User talk:Meatsgains/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

McGraw-Edison

I see you removed line breaks in this article. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Line breaks at end of sentences. This makes it harder for someone with my handicaps to edit. There is no saving in the amount of space taken since both the old and new versions are stored. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't know there was a reason for creating the line breaks. I just thought it was an error on the user's behalf. I probably should have asked or done some research before getting rid of them. Well at least now I know. Sorry about that! Meatsgains (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Russell Wilson self-published tag

Hi there, I am a frequent editor of Russell Wilson and noticed you added a self-published source tag. Just wondering which references are questionable. Thanks! aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 20:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, according to WP:SPS self-publsihing media is not an acceptable reference. I added the tag to this page specifically because the page frequently used Twitter along with Instagram as sources. Below are the references I found that fall under self-published.

• 77. "Twitter / DangeRussWilson: Just finished a shoot with". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2013-01-19.
• 80. "Instagram". Instagram. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
• 82. "Twitter / ESPNMag: Are you ready for some football?". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
• 83. "Twitter / SIKids: @DangeRussWilson We're pumped". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
• 86. "Twitter / DangeRussWilson: For dog lovers... We have a". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2013-01-19.
• 92. "Twitter / RWPassAcademy: The @RWPassAcademy Tours 5". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2013-01-19.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Meatsgains (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Text in Abortion

Hi there. There are ongoing issues with keeping the article on abortion as a summary article on the subject with a global perspective. You added some well-researched, but I think overly detailed and US-specific, text to the article which I have for now removed. You might want to consider placing it in Abortion in the United States, and I have also opened a thread on the talk page if you want to chip in there. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone, thank you for taking the time to post on my talk page about the issue at hand. I understand fully your reasoning for removing my text. I should have known to add the information to a more specific page. That was my mistake for including that information on the summary article of abortion, which should only include a global perspective not just research from the US. I will go ahead and try to add the content where it belongs, on the Abortion in the United States page. Thanks again and happy editing! Meatsgains (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello...May I know why are you so interested in editing the Kamasutra 3D page with all wrong informations? Would be good if you don't edit it further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpplsritama (talk • contribs) 07:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rpplsritama: First off, when posting to someone's talk page you need to go to the bottom of the page and start a new section on the topic you would like to discuss, see wp:talk. I am interested in not only improving Kamasutra 3D but rather all articles on Wikipedia. I work towards adding content, removing promotional tone, removing POV claims, fixing typos, etc. on all articles and do not have any specific areas of focus. I would like to know what information you believe I have edited on the page of Kamasutra 3D that you see as "wrong." I will continue to edit the page, along with any others I see fit, to improve so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and standards.

After reviewing your edit history it is clear that the article Kamasutra 3D is the only page you edit. Is advertising the film your motive behind editing the page? It comes as no surprise you may be in violation of wp:spam. Meatsgains (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Meatsgains,

I am the Creative Head of RPPL and the Associate Director of Kamasutra 3D. I exactly know how and what details to be added on our page. And unlike few others, I prefer editing my page only as my interest lies in promoting our movie than edit other pages.

So, it's a request to you to not create any further edits on our page and let it go the way we want it.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpplsritama (talk • contribs) 09:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rpplsritama:, I have no doubts that you know the details behind Kamasutra 3D considering you are the associate director. However, Wikipedia is not the place to "promote" your film. Any promotional edits you make to the page will be reverted. All pages (including yours) need to be unbiased and from a neutral point of view, see WP:POV. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk page rambler

Hi there, I saw your comments here. To address your confusion, there is a user operating from IPs in Olive Hill, Kentucky and Morehead, Kentucky who goes around to various articles and adds weird lists, has conversations with his/herself, and makes up completely incoherent scenarios between various cartoon characters, etc. It's possible he/she is using Wikipedia for therapy. Here is the sock investigation. Other examples of what to look for here and here. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Wow that is bizarre haha... I've never seen editing of such sort nor have I seen a user behave that way before. It's quite strange to say the least. Anyways, thanks for filling me in. I'll try and keep my eye out for future edits performed by that user; I'm sure they will be easy to spot out haha. Thanks again and happy editing! Meatsgains (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete Nature

