User talk:Meters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please add new topics to the bottom of the page, and sign your posts. You can use the "New section" button above to start a new topic at the bottom of the page.


Users and articles to keep track of[edit]


sorry i am disabled and all i do is ediot wikipedia =( — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Fake information, racist comments, and dubious unsourced nicknames will get you warned and eventually blocked. Meters (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Dave Winer[edit]

No one deleted anything that was true. I even provided proof that anything I deleted was untrue. EdJonston and others on that page simply can not handle anyone including things that don't flatter Dave Winer. Its rediculous to have people who personally know him editing negative comments out of the page. Their methods threaten Wikipedia's credibility.--Irelan12(talk)

I was discussing your Talk page behaviour, not article content. I suggest you read bad practice. You inserted your comment into the middle of someone's Talk page posting on Talk:Dave Winer. You didn't date your Talk page posting (there or here)using four tildes. And you started this thread at the top of my Talk page instead of at the bottom. Meters (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I instered my comment in the middle of my own talk page posting. Also, I apologize if you wanted this at the bottom of your page. Irelan12(talk)

No apology necessary... my talk page isn't so big that I didn't see your comment, so it wasn't a big deal. On a large, busy page a misplaced addition might not get seen at all, so it's to your own advantage not to start a new topics anywhere but the expected place, particularly if you don't date them.
As for your addition to Talk:Dave Winer, I apologize. I thought that you had added a comment in the middle of an IP's entry from 6 months ago but I was wrong. You made two entries today above the IP's entry. It's not a good idea (particularly if you don't date your post) since it makes it look like the post from 6 months ago is a response to your new post, but nowhere near as serious as I thought. You say that you also made the orignal IP entry. I have no reason not to believe you, but there is no way I or anyone else could have known that. If you want to extend your commants from a different IP or user account, just mention that you're the same user, but keep the additions after the original ones. Meters (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


User talk:Meters

Please read my comment in the talk section of Roxboro,_Quebec. Your link to the french site does not work.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

fixed Meters (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

List of culinary vegetables[edit]

Hi, thanks for the note! Since the vandal seems to be hopping IPs, I think it may be more efficacious to simply semiprotect the page. I have done so for one month. Let me know if you run into any further problems. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Meters (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you think additional blocks would be necessary? It seems this user's page blanking is focused, for whatever reason, on just that article. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I suspect it will be required eventually. Someone took the trouble to write a polite, lengthy explanation of why the material should be included, and the IP's response was "Oh Blah Blah i don't care." followed by another blanking, a 3 week block (I might have the order wrong), and then continued blanking with a block evasion. It doesn't bode well for future good behaviour. I thought the block evasion warranted an automatic extension of the original block and a block on the new IP, but since it seems to be just this one article the semi-protection should work. Semi-protecting the article to stop one person on (so far) only 2 IPs seems disruptive to other IPs. I bow to your experience... do what you think best and I'l keep an eye on the Ips and the article. Meters (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that on (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). No idea what this person's issue is, but that's often the way with vandals. I suppose we can block IPs as it becomes necessary. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese Legion[edit]

Hello. I changed the article in accordange to what Portuguese sources say about the matter. While my initial edition was the result of a confusion, my second one - a correction - was merely in order to put it according to what souces say about the question, and I quote: "From a grand total of 9000, as much as half deffected and came back to portugal in order to join the Portuguese resistance". -- (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. It looked suspicious but I wasn't sure. Thanks for clearing it up. You should probably add a citation for source you used. Meters (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Tommy Hoiland[edit]

did u change the stuff that was right? i mean if your gonna be no fun by all means remove the crap i posted, but i and several others did update his stats and where he currently plays along with current caps — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As I clearly said in my edit summaries, there was so much vandalism I couldn't tell if any of it was real or not. I gave you the benefit of the doubt with the first set of edits, but you kept adding garbage. Don't blame me. Oh, and if you're not going to bother signing your posts on my talk page, then stay off it. Meters (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

please stop using the word vandalism, i know you probably feel like a real big man talking that way, but seriously learn to take a joke, you neckbeard — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like the word "vandalism" then stop doing it. This [1], this [2], and this [3] are your recent edits to Tommy Høiland that are definitely vandalism.
You ignored me when I said not to leave anonymous posts on my Talk page, and you ignored a bot warning (not my doing) on your Talk page to sign your posts on others Talk pages, so don't post anything on my Talk page at all. Insulting me is a personal attack and is not allowed. Meters (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Who are we hurting hear? the guy said it was funny what we were doing, not to mention he plays for some second tier norweigan club, so tell me, really tell me what the problem is, and try not to resort to HURR DURR VANDALISM, do you not understand humour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Theories of humor[edit]

I agree with your comments, but I'd like to get the views of one more editor before we delete the section in question. What do you think?--Gautier lebon (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay getting back to you. Sure, lets get another opinion. Do you want someone to look a the technical merit of the contributions or just another look at teh conflict of interest issue? I don't know anything about the subject so I'm not qualified to determine if his input is actually valid. I'm just basing my objections on the conflict of interest and the use of multiple IPs.
It's even worse than I thought.,, and are definitely socks of Cdg1072. 108. responded on 4 April to my "Probable socks" post on Cdg's Talk page and wrote in the first person to accuse me of defaming him. Similarly, on 31 March Cdg responded to two unconstructive edit warnings re. Theories of humor on 207.'s Talk page. He says that he proposed the deletions on the article talk page, but that entry was made by on 29 March. It was then rewritten by Cdg on 31 March, AFTER he commented on 207.'s Talk page.

I'm confused here. You say that a call that something be deleted originated with another sock, and that I then edited it. Well I'm pretty sure that the said complaints all originated with me. I edited them many times because of the difficulty of the work.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC) is almost certainly another sock. I suspect is also him based on the edits. That IP (from Texas, not Chicago) edited the humor article for about two hours on 25 March (no other history and no overlap with the other accounts' edit times). Cdg and those 5 IPs account for almost all of the edits to this article in the last moonth.
I don't have enough experience to know what to do in a case like this, but this appears to be more than just a case of an editor using his own document as a source. If we want a technical review of the material perhaps Acadēmica Orientālis? He's had some recent input on this topic. Meters (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Under WP:SCHOLARSHIP this is a Primary source. Since the editor is the thesis author it would fall under WP:NOR. And since it is a Master's Thesis still in progress the following applies: "Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."
WP:SELFCITING is also a concern. Meters (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
And now has started editing the same section of the article. Since it is from Loyola University Chicago as are the previously mentioned socks and I assume this is Gdc again. Meters (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Added OR and Self Published templates to teh section for now. Meters (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I should not have told you or any editors that you were falsely accusing me, by saying that I promoted my theory. Surely it was "self-promotion," even/especially when I made a point of the weakness of other theories, which was an unecessary move. I clearly ought to have remained on the same IP address when editing, especially since I read about sockpuppetry beforehand.

Other editors said at the close of this discussion (which I perhaps should not have deleted) that I am an "unimportant philosopher." A rational response to such an assertion is not to take it personally. By the epithet, they don't mean that I don't have a strong humor theory. That would beg the question. They mean I haven't published a large number of other philosophy articles. I should not contest their view anymore, since I might always be referenced (or return myself) soon when my article is published. I don't deny that I am an academic philosopher, though I would be better classed as a psychologist and literary theorist.

I tried at an inappopriate time to contribute a drastic improvement on the existing and unsuccessful theories of humor. This has been removed on grounds which are reasonable though not perfect. And I should have accepted the decision sooner.

However, WP does overlook the fact that my work in humor has been conducted in two graduate programs, and in each one the work earned an MA degree. (This explains why I studied at U. of C. and am now at Loyola. Sorry for any confusion). Thus, it is unusual that I have earned two master's degrees, both in philosophy, and both on comedy or humor. The theses for those degrees are not the paper you have seen. The latter of these MAs requires two more grades, but this is only matter of a few weeks.

Thus the paper that you are talking about is actually not a "master's thesis." It contains a theory that I have mentioned before, but in a very different paper. This is an entirely separate article. The two "master's theses" had a different focus, and I have moved some way beyond them.

