I am currently editing the Acrylicize page to update facts that are now out-of-date. It is not disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AppearHerePR (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with updating verifiable facts. The disruptive editing comes when you add puffery like "the collective combine a unique fusion of art and design to create truly engaging interior experiences". . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the buzzword tag. Any thoughts on removing the other promotional copy tag? Sebriscoe (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you looked at the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials page, thank you. I tried to address the buzzword tag in the purpose section, and would like any additional insight into what is prompting the tag. On the Peacock tag I am not sure what to do or why it is there. It is the board-approved aspiration of the organization. I think it's comparable to the "Overall Focus" section in the World Health Organization page, the second paragraph of the Society of Actuaries page, and the vision section of the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Changing the wording in the Vision section would make it incorrect -- is deleting the entire section the only way to get the Peacock tag removed?Sebriscoe (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Hennepin Community College Site...I agree completely that our college website was too promotional, and I see that all of that has been removed. I don't have an issue with that. What I'm wondering is how to go about removing the big banner declaring that the site appears to be promotional. I don't know what would still be flagging that...ours (as edited) seems less promotional than other college sites out there. Can you either remove the banner or advise me how to make that hsppen? Thanks

It doesn't look very promotional now: I've removed the tag. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mean as Custard, you continually revert my edits to the page Brickell CitiCentre. The first instance I agree with. I should have proofed the text I was using to comply with wikipedia guidelines. The second had no merit. Do you know the project at all? Are you in Miami? I find it hard to understand that reverting back to misinformation benefits wikipedia or the public whatsoever. My attempt isn't to sell or promote anything, its to get accurate information to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cglas (talk • contribs) 16:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to know the project to know your changes were promtional and unreferenced: - "spacious floorplans, impeccable detailing, and impressive views" - "never before seen features of innovation and sustainability". . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mean as Mustard, I see that you've flagged some influence I've had on the Edutopia page as having an "advertising tone." I didn't realize that linking to all social media and writing about the founders using only the official site was a conflict of interest, but can see how it could seem promotional and the offending posts have been taken down. Would you please remove the flag? Best, Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephanieThoma (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your response to my page bradleybrennan1. Please help me understand why a link to find automotive repair shops does not belong in an automotive repair shop article. Doesn't it seem logical that someone looking for "automotive repair shop" in a search engine, who stumbles upon the Wikipedia article, would in fact be looking for an automotive repair shop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleybrennan1 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apart from being flagged up by my anti-virus software, the site is promotional and appears only to relate to US providers. See WP:EL. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please could you help us understand why the content has been disapproved? You have stated- (revert to less blatantly promotional version). All our content has been proofed with correct citations. We see no reason for the content to be disapproved. Regards, Khyati Shah Marketing & Corporate Communication. YES BANK LTD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahkhyati (talk • contribs) 11:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it reeads like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article:

"Mr. Ashok Kapur and Dr Rana Kapoor have brought their international banking experience to India giving the YES BANK customers a Delightful Banking Experience"

Read WP:Spam and WP:COI. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please restore the Passport Canada page to the form we have suggested. We understand the guidelines on the use of Wikipedia, but the suggested version fix erroneous information and add up-to-date information to the page. Please let us know exactly which passages infringe Wikipedia's soapbox rule. Thank you, --PassportCan (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your revision fails multiple Wikipedia guidelines on references, internal links, external links, conflict of interest, advertising, etc. I suggest you confine your editing to fixing specific errors, citing reliable independent references as confirmation. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First of all, if I was not supposed to edit this page, I am sorry but I couldn't figure out how to get back. Now, you deleted my external link to a valid site for Bangalore which is related to the city. I very well know about nofollow in Wikipedia and am not trying to advertise. I don't like spam myself and if I am suggesting a link to a valid site I don't think that can be counted as spam. I would like to know if you even checked the link to see if it is valid or not. Thanks.Abhi2602 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I checked the link and it was clearly a commercial, promotional site. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, promoting Bangalore - the city this page is for! I am not promoting any other product as you can see from the site. Can you please tell me which sites can be added as 'external links' as even some government sites carry ads? Thanks. Abhi2602 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am confused as to why my recent edit in the "References in Popular Culture" Celeste (frozen pizza) was reverted. Could you please explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkiesaurus The Cat (talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was unreferenced and only peripherally relevant, not to mention being in dubious taste. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide reference. However, a viral video recognized in an annual "Worst of" (essentially a "Best of") compilation by Ebaum's World (which itself has a rather lengthy page here) should be considered as a "popular reference". The "dubious taste" characterization is offensive to the nature of an unbiased encyclopedia and especially inappropriate considering the far more explicit images and topics covered on Wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkiesaurus The Cat (talk • contribs) 16:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Would you please refer me a published sample page as described a "brandname" that indicate A7 importance ? I want to edit my page according to the real example. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engindenizci (talk • contribs) 10:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have tried numerous times the edit 'The Hydro' page on here - there is factually incorrect information listed (which can be checked against the venue's website) and the image is not only not representative of the current build progress, it is poor quality and does not do it justice.

Who can I speak to about this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaScally (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your past edits have been full of marketing hype - "The Hydro will be a truly iconic structure". . . If you stick to verifiable facts then there shouldn't be a problem. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You removed the link i added to the new forest reference an article on red deer, you did not actually visit the link to read the article so i don't know how you deemed it innappropriate. the article is informative and is not linked in anway to a product/service etc. The information in the article is not something covered else where on the net. (Alex5093 (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I removed the link because it was chiefly about the red deer, not about the New Forest, which is the subject of the Wikipedia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Custard,

I noticed you re-worked what we did with Popcaan's wikipedia page. We made changes because things were incorrect information including the spelling of his name. I am working officially with the deejay and we are posting correct information, especially for International purposes. I have added a number of important achievements, references for overseas press and a section for music videos. We are asking to please not infer with the changes made.

Thank you, it is much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.94.50 (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M a c,

Twice you have deleted information related to the work related to the Poppy Appeal on the Buckley Jewellery page. I am requesting that you could please let us keep the paragraph that mentions the poppy brooches that we produce for the RBL in order to help them raise funds (which we do at no profit of our own). Whilst you might consider it to be trivial, for us it is important to have the information readily available, as during previous poppy campaigns there have been many articles and enquiries from large areas of the national press in Britain, and we therefore do not wish to be misinterpreted or misrcredited in the press again in 2012. It is important for this information to be on the page during October when the Poppy Appeal is in full flow, and was the crux for making the wiki page. Our company page does not rank highly when searching for information about the poppies, hence our desire to have this information available on wiki. I hope you can see the sense in this, and I do genuinely believe it to be a cause noteworthy enough to warrant a mention anyway. We have now raised several million pounds for the RBL through our hard work, and this week poppies have been requested by Buckingham Palace so we are expecting more press attention.

Thanks and regards.

Djodell86 (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem as I see it is that the work related to the Poppy Appeal takes up a disproportionate part of the article, and could be seen as promotional. It would be acceptable as a footnote to a substantial article, but there is very little material to tell us anything about the company itself. That should be the priority before any sideline activities are covered . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Custard, you are welcome NBZfun (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been trying to add a link to www.wholestorynews.com in the news aggregator page. This site is a news aggregator with a s. I have also tried to create an individual page for it and that has also been rejected. I dont know why I'm not allowed to put anything about this site on wiki, its not inappropriate in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardhamilton85 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to show that the site is notable before your changes will be accepted by other editors. Having a strong cult following in Belfast is trivial when you are trying to associate the site with news aggregators which have a global following. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Custard, Regarding the Nielsen page, we're updating a page that is terribly out of date and has not been edited for over 2 years. The revisions are not promotional. They are simply getting the content in line with the current reality of how the company operates. We will go back through it again and remove any items that feel a bit promotional, but I think if you read this new text closely it is meant to be factual. Thank you.

Most of the changes consisted of unreferenced puffery such as "Nielsen's information, insights and solutions help clients. . . " Mean as custard (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Custard, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deaconbluesx (talk • contribs) 16:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have had a difference of opinion regarding my edits to the Bargoed and Gloucester entries. Apologies for the external link of one (pending Wikipedia entry) but the other deletion was Alun Hoddinott's page on Wikipedia. I'm sure he warranted the entry - CBE, Professor of Music at Cardiff, composed the fanfare for the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla 2005. Likewise the entry for Justin Edwards - BBC television, Radio France, New Jazz Aliens' BBC Radio 1 single of the week, Ballet Rambert, S4C television, linked to Uriah Heap's Lee Kerslake, Tubeway Army's Ian Evans, Best Instrumentalist nomination in category with Eric Clapton, BB King, Herbie Hancock and Little Richard. Born in Gloucester 1966, living in Bargoed.