Yes, is is an ongoing project. I also added a stub for the term ententional in the book which is now scheduled for deletion due to neologism rules I was unaware of. Im adding an additional definition from a secondary source, a blog, but I'm not sure if this is sufficient. Could you check on it? Thanks Maximusthaler (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Maximusthaler: I would definitely suggest adding more sources. The only source you have right now is the book itself, which unfortunately is not enough. If you cannot find other reliable sources on Incomplete Nature, then the subject's notability may be questionable. I would stay away from using blogs as a source because they do not always reflect accurate information and typically include opinions of others without having any support or legitimacy. Feel free to check in with me before adding in your new sources or if you have any questions about anything. I'll gladly try and help out as much as I can. Happy Editing! Meatsgains (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Elliott Management

Hi Meatsgains,

Just wanted to follow up on here. Below are links to two more recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and CNBC that cite Elliott's AUM at or above $23 billion. I made the appropriate changes on the page with a complete citation as well. Also, Elliott was listed as an investment bank in its summary box when it is actually a hedge fund and provides no investment banking services. However, I forgot to update the AUM's date from 2013-2014 since the $23 billion is as of this year but feel free to do so if you please. Hope this helps clarify my edits.

• http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303874504579372923716382850

• http://www.cnbc.com/id/101399803

Thanks! PeleV10 (talk)

Okay great, that was a good find. I went ahead and changed the AUM's date in the infobox from (2013) to (2013-2014). Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Kamasutra 3D

I completely agree with you that Ruby murray is a well known and good editor. But she completely deleted the crew list which is not justified. I 'm open for a discussion on that.. No one can remove any information which is adding to the page .. removing some part of it make sense but removing complete list doesn't. See i am new here but have lots of experience with Indian movies. So don't take some pages personaly and in future i need to report the same. I am going ahead and putting up the crew list .. if you feel like u can edit the same but please don't remove it completely Vaibhav.times (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vaibhav.times: I'd be happy to discuss this issue with you. The 'Crew' list on Kamasutra 3D does not belong. First off, it doesn't include sources from which the information was pulled from. Second, because there are no sources to support it, it lacks legitimacy.

User Ruby Murray was completely justified in removing the 'Crew' list and she, along with anyone else, is allowed to remove information from a page if it does not meet Wikipedia's policies and standards.

Below is a list of the top 10 Bollywood films of 2014. Not one of the pages from that list below includes a 'Crew' section. So tell me, why does Kamasutra 3D need one? Feel free to find me an Indian Film page on Wikipedia that includes a 'Crew' section.

• Jai Ho (film)
• Gunday
• Yaariyan (2014 film)
• Dedh Ishqiya
• Hasee Toh Phasee
• Sholay
• Mr Joe B. Carvalho
• One by Two
• Karle Pyaar Karle
• Miss Lovely

Let me know what you think. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Need justification for reverting my edit

Dear Meangains,

I noticed that you have altered my edit in the movie Gunday. I want to know why you referred the officialy verified facebook page as unreliable source.

Thanks, Godhulii 1985 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Godhulii 1985: the reason I reverted your last edit on Gunday's page is because you used facebook (a self-publishing source) as a reference to cite your claim. I'm not doubting the truth behind what you added but its lacks reliable support, see WP:SPS. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Meatsgains, first my apology for addressing your name wrongly in previous entry. My justification for considering the facebook entry as reliable can be represent in this trail:

• The producer of this film is Yash Raj Films
  • > This is their official website: http://www.yashrajfilms.com/
    • >> At the bottom, find their official facebook page url
      • >>> Check out this entry from that official facebook page
        • >>>> Since this page do not belong to any individual, rather represent the official page of Yash Raj Films (you can check the verified icon also), so I consider this as reliable source.

