User talk:Mean as custard

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

Fontana, California

Thanks for trimming the promos at Fontana, California. I've been removing promotional cruft from articles for a while, and occasionally have pushback like this. I'd like to take this whole "promo and rankings in US city articles" to an RfC like the Canadians did. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Avercast

Is this company likely to pass WP:NCORP? If yes, I'd remove the old tags. If not, I'd send it to WP:AfD. Please ping me either way. Bearian (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Golfist...

...is not a word. Please use common English, i.e. "golfer". Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Or "professional golfer" when appropriate. In some contexts, any such descriptor is unnecessary and can simply be removed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

External links

Links to official websites are appropriate per WP:ELYES/WP:ELOFFICIAL ("Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site". Please stop removing them from External Links sections. Thank you. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 00:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Shifra Smart Homes

I saw you took a shot at editing this stub. I don't see how it's notable. If you nominate it for deletion, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Hi, I saw you took a shot at the updates I made about Telestream company The updates are based on actual facts which is described in the factsheet of the company. All users of Wikipedia have the right to know actual data i.e. the story of company, number of employees, revenue, so that they decide whether to join it as employee or buy its products or make career decisions. All MNC's already show such information. write to me in my talk page if you have any concerns on any paragraph. I have removed some of them for you. Please let it be there.

Bearian (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhiren7291 (talk • contribs)

User warned for adding promotional material to Wikipedia. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello, I'm Pbrks. I noticed that you recently removed content from Houston Outlaws without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Pbrks (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you recently removed content from Calbee without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Conklin Center

Hi! Just courtesy heads up that I dePRODded this as I think there's enough to at least warrant an AfD. StarM 00:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Heads Up: Vandal Patrol

Hey @Mean as custard: just a heads up, in the persons talk page |Qualitynet_q8, you need to make a new section, please and thank you.

I don't understand what you mean. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Gemma Quinnell

Just a quick head's up, I declined the speedy you put on this article and sent it off to AfD. I have a feeling if I deleted it, it would just come back again for the reasons I expressed at AfD, and therefore I want a documented discussion to get rid of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

AImotive

Hi – you added an advertising flag to the AImotive page back in 2019. I've just done a major edit. It would be great if you could check the page sometime, and flag anything else that needs to be changed in your opinion to remove the promotional tag. Many thanks! --Seagerd (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks better now so I have removed the Advert tag, although there seems to be an excessive number of references in places. . .Mean as custard (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't got round to cleaning up the references yet. Will do so sometime in the coming weeks. Thank you for the feedback. --Seagerd (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Justiyaya

Just wanted to say thanks for your recent Kathy Taylor edits :) Justiyaya (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

LoopUp

Hi Mean as a custard, I appreciate your contribution on the LoopUp article however your edits took out the main offering that the company now offers - Direct routing for Microsoft Teams. If you checked the website and newsroom you would see that the content on the page was at least up to date. If you are not going to let me update the content as you find it too promotional can you at least make sure that what your edits don't make the article completely outdated and irrelevant!? LyonDelphine (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Mailman Group

Hello, Mean as custard,

Please make sure when you do a big revert to an earlier version of an article, that there haven't been valid changes made since that earlier version was done. In this case, categories had been altered to correct ones and your revert put back nonexistent, red link categories. If, in the future, you could just look over the page and fix any problems like this that appear before moving on to the next article, it would be appreciated. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Teresa Carlson COI edit requests

Hi! Reaching out because I saw you've been involved in updating Teresa Carlson in the past. I've posted some COI edit requests on the talk page there. If you have time, would love your feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Krea University

You didn't like the tone of Krea University and therefore erased, essentially, all of it. If you don't like some of the content, please be judicious and just erase what you find objectionable. I didn't write the article. I was just a contributor. But I appreciate that people who are looking up the university will be interested in more than just a stub. Njonsey (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The content I removed was unreferenced and wholly promotional in tone. . .Mean as custard (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Madras Christian College

Hey would you mind looking at Madras Christian College. I tried cleaning up the article but it still contains a lot of unsourced material. I am not sure if it’s all right to remove all unsourced material as it might degrade the quality of the article. Thanks defcon5 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Castronovo Chocolate

Thank you for trimming Castronovo Chocolate. The references were from bogus anduntrustworthy sources such as New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Zagat. Pat yourself on the back. You should feel proud of yourself. Another editor noted after you that no sources exist... well, of course they don't after your good work. The only disappointment is you didn't delete the whole article.

