User talk:Mean as custard/Archive 4

I am currently editing the Acrylicize page to update facts that are now out-of-date.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]