Thanks, Godhulii 1985 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries in regards to the username–its a simple mistake.

You have presented a reasonable argument. Feel free to "revert" my "revert" to add your content back in. The source does seem reliable in this case. Happy editing! Meatsgains (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ogasawara Shōsai

I'm not really sure if he is notable or not. I'm thinking that ja:小笠原秀清 is the Japanese Wikipedia article for him based on using Google Translate, but Google Translate doesn't do a very good job of translating Japanese. My guess is that he is probably notable since people know about him 400 years after his death, but I'm not really sure. Probably someone who can read Japanese could determine better whether the article should be kept (I can't read Japanese at all). Calathan (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Calathan: I suppose you are right in saying he is notable considering he is still being talked about 400 years after his death. I can't read Japanese either so I will go ahead and just let the article be. Hopefully someone who knows more about the subject can work to expand it and add more references. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Optic Nerve: Bullshit sources

On your edit here: [1], you added sources like USA Today, and Fox News for facts which are only available in the secret leaked documents. However, as far as I am aware, at least USA Today and Fox News do not have access to the secret documents, so any claims in those article are based on The Guardian's reporting. It is therefore bullshit sourcing to add those as extra sources - they do not add any more authority to the claims than just citing the guardian alone, and adding them as sources for extra authority is actively misleading the reader. As far as I am concerned, the main claims in that story should only cite The Guardian. Thue (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Thue: What damage is being done having more sources to back up these claims? The sources I provided support The Guardian's reporting. How is it misleading the reader when the reader can easily access the references and read the article themselves? I will go through and remove the USA Today and Fox News references as per WP:CITEKILL. However, I will keep the reference to Reuters. I do not think having an additional citation for these claims is "bullshit" sourcing or in anyway harming the article. Let me know if you are opposed. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The extra sources you added does not back up the claim - they merely copied the information from the Guardian. Copied information without the ability to factcheck it does not back up any claims, and damages the article by actively misleading the reader to think there are more diverse sources than there really is. Misleading readers is clearly harmful. IMO only organizations which have access to the documents should be used as backup sources for statements from the documents, since they can actually verify it independently. See Snowden_leaks#Publication for an incomplete list of organizations with access to the sources - I don't think Reuters have access to the documents, and they are not on the list, so they should be removed IMO. Adding fx the New York Times version of the story as a source instead would actually make sense. Thue (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I originally added the sources in to provide a more diverse selection of sources to back up the claims. I will remove the Reuters reference and replace it with The New York Times article you have posted. This seems like a much more accurate and reliable source to use. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Martina Colombari

Hello, Meatsgains. You have new messages at Talk:Martina Colombari.
Message added 00:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Copyright violation

Hello. I removed this material that you added to Sharyl Attkisson, because it's a clear copyright violation. Your text appears to have been copied nearly verbatim from the cited source. The topic of Attkisson's resignation is clearly a notable part of her biography, but it needs to be covered in a way that avoids copyright violations. Please take a look at the site policy on the subject. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@MastCell: Okay I understand. Most of the sources addressing her resignation made very similar statements so I went ahead and added in the shared content. I'll make sure to not let that happen again though. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries. It happens. I left the references you cited in the article, so if you'd like to take a shot at re-wording, go for it (or I may try later on when I have more time). MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Francisco J. Ricardo

Hi!I have been provided with references to his publications, but have had no time to make the edits. I just needed to know where his scholarly publications were to add them, and they will be added later this week. Nothing I have written or put in an external link is incorrect, so there really is no need to delete without giving me more time - thank you! Adrie23 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Adrie23: The BLP PROD I tagged onto Francisco J. Ricardo's page was added because according to Wikipedia's policy, see WP:BLPPROD, the page is a biography of a living person which requires references to support the claims you are making. Once, you add in references correctly, feel free to remove the tag. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

My first WikiBeer :) aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 14:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing 10Bet page