Ted Cohen, for example, directed my work in humor in 2006. He is a very "important philosopher" by the standards of Wikipedia, and my lack of esteem for him is irrelevant. I myself persuaded Ted Cohen, in conversation, that a theory of humor may be possible, which he has always denied in print. Another questionable feature of the Wikipedia policy guidelines is, if I may paraphrase in quotes, "If an idea is so important that it deserves immediate attention, someone would have reported on it already." I think this is awkwardly put. It is like saying, "If it so happens that an idea has been overlooked, and is quite important, then we can consider an author not published in the field." But that does not seem observed. It could read, "no matter the significance of a truth, its mention in WP requires directly relevent prior publication or a Phd degree." That seems to be the actual view. In my discussion of humor in wikipedia, I think I've made a strong case that nothing in the current theories in the article is at all persuasive as a global theory of stimulus and response, or represents a strong point of view of that much desired explanation.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. As another editor pointed out, once the work is published and reviewed, it may well be possible for it to be added in again. If you do the additions yourself, please be aware of the conflict of interest guidelines at {{WP:COI]] .
I didn't mean to accuse you of intentionally using multiple IPs to maliciously make edits, but your use of possibly as many as 6 different IPs in addition to your account was very confusing, particularly when you edited Talk page discussions that you made with a different IP or account. Talk page discussions should never be edited since others may have already commented or made decisions based on the existing text. If you want to change or delete something you've said make a new entry or strikeout the original text, don't delete or modify it. And don't ever delete other editor's Talk page entries. I have restored the article Talk page, so you may want to go back and strikeout or make new entries on your sections that you deleted. Meters (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear CDG, it appears to me that you are a good-faith newcomer to Wikipedia, which we all were once. The discussion above should more properly have taken place on your personal talk page. Please create your personal page, and your personal talk page, you will find that very helpful as you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. You soon might be earning barnstars ... --Gautier lebon (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


Ill maybe reporting him, but Im on danger zone myself also maybe... but Im sick of this situation and hes not stopping when I added 3rr tag to his talk page. -->Typ932 T·C 19:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why I did the last revert for you and put up the block request. I'll take a look at the articles after he's blocked. Meters (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

User Warnings[edit]

Please don't issue an only warning for simple vandalism, like you did for User: Admins should not block after just 2 piece of vandalism from an IP, and starting with an only warning makes it impossible for other users to escalate the warning. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but did you look at the edit history? It wasn't simple vandalism, or a single vandalism. It was 7 clearly connected vandalisms by that IP and a second one from the same range, all in a matter of minutes. Once one IP got a final warning (from another editor) it switched back to the first IP, so I gave that one a final warning too. I did mention in the warning that the vandalism was hopping IPs. The next IP to vandalise got blocked, and then the other one also stopped. What would you suggest I have done differently? The edit you reverted was made just minutes after I gave him a final warning, and by the time you reverted him hours later he had long since made another vandalism edit, so in my opinion you should have had him blocked rather than bumping him down to a level 2 warning. Meters (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
And just to clarify, I gave the IP an imminent, not a final. Isn't that what an imminent is for, to stop ongoing vandalism? Meters (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
And that was totally my fault--sorry about that. I didn't look at the history of the article you were reverting. I looked at the IP's contribution history, and saw only 2 pieces of vandalism, and thought you'd jumped the gun; but I didn't to check if there was IP hopping. My humblest apologies--immediately issuing and "only" or "level 4" warning on an ip hopper is totally fine. Let me go take a look at the effected articles and see if any of them need semi-protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I've protected Taylor High School (North Bend, Ohio); the other two that this IP contributed to only have a few pieces of vandalism in the last week. If there are any more you think need protection, feel free to let me know (or, actually, if it happens today, I'd recommend taking it to WP:RFPP because I'm not sure if I'll be on WP much today). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't think I'd done anything too unreasonable. Meters (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

April 21 2012[edit]

Wow, User: keeps showing up on the most recent edits blanking their userpage after both you and I have undone their edits. Now it's just turning into a silly edit war! Any suggestions on what to do next? I don't patrol recent changes too often, so I'm not too sure what to do next. Yaminator talk 22:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've requested a block. It should be pretty obvious that he's a vandal. Lets just wait until he's blocked to do the final restores on the article pages. Since he's an IP hopper there's probably not to much point in worrying about the User Talk page. Meters (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, great! I was about to ask where to post for these sorts of requests, but I've found it. Thanks for your help... :) I'll keep this precedent in mind for the future! Yaminator talk 22:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I should have said that I added my comments to the request that someone else had already put up. Blocks ar eusually pretty quick for obvious cases like this. Meters (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I can see that you're very engaged in the anti-vandalism effort! And many thanks for your assistance. I appreciate it! :) Yaminator talk 01:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Florence Christian School[edit]

No, not really. That's why I added the extra tags and only removed the obvious untrue info. Otherwise, I don't trust this article either :/. But I do know it's in South Carolina from some minor research c:. I'll try to check the article with what's on their site in the meantime though. A Personಠ_ಠ 03:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at the links. All 4 point to the same dead link that seems to be just for the school team anyways. I'll go back in the history and see if I can fiond a real link. Meters (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I just revised the page design and organized/corrected it a bit :| otherwise it still seems a bit... bad A Personಠ_ಠ 03:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Certainly better than it was. I'll watch it for a while to see if the students start hacking at it again. Meters (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions, Meters. SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

St Olave's Grammar School[edit]

My edit was not vandalism but factually correct. The lady was an ex scholar of the school and was sentenced to prison for partaking in the London riots. As newspaper articles referenced which school she had attended, she is de facto a notable ex student.

Fair enough, it was a good faith edit. My apologies for using a generic Vandalism warning instead of one of the more appropriate Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons, Defamation regarding article subjects, or Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material warnings. I'll change the warning on your page. Your edit stated that an alumnus of the school committed a crime and went to jail. Since you linked to the wrong person's Wiki page your post is factually incorrect and you defamed the subject of the Wiki page that you linked to. Even without that error your edit is unacceptable since you did not provide a source to show that the student in question both did the crime and attended the school. And please don't post on my Talk page again unless you sign your posting. Meters (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I already put a warning on their talk page about their edit on Al Goldstein if you don't mind I am going to remove your warning since it is basically redundant to have two warnings for the same thing. Please LMK. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I reverted him so I warned him, but I see it was your revert that got there first. For some reason I didn't get an edit conflict. Meters (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Huh that's unusual that you didn't get a edit conflict error. Anyway thanks and good eye on catching the vandalism. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It's happening quite a bit lately on reverts. I've had cases where I did made the revert, but someone else has put the warning in first, do I assume they're not getting the edit conflict message either. Meters (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Toby (Tobuscus) Turner[edit]

I'm new to this Wikipedia editing thing, so forgive me if I edit incorrectly. I posted a whole bunch of new independent references that discuss the subject and reference to him as in the entry. If these aren't sufficient, just tell me and I'll add more. And I'm not the subject in question, I'm merely a fan that believes the subject belongs in the section of the article. Thanks, Toby123buscus (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding 10 references to support one entry on a list of alumni looks pretty lame. If you don't cut it back someone else will. I've already told you that the references from his own website, IMDb, and YouTube are not reliable sources, and some of the other ones seem pretty dubious too. I still don't see any ref to support the use of puffery such as "internet icon", and I still don't see any ref to prove that he attended the school. I won't touch it for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else yanks it before I get back to it. I suggest that you fix it before they do, because you're going to get blocked if you keep this up. You've had more than enough warnings, explanations, and pointers to the relevant pages. Meters (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I should have also said that it's not the quantity of refs, it's the quality. One reliable source for the Annoying Orange gig is all you need. Drop the puffery, and find something to show he attended the school and you're fine. The school ref doesn't have to be online, just ref his year's yearbook if you can't find an online source.
I just found his Wikipage. Jus twikilink to it nad you don't need any refs for notability, just attendance. You still need to dump the puffery. I'll do it tomorrow if you don't do it. Meters (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Linked it to his new wikipage and removed all of the notability refs. Meters (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed, again.--JacktheHarry (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I see that Toby Turner has been deleted. For my future ref the other pages in question are Niceville High School and The High Fructose Adventures of Annoying Orange. Meters (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Add List of YouTube personalities and List of International Baccalaureate people. also Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Internet and tech culture and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/People in business Meters (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
For future Speedy cut and pastes: This article has now been created almost 30 times under a variety of names including Toby Turner, Toby turner, Tobuscus, Toby "Tobuscus" Turner, Toby Turner (Tobuscus), and now Toby Turner/Tobuscus. There may be other variants of the name that I didn't find. It has had at least 2 AFDs Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toby_Turner and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tobuscus. Meters (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Add Toby 'Joe' Turner and Collective Digital Studio (as Wikipedia Talk:Articles for creation/) Meters (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just shovelled out more of the manure.--JacktheHarry (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. He does seem to get around. The articles for creation seem to be a loophole. If they don't meet criteria for a speedy on Gx basis they seem to be able to hang around forever since they appear not to be eligible for speedy Ax (not actually an article). Meters (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

He returned again, surely this is some kind of record? I think we should start a list of everywhere it has popped up. These are all the ones I know...