All the best LividLegend (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FW Lexicons

I have added the most recent and very useful FW Lexicons which have been edited by the University of Bucharest this year. They are a VERY valuable scientific resource for FW researchers. Universitate UB 13 Sept 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universitate ub (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe; I won't remove the links this time, but suspect they won't last long before someone else removes them. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mean as custard - Re: Giving Libary links[edit]

Dear Mean as custard,

Today you deleted my external links to the Giving Library. As a representative of the Giving Library, I do believe that these links add value.

The links on each organziation's Wikipedia page are designed to provide information on that organization, as well as give information on how people can be a part of the organization.

Would you consider changing your position on the value these Giving Library links add to each organization's Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntolch (talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Mean as custard (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mean as custard[edit]

You deleted a link I added to the external links section of the Executive Education wikipedia page.

IEDP is a trusted, neutral, knowledgeable industry source on this subject. There is a massive amount of useful information on this link and anyone clicking on it is to no commercial gain of ours.

An external link that hasn't been deleted as spam is the Financial Times - executive education section. This is a link with very similar breadth and quality content as ourselves. Could explain please why this link is allowed to remain and ours is marked as spam?

If you would like to have a quick look at the website you will see that IEDP are a leading, neutral voice on this subject and a link on this page adds significant value to the interested wikiepedia user: http://www.iedp.com/

Thank you Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan IEDP (talk • contribs) 11:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mean as custard..

The Femen page has been heavily edited to include bias and misinformation. I was attempting to delete that info, and I'm sure i went about it incorrectly, how do i deal with a page that has been attacked? Thank you

Tankgrirl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankgrill (talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Vista (IIM Bangalore)[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Vista (IIM Bangalore), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the page that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bhu777 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi "Mean as custard",

I have edited the page in question to suit an encyclopedic format. I request you to please review and let me know any particular sections that you feel are not in line with the needs of the articles on Wikipedia. Bhu777 (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Landis+Gyr[edit]

Hi "Mean as custard",

While I appreciate your support in pointing out that the 'subject' in question may need improving in some parts I don't think automatically reverting to the old version is helpful either. The old page was completely removed for a reason as it doesn't reflect the 'subject' correctly from a corporate and legal point of view.

I would very much welcome your support in specifying specific areas where the current version can be improved as it will make the basis for this article being developed further in the future. The old version is a complete non-starter hence the complete overhaul. I appreciate that Wikipedia articles are always a work in progress and thus thanks in advance for your help.

Regards,

Fungai A. Mapondera Global Digital Media Manager, Landis+Gyr

Wikipedia articles are not intended to be written from a corporate and legal point of view. They are supposed to be from an independent, unbiased point of view. The changes were completely unreferenced and broke must of the Wikipedia guidelines on promotional language, conflict of interest and external links, so I felt it was best to revert to the last clean version. Some examples of wording are like a red rag to a Wikipedia bull: "A World leader in integrated energy management solutions". (Buzzwords are prevalent in the article - "solution" is used 17 times). . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the insight. I will look into making some edits ina draft during the course of the week and discuss with my team. However the page as it stands at the moment is unacceptable as it's incorrect.

I don't think you understand. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be written by corporate teams, but by independent unbiased individuals. At the most, it may be acceptable to correct specific errors of fact as long as references are provided to support the change. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Contrary to your message, I understand (perhaps not fully) and in the absence of accurate or any information at all it remains our responsibility to provide correct, impartial and unbiased information as you said. In light of your last change I have removed most of the content that I believe although unbiased falls within a gray area. May I draw your attention to General Electric's page here on Wikipdeia. The page touches on the company's history, location, power generation (in our case Smart Metering), corporate affairs, recognition, see also (although not as extensive as ours) etc. As the GE page remains untouched I have used this amongst other articles here on Wikipedia as a guideline for our article. The images that I have used are no different to those of GE's Gauges of locomotive at the Saskatchewan Railway Museum. Furthermore, almost every remaining paragraph has an external verifiable external link and reference. GE introduces terminology that I believe falls into the gray area, i.e. GE's long history of working with turbines in the power-generation field gave them the engineering know-how to move into.... The use of the term solution in our article is not used in trying to promote ourselves but rather it is the name of the product hence the image that is provided to depict this. It is a known terminology within smart metering industry and I believe it would be of interest to readers to know what instruments are combined to formulate what is deemed a smart metering/smart energy solution. Having said this, as I have said earlier, I have removed the possible content in the gray area and will continue to work on improving the article gradually. I am happy to get any pointers from you on the specific terminology and I can also explain to you how it is relevant in the smart metering and energy measurement and management area. Perhaps you may also want to read the 'see also' links that are provided to the various pages here on Wikipedia to learn more about the various topics raised in this article. Thanks once again for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fungai A. Mapondera (talk • contribs) 09:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it.

The latest changes all still sound as though they were written by the corporate PR department, and not by an impartial observer:

"one of the top three leading providers of integrated Energy Management Solutions tailored to company needs"

"paving the way for the next generation"

"Landis+Gyr has a portfolio offering end-to-end..."

"aptly named the Gridstream™ suite"

"The company’s acquisition by Toshiba has presented it as a truly global smart grid company"

"Local authorities in France honored the suc-cess of Landis+Gyr"

etc. . .

Mean as custard (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May you please refrain from saying I don't get it. Just because we differ on arguments (hence the talk function) doesn't warrant that kind of tone. I put it to you that it is you that may not grasp the notion of smart metering with reference to the various main players in this field in general. I gave you specific reference to GE's pages and I invite you to tell me what the difference between the sub-headings on this article and that on GE are. I registered under my name and have been making edits under my own name. With regards to the point you identified these are clearly referenced externally.

"one of the top three leading providers of integrated Energy Management Solutions tailored to company needs" (http://www.infraxinc.com/resources/collateral/documents/TheSmartGridin2010_2431.pdf)

"paving the way for the next generation" (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elster-itron-landisgyr-nict-and-silver-spring-networks-drive-adoption-of-ieee-802154g-2012-05-07)

"Landis+Gyr has a portfolio offering end-to-end..." (this was only included to tone down the use of the term 'solution' which I already pointed out makes up part of a trademarked term Gridstream Solution)

"aptly named the Gridstream™ suite" the term suite is widely used on Wikipedia and in this context it is used to identify the collection of items that make up Gridstream. Agian I fail to see how this is inappropriate.

"The company’s acquisition by Toshiba has presented it as a truly global smart grid company" - again this is a referenced sentence as it was taken out of third party material. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/23/idUS315377614920110523).

I therefore invite you to read these referenced links and any other that are next to these statements before making arbitrary changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fungai A. Mapondera (talk • contribs) 12:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of Landis+Gyr or Gridstream. However I have gained some experience of how Wikipedia works and its guidelines on promotional material and conflict of interest. I suggest that instead of making any further edits to the article about your company, you should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia by improving unrelated articles like Hypena sordidula, Abdullah Kassim Hanga or Ballymacward. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I fully acknowledge your experience of how Wikipedia works, I also don't believe that Wikipedia advocates for the promotion of false information neither as is set out in the page that you keep reverting back to. I have made changes in this page you have reverted back to and have reused the content that is in that page but set the record straight regarding such items as Cameron O'Reily and his implied involvement with the company presently. That is part of the history and not the focus of the whole article as the reverted article tries to portray. The article you had reverted to also mentions a subheading called products. I have removed this as not only does it include peacock terminology, I believe it doesn't reflect the subject of products accurately. I am happy to improve on the article going forward if you believe there are areas that need improving. What I am against is the arbitrary reverting to an old version that is completely incorrect in its current format (hence the minor rearranging that I have done to the text and expansion of some areas i.e. acquisitions). I am noting this as any individual that may have knowledge of Landis+Gyr and not merely making a promotion.