Hi and thanks a lot for editing the 10Bet page You mentioned that the page appears to be written like an advertisement and i wanted to ask what can i do in order to present it more naturally.(similar to Bet365 for example). Thanks again for your time and please let me know . Ran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ransbtech (talk • contribs) 12:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ransbtech: I improved the quality of the page so that it reads less like an advertisement. User Deb added the "reads like an advertisement" tag, not me. In my edit summary I noted that I "removed unsourced promotional content". The statement I removed claimed that 10Bet was "the major betting company in Europe." That is a bold claim to make without a reliable source to back it up, wouldn't you agree? In order for the advert tag to be removed, I think the article should include more information about what 10Bet is from a neutral point of view (see WP:POV) rather than all the awards and accolades it has received. Let me know once you make some more changes to the page and I will gladly review it again. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Thanks Meatsgains and yes I agree that the point about the position in the industry could have done with a stronger reference so I agree (and thank you) with the removal and the other work you did. I'll see what I can come up with and be in touch. Best, Ransbtech.

@Ransbtech: I'll make sure to check on the page frequently to see if any progress is made. Let me know if you have anymore questions. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Lee S Jablin - I am having trouble understanding how to edit the article so that it doesn't sound like an advertisement.

Hi Meatsgains,

In reference to your edits of Lee S Jablin on Feb 20, 2014:

You placed a banner at the top of the article that states that the article sounds like an advertisement. I would like to comply so that it no longer does. I did a considerable amount of reading about "neutral point of view" and "external links", including the examples page, and I am having a great deal of trouble understanding how to go about fixing it.

The first couple of sentences could easily be edited -- would that be acceptable, or are there other places I should look at?

Also, there is only one external link, the link to hjarchitects.net. I've seen lots of pages that have official websites for people and organizations -- are you saying that the link should be removed? It's there to show the work that the subject of the article has done, and it seems relevant in a non-commercial way. It seems to me that people who want to know about Lee S Jablin would want to see the architectural work that he has done. Am I wrong?

As I said, I want to comply with the rules, and I am hoping that you could help me to understand what you're expecting of me. I spent a great deal of time when I wrote the article for it not to sound like an advertisement, but a concise description of Lee S Jablin and his volume of work.

Thank you, Tordeforest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tordeforest (talk • contribs) 00:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tordeforest: I was not the user who added the "article read like an advertisement" tag, however I will be glad to help you as much as I can. User Nikkimaria added the tag four days prior to my editing of the page. I performed two edits to the page. My first edit removed the overwhelming list of publications Lee Jablin was published in. The list was unsourced and does not belong on the page. The second edit I made divided the reference list into two columns so it was not so long. The division of references is much more visually appealing. Now, to remove the tag... you are going to need to remove the promotional tone and peacock words throughout the article, see WP:PEACOCK and WP:SOAP. The article must be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should read like one. I will go through the article and remove much of what I think reads like an advertisement. Once you do the same, I will move forward with removing the advert tag. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, there is no issue with the external link on the page–that is not a problem. Meatsgains (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nela Vitosevic

The article Nela Vitosevic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No allegation of notability; all sources are in Cyrilic and work does not appear to be notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bearian: I would support this article's deletion. Doesn't seem notable and most of the references direct you to a Cyrilic Wikipedia page. Meatsgains (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Jump style

I would like to get the history of Jumpstyle correct. I personally was involved as well as 4-5 of my close friends. We all invented this dance style way before someone claimed it to be a European dance. It came from the late 80's early 90's as techno started to be common in alternative clubs In the New York area I even have old VHS tapes of us dancing "jump Style" in 1990. Back then we called it "techno dancing" but the moves were exactly the same as what can be seen as present day Jump style.

Emitdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emitdf (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Emitdf: Not to say I don't believe you but if you don't have a reliable source to support your claims, then the pre-existing content with a reliable source must keep. (see WP:RELIABLE). Feel free to add your content back to the Jump style page once you have provided a source. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Meatsgains:

How is the 1997 Belgum info/history validated without video for evidence. That's just some person seeing jumpstyle and talking about it. I will try to dig up video reference from my parents attic, but that was over 20 years ago. Any other evidence it not available because this was per internet. Just image a 42 year old man explaining to his wife "that's our dance" I had to jump around our kitchen to prove it. Her jaw hit the floor in amazement as I did the exact jump style moves 24 years later.