  1. Tobuscus Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  2. Tobuscus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  3. Toby "Tobuscus" Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  4. Toby Joe Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  5. Toby 'Joe' Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  6. Toby Tobuscus Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  7. Toby Tobuscus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  8. Toby Turner (Tobuscus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  9. Toby Turner/Tobuscus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  10. Toby Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  11. Toby turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--JacktheHarry (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Do not worry, you are not in trouble. --J (t) 00:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. A pretty straight forward case so it didn't matter that I wasn't around to add my input. Meters (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Whats wrong the Kingdom of Smallia?[edit]

what wrong with the artial? its like any other Micronation based Atrical — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicronationKing (talkcontribs) 03:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't put the speedy deletion tag on it. You would have to ask the editor who did. I'm just reverting your deletion of the tag. As the article creator you are not allowed to delete that. An admin will drop by and evaluate the article and your request to keep it. If you want to keep it you had better find some independant, reliable sources. Right now it is unsourced and looks like a hoax. Meters (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've put source on it how many do it need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicronationKing (talkcontribs) 03:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the quality of the references, not the quantity. You have one reference to the website of People's State of San Andreas, another self-declared micronation. I don't think that is going to pass as a reliable source. ReadWP:RS Meters (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Closed. Kingdom of Smallia deleted Meters (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The Infamous Naked Mile[edit]

Hi, I went to original and reliable sources on my edit. Was there a problem? Thanks! PS I'm a UMich alum and current AA resident, so I know this event well. Also know who has the deepest repository of Naked Mile data.

reply to
It's interesting info, but there are a few problems:
  • It doesn't belong in the lead since the article is actually about the movie, not the original run. I suggest moving your material and references to a new section and just leaving a note in the lead that the movie was based on the original run.
  • The 2 references to the run's home page have to go. The home page doesn't support anything and just serves as a blatant promotion for DVD sales.
  • The ref to the history page is a problem. I was going to say that it can't serve as a reference simce it's your webpage and contains first-hand input (see WP:NOR, particularly WP:PRIMARY) but you may be able to make a case for using it as a self-published source about itself (see WP:ABOUTSELF).
  • What you really need is an independant, reliable source that says that the movie's run was based on the UMich run.
Good luck Meters (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Almost two weeks and not a single change. Time to revert. Meters (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Warning[edit]

I didn´t put my edit back in again. I just rewrote as it sourced with a new reference inserted. Regards,  Vanthorn msg ← 20:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't give you the warning. I gave you a suggestion relating to teh previous warning. You can take it or leave it. As far as your claim that you are not putting your edit back in... it may not be word for word but it is clear to me that you are edit warring on Christie Brinkley. You really should self revert and discuss it with the editors involved. Meters (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but how...?[edit]

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a fluke, as I wasn't following the article or the case. I caught the edit summary and it's usually not a good sign when an IP deletes a big chunk of someone's User page. Meters (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


Thanks. I agree with you there. Of course it also means that I may have left another page with vandalism on it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know I wan't missing something. Meters (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Boruch Szlezinger[edit]

I've declined the CSD on Boruch Szlezinger; the article was substantially different. Can you explain how you saw the (now-deleted) earlier version of the article? :). Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't. As far as I know there is no way for a non-admin to see a deleted page. You might want to ask User:PKT since he and I edit conflicted on adding the Speedy G4 template. It was a bad translation (significantly inproved today) of a French page I found on the web and there were other obvious problems, but I put it up for G4 rather than a proposed deletion since I thought that it had just been deleted the first time on July 28. It didn't seem likely that the article had changed significantly in one day when it had not in the more than one week it was up for deletion. Clearly I was badly mistaken on the date, and I wouldn't and shouldn't have G4ed it. The current AFD seems to be supporting a G4 speedy, so it looks like no harm was done. I'll add a note to the discussion. Meters (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
That's fair enough then; thanks! Ironholds (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Royal Spa Brass[edit]

It appears that WideFox has withdrawn his accusation of vandalism at Royal Spa Brass.[4] The only article at which I am accused of vandalism is Jon Bruning. Do you think that I should address other articles besides the one that I'm accused of vandalising? What could I say?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


Dear Meters,

It looks like the a user(s) at IP address deleted your warning about that user(s) vandalism as unfounded. Also, someone then gave that IP address an Anti-Vandalism barnstar. Please see (talk).

Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It's possible I did make a mistake. There were definitely ownership and COI problems at the time, but looking at it again, I may have misinterpreted which user was which. Had they contacted me I probably would have apollogized and self reverted. Or the IP may have flipped to a different user. In any case it was in April, and that IP has been active since then but not on that article so I don't see a problem (I can't speak for the subsequent edits on other articles since I didn't review them). Thanks for the heads up. Meters (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the user(s)did the revert. Thanks for the update.Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

im testing edits in sandbox, why do you revert them?-- (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

He un-reverted it. You are clear. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You mean you're testing your vandalism edits. Since it was the Sandbox I didn't need to bother, and I had already reverted myself by the time you left this message. You've had your last warning. If you make even one more of those edits to a real article, using any IP, I will ask for you to be blocked. Meters (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

User problems[edit]

Hello Meters i see you fine some mistake with this User I'll see what I can do with User Thanks You Errorzero (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Since made an edit that claimed to be from you here I think my assumption that you are also editing as (and probably also is valid. Anyways, what you need to do to establish notability for this article is to find some reliable third party sources rather than the developer's web site. Newspaper articles or news releases would be perfect. Good luck, Meters (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


Agreed. Saw this account when I was perusing CAT:UAA. With his latest edit, it looks like he may be looking to change his name; we'll have to watch. If he edits outside his userspace on ThunderousMastering, I'll probably file a report at UAA. Thanks for this. NTox · talk 23:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm just about to post a refactoring warning with some explanations for him. Meters (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. NTox · talk 23:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


Yep. Thanks for fixing it! :) Trivialist (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Violation[edit]

Please explain a potential violation of Wikipedia's Copyright policy given the Copyright status of work by the U.S. government This information exists nowhere else and you removed it while I was in the middle of editing it with threat of a ban. Also explain why references with quotation marks stopped working. Last, Please undo your deletion change so I can finish it. Project 112

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties."[1] The term only applies to the work of the federal government, including the governments of "non-organized territorial areas" under the jurisdiction of the U.S Government,[2] but not state or local governments. In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act,[3] such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as "noncopyright." The act only applies to U.S. domestic copyright as that is the extent of U.S. federal law. The U.S. government asserts that it can still hold the copyright to those works in other countries.[4][5] In addition, many publications of the U.S. government contain protectable works authored by others (e.g., patent applications, Securities and Exchange Commission filings, public comments on regulations), and this rule does not necessarily apply to the creative content of those works. Thanks72.188.73.163 (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The web sited as the example you provided and in the those cited in the entry "see for example" states: 1. This World Wide Web (WWW) site is provided as a public service by the Force Health Protection & Readiness Policy and Programs. 2. Information presented on this WWW site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. Thank You72.188.73.163 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if the material is public domain. You didn't cite a source or claim that it was public domain when you added it to the article, so it appeared that you were claiming that it was your work. I suggest in the future you use one of the public domain tags from Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Inline_with_article_text and note in your edit summary that it is public domain, and where it was obtained from. As you point out, the website requests that you acknowledge teh source o fht ematerial if reusing.
That the information exists nowhere else has nothing to do with copyright.
I don't understand your question about references containing quotation marks.
I'll revert my undo and remove the warning on your page. Thanks of rclearing it up. Meters (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Appreciated, I was working on those citations when it reverted. It seems one reference was not working and complaining. It was correctly formatted so I saved it anyway. I checked and re-checked, renamed, and it only worked if quotation marks were not used. I was looking for an author to cite but only because I could not locate a good template. It was only up 7 minutes while I worked out thart reference. So If I used say  This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the United States Navy. or  This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the United States Government., does that tag go also in the edit summary, talk page or only within the applicable sections Thanks again. (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The wikipedia guide suggests using the appropriate public domain tag in the References or External links section. For the edit summary I would just say that it is public domain text and add the URL to avoid misunderstanding like this one. Your idea of puttin it on the Talk page is probably even better since it makes it easier for people to find it later. The summary would just have to say someething like "Public domain, see Talk". Meters (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I read that it was appropriate to place such a notice at the end or near the end of an article or section. I'd like to place it only in the applicable sections. Is there a section specific template that does not mention the whole article that I should use? (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, no. Probably best to use the Talk page to explain which section notice applies to. Meters (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)



i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. I'm not knowledgeable enough on that topic. Meters (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Chloe's Closet Season 2 Is Real[edit]