While I welcome the idea of further familiarizing myself with other aspects of Wikipedia as suggested, I put it to you that the suggested topics in your response interest me. In particular with reference to Abdullah Kassim Hanga, contrary to what my username may suggest, I am NOT Tanzanian thus I have no knowledge nor interest in improving this article. May I put it on record that I find it offensive if that's what your suggestion was implying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fungai A. Mapondera (talk • contribs) 13:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have already acknowledged that you are "Global Digital Media Manager" at Landis+Gyr; other than that I have no knowledge of who you are or your nationality. The suggestions of articles I gave were generated from the "Random article" function. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically Mean As Custard means that someone totally ignorant of a field has precedent over someone who knows a lot about the subject. The appeal to "independant sources" is pathetic. Thisistheanswer12 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe s/he means that someone with a genuine interest in helping the project has precedence over a company whose only interest on Wikipedia is self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.92.241 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it really suggests that articles about companies should be deleted from Wikipedia, in order to prevent the project being used as a means of corporate public relations and/or self promotion. Having said that, a company stays in business because its products and services are successful ... which meets the notability criteria for inclusion in the project. I have raised a question about this conflict at the Village Pump (under Policy). Bhtpbank (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harrow Hong Kong[edit]

Hi you reverted back revisions to the harrow Hongkong page, I just just wonder why? the school is now built and the information being added is what the school will actually be like.

Because the content you removed had references to independent sources to back it up, and the content you added had no references. . . Mean as custard (talk)

Ok I see that now, is it ok to add some new content along side the current content? if so I will do that.hismassive

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Mean as custard/Archive 4! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Purnell School[edit]

I hope in the future that you improve as an editor. This is not meant to be offensive. It is simply a request that you take a little more time to think about the repercussions of your actions then you apparently do when you delete things enmasse...I have not gone through your deletions in this article in its entirety but deletion seems to have eradicated pertinent information as well as less substantive information - throwing the fish out with the backwater, so to speak.Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the material I removed was promotional, unencyclopedic and unreferenced. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was also the history of the school by someone with apparent firsthand knowledge... If you didn't think it was properly referenced, you should have marked it as such in the article and explained why in the Talk Section. Unless you were part of that history as they appear to have firsthand knowledge of it, I don't see how you can be a self-appointed censor of their edit. Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I try to follow Wikipedia guidelines in all my edits, and "firsthand knowledge" is not a valid source of information for a Wikipedia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana University Kokomo[edit]

You deleted everything from the Indiana University Kokomo wikipedia site that I have been working to update. I will make the information less promotional. However, everything had some type of reference for now. We are working out kinks with third-party references. The information that is currently on the site is not referenced or cited by proper sources, and the information is completely outdated at this time. Could you please revert your changes and put the deleted information back on the site? As Wikipedia is constantly changing, surely you can understand that progress must start somewhere. Maryolk (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Mary Olk[reply]

If I was to reinstate the changes they would probably only be removed again by another Wikipedia editor. The content was far too promotional. It is not meant to be a college prospectus, simply an unbiased description of the University's main features. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrolling[edit]

Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. Please consider returning to Learon Edutech and cleaning up, as well as tagging appropriately for deletion. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Paints[edit]

Hi Mean as custard! I saw that you nominated the article for Sigma Paints for speedy deletion. I did a bit of research about the company, and while the article isn't perfect, it might merit inclusion. I was bold and moved it to general deletion discussions instead, for notability. You can see my nomination here. Thank you for your vigilance in monitoring articles such as this, and all your contributions to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your good work. You clearly put a good deal of time into such matters as dealing with promotional editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning MultiCom[edit]

I see that your PROD on Lightning MultiCom has been contested by the author of the article, a clear COI SPA now blocked. You may like to take it to AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Diamond Equipment[edit]

Hi Mean as Custard -

I added info to the Black Diamond Equipment page - if anything appears too soap-box like, please let me know, but everything is factual info. There was also a discrepancy between information that was on the page related to Black Diamond Inc., which is not the same as Black Diamond Equipment. Thanks for your help!

(Blackdiamondusa (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The problem is that the changes were very promotional in tone, and no individual references were cited. For example, it may well be true that "Black Diamond is a company comprised of passionate climbers and skiers, and the company takes pride in its rich employee culture", but without a reference to an independent source confirming this, it will just be considered as marketing hype. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So will edits with references to the Black Diamond website be accepted provided that they are factual? Many of the company's historical and product-related history is only found there...Thanks. (Blackdiamondusa (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

And also, there are things I removed from the page due to the fact that they are referencing Black Diamond, Inc., which is the parent company of Black Diamond Equipment - should have its own page for much of that info. Thanks. (Blackdiamondusa (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Conflict of interest ought to provide some of the answers. Factual historical information from the Black Diamond website should be fine, but information which might otherwise be interpreted as promotional (such as company culture, philanthropy and awards) should be sourced from independent, unbiased references. I also suggest you change your username as names which appear to represent organizations rather than individuals are not allowed on Wikipedia. . Mean as custard (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I have submitted a request for username change and have cleaned up the info with references. Awards and philanthropy sections are linked to Black Diamond website, as linking each individual award/group supported would get a little excessive. Thanks again. (Blackdiamondusa (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Warburg Pincus[edit]

Hey Mean as custard, I worked on the Warburg Pincus article and I agree the IPO, Venture Capital and Growth Capital sections do read kind of brochure like. I want to help improve it but I wanted to see if that was specifically what you were referring to when you flagged it. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks --Monstermike99 (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is fine. It's just a few promotional-sounding statements like "Warburg Pincus brings scale, global capabilities and domain knowledge". . . Mean as custard (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I will make the changes and thanks. --Monstermike99 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Henry Collegiate School[edit]

Thanks for fighting the good fight over there. I've started this: Wikipedia:Coin#Cape_Henry_Collegiate_School in case you're interested. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The No Spam Barnstar
	For deleting numerous spam pages. Vincent Liu (something to say?) 05:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bakeware02[edit]

Hello. I declined your speedy deletion nomination of User:Bakeware02. This is because the article does not promote an entity, person, or product, which is required for an article to be speedy deleted under G11. While the page could be deleted under WP:PROD for WP:NOTGUIDE, in this case the page is not an article, which means that the proposed deletion process cannot be used.--Slon02 (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've just removed the spam link from the page. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Shakespeare Theatre Company advert tag.[edit]

Good morning

Could you please be more specific about why you flagged this article as an advertisement? Which content do your regard as promotional which could be rewritten from a neutral point of view, and which external links do you think are promotional?

Thank you

ed

Ecragg (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've weeded out the worst of the promotional material. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Streamworks International[edit]

A buzzword box was placed into a section of the article Streamworks International. I have since modified the section based on more sources found about the subject. Would you be so kind as to look at the section and give me feedback on whether the section has been improved? Thanks! Ryoga3099 (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat improved, but I have no idea what a "delivery solution" is, so the buzzword tag remains for now. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the sources/references again and edited that paragraph. It now says:

Their Universal Delivery Network (uDN) utilizes their own points of presence (PoP) and third-party data centres to achieve delivery of multimedia data globally to multiple content delivery networks (CDNs), mobile network operators, and internet service providers (ISPs).

Better? Will try and find more sources to elaborate on this subject. Ryoga3099 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section still means absolutely nothing to me, but it now consists of technical jargon rather than buzzwords, so I have removed the tag. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page move[edit]

You created User talk:KaylaS123Xx/sandbox. I have moved it to User talk:KaylaS123Xx, as I have no doubt that was what you intended. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warn user[edit]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Sheffield United F.C you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Daonguyen95 (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fulanito[edit]

Hello, I want to thank you for your recent edit on the Fulanito page. It has been the topic of a recent edit war. The user who's name is "FulanitoReal" has been vandalizing the page with misleading information. It just so happens to be that he actually is the former partner to the artist, and refuses to acknowledge any works done since afer their partnership ended in 2002. The material is evident through products that have been distributed since 2003. The current image happens to be the latest EP release by Fulanito. This user has been purposely preventing its display by placing his own image.

I am requesting that he be blocked, or if you can lead me somewhere where I can request protection to the page, or have other editors place more inpartial information that willl help solidify its integrity.

