User talk:Meatsgains/Archive 6

Kyle Bass: Fund Performance

Greetings, given your experience in WikiProject Finance articles and your interest in hedge funds, I wanted to flag a potential issue on the Kyle Bass page. The entire Fund Performance subsection contains speculative information about the performance of Hayman Capital that is not accurate, verifiable or necessarily relevant to a BLP page. The NY Post article cited as a source does not meet the NPOV standard for a BLP page and it does not share a source for its information.

I have flagged this on the Talk page for Kyle Bass and the BLP noticeboard but wanted to reach out to you, as well, given your stature in the community.

My name is Steele and I work at Hayman Capital Management, L.P., which was founded by J. Kyle Bass in 2005. My goal is to serve as a resource in support of Wikipedia’s three core content policies. I will not be making edits, but rather participating in the community discussions. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP: Welcome! First I wanted to thank you for messaging me and I am happy to help out in any way I can to get these issues resolved. I'm glad to see you are following Wikipedia policy and involved in community discussion. I noticed that you have addressed problems on the article's talk page and the BLPN. If you can, please breakdown your concerns with the current version of Bass' page and I will address them one by one. I have a couple other page's and discussions I am currently working on but will begin on this issue as soon as I can. Look forward to hearing from you! Meatsgains (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Thank you for your note and for the welcome. I am happy to provide a breakdown of potential issues with the Kyle Bass Wikipedia page and look forward to working with you (and the rest of the community) to help address what is listed below.

I will respond to each of the points listed below however, if it takes me a few days to get back to you, please be patient as I am very busy. Meatsgains (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect source citation

• Ethics allegation (Barron’s source doesn’t contain this information, suggest removing): "Despite his early successes he has received criticisms for some of his investments both for their performance and for ethical reasons."

@Meatsgains: Hey there-- appreciate your help on the Kyle Bass page. I saw you added a variation of this back to the WP:LEAD section. I think it should be removed from the WP:LEAD section. I cannot tell if it is verifiable b/c source is behind a WP:PAYWALL. The statement lacks WP:NPOV. It reads with a negative tone and I'm afraid it is being given undue weight for a BLP page.

@Finbiz: I've restored the content you removed back to the lead section because the content can be verified in the source provided. Since it is behind a paywall, try googling the article titled,"Kyle Bass’ Comeback Plan: Oil, Argentina and Patents", and that should allow you to access the page. Rather then remove the accurate information entirely, how would you suggest we neutralize it? Meatsgains (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: How about this? "Given his early success in predicting the subprime mortgage crisis, his macroeconomic views and investment performance have received attention." I think you combine this sentence with the concept in sentence prior.

@Finbiz: The proposal you put forth is too vague. As noted above, the content is supported in the source provided so I don't see any reason to remove it or make any changes. Meatsgains (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: I believe it is not a balanced statement especially for a WP:LEAD and warrants further review or deletion. I am taking into account other HF manager BLP pages - Dan Loeb, Bill Ackman, John Paulson, etc. All of whom have received "criticism" for investment performance (both positive and negative) - why it is being given additional weight for Kyle Bass? For a BLP page, the statement reads as disparaging. I take your point of being "too vague"..I was trying to come up with something that was "disinterested" in tone. Do you have another idea?

@Finbiz: I disagree - "additional weight" is not given to Bass' investment performance. It is only one sentence. Wikipedia does not prohibit criticism in the lead section on a BLP. I'm open to alternatives though! Let me know what else you come up with. Meatsgains (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP: I don't see many reliable sources affirming the claim that he has "ethical issues", except maybe a few involving drug patent disputes, so I think we can get rid of that piece of the sentence. The other part seems to be well supported, so I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the issue of "fund performance". The direct quote from the Barron's piece is:

"Bass’ track record of identifying global imbalances and profiting from them catapulted the unflappable former bond salesman to stardom,” causing him to be “viewed...as a visionary who had a clear-headed plan for investing in a world where economies have been wildly distorted by artificially low interest rates,” Bass had “had a dismal time of it recently in the land of investment. Suddenly, the former luminary can’t seem to get anything right."