The problem was one of promotional tone, not of sources. . .Mean as custard (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Promo cuts to Alpha Sigma Tau

Good afternoon, Mean.

I'm generally onboard with reduction of promotional material in articles, and cruft (great word for it). My areas of editing work focus on the Fraternities and Sororities Project, and various collegiate articles. Lots of cruft to work with there. But also woeful stubs that need expansion.

Regarding the very sharp scythe you took to the Alpha Sigma Tau article, I think you cut too much. While toss-off sentences like "Alpha Sigma Tau provides women with the skills, community, and empowerment needed to excel in life." are clearly "yada-yada" filler, and add no encyclopedic value, I thought the sections listing values and traditions were OK, as was inclusion of their Creed. While all such groups have a creed, citing it here is useful for non-members to understand the sorority's brand and its differentiation. --Not just for branding in a promotional sense. I would make a clear distinction between the two (promotion versus clarification). Stated a different way, I don't have a problem with company articles that note their mission statement or animating values: Inclusion helps their people focus, and helps outsiders hold them accountable because of the clarity these words provide.

I assume you deleted the symbols section because some of the items were duplicated in the infobox. My sense of other F&S articles is that the infobox summarizes and that a symbols and traditions section is allowable, and may have a sentence or two of dialog and supporting references. At least that is how hundreds and hundreds of other articles have it.

Further, I find the listing and short descriptions of programs for health and safety issues, which you cut, to be valuable, especially in differentiating this program benefit among other women's groups. These aren't just marketing screed; rather, these items are important to participants and their parents. (Speaking as an outside observer, sorority women tend to have a higher skew awareness and responsiveness to these points. I note this even though these items aren't personally important to me. I hope I'm clear.)

For sure, the sections blathering on about "Lifelong friendships", "Vast network", "Giving back", clearly are more cruft, and I support those deletions, too.

Have you considered a similar effort on the several very long, disjointed, promotional and nattering articles for the traditionally Black Greek Letter Organizations? Some of these have endless detail, going on for a hundred or more paragraphs. To be fair, there is far more promotional language in these, with kludgy language, grammar issues, often a non-encyclopedic tone, non-notable "notable members", lack of references, and themes that are severely over-weighted. The same criticism can be made of articles about the Ivy League schools, which drone on for paragraphs about insufferable details of their annual rankings and further detail about minor departments and initiatives. Gaaah. These are far more troubling to me.

I really appreciate your work. We may have a slight difference of opinion on this issue. I remain an Inclusionist rather than a Deletionist, to bring up the long-standing Wikipedia debate. I fully endorse the effort to cut non-encyclopedic junk and clearly biased, promotional material, but I do recognize that we do not have the same space limitations as a physical encyclopedia. Fair? Would you give my view here a review before I go back to the article and restore a couple of these items?

You call yourself Mean, but I think you are just thorough. You are an important contributor to Wikipedia. For that, and a few moments of attention to this note, I thank you.