There Will be New Character And New Season on Chloe's Closet.Its True. See go to and you will Go Down a Screen until you find the words. Season #2 Now in Production and go down until you see Carys Mozart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. The second season is real. A simpler link (and much smaller download) to use as a ref in the article is, but it does not mention the new character. Meters (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria for AFCs[edit]

Hello Meters. I reverted your speedy request for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catherine Senor. AFCs can not be speedy deleted under any of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles (A) criteria, as they are drafts and not yet articles. Please have a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions which discusses when AFCs can be deleted; really this is only if the page is and an attack, copyvio or pure vandalism. Hope this make sense. All the best, France3470 (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. It makes sense, but not all admins agree with your interpretation. There is nothing in the Speedy criteria (or even in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations) that says that a draft that has been submitted for review cannot be speedied under an Article category. It seems like an obvious enough concern that it should have come up before, but I can't find it in a cursory search. I'll raise the question at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Meters (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Can an Article for creation submission be speedied under an A criteria?
Sounds like a good idea. I know the issue has been raised at various times at WikiProject Articles for creation, but it doesn't appear to have been discussed in any depth recently. Found this though Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2012 3#Changes to reviewer instructions. France3470 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It just seems like a loophole if A criteria can't be used and nothing else applies. I've seen abandonded submissions sit around for months. Anyways, didn't mean to do anything wrong, and I think my suggestion for clariying hte situation on the speedy page would be quick and light weight.Meters (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I suppose the standard process if the submission is 'abandoned', and not suitable for creation, is to decline it. Blps without sources can also be blanked using {{afc cleared}}. I think you're quite correct in realizing that there is a widespread lack of understanding about AFCs; In fact I recently tagged some AFCs for deletion as G12 candidates, that were subsequently deleted under G8 (which certainly can't be right). France3470 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


What is wrong with what I'm saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you really don't understand why this edit is unacceptable, then you should probably stay off of other people's Talk pages. Meters (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
okay (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fairfield high School[edit]

RE your recent edits at the above article. I went ahead and removed the playboy model that you had removed and put back. Please don't take offense, but the only things on the net of her are nude pictures, which might tend to prove she was a playboy model, but do nothing towards showing she went to fairfield high. This has been going on for a month, with different IPs every time. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to worry. I was just retroactively deferring to your edit that removed the not-so-reliable source but left the list entry. Thanks for explaining. Meters (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for sandbox edit[edit]

I was just testing the redirect function in mediawiki. If you check the history, I immediately undid the redirect after making it. -- (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No biggie. Next time just leave the header portion alone so anyone else who goes to the sandbox won't get confused. Meters (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Zink magazine[edit]

Ah. I missed that. I only noticed that the two edit warriors had all of the edits on the last page of edits for the article and didn't realize that there were earlier edits. It is a mess, though. (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. I have no idea which of the edit warriors is in the right (if either). If there isn't much of the articel left and no-one else is working on it maybe another AFD will let us get rid of it. Meters (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The named editor is adding some BLP violations, the anon is writing a puff piece. (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I wasn't interested enough to bother to find out. They were both way past 3RR with no attempt to communicate at all, so I just warned both of them. I'm cleaning up the worst of the BLP and promo in the article. I'm surprised to have to say that there actually may be enough notability for this article to survive. Meters (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. If some of the above made no sense it was because I was getting mixed up between two different articles I was watching/working on. Meters (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


What's wrong with the added Brisk family tree? Ugly I admit, but I don't know how to make it pretty. More talented users can choose to edit it to make it more palatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You completely overwrote the existing tree with your edit to Template:Brisker Family Tree, and you already put exactly the same material on the Talk page. Since you don't know how to add it to the tree yourself, let someone else add it to the template if they agree that it should be there. Meters (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


When proposing an article for deletion, it is best to give a reason (preferable one based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines) why the article should be deleted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, but it's probably a good idea to wait at least 30 seconds to see if the person proposing the deletion is in the process of adding a reason. You sent that message while I was still notifying the file creator. Meters (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The reason should be added at the time you add the template. Adding the template without a reason seems somewhat pointless. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I made a mistake. I realized it as I was notifying the article creator, but you had already left your message on my page before I could go back. As I said, maybe you should wait a few seconds before reacting. Meters (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for quick answer on my IP talk page. Could I ask you to tell Fut.Perf. that I at last have answered his message. I cannot tell him myself, since his TP is semi-protected. Regards! (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Meters (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


Maybe I didnt explain my article correctly, but I just feel that it is weird that an article has not yet been created for this company. I used to work in packaging and International Dispensing corp has been huge to the development of the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjlbac (talkcontribs) 16:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The company may well be notable, but your article didn't show that, and that is why I tagged it for speedy deletion. Meters (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Five Elements of Humor[edit]

Is the entry about Zac Toa at Theories of Humor an example of Original Research? Why is this acceptable, given that similar entries in the article have been deleted? Editors deleted the entry by an established scholar in the field, who has now been invited to speak at a humor conference having Daniel C. Dennett and John Morreall as the keynote speakers. Five Elements appears to be a self-published, and very brief, and not influential text. If Five Elements is not Original Research, then can the other deleted theory return? It appears that I am already known as the individual delivering the paper at the humor conference with Dan Dennett. Cdg1072 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


No worries, everything's alright. Arbero (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi Meters. You reverted the change in World of Ptavvs articles, saying: " a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative..." That is absolutely correct and I agree with you. However, the spoiler in question was not in the Plot section of the page, but in the Reception section! People often check out the reception before deciding on whether to embark on reading a novel, especially if it is long. So don't you think that any spoilers would best be revealed in the plot section and not in critical reception? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EUflinks (talkcontribs) 05:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't spend too much time trying to place any significance on the exact wording of the template text. Just don't remove spoilers, regardless of where they are. The general rule is too not remove or flag spoilers. You also removed that particular chunk of text from the middle of a direct quote. Meters (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please guide me[edit]

I am the author of Qutbi Bohra. Ever since i have uploaded this artice it has been repeatedly vandalized. You too had reversed a vandalisation. I am very new to Wikipedia, this is my first article. Even after giving all justification on talk page, giving 3 newspaper references, '1' in which the son of Khuzaima Qutbuddin, Abdeali himself endorses Qutbi Bohra. Further a newsletter by a faction of Progressive Dawoodi Bohra is also referenced where Qutbi Bohra is clearly mentioned. You can also see clearly how the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra is supporting Khuzaima Qutbuddin openly in newspaper references. I have written another article to clarify the stance that Qutbi Bohra is not connected to succession issue. In this article you will get a fair idea of the entire issue. If you see the contib of the person who has done the vandalism he is just after all the sites of a particular community. He has deleted my site protected it from edit. I request you to guide me in getting out of this situation and save my article. Thank you.

Araz5152 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this topic to take a reasonable position. You should make your case at its article for deletion discussion here. Meters (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Daugaard[edit]

Your original edit note for removing the Governor's official campaign site: "(→‎External links: rmv promo link. Wikipedia does not need to link to his fund raiser) (undo)" (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

And your point is? How does that edit summary possibly justify accusing me of partisan editing? The link has nothing but an appeal for support and funds. It seems to me to violate WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, but if I'm wrong, so be it. If that site qualifies as an official campaign website that is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia then I made a simple mistake. I don't appreciate your accusing me of bad faith editing. If you had made the slightest attempt to look at my editing history you would have seen that I have no history of significant edits to any political articles. Meters (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Qutbi Bohra[edit]

you have done a great job. i really hope it would help save the article. since you have gone through the entire write up of all the reasons and their validations, does it make a difference in your personal stance for the article? Thank you again for your time and efforts. Next time i will take care when inserting comments. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talkcontribs) 23:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I just took a break. I'll continue to fix Talk:Qutbi Bohra now. It was such a mess that I couldn't follow the arguments. Once I'm done reformatting it I'll see if I can form an opinion. Meters (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Finished changes. Add note to both editor's Talk pages and AfD. Meters (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:EricTomCape/sandbox[edit]

Hello Meters. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:EricTomCape/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly an attack page or negative, unsourced BLP. Thank you. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If Erical Rapier is a real person I suspect that she would think that this is an attack page, or at least the start of one. Meters (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It now appears from other webpages that Erical Rapier is actually the of someone's role playing character, so a speedy on attack or BLP grounds is indeed not required. Meters (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Anger Music Group for deletion[edit]