Is something like this preferable? Meatsgains (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP: I went ahead and removed the "ethical" allegation that was not supported in the source provided. Meatsgains (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Thanks for checking into this. To answer your question – no, there still appears to be a few inaccuracies.

First, "former bond salesman" is incorrect as he never worked in fixed income. A more accurate description would be “former finance executive”.

Second, the last quote is speculative because performance is not publically available and this statement assumes knowledge of Kyle’s entire investment outcomes. Additionally, the Barron’s article used as the source concedes that "it’s difficult to know exactly how Bass’ funds are doing…" and then further acknowledges it might be based on unsourced press report claims. Given the uncertainty created by contradictory statements from the same source, it would be best to remove the last portion of this edit. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP: To make things easier, rather than discussing my proposed version above (since I already removed the "ethics" portion from the page), what points of contention do you have with the following statement, which is how Bass' page currently reads after my edits:

Despite his early success in predicting subprime mortgages, he has received criticism for some of his investments for their performance.

The Barron's article does note that "it’s difficult to know exactly how Bass’ funds are doing" but Bass' investments have undoubtedly received criticism. Meatsgains (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: I agree with that approach and thank you again for addressing the ethics edit. I think a potential compromise could be to:

1) Balance the edits you proposed with the following based on what is contained in the Barron’s article referenced:

After his early success in predicting subprime mortgages, he has received some criticism for some of his investments for their performance, however it’s difficult to know exactly how Bass’ funds are doing.

2) Consider moving the sentence to the ‘Fund Performance’ section. Let me know what you think. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I know you are claiming the statement is "speculative" but we are to report what is covered in reliable sources. If the information published in the Barron's article is false, you should try and get it corrected there as soon as possible. Information like this tends to propagate if it isn't stopped at the source. Also, I think the information does belong in the WP:LEAD since it accurately summarizes his investments. Meatsgains (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Celgene statement (WSJ source doesn’t contain this information, suggest removing): “Celgene also told the patent office that the CFAD had threatened to challenge its patents unless Celgene paid CFAD an unspecified amount.”

@SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP: The WSJ article notes that Celgene emailed the patent office and alleged that CFAD "threatened" to challenge its patents unless it "met their demands". I don't agree with removing the statement but it certainly should be modified to better reflect the source. Below is the direct quote from the WSJ article:

"Celgene attorneys made this point in a June 3 email to the patent office. But there was more. They also alleged that his coalition threatened to challenge Celgene patents “unless Celgene met their demands.” Those demands weren’t specified, but the email states that “when Celgene did not pay,” the patent challenges were filed, according to the patent office order, which cited the email."

Here is what I think it could be changed to: Celgene also told the patent office that the CFAD "threatened" to challenge its patents unless Celgene "met their demands." Let me know what you think. Meatsgains (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: I think the issue with these edits are they are not substantiated by anything more than allegations. The WSJ article clearly states that the information is “alleged” and the source for the quotes are unsubstantiated accusations from the patent owner’s counsel (PDF). The allegations were never corroborated (PDF – Section III ) as evidence of that communication was never produced. Additionally, the allegations the patent owner claimed in a request for sanctions were summarily rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office when they denied Celgene's motion for sanctions. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The "allegations" are still noteworthy but we will need to accurately report them as such by giving in-text attribution. Again, rather than removing the information, what would you propose we change it to? Meatsgains (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: How about editing to the following?

Celgene also told the patent office, through counsel, that CFAD had threatened to challenge its patents unless Celgene met CFAD’s demands, however this statement was never substantiated with any documentation during the course of the USPTO PTAB proceedings. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That seems fair. Can you replace this source you provided above with another? It just takes me to the home page? Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've modified the content to reflect your suggestion. Feel free to provide me with another source for support though. Meatsgains (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: I think that is a good compromise. I also replaced the source you asked for. Thank you for taking the lead on this. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing another source! I went ahead and added it to the page. Meatsgains (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

No source/unverifiable source

• Subprime mortgages (non-verifiable source, suggest removing): “Bass admits that he was tipped off by an investment banker from New York City while both were attending a wedding in Spain.” There is no easily-verifiable copy of this interview and thus it should not be considered a source for a BLP page.

@SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP: The content is also supported in this article published by Financial Times. Unfortunately it is behind a WP:PAYWALL. Meatsgains (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Thank you for finding an alternate source. The phrase ‘’“admits that he was tipped off”‘’ is a misleading characterization of a discussion described in the letter. Per the FT source, Kyle describes a discussion he had with a senior executive of a brokerage firm about the workings of the subprime CDO market at the time. While a discussion took place (per the FT source), it is not an instance of being "tipped off" as the Wikipedia content states. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue "tipped off" is a neutral description however, I do understand your concerns. Perhaps we can rephrase "tipped off" to avoid misleading some readers to something along the lines of: "briefed", "notified", "warned", or "cautioned". Meatsgains (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: That sounds like a good approach. Perhaps this could work?

Bass first began formulating his subprime strategy after he met with an investment banker from New York while attending a wedding in Spain where they discussed how and why the Subprime Mezzanine CDO business existed. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP: I like the alternative you proposed - removing the term "tipped off" and neutralizing the content. I went ahead and made these changes here. Meatsgains (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I also added another source to support the information. Meatsgains (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Thank you for looking into this. I think this is a NPOV-friendly representation. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Challenging drug patents (no source, suggest removing): “His challenges drew criticism because he shorted the targeted companies before challenging their patents, thus bringing down their stock prices and making a quick profit.”

@Meatsgains: There is still no source attached to this claim. Suggest removing, but open to your thoughts. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The Barron's piece included in the section notes the following:

"Finally, Bass is courting controversy with a new investment tactic recently adopted by his fund. He teamed up with Erich Spangenberg, CEO of IPNav, to challenge what they argue are questionable patents held by pharmaceutical companies to stifle competition from the generic marketplace...Bass will not discuss this investment because it has become a hot-button issue in Washington, D.C. Members in both the House and the Senate are in the process of changing the law on patent challenges to exclude persons who actively short the target company’s shares."

The reference should be moved to support the statement but it is sourced. I don't see the information as controversial but maybe it can be neutralized? Meatsgains (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Challenging drug patents (no source, suggest removing): “Bass later admitted that his motive was indeed profit, but insisted that he was not alone in this.”

@SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP: The information is supported in this article by Bloomberg. Could you clarify what specific piece is unsourced? Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Thanks again for sourcing this - initially, there was no source attached to the claim. The Bloomberg source is not a direct quote and the information has been portrayed much differently in other publications, notably: The New York Times, Bloomberg and Reuters. Specifically, the NYT states: ‘’“Mr. Bass and Mr. Spangenberg say the coalition’s aim is to bring down drug prices that are kept artificially high by dubious patents.”’’ Given the discrepancy, I would suggest removing entirely. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

To abide by WP:NPOV, we are to report what is covered in reliable sources. The Bloomberg article confirms Bass admitted his "motive was indeed profit". To keep the article balanced, we need to provide both sides of the argument, which we do. In the paragraph above, it is noted that Bass initiated challenging pharmaceutical patents "to encourage competition in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and thus bring down prices." Meatsgains (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Understood, but given the New York Times piece contains a direct quote attributable to Kyle Bass and the Bloomberg piece does not, it seems as though the Bloomberg piece is given undue weight when discussing motives.