I thank you for your time --*** Verdugo27***_talk 21:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the tea company[edit]

Good work on the tea company. I am sure you know which one. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There[edit]

	Hi There
	Would like to have conference call for better understanding on how wikipedia works, can you please pass on your contact details on the below id online.desk@uaeexchange.com, alex.fernandes@uaeexchange.com Y Sudhir Kumar Shetty (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way it works. You spam Wikipedia, you get blocked. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiii[edit]

kindly restrain from adding irrelevant tags and POV 14.139.95.194 (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! And then may I clean your shoes for you? . . Mean as custard (talk)

Unexplained removal[edit]

It is possible that the material you removed from Financial Services and Markets Authority (Belgium) deserves removal; I haven't look closely at it. At a minimum it ought to be referenced. However, lack of proper references does not usually result in simple deletion (except ant he case of certain material in connection with BLPs, which is not the case here)

If you removed it for copyright concerns, please check the talk page. If you removed it for other reasons, please explain on the talk page; your edit summaries provided me with no indications.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you did not review the history of the changes. Referenced material was removed and replaced by unreferenced, by a user with a clear conflict of interest. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your removal from Financial Services and Markets Authority (Belgium) lately. Users are still deleting referenced material on this page. --Chanewin (Talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

For your timely rollback of the vandalism on my talk page. Well done Prestonmag (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam[edit]

Hey. If you see spam, please tag with a speedy deletion tag (WP:G11) and have it deleted instead of simply blanking the page. Thanks for your hard work. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this - thanks for all the hard work you've been doing in this area! Also, when you tag a page for deletion, would you consider tagging the talk page of the user who created it with {{subst:db-spam-notice}} or something similar? If the users are warned about what they did wrong then some of them might just turn into productive contributors. (And if they don't, the warning will at least give them some idea of what they did wrong.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FitnessX Magazine[edit]

Hello, I've removed the speedy following a re-write. It should probably go to AFD though, as I can't find any evidence online for notability. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mean as custard[edit]

You deleted a link I added to the external links section of the Executive Education wikipedia page.

IEDP is a trusted, neutral, knowledgeable industry source on this subject. There is a massive amount of useful information on this link and anyone clicking on it is to no commercial gain of ours.

An external link that hasn't been deleted as spam is the Financial Times - executive education section. This is a link with very similar breadth and quality content as ourselves. Could explain please why this link is allowed to remain and ours is marked as spam?

If you would like to have a quick look at the website you will see that IEDP are a leading, neutral voice on this subject and a link on this page adds significant value to the interested wikiepedia user: http://www.iedp.com/

Thank you Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan IEDP (talk • contribs) 12:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You added it to the end of the list of references without explanation. Wikipedia is supposed to be a stand-alone encyclopedia, not a collection of external links. See Wikipedia:External links. Your user name suggests you are affiliated with IEDP so a look at WP:COI may also be in order. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ben: units of measurement[edit]

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit to the Big Ben article in which I restored the unit order to metric first, as per the WP:UNITS guidelines; could you advise me as to the reason for the reversion?

WP:UNITS advises that the primary unit in a UK-related, non-scientific article is generally a metric unit except for road distances and speeds, personal height and weight measurement, and a few other exceptions.

Also, I use the term "restored" as the unit order of the article in question was originally metric first and had been for several years, but was flipped to imperial first on 10th April by user Ohconfucius; at the same time, he/she had had been removing American English spellings from the article, so it is possible that he/she mistakenly assumed that UK articles always use imperial units first. Mixsynth (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because when Big Ben was built imperial units only were used; those given in the article are precise while the metric equivalents are only rounded approximations. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Big Ben was (probably) designed using imperial units, but there's no connection between the imperial measurements now in the article and any measurements taken at time of construction; the original figures in the article were almost all metric (browse the code of the last edit before my own, in particular the {{convert}} tags) but were manually overwritten only three days ago by user Dkr1d9fs with the derived rounded imperial figures – for reasons unknown.

Browse back through the article's edit history and check for yourself. Mixsynth (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft spammers[edit]

When you find accounts that are spamming "minecraft gift codes" on their userpages, please report them instead of just blanking the pages; those accounts need to be blocked (they supply malware). DS (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colby College[edit]

Yes, a post-modern fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jleasoutsz (talk • contribs) 12:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Read the rules. Everything on Wikipedia must have a source.Padlokasul (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this rule was enforced rigidly then half the content of Wikipedia would have to be removed. . .

Hi Mean as Custard. Re: Regarding tagging IIM Kashipur page as Ad.[edit]

Hello Mr Custard. Regarding IIM Kashipur page, we have removed the promotional content from the page and made it look neutral. The revisions made are not promotional in any manner. We have cited references where ever possible. We think if you read the content now you will feel it is factual. Please go through it and let us know your suggestions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avinashdevulapalli (talk • contribs) 15:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok now. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacking[edit]

Hi, this is gentle reminder that rollback is only for reverting vandalism. This edit was made in good faith and the registered user would probably not understand why he was reverted. Edit summaries really help other editors understand each other's changes and teaches good editing practice. Thanks. Span (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PREST[edit]

Cannot this be reported ????

Dealing with advertising[edit]

If you encounter a page of advertising on Wikipedia, you can flag it for administrator attention with the template {{db-spam}}. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what re you doing[edit]

what are you doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atyendro (talk • contribs) 20:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pegg - Redirect[edit]

Hi Mean as Custard Please reconsidere your revision of this page deletion. Citations have now bee added to the Mark Pegg (actor) page. It is misleading to have all "Mark Pegg" searches automatically forwarded to "Mark Gregory Pegg". Regards Jez

It should be turned into a disambiguation page in that case. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NIKK - Nordic Gender Institute[edit]

Dear Mean as custard

I have tried to change information on the closing of NIKK as a Nordic institution, but you have revered my changes three times without any motivation. It was stated that the reason was the TV documentary made by Harald Eia. But the researchers interviewed in the TV documentary was Norwegian researchers and they were not employed by NIKK. The reason for closing NIKK was to save administrative costs. The Nordic ministers of gender equality have also decided to reopen NIKK as a co-operative body. Thus, the work will be continued in another form.

Here are some links on the decision of closing NIKK as an independent Nordic institution and the decision of the continuation as a co-operative body:

NIKK is dead – long live NIKK!

Concerns about the dismantling of the Nordic Gender Institute (NIKK)

Document of the decision (in Danish):

Ministerrådsforslag om omdannelse af NIKK til samarbejdsorgan

Statement made by the Swedish Minister of Gender Equality (in Swedish):

Svar på skriftlig fråga 2011/12:139 Nikk - det nordiska institutet för kunskap om kön

I would appreciate if you could reconsider your position.

(Xparbo (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I have reinstated your additions, but the large section you removed remains, as it still appears relevant to the history of the organization. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you motivate that it is relevant? Your sources discuss the closing of the Norwegian gender research programme. There is not a single notion on NIKK. I am afraid you are mixing up the different processes.

(Xparbo (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I don't say that it is relevant; only that you removed it without explaining why in the edit summary. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a mistake when I removed it the first time without an explanation. I apologize for that. But when I removed it with an explanation, you did not accept that either. Anyway, I think we have both learned something!

(Xparbo (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Eat Smart, Move More, Weigh Less[edit]

I would remove the embedded external links and the list of lesson topics, but it would still read like an advert. . . Mean as custard (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll give it go when I have time. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatABoyWants (talk • contribs) 09:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

freightquote.com[edit]

On 23 Aug you very correctly reverted the Freightquote.com article to a less promotional version. On 27 Aug user "Freightquote" undid your revision without discussion. I have initiated discussion on the talk page. DavesPlanet (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion necessary. Reverted to less blatantly promotional version and reported User:Freightquote to the tender mercies of the admins. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror Media Deletions[edit]

Good afternoon Mean as Custard, I understand now your grounds for deleting my original submissions. This was my first stab at creating content on Wikipedia and now have a better understanding of why my content was flagged and subsequently discarded. It is my intention to produce a new version of the page here shortly that does not violate codes A7 and G11. If you would please continue to help us by checking it over and pushing it live we would appreciate it. We are a start-up company and new to this specific space so we are just getting our feet wet with the specific technology and nuances on this site. Thanks for your patience. Dmattio (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)DanDmattio (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have a conflict of interest with the subject. As the article stands there is scant evidence of notability. Suggest you forget it. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. We have reviewed the general notability guidelines and believe we do in fact fall within what is required based off the "significant coverage" proscription. Indeed we have received coverage from several secondary sources including Men's Health magazine, Thrillist, and Boston.com's finance page. Mirror is a new company with more coverage of our site to come over the next few months. In regards to conflict of interest, we have followed the best practices policy set forth by Wikipedia while maintaining a fair and more importantly neutral point of view. Thanks again for your time, insights, and instructions. Dmattio (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)DanDmattio (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swain House Watchet[edit]

Hi Mean as custard. It seems we got a bit mixed up with Swain House Watchet - my AfD nomination removed your CSD tag. I'd prefer this article to go through a proper deletion discussion, as the source I found seems to establish some significance, if not notability. If you really want to tag it I won't remove your tag, but I do think we should err on the side of caution in this case (especially as the article seemed to have been created in good faith). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enuff. AFD it is. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you?[edit]

	Who are you?
	Who are you?And who gave you the right to remove my suggestions? Akul1994 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

neutral point of view[edit]

Thanks for the comments. Went ahead and adjusted contents to be more neutral. Could you point out the external links suggestions? Glory4321 (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Glory4321[reply]

User:Bipul ray/sandbox[edit]

What is Wiki policy on what you place in your Sandbox ? I thought surely it is the place where we can experiment with stuff and therefore we shouldn't put deletion tags on them ? - Yorkshiresoul (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, people should be free to develop articles in their sandbox without interference, but if the material is blatantly promotional or offensive then intervention may be needed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Sport Hall of Fame[edit]

Mean as custard,

You say you removed the references to the Hall of Fame from the pages because they were insignificant. However, this is not the case. Motor Sport has been the pre-eminent motor racing publication since 1924, and the Hall of Fame evenings have become an important annual event. Please see the website for details.

