War

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your message to Smith5545

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference errors on 29 August

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Napkin

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

List of SIP Software

In reply to your message on my talk page:

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

Congratulations

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

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

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

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

Hammock spam

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Why are you reversing the YFU page?

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

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

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

No idea what a boiler plate is (something to do with heavy engineering?), but the whole article was riddled with promotional language. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello MaC,

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

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

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

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

Four Dots page redirected to an unrelated page, help?

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

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

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

University of Waterloo Stratford Campus page

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

"Removed promotional content"

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

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

I just feel that pictures of award ceremonies (of any size) are inappropriate and promotional in business-related articles. If you want to try adding similar pictures to half a dozen articles about other unrelated companies, then if you receive no complaints it might be ok to replace them in the FundsIndia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'll try it out and see. Thanks. CrazyKaps (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mean_as_custard&oldid=681147828"