Additionally the phrasing of “claimed” vs. “admitted” between the motivations listed in the two paragraphs alludes to a nefarious motive that is in no way represented by any source. Furthermore, the chronological order is incorrect as the New York Times article was written three months (November) after the initial Bloomberg source (August). Logically, the statement does not make sense to say that he claimed A and then admitted B if B came before A. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The NYT piece you referenced opens by noting, "Now Mr. Bass is wagering against pharmaceutical companies that he says exploit the patent system, keeping drug prices - and their profits - in the stratosphere." Also, the Reuters article notes, "Kyle Bass has defended his investment strategy of challenging drug patents after criticism from a biotech company, saying he can do good for society and make a profit." Again, the first sentence of the Challenging drug patents section on Bass' page starts by stating "Bass founded the Coalition for Affordable Drugs (CFAD) in order to challenge pharmaceutical patents." We are not giving undue weight to his strategy to make a profit - we are simply reporting what is covered in reliable sources. Seems the issue here is over use of the term "admitted"? Meatsgains (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: I think that is a fair assessment of the situation. My concern is the phrase “Bass later admitted that his motive was indeed profit” misrepresents the situation, as evidenced by the sources you outlined. In the Reuters piece, Bass attributes both doing good and making a profit as the motives to his investment. Additionally, “later admitted” is not an accurate representation as, per the quotes from the sources you outline, doing good and making a profit were motives and it was never “later admitted” that profit was the sole goal.

Perhaps a version of this sentence could read: “As a fiduciary, profit was a motive for Bass, but he was not alone in this as the pharmaceutical companies targeted were also focused on profit.”

Let me know what you think. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP: I went ahead and neutralized the content to read:

Profit was a motive for Bass, but he insisted he was not alone in this as the pharmaceutical companies targeted were also focused on profit.

Let me know what you think! Meatsgains (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Self-published citation

• Japan (self-published source, suggest removing): “For several years, Bass has been predicting impending financial crisis for Japan, describing its approach to financing debt as a Ponzi scheme similar to Bernie Madoff's investment scam. Most experts have disagreed with his analysis.”

The ValueWalk article notes, "Bass compared Japan’s method of financing its debt to the massive ponzi scheme by Bernie Madoff". The article was written by Jacob Wolinsky, Editor in Chief of ValueWalk. Can you explain how you see this as a "self-published" source? This site is consistently used throughout Wikipedia and meets WP:RS. Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP relevance

• First sentence in bio and photo

Based on other HF manager BLP pages, consider revising the very first sentence to read: “J. Kyle Bass (born September 7, 1969) is an American hedge-fund manager. He is the founder and principal of Hayman Capital Management, LP, a Dallas-based hedge fund focused on global event-driven opportunities.” (source: SALT Conference Speaker Biographies, 2016)

WP:LEAD notes that the lead serves as "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". Are you suggesting we remove "Bass successfully predicted and benefited from the subprime mortgage crisis by purchasing credit default swaps on subprime securities issued by various investment banks" from the lead? I think by removing the content, we would not be summarizing the article's most important points. Meatsgains (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Completely agree that the 2008 subprime reference needs to be included. Does this make sense?

“J. Kyle Bass (born September 7, 1969) is an American hedge-fund manager. He is the founder and principal of Hayman Capital Management, LP, a Dallas-based hedge fund focused on global event-driven opportunities. In 2008, Bass successfully predicted and effectively bet against the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis by purchasing credit default swaps on subprime securities which, in turn, increased in value when the real estate bubble burst.” SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, I have uploaded https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J_Kyle_Bass.JPG to Wikimedia Commons. Feel free to update the page with this new image. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the image you uploaded has been removed. I suggest you read through Image use policy to upload a fair use image and I'd be more than happy to add it! Meatsgains (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. In compliance with Wikipedia's copyright and licensing image use policy, I have re-uploaded the image (that is my own work / have rights to) here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J_Kyle_Bass.JPG. I have posted the image to the Kyle Bass BLP page, but defer to you for any other suggestions. Thanks again. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• The entire Fund Performance subsection contains speculative information about the performance of Hayman Capital that is not accurate, verifiable or necessarily relevant to a BLP page about Kyle Bass. The NY Post article cited as a source does not meet the NPOV standard for a BLP page and it does not share a source for its information.

Considering the subsection on the hedge fund's performance is only five sentences long, it would not qualify for WP:UNDUE weight on a BLP. Are you suggesting we condense the section? Below is a breakdown of the information from the subsection with reliable sources I found for support.