Hello. The user has already tried to have the page I created get deleted and it was determined that the page was good and had no reason to be deleted. They then tried to do it again even after the mod said the page was good to go. Gatorbury (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, an AfD is not the same as a speedy. The speedy delete was declined because the article makes a claim of notability. That's enough to decline a speedy request and is why your article survived the speedy. It does not mean that your article is "good to go". Even if the claim of notability is not realistic (and I'm not saying that your article's claim is not reealistic) the speedy can be declined. To survive an AfD on notability grounds the topic of the article has to meet the much higher standard of actually being notable per wp:notability. Meters (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Login image[edit]

Hi Meters. In the edit summary of your replacement of the image at the Login article, you referred to strange text on the description page. What exactly can you see? I see no strange text on my browser. JamesDouch (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It was very strange. The description page said that the image was uploaded by you, but the file was created by user:Er. puja kumari and the description was very long and strange and had nothing to do with the image. I put a test edit speedy tag on the file (with a comment that it might actually be some sort of sneaky vandalism) and it was deleted as vandalism "(Deletion log); 10:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Screen Shot 2014-02-07 of English Wikipedia login form.png ‎(G3: Vandalism)"). Your original, unaltered screenshot is now back so I'll put it back in the article. I've never seen anything like it before, and I don't know how it was done. Meters (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Killiechassie House[edit]

Hello Meters, forgive my slow manner, I got there eventually. This should now be listed here if you want to give your views to keep the page, or delete it: Angela MacLean (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trimming some of the excess foliage now. Meters (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction to QM rewrite[edit]

Buddy how does wikipedia work re. messaging users? Are we meant to have the convo on one of our talk pages, or alternate between the two!? Do you only get a new message alert if I edit your talk page? Re. the rewrite itself, (just added this on my talk page- not sure if thats where its meant to go!) but I did already add my rewrite to the talk page, ten months ago- with no replies. Without users articulating on the talk page why the current article is better than mine, I see no reason not to add mine back? Mcplums (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I just keep it where the talk atarts. As for your edits to Introduction to quantum mechanics, you comnpletely rewrote the article, shrinking it by more than 60k. That's a massive change, and the lack of response to your posting 10 months ago is not a sign that everyone will agree with the changes. You made the change to teh article and someone immediately reverted it. That means that the change should be discussed. See BRD. So, I put the article back to the way it was before your changes. I would suggest that you raise the whole issue again on the article's talk page, but as a new thread rather than as the addendum you have now added to the old thread. The idea of completely rewriting the article, as you have, needs to be discussed in general rather than just asking people to pass on your new version. I suggest first seeing if you can get agreement that the article is at too high a level. If people agree then you can work on individual sections. I agree taht soem sections seem to be at too higha level for a layman's intro, bu tI think you'll have much more success if you don't try to rewrite the whole article at once. Meters (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I don't know if you like barnstars, but I just wanted to express my appreciation for all the work you're doing on trying to keep Altimgamr under control. Thank you for what you are doing. Bahooka (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to say it's a bit frustrating watching such an obvious string of socks. I think that range blocks are going to be the only way to stop the IPs. I guess I should just bite the bullet and add a full list of the IPs with sample diffs to the SPI. Meters (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Winona Middle School[edit]

Please refrain from making non-constructive comments as you did to Winona Middle School .Gfrsdgerr1234 (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)If you continue you will be blocked thank you Gfrsdgerr1234 (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Gfrsdgerr

The school isn't notable. It's not a high school so it has been redirected to the school board per the normal procedure. And since you are an obvious sock of a blocked account, you shouldn't be making any edits. Meters (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
SPI started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gfrsdgerr Meters (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Make Believe Me's page.[edit]

Hey man, just wanted to revert the edits you made on the Make Believe Me unlinking both of their albums, as while you were removing the links, I was making the articles themselves. No problems here, just wanted to let you know why I reverted those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolcanoes (talkcontribs) 01:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw your first edit summary so I knew what you were up to. Meters (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Bruce Carroll[edit]

Ok, so I'm new to the Wikipedia editing process, so please help me to go about the correct way of removing this from my clients artist page. I work for his new publicist & the info I am trying to remove is false. Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art4artssakeent (talkcontribs) 23:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, to start with don't delete large chunks of referenced text without an explanation. And why do you say the information is false? The information I checked (not everything) seems to be verified by the cited refs.
And finally, you should be very careful about editing this article as an employee of his publicist. That's a conflict of interest. You should read WP:COI and WP:PUBLICISTS. Noncontroversial edits may be made, but that certainly does not include rewriting the article to the publicist's liking. Meters (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The information that is being removed seems to be valid from all of the sources I have checked. The song seems to have musical charting and was on the Emmy's page as a nominated piece. It is also included on information for the other two artists mentioned. Upon checking the US Copyrights office, there too is suporting information. I do not see where incorrect information has been added. Canyouhearmenow 02:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. I'm not sure what they are up to, but I'll keep an eye on the article. Meters (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I have gone onto the page and fixed the dead links and I cut out the fluff to state just the facts. There should be no other issue with the included information.Canyouhearmenow 03:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. Meters (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Meters, again as I said I am new to Wikipedia and I appreciate the information on how to go about doing this correctly. Although I work for a publicist I am in no way trying to portray Carol in the "best possible light," but only the actual facts of his career. For starters this paragraph is at the beginning of his discography section ahead of his albums. Wouldn't it make more sense to go in a career section? And it's not so much the information that is false it's the way in which it is portrayed. This was brought to my attention yesterday by Carol's son who called me and asked me to find out about it because it was a song that he had never heard of & wanted some info on it. After doing some research I found that the song is not on sale anywhere & other than the articles that are referenced I'm still not for certain that all of the artists listed as singing on the song actually did. However, I am researching that currently. The whole thing is just very strange because this is hardly the biggest accomplishment of someone who is 7 Dove Awards & 2 Grammys and yet it's got an entire paragraph at the top of his discography. It would be one thing if it was listed as a small blurb in the career section but even that is stretching it a bit. The falsehood is the way in which the song is portrayed as if it was a huge hit. And yes it was nominated for an Emmy but it was a local enemy, which does not carry much prestige. All that to say no one is trying to hype his career up. if anything I'm trying to downplay what should be BUT that's neither here not there. My only concern is Mr. Carroll's page. "Hands of Hope" was not an officially downplayed. In response to Canyouhearmenow's "I don't know what they're up to" comment, they are up to displaying the facts in the most factual way possible. After reading some of your contributions, I'm not certain you're capable of that.released single under any legitimate label & therefore doesn't belong at the bottom of the discography either. So, Meters please tell me how I can go about correcting this. I am posting this here, because I've had no reply to the one I posted in a different area, because I'm not really sure how this all works lol. I guess since my original post canyouhearmenow has taken down two of their responses. Anyways like I said, the song was never actually released as a single. AND there is nothing ANYWHERE on a website with any validity that states the supposed artists in which it lists that did. Not saying it didn't happen, but it does make one wonder. So I ask again, how does this get either removed or placed in a better spot & severely edited?l— Preceding unsigned comment added by Art4artssakeent (talkcontribs) 08:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Art4artssakeent: I am unsure as to what you are talking about in reference to taking anything down? The only thing I did was take out some of the fluff in the article and re-cite some dead links. As far as the Discography section of Carroll's page, all articles have to start somewhere. It in no way means that this was Carroll's biggest contribution and I have not read anywhere that they were trying to make it into a huge deal. In fact I don't find anywhere that this song is available for commercial release? So, as far as playing down the event or piece I would suggest going in and adding more of Carroll's career highlights under his discography section in an effort to build the section. Anything that you put in that section at this point is going to look awkward due to lack of content. However, in situations like this as stated before it is not recommended for agents and publicists to edit said articles due to their writing content like a press release instead of an encyclopedic article. I would highly recommend that you read WP:COI and WP:PUBLICISTS in an effort to educate yourself to the proper editing. I edit a lot of articles in which subjects do not wish to have things added. If the material is capable of being verified then it can be added. I am the editor that added this material to start with and I did so after reading about the event where the song was performed by the artists mentioned as well as two of the writers. So, I am confused as to how that is capable of making one wonder? Just because a piece of work is not generated or sold does not make it none the less valid. Car makers design prototype vehicles that never hit the road but that does not mean they were never built. I also edit the Emmy articles and created many of those articles over the years. The fact of the piece being nominated on a regional level verses a national level does not negate the fact that the song was indeed nominated for an Emmy. An Emmy is an Emmy is an Emmy. This should also serve as a confirmation to you that there might not have been an over-hyping of the work since it was released only to a regional area. I think we may be getting a bit over worked over a situation that simply can be solved by added more of Carroll's career highlights that would in turn put this one in its proper context.Canyouhearmenow 17:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Art4artssakeent, you work for the artist's publicist, and you removed a large chunk of the article without explanation twice. Then you complained that the information you had removed was false. After two editors double checked the information and confirmed that it was not false, you backtracked. And then you say "After reading some of your contributions, I'm not certain you're capable of that [displaying the facts in the most factual way possible]." Pardon me if my assumption of good faith in you has reached its limit. I see no reason for you to make a statement like that about me. I've politely pointed out what you did wrong and pointed you to the links that tell you how to deal with having a conflict of interest and working as a publicist. Will I help you add pertinent information that is referenced to reliable sources? Yes. Will I help you remove information that should not be in the article? Yes. Will I help you massage the article into what the artist's publicist (your company) or the artist or the artist's son want to see? No. Meters (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Meters, that comment was in no way directed at you. It was directed to canyouhearmenow. I apologize that it read that way. That was in no way my intent. I was asking you for help. This ENTIRE comment below is actually in direct response to canyouhearmenow, so please do not take it as being toward you.