Jax MN (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello, I'm SeaCardinal. I noticed that you recently removed content from Kibi Presbyterian College of Education without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SeaCardinal (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yukari Films

You recently placed an Advert template onto this page, however, you did not provide any feedback or reason why. It is not written in a promotional tone. The subject meets the wiki guidelines and has both industry impact, as well as positive peer reviews - which are all documented with reliable citations. Additionally, you placed a Verifiability template on the page also, which makes no sense as none of the citations are close to the source whatsoever. I would appreciate an explanation of these actions so that the article can be improved upon, or ask to please remove the complaints.45.170.104.254 (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

If the article referred to is Yulari Films, only the Advert template was mine, but I agree with whoever added the other two templates. The article consists mainly of unreferenced positive reviews and lists of alleged awards, and overall the tone is highly promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your constant removal of advertising. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Premeditated Chaos submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Editor Mean as custard to be Editor of the Week for their tireless work in removing promotional content from Wikipedia. Editor of the Week celebrates Wikipedia editors who are making significant contribution to the health and welfare of Wikipedia. For the last twelve, count 'em, twelve years, Mean as custard has worked practically daily at this task with laser focus and incredible patience. Mean as custard's dedication has led to 175K edits with a commendable 73% in mainspace. Intervening against vandalism and improper usernames is also a duty Mean has taken on. Without editors like this, working behind the scenes, the encyclopedia would be in a sorry state indeed. Let his efforts be bare of our appreciation no longer. User:Vami IV seconded this nomination.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 19:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Solid Waste Association of North America for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solid Waste Association of North America 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/Solid Waste Association of North America until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Assistance

Hello -- you keep flagging my edits as being promotional, but they are clearly written in objective prose. It would be nice to have your assistance in identifying what about my edits on Native Design in particular is having you flag the content. I will happily change so it can remain up. Thank you!

Native Design: "awarded for developing innovative products", "now offers a full-service innovation practice", "a completely cohesive user experience", "a range of world-firsts", "made with sustainability and a circular economy in mind". - all highly promotional. You clearly have a conflict of interest with the subject despite (or due to) removing the advert tag from the article header. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Mean as custard,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

OSF Digital

Hello, Mean as custard,

I noticed you did a big revert to an earlier version of the OSF Digital article, after I had made valid changes reflecting the current status of the company. It would be much appreciated if you could provide details on what specific part of the content you consider to be promotional, so that we can fix the problem instead of discarding everything. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filotesimona (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Filotesimona. Besides the COI guidelines I left on your Talk, I recommend you read the guidelines about shared accounts since you say "we" above. Thank you Star Mississippi 01:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mean as custard. Thank you for your feedback. This is not a shared account. "We" refers to the people/users editing the page, you and I.Filotesimona (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Mission, vision deletions

Hi Mean as custard. I note a couple of mission statement deletions, etc., you recently provided. I've seen your solid editing before, and know these were offered in good faith. I would challenge them though, as these points are factual and do not generally tend to excessive puffery or bloat. That said, I would firmly agree with you that some of these Greek Letter Organization pages indeed do have such peacock language. I too, police such body text often. I also cut sections of really long mission statements for the purpose of summary statements.

We ought not be haphazard in these. If you want to argue that omitting mission statements, vision, pillars, etc., should merit a change to our standard infobox template (and these, from the body text that generally informs the infoboxes), fine. Take it up as a discussion point on the template Talk page. Let's determine consensus first.

I've got a long list of pending edit work, but if this issue is a focus of your concern, maybe take a look at the websites for the Divine nine, many of which have lengthy, bloated text which detracts from the value of a more tightly written summary article. Or look at some of the 'captive' honor societies that are merely profit-making front groups. These are rife with peacock language. Fair? Jax MN (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

UNICOM edits

Hi, I have removed a number of items that may have read as advertising from this page that you placed a flag on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNICOM_Global. Please let me know if this is sufficient and if the flag can be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louv (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• "delivers software, services, and solutions to Fortune 500 and Global 2000 companies" is still marketing-speak. . .Mean as custard (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi -- I have changed that sentence to be inline with the introductory sentence of similar companies, IBM and HCL_Technologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louv (talk • contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Hi -- let me know if the note can be removed at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louv (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• It still contains multiple references to "solutions", which is a word found frequently in advertisements and rarely in unbiased encyclopedia articles. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi -- I just removed all such references to 'solutions' -- as you pointed out via the buzzword note -- thank you for doing that it made it easy to find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louv (talk • contribs) 13:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Please let me know if the "Contains content written like advertisement" flag can now be removed.