"Hayman Capital earned 212% in 2007 by shorting subprime mortgages. In the next 8 years, the fund averaged 1.56% annualized." Institutional Investor

"Bass' Macro Opportunities Master Fund went down 32% in a single month, April 2012, by which time it had declined 61% in value since its founding in July 2010." Value Walk

"Hayman fell more than 6% in the first quarter of 2014." Wall Street Journal

Any specific reason why you think a brief mention of Hayman Capital's performance isn't relevant to Bass' page? Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I hope this list is helpful and I appreciate your help walking me through this process. Look forward to working together. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem! Like I said, I'm glad I can help. Also, I've broken the points listed above into subsections for ease of editing and discussing. We can now discuss content under each subsection. Hope you don't mind. Meatsgains (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I think breaking into subsections is a great idea. Let me know how I can further assist and, again, I look forward to working with you and the community. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Peg's Place

Hi Meatsgains,

I've removed the PROD you placed on the Peg's Place stub I created, but I'm certainly up for discussing whether this article is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. I've been researching LGBT history in San Francisco, and kept running across the incident mentioned in various books and essays, so thought it at least warranted a stub that others could fill in if they want. As per the references, it seems to be historically significant. --ABF99 (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@ABF99: Thanks for letting me know. Hope you don't mind me promoting the heading on this post. (Want to keep my talk page somewhat organized.) The reason I PROD'd the page is because of the page's current references, only one details the attack. The bar is only mentioned in passing in the books used as sources. I won't nominate the page for WP:AfD but can you find additional sources covering the bar, or more specifically the attack? I can't seem to find much out there but I'll continue searching. Meatsgains (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Thanks, I'll keep looking for better sources. --ABF99 (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

HLI tags

Hello. Can you please be more specific for the reasons for your tags on the Human Life International page so that those sections may be addressed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.97.145 (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to the article's talk page where I already explained the reasons the tags were added. Meatsgains (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Pentatonix Correction

Thanks a lot for fixing Kevin Olusola's wiki page! Some users on Kirstin Maldonado's forum were trying to be funny...without realizing how bad vandalism is... Simsnet (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem! I've got that page on my watchlist so it was easy to spot. Meatsgains (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC being ignored

Hello, you kindly weighed in on a previous RFC Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States#RFC_-_Antisemitic_incidents which I am trying to use as precedent for a similar issue on another page where I am meeting resistance and an apparent lack of engagement with the relevant wikipedia policies. It would be helpful if you could weigh in on the issue at Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France#Don't just list incidents. Thanks. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dan Eisenberg: I've responded on the talk page but I suggest opening up a new RfC to allow other uninvolved editors to weigh in the on the discussion. I'd also advise you remain civil. Meatsgains (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, which I have followed. I note in the previous RfC you suggested that I removed content prematurely. I did so based on WP:RFCEND, but perhaps was misinterpreting. After what degree of consensus do you generally find it appropriate to remove content which other editors on an RfC are agreeing should be removed? I considered requesting formal closure, but since the guide says "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable", I decided not to request closure. Of course if other editors had come through and an alternative consensus had emerged I assume we would have added the materials in question back in. Thank you. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

On your first RfC, I did not suggest for you to remove the content. What I said was, "Looks like the list was removed a bit prematurely without closure of the RfC." Let this new RfC play out before making any contentious edits. After 30 days, the RfC will close and consensus will determine whether the information will keep or be removed. Meatsgains (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Deprodding of Pydio

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Pydio, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. Hello, I objected to your proposed deletion of the article about Pydio, because I thought your concerns were not quite accurate. Pydio / AjaXplorer is often presented on the web as one of the major open source software for sharing & syncing files, equivalent to solutions such as Owncloud or Seafile in terms of adoption and free software community support (both having wikipedia articles). These software are often compared to one another on forums, in press articles etc... and are presented across the web as Dropbox or Google Drive alternatives for users concerned about hosting their data on private storages. I am fully aware though that the article might need improvements, and I am going to work on it again and try to improve its sources. I will be happy to get any advice, as I am quite new to the Wikipedia community. Regards. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