If you could re-instate these references, it'd be appreciated. AlexCH27 (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would need references to third-party sources, i.e. a publication unrelated to the magazine to show it is notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to provide, seeing as the magazine's rival publications wouldn't promote an event by Motor Sport. There are a lot of other websites, those for the inductees or governing bodies for example, who have posted updates about the events. AlexCH27 (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion of Andatel Grandé Patong Phuket[edit]

Please explain to me why this is consider promotional when Sheratons, Westin and other corporate Hotels is not promotional?? The outline information are mere descriptive facts about the hotel just how Sheraton Westin coveys its brand as luxury Andatel conveys it's property as contemporary design; it's the matter of identifying types of hotel. None of what is written is subjective more so informative to whoever is interested in coming to patong in general. Just because this is not a well know and independent property does not mean it does not have history or interest in being in Wikipedia. Wikipedia clearly states in the upload section that no logos are accepted when the currently on many hotel corporations has it's logo presented on Wikipedia. I do not which to populate the site with promotional content and have tried my best to write this Andatel profile objectively and factually. This does not mean it is written to promote the site but to inform. We have a website that is already promotion the hotel, however would like to keep this page because being in Wikipedia matters. Being able to continue writing logs/history for the world claims the existence of this small property. If you still sees this as promotional that ban it, I will not abuse wikipedia concept and truely respect how the system works, it is great what wikipedia is doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Cruso (talk • contribs) 10:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains very little about the hotel itself (presumably because it is unnotable judging by the total lack of independent references. It mainly consists of "Additional Information" about the location which would only be of interest to potential guests and is very promotional in tone. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your recent edits[edit]

hello,

thank you for your input but I am not using the page as a promotional page, rather as informational. There are facts on your page that are incorrect, specifically the date of birth.

Please specifically point out what i need to change in order for you to stop reverting my information to your page, which has falsely stated information.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profilepr (talk • contribs) 16:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you change things like date of birth you will need to provide a reference to back it up. You removed cited information and replaced it with uncited. And your user name suggest you are here for promotional purposes rather than to provide unbiased information. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

where is your reference for date of birth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profilepr (talk • contribs) 17:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is yours? . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are Jose's agents and know his date of birth. He specifically asked that we edit the incorrect information on this site. I will be sure to use references when applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profilepr (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should definitely read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) FYI I've reverted their edits again, blocked them and removed the unsourced DOB. SmartSE (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of WellBalance Camps from "Weight Loss Camp"[edit]

I recently put a link to our program on "Weight Loss Camp" page. We as an organization are a weight loss camp, by definition. I am in the process of creating a Wiki page for WellBalance Camps, can I have the external link reinstated on the "Weight Loss Camp" page? Feel free to checkout our program at http://wellbalance.com We are in our third year and have three current camp locations. We have helped hundreds of families to lose weight not just in our summer camp settings, but long term. Thank you. Fvandebeuken (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No way! Advertising is prohibited on Wikipedia. Read WP:Spam and WP:EL. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Word, working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvandebeuken (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canford audio PLC[edit]

Hello mr custard.

I was wondering why the page was flagged as advertising. Please advise so I can create a factual informative wiki. Thanks, The DonkWillyDonker (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillyDonker (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been deleted and I forget the wording, but there was at least one sentence that sounded like unambiguous advertising. If the article is recreated it will also need to show WP:Notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Jeffries (CEO)[edit]

Darn fast revert of vandalism, bro. Paul, in Saudi (talk)

Thank you for messaging me regarding the Slumberland Furniture page. Please let me know which specific statements you feel are promotional so that we may edit or remove. Our purpose is to provide a history and description of the company. As for citations on the historical background, is our own web site sufficient? I have this information from the owner of the company, not from any published source. Thank you for your help. MSE500 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. Company sources may be valid for factual information on the historical background, but to avoid promotional language, it is better to rely on independent, unbiased sources for topics like marketing philosophy, company mission, future strategy etc. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is happening with my page :([edit]

Hello, I created a new page and not sure why is it getting deleted. People visiting the world famous Ajanta caves should know where to stay.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anvitagoenka (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are dissappointed by your persist and relentless actions to delete the entire contents of our site, replacing it with outdated and incorrect information.

Our company provides employment and educational opportunities for our more than 1,000 partners and their families world-wide. We are community involved, donating our time and money to local, national, and international charitable causes. How are we all served by your suppression of our honest communication with the public?

If you have some disagreement with us, or feel you have been wronged in some way, we invite you to open a dialogue with us for mutual resolution.Texbro (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before making any further changes, try reading WP:COI and WP:Spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mean as Custard[edit]

Hi Mean as Custard,

You've removed all my updates on Cosalt citing them as "trivia" and reverted the page to a factually outdated version (e.g. compositon of company board, current suspension of shares).

My latest update chronicling the period 2007 to 2009 may be a little longwinded and could be cut down/expressed differently but it is not trivia, is factually correct with references and is important and relevant in leading to where the company is today (i.e on the verge of bankruptcy but close to the conclusion of a court case arising out of a major purchase and fundraising in 2008).

The 2011 to present day section has stood since early September, the least I would expect is that you revert to this version (i.e. prior to my last major update) while I work on revamping my latest attempt into a more enclyclopedic entry, if that is what is required.

The company is a suspended, listed (ftse fledging) company, I think it's important that shareholders and the public generally have up to date infromation about it. Why do you see the new, albeit historical, sections as trivia?

Isalolly (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people would agree that material like statements of the company share price on a week-to-week basis is definitely trivia. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The opening statement in my new section stated that the shareprice had fallen from 474p in 2007 to 0.25p in 2011, extreme by anybodys standards, especially seeing as the company is still trading and apparently solvent. Each RNS and news item during that period had some effect. The visitors to this page will be looking for information on the company and have an interest in what caused the decline. I've deliberately stayed clear of expressing my views and just stuck to facts so that those visitors can draw their own conclusions. In the main they won't be just passing by, they'll be looking for information, and the SP at the time of the news release and subsequent to it is 100% relevant.

One may see it as trivia if one has little or no interest in the company, I believe that most people who actually visit the page will see it as relevant.

Isalolly (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text Removal and Replacement[edit]

Mean As Custard We (ETS-Lindgren)are disappointed by your persistent and relentless deletion of the entire contents of our site, replacing it with outdated and incorrect information.

Our company provides employment and educational opportunities for our more than 1,000 partners and their families world-wide. We are community involved, donating our time and money to local, national, and international charitable causes. How are we all served by your suppression of our honest communication with the public?