Ok just so we can be clear on a couple of things... I am not a publicist, nor do I work at a publicity firm. I am a retired officer turned retired owner of a security company turned freelance investigator. Lots of turns. Lol. Anyways, I don't need to get too personal. I am old school as they say and not very tech savvy & a publicist who hires me occasionally to do some investigating asked that I look into this. I guess this edit was removed & put up again a few times by the person who is in charge of running Mr. Carroll's internet profiles. It actually would've been ignored, but Mr. Carroll's son is planning something for his father & came across this song that he didn't know existed & called the publicist to find out about it. That's where I come in. I don't think it's being overblown at all. I have actually found a treasure trove of fascinating information & have learned the ins & outs of how Wikipedia works.
Moving on.
I couldn't understand how some things on Wikipedia could be so easily edited while others were edited then replaced with the material edited out within a matter of minutes sometimes seconds. I'm still not exactly sure how all that works other than the fact that there are certain people that have certain things on watch lists. Now, why would anyone want Bruce Carroll's page on a watch list? There's only one reason… they have a personal agenda. Having been around The Nashville music scene especially the Christian music scene since the late 70s I pretty much know everyone there is to know in this small little circle. The only reason to I say that is because after reading the article & seeing this strange paragraph sticking out, I knew exactly who Bruce Carroll and David Meece were, but I had never heard of a David L. Cook. I didn't really think anything of it until I went to his Wikipedia page. Wow. (Redacted). And after seeing how much you've edited of everything that he's affiliated with I find it hard to believe that you posted that because you came across an article and then some Emmy nods. That is a whole different matter of its own, however I am going to get to the bottom of it. It's really crazy to think we live in a world where anyone can be what they want to be on the Internet. But this man has gone above and beyond… No pun intended. Lol. Anyways, I'm going to look into getting this current matter at hand resolved & removed. So thanks for the enlightenment? I don't really know what else to say. ~~Art4artssake~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art4artssakeent (talkcontribs) 01:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's not meant for me, then please don't put it on my page. Put it on the talk page of the editor you intend it for. Meters (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png A token of my appreciation for your help at St. Peter's Catholic School. I am glad I wasn't the only one who found it tedious. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know[edit]

I didn't realize I shouldn't insert my comments anywhere, but I take it you're probably right. I'll avoid it from now on. Sorry. Funfree (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Talk pages just gets too confusing otherwise. Meters (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Banc de Binary[edit]

Hello, there's been whitewashing and promotional editing on the Banc de Binary page by CorporateM, could you rollback to Blackkite? Is there anything that can be done about users like CorporateM who see Wikipedia as a cashcow?HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not following this one any more. I'll leave it to the editors who have an idea of who the various SPAs and COIs are. Meters (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
We've got it broken down here. Historian is an SPA, BDBJack works for the company, and Okteriel is a potentially paid editor. The rest, to the best of my knowledge, are actual disinterested editors. CorporateM (Talk) 14:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Marion Zimmer Bradley edits by Moira Greyland[edit]

Meters - please don't bite the newcomers. Your reverting Moira's edits was utterly unhelpful - you could have gone through and put in proper indenting for her at the very least. I've restored her edits with formatting, but it's now over a month later, and Ms. Greyland hasn't come back to Wikipedia at all. Argyriou (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I stand behind what I did. I undid a probable BLP violation with numerous violations of the talk page standards (no less than seven unsigned and unindented comments inserted into the middle of other peoples long-dormant threads and comments. I left a polite summary here saying "please add these again but without disrupting the original discussions" and then I immediately left a polite, detailed message on her Talk page here explaining exactly what was wrong with her additions, why it was a problem, why I had removed her comments rather than modifying them myself, and how to recover the comments without having to retype them. I also provided her with the link to WP:TPHELP. I don't consider that biting a newcomer at all. I don't think I could have been any more polite or helpful. As for your suggestion that I should have taken it upon myself to refactor all of her comments myself, well, I might have, had the material been less of a BLP nightmare. I wasn't going to touch that mess of a discussion of lesbianism, paganism, molestation, and pedophilia to do with Marion Zimmer Bradley and her husband. I (and you) had no way of knowing if the editor really was their daughter, as she claimed. You, on the other hand, took the responsibility for restoring the edit. You don't get a bye on a BLP (or any other) violation just because you're restoring someone else's edit. And just adding indents and signatures is not enough to clarify edits that have been inserted into the middle of someone else's comment, as some of them were. A few rounds of that and no-one will know who wrote what.
By the way, if you are going to refer to something that happened a month ago it would be nice if you left a link to the edit, or at least to the article in question. Meters (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


Someone retagged it and I've deleted it. Yes, the page was CC licensed, but non-commercial and no derivatives. That isn't compatible with our CC-BY-SA 3.0, which allows both commercial use and modification. You have to be careful with this - if there is an NC or an ND in the string (or the words 'non-commercial' or 'no derivatives' are there), it's no good for us. Took me some time to get the hang of this - before coming here, I'd just worked with 'copyright' or 'not copyright'. Much easier... Peridon (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I was going to go back and take a closer look at it eventually. Meters (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Trinity Christian School (Fairfax, Virginia) ‎[edit]

I understand your discomfort, but it is clear to see that the last edit was not seems to be someone else who is trying to get me banned or something. My IP address is not the same as his. Please do not falsely accuse when you don't fully understand the situation. (talk)‎ . . (8,772 bytes) (+258)‎ . . (Updated info to reflect proper information. Website will be updated in short time.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaflopper (talkcontribs) 20:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you keep inserting the same highly suspicious material without edit summaries, and tagged as minor edits, don't be surprised if I assume it's you again when an IP pops up after you are warned to make the same edit.Meters (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Whether the IP was you or not, you've made more than enough bogus edits to Trinity Christian School (Fairfax, Virginia) to warrant the final warning. Meters (talk)
Are you a wikipedia mod?
Please do not accuse when you do not view the full history. If you had bothered to look up the full history you would see that I did not add those edits in the first place. I undid edits by another IP address that seemed like vandalism because they deleted major chunks of the text. Just as you have, I assumed that those edits were vandalism due to the large amounts of material deleted.
Look deeper into issues before assuming someone is vandalizing, there is often something else going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaflopper (talkcontribs) 19:28, June 27, 2014‎
I didn't assume that large deletions were vandalism. Unlike you, I read the school webpage and the school profile to see what could be verified, and left edit summaries to explain what I was doing. Also unlike you, I provided sources. I also read the page history to see what was going on. By reverting a deletion you become responsible for that content. Repeatedly inserting nonexistent sports like Badmitten, courses that the school does not offer such as Soviet History, and other unsourced material is a problem, and you can't blame it on whoever first put it in. If you can't be bothered to check that the info you are putting back is valid, then don't do it. I've been removing this crap from that article for months, and I'm fed up. As I said above, "If you keep inserting the same highly suspicious material without edit summaries, and tagged as minor edits, don't be surprised if I assume it's you again when an IP pops up after you are warned to make the same edit." If you can provide reliable sources for this material I will happily remove the warning. I don't think you can, because the school's website and school profile are quite informative, and they make no mention of these courses, and sports. I couldn't find a source that listed the school's clubs, but I really doubt that there is a Commissar Club or a Ukrainians for Soviet Russia Club. I could be wrong, but your edit replacing the Christians for Rock over Classical Club with the Commissar's Club just seems too much. Meters (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for this information, it had been a subject of debate at The Dark Knight and I thought that was policy. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your user page, which took me a lot longer to get than I care to admit. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


What more can I say. They're back! See my SPI addition here.--220 of Borg 06:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably the most persistent socker I've ever run across. Meters (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I picked them up in the New Pages feed. Spidey (Sock-ey?) senses went 'Ping!!!!' when I saw the name, plus the odd capitalisation of the page name. --220 of Borg 02:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello Meters,

I received both of your messages today both regarding changing my user name (which I have requested) as well as having multiple accounts for editing. In fact I only have one account (this one) and have been forced to keep creating new ones since, as you said, I was blocked before.