"These software are often compared to one another on forums, in press articles etc." - This is irrelevant. Forum discussions about the subject do not give the subject notability. Your addition of reliable sources however, was a good improvement to the page, which is why I will not nominate it for AfD. I'll try and cleanup the page a bit as well. Meatsgains (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Clay Blaker AfD

Since you were the nominator of the Clay Blaker AfD, and since all votes have been to keep, you could now close the discussion using the process detailed here under "Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal)." I would really appreciate it if you did so, as I'd like to nominate the article for the "Did you know" feature, which is time-limited, but I don't want to do this with deletion tags still on the page. I would do a non-administrative closure, but involved editors are not allowed to do this. Thanks for your help. ubiquity (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD discussions should run for seven full days. After 7 days, I'll close. Meatsgains (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, two days isn't going to kill me, but WP:CLOSEAFD says "The AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep reason #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion." You have changed your vote to keep, and there is no other discussion, so you could do this if you wanted to. Do you really anticipate there will be delete votes at this stage? ubiquity (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's just let it play out. You and I are the only ones who have participated in the discussion. Meatsgains (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Ice Bucket Challenge

Hi, now that August 2016 is finished, I've written a draft 2016 section for the Ice Bucket Challenge page. You can view it at Talk:Ice Bucket Challenge#Draft Section. Your continued input would be appreciated, please feel free to leave any feedback as you have already been doing. If I do not hear back from you by 8 September 2016 (a week from now) I shall assume you are fine with the draft and will add it to the article. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page. Thanks Meatsgains (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! 62.190.148.115 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

COI case against Dan Eisenberg

Good day, I have created the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Dan_Eisenberg case, of which you may be interested, since you were a participant in his RfC in the Antisemitism in the United States article. Please weigh your opinion in that COI case. Thank you! -- 178.121.228.214 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company

Back in June you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Thanks for the notification. I will not propose the article for deletion at this time. Meatsgains (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Connected Vehicle Technology

Given Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asarudeenm91 and the current sourcing, would you object to a PROD of this article? Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@L235: I attempted to add some references and improve the page but it seems the subject lacks notility so, no I would not oppose a PROD given the SPI. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Request

I received your message from my account. Basically I created this article because in order to create awareness about Kongupirati because she is is most important in vaishnavism . I think if this article is not deleted soon people start to contribute more as well as improve this article because there may be many contributors who will definitely contribute this article, we do our best to improve it, But within a particular shortage of time if this article is deleted there will no article as well as views. so can you please help us to edit or improving this particular article.This article will definetly be helpful in future too. Due to lack of views within short period we couldnt see any improvements.If the article is maintained and improved surely it will help and act as agood reference in near future. i have links

• https://kmkvaradhan.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/kongil-piratti-worships-swamy-ramanuja-padukas
• http://www.acharya.org/v/ThirukkolurammalVarththaigal/ThirukkolurammalVarththaigal-40.html
• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-fridayreview/his-respect-for-women/article8976358.ece These links gives authenticated and accurate information. please make changes but deletion is not the solution .Thankyou--Krishnapaduka (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Kongu piratti lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources which is why I PROD'd the page but since you removed it, I nominated the page for WP:AfD here. Also, this source is not reliable - it is a blog. Meatsgains (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: I Am... Sasha Fierce

Hi. You recently voted at this RfC. I had offered a compromise the day before with this edit, paraphrasing "generally lukewarm" to "generally mediocre", a characterization that isn't disputed by the majority of reviews for the album. Does this change your position at all? Dan56 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Why are you editing the content in question in the middle of an RfC? Meatsgains (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

because I'm trying to reach a compromise. It's ridiculous that something verified by several sources--1, 2, 3--is being challenged by one very stubborn editor--who does nothing but revert me and say "nope, still not good enough"--but I'm making an effort. Dan56 (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed my vote and struck through my initial comment on the RfC. Your compromise is fair. Meatsgains (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Input on Morgan Carroll

