User talk:Mean as custard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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



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 - 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 There is no point in having this wikipedia page if all the information are outdated.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 (talkcontribs) 11:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 There is no point in having this wikipedia page if all the information are outdated.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 (talkcontribs) 07:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Your edits on Vinayaka Missions[edit]


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 (talkcontribs) 15:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
Ah well. Not much added anyway. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

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)

New Years new page backlog drive[edit]

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

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)

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)

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)

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 ( 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 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)

Stanford Research Park[edit]


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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 (talkcontribs) 10:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  • 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 (talkcontribs) 12:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 19:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Can we leave the edit without the cite then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddog9999 (talkcontribs) 15:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


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)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 19:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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)


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)

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)

Proposed deletion of Force Motors[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 12:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png 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)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
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 (talkcontribs) 15:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Dead link replacement removal[edit]


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?


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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvestersmyth (talkcontribs) 10:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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


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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)

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! IffyChat -- 15:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


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)

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: Please adviseBusinessIdentity (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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)
  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 (talkcontribs)

A logo on its own without any link would be fine. . .Mean as custard (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 15:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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


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)

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 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)

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)
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)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10[edit]

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


  • 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.


  • 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)

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)

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)


As a note, I changed your speedy deletion of Sportsline to a redirect to 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)

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

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)

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)

Rayman Activity Centre[edit]

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

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... ) 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.

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 will give you years of trouble free service". . . is a spam link. Mean as custard (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


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)

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)

Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)[edit]

Hi M a c... Can you enlighten us as to why you reverted edits by Juanitabwhite on 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)
All the independently referenced material was removed and replaced by corporate puffery. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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)


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)

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


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)

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)

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

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)


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

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

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

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)

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)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018[edit]

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


  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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)

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)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 19:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

Deletion of Optimas OE Solutions update[edit]


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)

"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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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 (talkcontribs) 13:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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 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)

Duplicate template[edit]

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

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)

"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)
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)


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

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 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)

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)

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)

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

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 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 15:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


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

NEw Message about Mecahnical Probe station RGarrigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgarrigan (talkcontribs) 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.

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)

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)

Mean as Custard[edit]

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

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 (talkcontribs) 21:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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)
Thank you for your reply. I will look into this. Angryskies (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 10:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"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)

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 (talkcontribs) 15:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 19:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG 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)
There are comprehensive guidelines on Wikipedia:External links. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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.
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)

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 ) 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 (talkcontribs) 09:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

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)


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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 10:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 12:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(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)

{{what}}[edit] mean you've nver heard of the Mighty Vulcan ;) :D

Peace and Long Life.jpg

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