If you have some disagreement with us, or feel you have been wronged in some way, we invite you to open a dialogue with us for mutual resolution. Texbro (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before making any further changes, try reading WP:COI and WP:Spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norwest Equity Partners[edit]

Mean as custard - I'm new to this and trying to correct the redirect of Norwest Equity Partners (NEP) to Norwest Venture Partners (NVP). They are two different companies but they do have a common history before 2000. Can you assist me in getting this corrected? We either would like it deleted or fleshed out with proper history/timeline information, but redirecting to NVP is not correct. Kevinm397 (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be fleshed out with proper history/timeline information, but with indepemdent references to show its notability, otherwise it is likely to get redirected again. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1 November 2012[edit]

Thanks for pointing out my flaw! I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Removal of such a large amount of sourced content without a valid reason or discussion on the talk page seemed liked vandalism to me. I will be more careful about my edit summaries in the future and make sure that they strictly adhere to the rules of Wikipedia. Feel free to correct me anytime. I really appreciate it. Thanks again!--Paniraja (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Storm[edit]

Custard, this is Avery Storm's mgmt... Why do you keep editing Avery's wiki page? Your info is outdated and incorrect. Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank.hendler (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary said "revert to less promotional version". That pretty well covers it, but for more try reading WP:COI. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what you've reverted to is wrong and outdated. Avery doesn't want you editing the page... Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.72.115 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way Wikipedia works. You don't "own" pages when you are closely associated with the subject. Anyone can edit them. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how Wiki works, but your information is inaccurate and outdated, and has a directly negative impact on the artist. What I don't understand is what you stand to gain by continuing this... For the 3rd time, please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.72.115 (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding another UTS[edit]

Hello, Mean as custard! Please know that I am adding another "Union Theological Seminary" in the Philippines to this disambiguation page to avoid confusion. I also linked it to an article waiting for review. - Patnubaypatnugot (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lee Music[edit]

I notice you have done a bit of rolling back and forth with another editor on the article ( [1] ), removing most of its content and all the pictures in the process, you also added the Notability tag questioning it's notability. While I agree the article was poorly written, I found the subject itself meets the wikipedia notability guideline after some research. That music store has over 30 stores in 2 countries, has been around for 60 years, it was awarded quality tourist shop status by the Hong Kong Tourism Board consecutively in the past 10 years, appeared on Lonely Planet (the largest travel guide book in the world), with dozen of media coverage by South China Morning Post and Radio Television Hong Kong, the store is also a major art and concert events box office/distributor in Hong Kong because of its longstanding contract with Leisure and Cultural Services Department under Government of Hong Kong. If a store like that couldn't meet Notability, store like Sam Ash probably won't be able too. I notice you have done quite a bit of reverting on numerous articles, and removing bad content. But sometimes the best way to improve articles is through research, adding reliable content and re-writing substandard content. I have rewritten the lead with the references and reliable sources I could find, restored the photos and some of the useful contents you removed. The rest of the article is still quite crude, if you are interested to help re-writing and contribute using reliable sources you have found, you are welcomed to.Da Vynci (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coreel_technology deletion[edit]

Is it appropriate to use Speedy deletion in this case? I am quite new and don't know what is spam and what is just deletable. Rarkenin (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is pure spam, i.e. very little of the article will remain after the promotional material has been removed, but an admin will decide. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T-shirt[edit]

You don't get much recognition for your painstaking toil in the spam-mines, so I have nominated you for a Wikipedia T-shirt. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Gay Village[edit]

Hi, i think you were a bit overzealous on that article just so i have partially reverted the lede and removed the quote (which at second glance doesn't add much). Thanks for removing what you call advertising though, i was being detailed (maybe too much). I've tagged the article as under construction but if you see any other advertising-like sections then please reword them rather than removing them as there isn't much atm. Thanks and have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Records link[edit]

Please restore the link I added to the Apple Records page. Anyone interested in Apple Records will want to see images of the discs and sleeves as mentioned in the text. The Apple Records Worldwide Discography shows every Apple record issued around the world and as such is an exhaustive and authoritive website which will interest anyone who reads the Wiki page on this subject.

Thanks, The57thbeatle (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Records link[edit]

My main concern is that you are adding external links to the front page of the website, rather than to a page relating to the specific artist concerned. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

So why then remove the links from the John Lennon, George Harrison, Ringo Starr & Paul McCartney pages? These are the pages relating to (some of the) specific artists involved???

The57thbeatle (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because your links were to the front page of the website. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rammer[edit]

Hay, i would like to question your removal of my entry regarding "Rammer".

The page currently in Wikipedia about "Hydraulic hammers" even supports the creation of a page for "Rammer" when it states, "Breakers are often referred to as "hammers", "peckers", "hoe rams" or "hoe rammers." These terms are popular and commonly used amongst construction/demolition workers." Both the origin of "hoe rams" and "hoe rammers" are from the Rammer Brand name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rammer1978 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article you added usurped an existing page, which is frowned upon. It also appeared promotional in tone and had no independent references. If it is recreated (with third-party references to show its notability), I suggest a page name of "Rammer (company)" or similar. . . Mean as custard (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woah[edit]

I am an agent and I would like to speak with your supervisor. I apologize for the posts, it was only to get attention for important purposes. This is a legality message to inspect this site. Username and posts were chosen randomly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IThinkiSharted (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are still on a final warning. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pmoplanet.com[edit]

pmoplanet.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.pmoplanet.com

Hi, new to wikipedia, I work as a committee memeber for the charity the Assosiation of Project Management, and we noticed PMO's are under-represented on Wikipedia. Our PMO members asked for more information on PMO's. The website PMO Planet (which does not promote or earn any revenue) covers PMO related topics, which have been gathered over recent years. PMO's have unofficially been around for approx 10 years, but have become popular with people wanting to know more about them over the past 3 years (since the 2009 OGC book on P3O's). The links are required to show many sources of information regarding PMO's, which is now a popular topic in Project Management, but is light on official documented practices. Please restore the links, and I am working on the content within wikipedia. Regards Ralfjnr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralfjnr (talk • contribs)

No. The links added were excessive and indiscriminate. See WP:EL. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow clubbers[edit]

Hi! I couldn't help but notice the similarities between User:Group25cs104 and User:CS1046. I considered {{subst:uw-agf-sock}} but instead wrote a short message outlining policy. Keristrasza (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect they are not the same individual but work for the same organization. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edit[edit]

I did not mean to save the edit. It was just a test edit. Hope you understand. Forgot to put name (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Gale Techn as advert[edit]

Hi MAC, You recently tagged Gale Technologies as advert. After reading the article I don't fully agree with you, although I must say that the article also doesn't really give any useful information. When you tag any article as advert (or some other tag requesting for improvements) it would be helpful for both the author of the article or other Wikipedians if you would give some additional comment (or specify what parts of the article are not OK) on the talk page. Just tagging often doesn't help as the original author tends to go into the defense or even ignores your comments. On top of that I often also try to contact the main author of the article in question as I found out that that gives better results: a direct aproach often opens discussion and most people writing "advertisments" do so due to lack of experience. Cheers, Tonkie (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

Why did you edit my talkpage. Trio The Punch (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what talk pages are for. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please doublecheck your edit, you must've made a mistake. Trio The Punch (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. The occasional accusation of vandalism is like a badge of office. it shows you're doing a good job. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mount Hermon Christian School for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mount Hermon Christian School 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/Mount Hermon Christian School 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 template from the top of the article.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious Link on Application for employment page[edit]

Hi there

I see that you have edited this page in the past: "Application for employment" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_for_employment so I wanted to reach out to you and get your feedback on my input in the talk section about the link at the bottom of the page to jobapplicationcenter.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Application_for_employment

Here is what I wrote:

 "The "Sample Application" link points to an Made for Adsense website here: http://www.jobapplicationscenter.com I suspect that this link is being used to drive traffic to that site, or to improve search engine relevance for that site.

You can see where the link was added in place of a previous one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Application_for_employment&diff=next&oldid=504215479. Its true that the previous link points to a site that is no longer functioning (http://www.asherm.com/research/application.doc) but this seems like a set up to get the link to www.jobapplicationcenter.com. I say this because in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Application_for_employment&diff=next&oldid=456500337 you can see where a link was placed to another Made for Adsense site run by the same person called www.onlinejobapplications.com. Review the WhoIs info for the domain www.jobapplicationcenter.com here: http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?domain=jobapplicationcenter.com&prog_id=GoDaddy You will see that the administrative contact is "Diane Turner." This name appears in the ref tag in the edit to the article here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Application_for_employment&diff=next&oldid=456500337 In addition, a good portion of this page is simply copied from a document called "Planning the Recruitment Process" which can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62606731/Planning-the-Recruitment-Process-What-You-Need-to-Know-Definitions-Best-Practices-Benefits-and-Practical-Solutions. Scroll to page 7 and you will see that the references on the wikipedia pagehave been copied word for word from the document."

Do you think that the link is legit?

174.48.224.48 (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly suspicious when the reference is changed, but none of the content referred to is changed. Removed it. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SMV[edit]

You removed the edits I made to the page for SMV (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SMV&redirect=no) for the second time without providing any feedback whatsoever. I took lot of time making an earnest attempt to document an important usage of the word. I'd appreciate some feedback on why the edits were reversed. It's not my intention to get into an edit war. But without necessary feedback such edits as you have made can seem arbitrary or improper and lead to a repeated and unproductive back and forth. I've also added this note to the talk page for the article in question.