Hi, and thanks for fixing the bare URLs on Morgan Carroll. Since you recently edited the article, I'm wondering if you could weigh in on the article talk page. To give you some background, an intern on Carroll's campaign has disclosed a WP:COI and made some edit requests (they originally edited the article, and I rolled back their edits and asked them to only make edit requests from now on, which they've complied with). I've implemented some of the edit requests (the ones I found relatively innocuous, like election dates and results), but I'm more concerned about other edit requests that have been made regarding Carroll's sponsored legislation, endorsements, personal life, etc. Even if this information is sourced, it makes me uneasy that the campaign is directly requesting this. It just isn't feeling quite right and I'm not sure how to proceed. I would welcome your thoughts. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: Absolutely - I'll take a look and provide my two cents. Meatsgains (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Belated thanks for weighing in here. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Francisco J. Ricardo

Thank you for your help with page Francisco J. Ricardo! I don't know who this person is, he/she has no facts for this claim, but seems to hold a baseless grudge. How do we contact this person? Thanks!

@Adrie23: I've moved your post from my user page to my talk page. You can attempt to post on his/her talk page here but because the user has not created an account and is inexperienced, chances are they will not respond. I've watchlisted to page to keep an eye on it. Meatsgains (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I just made the attempt. I don't know how someone can edit without creating an account, but maybe I can resolve this. Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrie23 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mathers Pacific Capital

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mathers Pacific Capital requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Cite templates at Morse code

Why are you insisting on inserting auto-generated cite templates at Morse code again when they have already been reverted multiple times? They are overwriting human generated input, contain gross errors, and are losing important information. SpinningSpark 17:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: It's unintentional. I periodically go through the linkrot category and fix all pages, of which Morse code is included. My suggestion to you, since you consistently revert this activity, is to fix all the bare URLs and remove the tag so it is no longer included in the category. I can assure you that I won't be refilling this page but clearly I'm not the only one. Meatsgains (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any objection at all to fixing bare urls, but lack of a cite template is not equivalent to a bare url. All the ones that are causing problems are not bare, they have human added information, and in some cases it is being lost. Do you really think, for instance, that "Table of Contents" is a better page title than the human inserted "Communications-Electronics in the United States Navy"? That is not by any means the worst example. SpinningSpark 17:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

At no point did I ever suggest that a generated title is better than a human inserted title. I just use the refill tool and that's what it spits out. Meatsgains (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly my problem, you are using it to overwrite carefully considered human input. SpinningSpark 18:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm using it to fix the bare urls! Like I said, it was unintentional to replace human input. Meatsgains (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You are not

• <ref>[http://earlyradiohistory.us/1963hw.htm History of Communications-Electronics in the United States Navy]</ref> is not a bare url. Bare urls are ones that have only the url in the ref. Furthermore it gives the correct article title while you change gives the utterly stupid "Table of contents" as the title.
• <ref>[http://www.k2tqn.com/ 100 Years ago this airship sailed from Atlantic City]. Article is no longer on the page, from the page archives it appears the information was taken from [http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/10080192 this video]</ref> is not a bare url. Again, your change lost the correct title of the original page. It also lost the url of the original page, and it lost the explanation of the status of the new link, all of which is important information for anyone trying to fix the deadlink.

There were several other similar errors. Moreover, by inserting cite templates where there were none before is changing the citation style of the page, which is contrary to the guidelines at WP:CITEVAR. It is not an acceptable excuse to say that that is what the tool "spits out". You are required to take responsibility for the results of any tool you use. If the tool is not producing sensible results then you should not use it in that particular situation. SpinningSpark 06:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Tom Brady