@Emitdf: From what I can see, the source used to support the claim that "Jump style originated in Belgium" is reliable. We may need more sources to confirm its truth. Not sure if a video is required for evidence. You can bring this issue to the article's talk page to get other user's opinions. That may be of some help to reach a general consensus. I still stand by my original edit though–until you pride a reliable source, the content keeps. I hope this helps a bit. By the way, I'd like to see your dance videos haha. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Eric Chiryoku

FYI - The PROD was disputed, so the article was restored.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I don't oppose. Thanks for letting me know. Meatsgains (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

User "UserNameUnderConstruction" editing the AdvisorShares page needs to blocked

For the Advisorshares article, this user keeps writing advertorial content and seem to be related to the company. This user seems to be the same person as a previous user who was blocked because the had the user name "AdvisorShares". Before that they didn't use a user name and the ip address traced back to the town in Maryland where AdvisorShares is located. It seems more than likely that this person works for the company, is trying to make their page into a biased free advertisement and is not disclosing this, in violation of Wikipedia's rules and procedures. ETFeditor 17:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Prose tag in Daniel Lavoie

Hello, I see that you added a Prose tag to the article Daniel Lavoie. It says "The article is in a list format". Is it? The Discography, Filmography, Musical Theater and Awards are, in accordance with the "Lists of works and timelines" section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. The biography sections are in prose. Am I mistaken? Please advise. Thank you in advance. Paroles2000 (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Paroles2000: After looking back at the page, the lists are adequate for their associated sections. I first scanned the page and tagged it with prose because as I scrolled through, I saw overwhelming lists. However, the lists deserve to keep. I am okay with the removal of the prose tag but let's add in "prose analysis", see WP:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. Lists of works of individuals or groups, such as bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, album personnel and track listings, as well as timelines or chronologies, are typically presented in simple list format, though it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Meatsgains. It appears to me that the whole article is basically the prose analysis of the lists - the career of the singer is a sequence of albums, songs, roles, and awards. However I might be wrong. Please let me know which aspects of the lists need more analysis. Thank you in advance. Paroles2000 (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Paroles2000: I went ahead and removed the prose tag. It doesn't belong on the page. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Paroles2000 (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Prose tag in Adolph "Fito" Kahn

Hello Meatgains, Thanks for the tip on changing the eduction section to Prose. I have done that. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. Do I remove the edit or will you? Arkiii (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Arkiii: Not a problem! I went ahead and removed the prose the tag. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I also removed the unreviewed tag and made some minor edits to the page to improve format and errors. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any issues with my changes. Meatsgains (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Jay Obernolte

The reason I did that was because there was nobody else (actually nothing else!) listed under that category and it seemed to be a blanket category for more in-depth groupings. We can return the categorization if you think it is an appropriate category for him.--Guiletheme (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Guiletheme: In that case, I see no reason for the category to be added back to the page, or even exist if there are no other pages under it. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Infowards

We'd never use this website as a source for Bilderberg related material (or for much else other than itself). I'm sure it's been discussed on the talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: After researching the source, I agree Infowars is far from being reliable. I began updating the list and there are a number of participants not included. I only added a few, but the ones I did add are cited on Bilderberg's webpage. If I have the time, I will begin updating the list using the source provided as my reference. Thanks for the input! Meatsgains (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for your response. I doubt there's any editor that hasn't at one time added a source that doesn't meet WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Courage64

Hello Meatsgains, thank you for your help, tell me what I do wrong?

