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)