Thank you for your edit at Tom Brady's article. Unfortunately, your edit, and my information, have been removed. With that information removed the very first mention of Deflategate in Brady's article is after the 65th paragraph. That appears to not comply with WP:LEAD "It [the lead] should ... explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Please see the Talk page for Tom Brady. Thanks again for your edit. Jerry Stockton (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up but after looking into more, information covering deflategate probably shouldn't be included in the lead. Meatsgains (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be greatly appreciated if you would explain to me why you don't believe Deflategate belongs in the lead section. It appears to me that WP:LEAD clearly states that prominent controversies belong in the lead section. Deflategate has been a major sports controversy for the last 20 months and Brady is at the very center of that controversy. I don't understand why you think this does not belong in Brady's lead section. Would you please explain your reasoning to me so I can better understand your decision? Thank you. Jerry Stockton (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello Meatsgains, I appreciate your contributions to Gina Cephas, But the article is being nominated due to it fails WP:GNG and it is notable or verifiable.--Historical Ben (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Historical Ben: I know that. Doesn't mean it cannot be improved during the AfD discussion. Meatsgains (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes it can be improved but the AFD cannot be closed unless the issue, raised to the AFD is solved thanks, Happy editing.--Historical Ben (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Historical Ben: I'm not sure where you are going with this. Either way, I've voted to delete the page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Joe Heck

If you have the time, your input would be welcome at Joe Heck. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: Will do. I'll take a stab at it. Meatsgains (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me that you were WP:CANVASSed to Joe Heck by a WP:SPA who's working for the Republican cause. In this case, did you read my edit comment? The author of that piece is a WP:NOTABLE legal scholar speaking in an area related to her notability and expertise. This is a valid RS for this statement, and in my opinion your revert, repeating the same claim that was offered by the SPA's revert (and which my edit comment acknowledges and refutes) was unfortunate. Please have a look and consider undoing your reinsertion. We're not talking about a subjective opinion of a non-notable non-qualified blogger or the like here. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did read your edit summary. A secondary source is required for such a controversial statement - not a blog published in the Washington Post. Just find another source and then you can restore the content. Take this discussion to the article's talk page. Also, quit WIKIHOUNDING. Meatsgains (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

You may respond to my editorial comment concerning this source. You may not falsely accuse me of hounding you. I suggest you read the page on that subject. I am concerned about the quality of your edits. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You may respond to my activity on Joe Heck at the talk page. You may not call into question the quality of my edits. Again, please take this to the article's talk page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Help the article

Hello Meatsgains, Can you improve the article Black Magic (musician). Promotional tune need to be fixed.--Historical Ben (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Historical Ben: I've gone through and removed a significant amount of promotional content from the page. Additional sources need to be added to establish notability and verify the page's content. Meatsgains (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joe Clark

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joe Clark. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

NFL

Hello. I'd appreciate some help. Illusion87 has been adding biased information in the articles about Stan Kroenke and National Football League controversies violating Wikipedia policies of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE AND WP:NOR. It's becoming an annoying WP:EDITWAR and while some random users and IPs are working on maintaining WP:NPOV, this user is re-adding the useless content more than once and I'm starting to be afraid of using a WP:Noticeboard. I'd like to consult it with so kind of expert in the topic, but probably I'd have to use a WP:RFC. Thanks for your time. Leo Bonilla (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla: From what I can tell, the contentious material has been removed from both pages. I'd be happy to help if you could note the edits/information in question. Meatsgains (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright. The content in question is showed here, here and here. My concern is about the user not using secondary sources and stating supposed NFL actions without even sourcing. The user seems to stay out of those pages but can come back and I wanna do the right thing when that happens. Thanks for your interest. Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain the issues you are having with these pages in greater detail because I'm quite confused. The edits you linked, as I requested, are not from Illusion87 as you claimed. Meatsgains (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Tag on Joe Heck

A tag was recently added to the bio on Joe Heck, but no evidence or support for the tag was provided. This article indicates that such tags can be removed. I'd like your opinion on the matter since you've edited the article and have more experience here than I have. Thank you.BringthePaine (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I've posted on the article's talk page asking for input for why the tag was added in the first place. Meatsgains (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of ValueWalk for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ValueWalk 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/ValueWalk 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 notice from the top of the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Meatsgains,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Meatsgains. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Meatsgains. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A7 for List of .io Games

Hello Meatsgains -- I deleted this as a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD but it would not have been eligible under the A7 criteria -- products (or lists of products) are not covered. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: Thank you for the note! Still trying to familiarize myself with speedy deletion criteria. Meatsgains (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)