Thanks Ethicalv (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*****************************************

Actually I think I figured out the problem (though it would have been nice for you to say so before removing the edits). I need to wait until the article for Sexual Market Value is approved, then I need to create a redirect page from SMV to Sexual Market Value, then I need to change the disambiguation page for SMV to add a link to the article for Sexual Market Value. If this understanding is incorrect then please let me know. Ethicalv (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right; it gets confusing if disambiguation pages contain article content and references. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roper Page[edit]

Please undo all your changes as the data you post is completely OUTDATED and incorrect. I believe the users should be able to view the most uptodate content for that particular site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leni-1111 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Up-to-date is good, but not when it is written in flagrantly promotional language. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's debatable and can certainly be changed. I don't understand what's wrong with listing all the subsidiaries and explaining their end markets and products, but perhaps you can provide some insight there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leni-1111 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It all reads like corporate puffery rather than an encyclopedia article:

"Zetec’s advanced ultrasonic and eddy current technology, combined with delivery robotics and a complete software suite, keeps the world’s power plants safe and productive"
"high-quality, innovative products, exceptional customer service, and unequaled technical expertise"

Other than that there is nothing wrong with listing all the subsidiaries and explaining their end markets and products. ... Mean as custard (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Again, some of that content can certainly be changed - but you'll have to let people actually do it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.84.4 (talk • contribs)

A lot of the content has been changed based on your comments. Can you please explain which sections of the new page require more editing, rather than constantly changing it to the original site, which - again - is completely outddated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leni-1111 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try removing the multiple external links and add properly referenced material based on independent unbiased sources. See WP:EL, WP:COI and WP:Spam . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

You deleted all the links I added for further reading and as additional references in third party sources in MKG Group page. I see your point, and thanks for the suggestion. Do you think we should limit it and leave a few there at least and not none? thanks Travelkosmos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are a small number of links directly related to the subject of the article, which provide useful further information and it is made clear to the reader what information the links provide, then it should be ok. . .Mean as custard (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Can you offer an example so as to ensure it is done properly... Travelkosmos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings[edit]

Please be a little more careful, you're overrwiting users userpages with warnings, instead of putting them on their talk page. Legoktm (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MAgPIE[edit]

There really was a lot more to it. Look carefully at the version you reverted to. Then look at the history, and feel free to check out the talk page of almost all the editors with redlinks for user pages. It's well worth your while, usually, to look around a bit in the history. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Manchester Students' Union[edit]

Hi,

Can you please tell me why you have changed all the information on the University of Manchester Students' Union page? This is now all completely out of date as the organisation has undergone major changes in the last few months. This includes everything such as the logo and the structure of the organisation. If it is a case of citations, I can put these in if you restore the information on the page. Manchestersu (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some citations would be good, but the main problem is you removed all the existing material with citations to various independent sources and replaced it with content which is uncited but clearly comes direct from the union's publicity material. You need to read WP:COI and WP:Spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'Government'[edit]

The last edition you reverted on article 'Government' was mine. First above all the references [2] leading to no no definition only to some info about the book/dictionary, so it is no valid at all. The reference [3} goes to definition: `the governing body of a nation, state, or community`. In conclusion the edition about Commonwealth and USA are misleading, simple wrong. Please do not revert my improvements. I will remove the nonsense and add at least tomorrow appropriate reference to my edition. Reverting without explanation is a vandalism--Sok-not (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You removed cited material and added uncited, ungrammatical and confusing content. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check the links as I described above. You revert without reading. You cut me of during adding sources, the second has the sources. Regarding grammar you are free to improve. If are confuse with the edition ask. I will explain, this is the editing process, but reverting in 5sek is vandalism. I invite you to talk. If you edited the previous format you do not understand the principles of democratic governments. Administration is only a tool, do not have legislator power thus is not a government.--Sok-not (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refers to International Efficient Agriculture Solutions and Standards Association (IEASSA)[edit]

I'd like to dispute You decision on removing my links to IEASSA while I do not agree that my links conflict with Wikipedia requirements. International Efficient Agriculture Solutions and Standards Association is a multinational non-profitable organization which supports the ideas of precision agriculture. I really enjoyed that web-site usefulness. I had some projects connected with agriculture and IEASSA materials were enough understandable and available to deal with my lack of knowledge (I am not agronomist, but my team had to manage agricultural projects). For example FAO papers are rather complicated and overloaded with unnecessary stuff. I'm not a scientist to dive in thick books in order to find few sentences which are really important for me. That's because I tried to do a little favor for other users and partially for IEASSA members and to add some links on corresponding articles on its official web-site. I do not agree that the links to an article "Green class" contain useful additional information about green manure, while brief description on precision agriculture ideas can usefully enlarge "Precision agriculture" article on Wiki. Moreover I do not refer to IEASSA in general which seems to be a kind of advertisement - I want to share knowledge with other people.

You can tell me that Precision agriculture page has to much External links. That is true. But the first link is broken as far as PrecisionPays.com doesn't display any content. The following 5 or 6 link brings me to the top page of the web-sites, but doesn't answer to me "what is precision agriculture?". OK, I know this web-sites, but it seems to be a kind of promotion of a brand. If a source name contains phrase "precision agriculture" - is is fair to leave those ones, but to remove direct link on brief article which has educational utility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergej koshevoj (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you email me?[edit]

Hi Mean as custard!

If you could email me at jalexanderwikimedia.org when you have a chance. You were nominated for a t-shirt and I'd like to get it sent your way :). Jalexander--WMF 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PING! :) Jalexander--WMF 20:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hey mean[edit]

on one hand you call the article a stub and when one provides info u reject it calling it promotional? how can participation in nasa lunarbotics and bry air asia award be promotional ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhisheksugam (talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have admittedly added a few alleged facts (I say alleged as you provide no references or sources), but most of your changes consist of promotional language that looks like it has been copied from the college prospectus: - "The hostels offer comfortable lodging options that take care of all requisites of daily life plus spacious dining hall". This is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GENESYS TELECOMMUNICATIONS LABORATORY[edit]

Good Morning,

I have noticed that you keep removing the new content that I add, citing it as "promotional". What I am uploading to the page is merely content that explains what Genesys does, everyone of their competitors has similar content and overview of what they do, so why do you keep removing the content. It is valuable content that helps people understand the nature of our products and services and how we can help them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbjones (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles about other similar companies do not contain flagrantly promotional wording like "All components work together to enable companies to deliver a superior customer service experience in real-time". If they do you are welcome to remove it. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asperity Page[edit]

I am sure you are pleased to know that verifiable references have been provided for the asperity page and further analysis on the talk page. Kind regards RebeccaMcdonald (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of half marathon races[edit]

I thought I would make you aware of Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#List of half marathon_races since you may been engaged with an editor last summer who was attempting to insert a particular source into various articles. Cheers! Location (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there[edit]

I noticed that you keep removing my edits, but you have not given a reason, can I please ask why you have removed them?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCBerry (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They seemed designed to promote a particular company's products. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But they are no different/more promotional than any of the other links on the same page SCBerry (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALTEN[edit]

I am not effectively a wikipedia moderator (so sorry if I made few technical errors) but I intervene as Community Manager for ALTEN. My mission consists in verify the content is updated correctly in accordance to Wikipedia policy. I have followed wiki process to alert the contributors who have changed ALTEN page to stop it because Wikipedia is not a tribune to express opinions but give informations not polemical. Consequently, it seems I am in my right to avoid vandalism on a page about company in which I work as community manager. In contrary, I pay attention from administrator about agressivity of intervention also without giving more explanation which justified my actions. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenpjaconelli (talk • contribs) 11:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All information erased by Altenpjaconelli is correct and they can be verified on independent references. Wikipedia is not for promoting a company or web site, but to serve as a encyclopedia and tells facts. Some facts are good and some facts are bad, but Community Managers should not use Wikipedia as a tool to promote his companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillio.gurgon (talk • contribs) 11:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reported for Abuse[edit]

Given your consistently putrid behaviour on Wikipedia, I am opting to report you and recommend a ban be instituted. This site is not for blatant trolling. If you haven't figured that out by now, you really don't belong here.

Good bye, and good riddance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.53.34 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair cop. Goodbye, cruel world. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thank you for helping improve the Thunder Ridge High School Wiki page!