Warms Regards, Courage 64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courage64 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Courage64: While I assume your edits are of good faith, your recent additions to Shuddhananda Bharati's page read far too promotional, see WP:PEACOCK and were unsourced, see WP:VERIFIABILITY. Feel free to add the content back to the page after you remove the puffery and provide some reliable sources. Let me know if you have any questions! Thanks, Meatsgains (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank for your reply, what is for you the puffery and reliable sources ? Are you thinking what is write is wrong? Please help to make good arrangement for this, thank you, warms regards, Courage64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courage64 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Courage64: The content you added violates three Wikipedia policies:

1.) Use of peacock words; see WP:PEACOCK which states that peacock words are "often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance."

2.) Failing to provide reliable sources; see WP:RELIABLE which states, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

3.) Content is written with a clear point of view; see WP:NPOV, which states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

I know your edits are of good faith and it was not your intention to write with POV, nor am I doubting the truth behind the information, but you need to provide a citation from where you got it all and cut out all the unnecessary promotional adjectives. I hope this helps. Meatsgains (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Meatsgains, thank you for the reply, I will try to do my best. I'am Christian Piaget alias Christiananda Bharati, and not necessary to have doubt about what is writing. Shuddhananda Bharati was a great teacher and I'am his successor. I got all this information from the website www.christianpiaget.ch or shuddhanandabharati.org. Just I will tell you a must thank you if you help me a little. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courage64 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Meatsgains, thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courage64 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Energoinvest

Dear Meangains,

I noticed that you have altered my edit about the company Energoinvest. I want to know why you referred the officialy verified web site page as unreliable source and far too promotional.I mean, i am trying only to file some more information about the company in the existing article and not to advertise it. If the nature of information is a problem, i will let you know that i can`t do any better, because only information that i get are those from their official website. Without those information's the article is quite empty.

I´am trying to do something like this article, then why is this a problem ? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom This is their official website: http://www.energoinvest.ba/

With all good wishes,

Thanks, Godhulii 1985 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Your recent editing history at Paul Singer (businessman) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If you persist in that "derogatory" edit without first gaining consensus on the talk page, I'll report you for edit-warring. Edit-warring is not restricted to violations of 3RR, and you've tried it on enough times to be well over the line even if you haven't broken 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus has not been met with the current version either. I'm a bit confused. Meatsgains (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a close look at WP:CONSENSUS. What you need for that edit is consensus for changes. You tried to do this edit the first time on 18 July; prior to this the lead was what it was. You can't come along and take the view that because you want a change there is therefore no consensus for the existing version and so you are entitled to do what you like. The policy on consensus requires consensus for the change you are trying to implement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Reversion

I have restored my edit. If you want to discuss its relevance, do so on the article's talk page.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I also posted on the article's talk page. I will respond there. Meatsgains (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Fort Worth skyline pic

Is there a reason you restored this poorly cropped and dull picture that I tried to remove from the Fort Worth page? It is a very poor quality picture compared to the other pictures on the Fort Worth page.

Fort Worth skyline from the Amon Carter Museum

Also, is there something wrong with the words "In addition?" You said something about a weasel word, but it doesn't fit in with Wikipedia's idea of a weasel word.

Thanks, Dylan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strange Texan (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I need to put in a signature. Strange Texan (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The picture is less than flattering, I'll admit that, but it still deserves to be on the page. Not every picture is held up to the highest standards. We have to use what we got and the picture does no harm being included into the page.

To follow up with my multiple removals of "In addition"- this prefix to the sentence does not need to be included. I removed it because it sounded promotional and unencyclopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ice Bucket Challenge isn't a trend?

Hey, thanks for your edits to Ice Bucket Challenge. I have a question about one of them—why did you remove the page from the category Category:2010s fads and trends in this edit? Isn't the Ice Bucket Challenge a fad/trend? —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed the category because the Ice Bucket Challenge is not a fad/trend from 2010. It started in the summer of 2014. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Right—the "2010s" in the category name refers to the entire decade starting with 2010. With that in mind, I suggest that the category should be re-added. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I'll add it back to the page. Meatsgains (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Grant Farred‎

I left some questions for you. Please take a look. Nigel Pap (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5