As you can tell from the history log, I have been contributing minor edits to this page since March 2013. This page rarely changed until it came under attack by a competitor in April 2014. His first change was under the user name IP which he later changed to IP and finally Bruceki. At the same time he recruited others to slander the Nature's Harmony Farm name both on Wikipedia as well as numerous Facebook pages and blogs. Most of those sites recognized the subjective and personal nature of his non-factual attacks and banned him from contributing. In the past month, I have simply been trying to remove his slander from this site. Nearly all of the changes that he suggests to the Nature's Harmony Farm page are non-factual, strongly biased and link to HIS personal blog.

Please let me know what I can do to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturesharmony (talkcontribs) 19:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I also have concerns with some of the original content in the article. That's why I just tagged the article with COI but have not reverted your change.
The problem with your account is that you did not discuss the issues with the article with the editor reverting you, despite numerous attempts to get you to do so. You were blocked for a short period (I don't remember the exact reason given, but you certainly violated wp:3RR) and your unblock request was denied because of your WP:COI and refusal to discuss the edits. Rather than waiting for the short block to expire you then created a new account and made the same edit. This account was blocked for socking and the block on your original account was extended to an indefinite one for WP:block evasion. You then created this account, and made the edit again. And now that there's a sock puppet investigation, you attempted to change your name. It's completely untrue for you to say that you only have one account, user:Naturesharmony, since it wasn't even created until after your other two accounts were indefinitely blocked.
The Blocks apply to the person behind the account. You should not be editing Wikipedia at all, under any name or IP (and I will not respond to any more edits to my talk page by you). The only thing you can do now is to go back to your original account and make a convincing unblock request using that account. Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. If you don't convince the admins that you understand what you did wrong and that you will not do it again I doubt very much that you have any chance at all. And if you make any more edits to anything else (no matter how correct or well-intentioned) before this is resolved, it will just be more evidence that you should not be unblocked. Meters (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not entirely accurate. It is true that my original login said I would be blocked for a short period, 48 hours. However, when attempting to login to that account today a message appeared that it was banned INDEFINITELY. Therefore, there was no option for me to respond. I didn't respond to the original talk requests because I knew it was SPAM. Since one of Wikipedia's goals, I assume, is true and accurate reporting, I thought the editors would see through that attack. Clearly I was mistaken but I would hope we could focus on ensuring accurate content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturesharmony (talkcontribs) 20:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what I said. That account is now indef'ed because you were evading your block. You can still edit that talk page though. Meters (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The talk page for this article has a list of the items that this person appears to object to. They're numbered. He has yet to respond to any request for discussion on this article, instead making the blanket claim that everything is slander and untrue. One item that is clearly and objectively true is that the farm is for sale, for instance. Objecting to an articles contents or veracity is fine -- but the place to do that is the talk page, not via vandalism. Bruceki (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm watching the article. I have not made any changes other than adding the COI template so far, but I will. The other user has been sanitizing the article and has clearly been socking after being blocked, and I have started a WP:SPI. His latest account is not blocked yet, but he has stopped editing since I explained things to him, so I suspect that he just didn't understand what he was doing wrong. That doesn't mean that you have free rein to put whatever you want into the article. Some of what you are adding is not acceptable. A user submitted review is certainly not a WP:Reliable source to quote in the article, for example. It could have been written by anyone, including you. Meters (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Crime in China, Japan, and Hong Kong[edit]

Dear Meters,

Freacknomics is telling me the homicide rate in China is 0.8 in 2012 and in 2010 is 1.0. I am not good with computers and do not know how to add references. Crime in china is out dated and i know u are not loyal to china at all. If you stop i will stop doing random stuff. It tells me japan is 1.17 which I'm going to round to 1.2. If you don't stop i will continue doing random stuff. Hong Kong it says is 0.2. So STOP BEATING UP CHINA and i will stop too. China is a growing country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CALGARY ROCKS (talkcontribs) 19:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Making even more dubious unsourced edits is just going to get you blocked all the quicker. You and your other account are both on your final warnings. Meters (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello meters I'm NISSAN GTR 1088 I apologize for messing up Wikipedia, and I'm not trying to cover my butt. I want you to know that I am not using multiple accounts and infact a Wikipedia account owner with his account named calgary rocks is my friend. When he changes the crime rate in china to 0.8 and stuff like that it's actually the real crime rate. I changed it to way higher numbers as a joke. I could really do without your kind of snotty messages on my talk page. This is not ment to be as snotty as you are probably interpreting it to be. part of the reason I messed things up was because as I said earlier calgary rocks would make China's homicide rate 0.8 and you would change it to a fake number. I'm not sure if your doing it on purpose cause you are unfair and jealous of China, or if you are doing it by accident. Let me know on my talk page which I have left 2 links for. I have been looking back a recent things people have left for you on your talk page and I get the feeling you have a bad history on Wikipedia. If you want you can leave me a message on my talk page. NISSAN GTR 1088 Preceding unsigned comment added by NISSAN GTR 1088 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't leave snotty remarks. I left polite, standard warning templates. If you don't like them I suggest you stop making disruptive edits. I changed the numbers in Crime in China back to the original values as given in the cited source. As I said on your talk page "You can't change the numbers but still claim to use the same source. Provide a new source if the numbers are real." You admit above that you are adding false information (that's vandalism), and that you are doing it in tandem with the other account. When there is a pattern of one of you makes a vandalism edit and the other coming along a few seconds later and to cover the vandalism up by making a dummy edit (such as adding a period or a space) it appears that you are either operating the second account as a sockpuppet (see WP:CHRONOSOCK), or that the other account is a meatpuppet colluding with you to disrupt the articles. Either way, I stand by the warnings I have left on both accounts. If the edits continue the next step will be either a request for blocks at WP:ANI or a sockpupet investigation at WP:SPI. Meters (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Message from Jordangarnett[edit]

I really don't know what's going on or what I am doing wrong. You must not know who I am.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordangarnett (talkcontribs) 23:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jordangarnett: (talk page stalker) You have repeatedly added Jordan Garnett to Park Vista Community High School, so it looks like you are trying to advertise yourself. See WP:SOAP. In addition, you have provided no source saying that Jordan Garnett is from Park Vista Community High School. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
(e.c.):All the links you need are already on your talk page. You keep adding your own name to a school notable alumni list. Since you don't have a wiki article, you need to provide an independent reliable source to show that you attended the school and are notable. You have made that edit 6 times in the last few hours (undone by 4 different editors) so you have also broken wp:3RR and could be blocked for edit warring. Meters (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
And now you're indefinitely blocked after making the same edit a 7th time. We tried to help you... Meters (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for helping get rid of attack pages lightning fast. Chillum 05:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Scientific terminology [edit]

I was still editing what I was doing. I have never edited one of these before, and am trying to figure out which tags to apply by reading the guides. It would have been fixed in a minute. CleopatraGG (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That's why I just pointed you to wp:tag bombing and suggested that you revisit your edits. There were way too many, and some of them were clearly not appropriate. Meters (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for reverting that vandalism to my talk page. I appreciate it! :) -BloodDoll (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Meters (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the information you left on my page -- I'll keep an eye out for the Rupert Murdoch situation with the user in question. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced, contentious BLP such as that is subject tot immediate removal per WP:BLPREMOVE Meters (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Allison Baver[edit]

. So even if the information is coming directly from the person the wiki page is about, it's a violation to add that information? Can you help me please — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllisonBaverPR (talkcontribs) 02:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a violation for you to make edits on her page as a PR rep, but it is a conflict of interest concern. The links on your page to WP:COI and wp:NPOV should help. Note that just because you are making edits for the subject of the article does not give you (or her) any additional say on what goes in the article or comes out of it. She does not WP:OWN the article. Any material has to be neutral and verifiable. Meters (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

about the troll(s)[edit]