Nicereddy (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope_Hospitals[edit]

Thank you for your observation. I have made changes to the content so that it doesn't appear as an advertisement.Drbkmurali (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Aitken Spence wikipage[edit]

Dear MaC,

Thank you for reviewing the Aitken Spence wiki page and for helping to improve the clarity of the article. I'm one of the contributors to the page and I want to improve the article further as you had suggested. You had left the <<ad>> tag on the article, after the clarifying amendments that you had made. Just wanted to check with you on where you think the article still needs improvement and where you think promotional content has been provided for the article to be tagged as an advertisement. Most of the content that I had added has come from reputed local newspapers in Sri Lanka, as you may observe from the reflist. However, where third party information was lacking, I have sourced from Aitken Spence company's official communications (annual report, web site, and blog)as with the logistics sector. With regards to the tone and language I've tried to keep it neutral as possible without unduely highlighting good or the bad of the evidence presented.

Since this is a company page, the objective of the page, in my opinion, is to describe the company to a reader who does not know about the company without either praising or disparaging the company. Therefore,it is important to present available information on the operational areas and relative capacity of the company so that the reader could understand the scale of operations. Mentioning this for a company wiki does not make it an advertisement.

Also with respect to the renaming of "Logistic Solutions" to "Shipping", I believe the latter term does not fully capture the scale of operations of Aitken Spence. Shipping generally entails the physical movement of goods from one place to another, but logistics encompasses not just the movement of goods but also dealing with information/knowledge/management systems,and operation of infrastructure (port operations,fleet management, 3PL and 4PL,etc)that's beyond the mere transportation. Since, Aitken Spence is also naming this sector as "Logistic Solutions", I thought it best to have the same terminology.

I'm hoping to make further improvements to the article over the weekend. So would appreciate if you could provide feedback earlier, so I could draft the artcile better with your suggestions.

While I agree with you that the article does need improvement, I do not think its fair on all the contributors to this article, for the wiki article to be classified as an advertisement, when almost all content is corroborated through reputed third party sources. Therefore, I will remove the <<ad>> tag and revert the term "Shipping" to "Logistic Solutions" on 19th Jan. 2013, in the event I do not receive any feedback from you by that date.

ThanksAdheesha88 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Logistic Solutions" are meaningless marketing buzzwords. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most ppl are familiar with the term "shipping" as opposed to "logistics" & can relate to it better, but should we misrepresent the operations, just because one notion is more easier to understand? Also, would be really helpful if you could provide your insight as to where you think the article (overall) looks promotional..as I noted earlier, I sourced from Aitken Spence annual report and web site too...so where we can add more simpler, non-marketing terminology without misrepresenting the actual operations, I think we should,for the benefit of the reader. If you could let me know your suggestions either here or on my talk page, will really appreciate it..thanksAdheesha88 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain[edit]

I expect you have picked up on this similarity
Cheers! –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 12:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPO[edit]

I have initiated an RfD discussion on the appropriate target of IPO. I have also made all the current links point directly to Initial Public Offering, so incoming links will not factor into the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should at least provide a backlink from Initial Public Offering to the disambiguation page. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the 'Cultural' in Cultural icon ...[edit]

Hallo Mean as custard, I just wanted to discuss the paragraph you've reinstated at Cultural icon. It's all about whether "iconic" is a decently usable term... but not about "cultural icon" at all, really. Either the paragraph needs extending with citations, quotations and discussions about "ci" and whether that term is grossly overused or not --- or it needs to be taken out. What d'you think? All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it was relevant as iconic redirects to Cultural icon. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, could be a dodgy redirect. Perhaps we better leave it in, but look for something to make it more "cultural". Volunteers? - all the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope_Hospitals[edit]

Thank you for your observation. I have made changes to the content so that it doesn't appear as an advertisement. I have only added a link to the scope of services that has appeared in the NABH website today. Infobox is necessary to corelate and identify the wiki page with our hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbkmurali (talk • contribs) 15:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apology[edit]

Please accept my apology ... only trying to be helpful ... it seemed to me to be a sub-heading typo error
Sincerely –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 17:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your assistance in protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism across many articles! — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spam userpages[edit]

Hello! You recently removed some spam here. I've since deleted the page. In the future, feel free to tag similar instances of promotion with G11 tags. Thanks, m.o.p 12:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loma Plata[edit]

Hello, I see that you have taken away all the information I put on the page for Loma Plata. Yes it is tourist information as well as other information because there is no other place on the internet where you can find this information. Information in Paraguay is hard to find and online websites are scarce and wikipedia is a way to get information out to people who are interesting in visit Loma Plata so they know what they are arriving to and the background. Dep Informacion y Cultura (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding births on 9 March[edit]

Why has George Robert Giles been removed from the birthdays on 9 March list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George9398 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Priory School, Isle of Wight[edit]

As one of the editors who reverted the edits on Priory School, Isle of Wight last month, I would appreciate your views on my latest changes. I have tried to go back to before the large number of edits that introduced all the unencyclopaedic content, so I have tried to improve the tone, add back some of the content that got lost and improve the references. It will need more work, but I hope it is back in a sensible state. If you have any comments, do let me know. Thanks. Adamiow (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Riordan[edit]

Hey. I've taken a look at this article as it seems to have been the subject of some controversial removal of content and tried to ensure some balance. Looks like the comments the user - who may be the subject of the article - is objecting to were added on 2012-10-20 as the story was emerging and the full details weren't yet in the public domain. I'd appreciate some more sets of eyes on the article just to check - I've explained the rough thrust of my edits on the talk. Ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_transformation[edit]

dear custad, why did you delete this page nearly entirely?

Revert - Question[edit]

Hello, You recently reverted a page I was editing MultiFunding. I can see that some content on it may have been overly promotional, which I have been trying to clean up to better comply with the NPOV policy. However, I disagree with your reversion to a much earlier version, which contains far less information and is clearly less informative for the public. Instead, can you offer some suggestions to improve the February 7th version so it is both informative and neutral?? Thank you. User_talk:Parking_Spaces

According to the page history you have made no changes to this article. The material I removed was promotional content added by user:MultiFunding. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

user:mean as custard Hello, I did indeed edit the page under the multifunding username, but have since changed my username after another Wikipedia user kindly made the policy known to me. Can you please provide me some suggestions to make the multifunding page more in line with the NPOV principle?? Thanks user:parking spaces

I suggest you wait until someone with no direct connection with the organisation decides to update it. There are more than four million other Wikipedia articles you could try updating instead . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you use spell check Mr. Mean as Mustard. Somewhat funny seeing all your grammatical flaws there Zeus. Apparently, you are a special human...in the "lil' yellow bus" kind of 'special'. Tko-rich (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would remove a post such as this, but I will retain it to remind myself I am but mortal. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Elgin Hotel[edit]

Hello. Thank you for talking time to edit the sections. I had included the cuisine section as the Sikkimese Cuisine offered by this Hotel is quite unparalleled and has dishes many of which are hitherto unknown and slowly getting lost. The reference is also been published in a National Indian Newspaper as a travel and cuisine experience news. Also the external links are public domain information from websites that are used by travellers as authentic source of information when planning a trip to Himalayas and these links are talking of all the places instead of a single hotel property. I hope you would see it in the same light as I do and would guide me as to how this information could be presented in the true spirit of Wikipedia. Warmest regards. MadlyBohemic (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section on cuisine was way too promotional in tone. Notability is not established by a single review. It would need a reference to the hotel winning a national award for cuisine, for example. The description of attractions of the surrounding area was also promotional, and not relevant to the article as it would better be included in the article on the town. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanantion. The cuisine section was just a description of food names and neither mentioned as good or bad. Darjeeling is not a very well developed part of the country and excepting a few hotels that try to maintain a semblance of hospitality, winning an award for the cuisine is highly unlikely. But there has been a mention of this in as National News Paper which was already referenced. Can that not be considered as a support to talk about the food of the Hotel. The external links are removed also whereas they are just external links and is not having any promotional tone as already explained earlier. MadlyBohemic (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore UTSOA[edit]

UTSOA has updated its page based on your suggestions that it appeared too similar to a promotional advertisement. Please revert/remove "advertisement" description at your earliest convenience. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UTSOA (talk • contribs) 22:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still appears a little promotional in tone; I have downgraded the tag. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

orbeta-casenas clan[edit]

hi,
   my apologies, didn't mean to with the edits am still struggling to make a page which i would dedicate to the family of my great grandfather. thanks for the info  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdirt (talk • contribs) 13:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Custard Guy :)[edit]

So, just curious...what custard are you as mean as? I've made chocolate, vanilla, cherry, mint, and white wine custard over the years and they're all pretty nice. I mean, not tasty, like, they're not mean. I've never been attacked by custard I don't think. I've never met custard I don't like. So...how can you be as mean as custard? What does your name mean? --Free Wales Now! what did I screw up? 01:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]