The one in question was on Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster; and see my talkpage history, where I deleted four of his harrassments, and on the Teahouse talkpage (note section below your own on my talkpage), and two pesterings by an admin also on my talkpage, who I've had quite enough of being hectored and lectured by whenever there's major COI/POV stuff going on; the impatience of such demands is one reason I'm quitting, I've got a life to lead and Wikipedia's endless bullshit means that contributions are now second-place to rule-forging/enforcement and "bad calls" on RMs and CfDs and more; about those previous deletions, they were on this admin's talkpage, the same who blocked me when consensus on the ANI launched against me by this user (who also deleted an attempt to "negotiate" from her talkpage) was not going to pass and had not reached consensus by any means]]; similarly the admin whose nuisance pestering I just deleted and who had made personal calls on an important-locally CfD without knowing anything at all about the subject and its contents (to do with the Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh matter, about which too much could be said so "not here" or now...and he, also, had blocked me arbitrarily, not even allowing talkpage posts or email access to other users; without good cause. And I've been threatened with further blocks for naming other editors in the course of explaining the history of changed titles and the jiggery-pokery that mandated them. I've given up, it's pointless to argue reality with those who live only in the rarefied world of wikipedia guidelines). I'm only logged in briefly, as I will continue to monitor my talkpage for unwelcome trolling or hectoring/lecturing; I've tolerated way too much quasi-official garbage as it is. I'm an old man, and don't need the strain, and don't need to spend more of my good energy and good faith on people determined to be critical and contrarian; the massive disrespect towards regular editors of all kinds, some still around by many left, is one reason I see no further reason to give any contributions to Wikipedia; Wikimedia Commons I have avoided for a while because of even higher-handed arbitrariness, but the 'monkey business' means that no WAY will I ever contribute more photos, or money, to WikiMedia because of its highly offensive and questionable spending of money on that very, very, very improper and controversial legal case. I'm only responding to you because you....weren't an insulting or patronizing jerk, like so many. Too many.Skookum1 (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we ever interacted on any subjects, but I've always appreciated your many contributions to Canadian topics. I'm sorry to see you go, but I certainly understand your frustration. I wasn't following your situation, but I have my own concerns about dubious calls and apparent double standards with respect to the behaviour of various users and admins. Meters (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate user page usage[edit]

I note that you maintain several pages of "users to keep track of" (here, here and here). Per Wikipedia user page policy, this is not an acceptable use of your user pages. You should probably request deletion of those pages. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for deletion of the two stale ones, and I've trimmed the Annany one to remove the accounts since I have never needed to take them to SPI. I don't see how anything that is left could possible be considered a violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC. Keeping track of the MO and targets of one of the most prolific sockers and long term abusers on Wikipedia can hardly be considered "Very divisive or offensive material". My last update to that subpage was 4 months ago, which seems timely enough considering that the user in question had been active for 8 years and was banned 6 year ago. Meters (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to thank you for pointing out that the stale ones should go. Meters (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

NBR edits[edit]

Hi. The original edit, with the only possible citation for a group with no notability was to counter unsubstantiated claims of up to 5000 members. It was carefully worded to state that there were 3 known members, which is the only verifiable information about this group's membership. AntiCauliflower92 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Then just remove the unsubstantiated claim of 5000 members and leave it. The last four times you've inserted this claim you were not removing a claim of thousands of members, you were simply inserting your claim. You've been edit warring (with no discussion) to include the WP:WEASEL worded claim of just "three known members" based on nothing more than a picture of three people. That's as unsubstantiated as the original claim. The article is very unlikely to survive the AFD so don't get yourself blocked for edit warring. I agree that the article should be deleted. Meters (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I agree and will do this. Thank you for your advice. AntiCauliflower92 (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see the edit warring case that had already happened. I'm a bit surprised that the IP was blocked without having received an edit warring warning, and I think you were a bit lucky not to get blocked for a boomerang, but, whatever. I'll remove the warning from your page since it was after the fact, and you've gotten the point. Meters (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Richardson family murders[edit]

Done, thanks for the heads up. (I actually suspect that there may still be some others lurking in the history, but I don't have the time right now to manually check every edit in the page's entire history.) To be honest, what I really think is that instead of keeping it pageprotected we should actually not keep an article about it at all — but I realize that it would be exceedingly difficult to actually get a consensus to have it deleted, which is why I've been reticent to try. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Bearcat This article has been a problem for a very long time. I tried to look up the OTRS number to find out what was covered, but there does not seem to be any way for non-admins to see anything (not even to confirm that an OTRS number is valid). Two more edits by the same user here and here. Meters (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


The Horace Mann School entry, as are sadly many entries for private boarding and day schools, is filled with NOTABLES, but many lack footnotes. I have been warned to do otherwise on a page I authored by editors of the site.SLY111 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)SLY111

As I said on your talk page, they don't need footnote to show notability if they are notable enough to have their own wiki articles. And they don't need footnotes to show attendance if the ref is included in their article. Please read WP:WPSCH/A. Meters (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The list is far too long. It should now be split into a separate article, leaving a prose section that contains just a few of the most notable alumni. This will also force the issue of requiring sourced proof that they attended the school. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Heights of Mexican soccer players[edit]

Hello meters I have change the height on some mexicans player I have prove before I did it I saw the mexican player in real life I 1.75 cm or 5'9 I know the I'm taller than most of them the height the you put are not real I did have prove before I did it thank you I hope I receive some message from you or show me prove about their height thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan00000000 (talkcontribs) 18:40, September 6, 2014‎

Juan00000000 Well, at the very least that is original research. Read WP:OR and use reliable sources instead. But I simply don't believe you. In this edit you reduced the height of a player by 28 cm. I find it hard to believe that a 4'-7" player was not only a professional but played on the national team. Meters (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello you have prove the that his real height stop lying to people about the height it like saying that there is actually 5'2 player in the nba that did appeared in the game miguel Herrera is 4'7 hi is really short — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan00000000 (talkcontribs) 20:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
No, you have to provide sources for the changes you are making to the articles. You have not provided a single source for any of the many height changes you have made, some heights that have been in the articles for years. If you have sources other than comparison to your own height let's see them. Meters (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
and indef'ed. Meters (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Im Sorry[edit]

Im sorry about the smoking age article, you were right about the 19 age. I will no longer edit it thank you :) [User: I AM WILDEDIT] 8:17 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I AM WILDEDIT (talkcontribs)

Removal of Archbishop Wood HS Alumni Gay Hate Crime Article[edit]

Removal of Archbishop Wood HS Alumni Gay Hate Crime Article

I do not know if you are the Wikipedia Administrator who had this article removed twice, but the Wikipedia administrators have collectively been censoring this topic.

The topic and the conclusion it was a hate crime has not only been reported in "fringe" papers (which I guess is code for "gay" by the Wikipedia administrators) but by mainstream papers and television stations (NBC, ABC, Fox) in Philadelphia The Archdiocese of Philadelphia shares this viewpoint as evidenced by its comments on the crime.

Wikipedia should contain articles on hate crimes, which reflect on both American society and human nature.

I would be fine with edits and improvements to this article, but am very disappointed with the Wikipedia censorship machine that removed the article in its entirety twice. Please note that in the brief times the article was posted other people added substantially to the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talkcontribs) 12:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors who removed the material from the high school article Archbishop Wood Catholic High School. I didn't delete Archbishop Wood HS Alumni Gay Hate Crime''' (I'm not an admin) but I participated in the deletion discussion, and I fully support its deletion. The article has been deleted three times now, twice by speedy, and once by AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archbishop Wood HS Alumni Gay Hate Crime''', and the high school article is now protected. I'm not going to discuss the reasons for the removal of the material from the school article and for the deletion of the stand-alone article again. The reasons have been well explained on your talk page and at the deletion discussion.
Your comments on other editors are starting to sound like personal attacks, so I suggest that you stop. Meters (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

American Rotation (pool)[edit]

Thanks for your quick edits and support of the new page. You are helping me understand the in's and out's. After years of using Wikipedia, it's funny the details that I never noticed, but thanks to you, I am really paying attention to the Standard Formatting and rules. Thanks again... (Eengner (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC))

Starting a new article from scratch is not the easiest thing. You're well on your way now. A solid independent ref about the championship (not from the ABC site) and it should be safe.

Meters (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick question. When I go to the Wikipedia search box and type "American Rotation" and search, I get nothing. However, if I type "American Rotation (pool) it goes directly to the page. Any recommendations or advice? (Eengner (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC))
I'll create the redirect for you. Meters (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Acetotyce (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Acetotyce: Thanks for letting me know, since the filer didn't bother telling me (or the other three editors who have redirected the article). Nothing like being dragged to a forum by a persistent edit warrer. Meters (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


We can't edit the page name, can we? The best I can do is to redirect it to a page with the correct name. The reference link should be taken into account. When the reference sourc e itselfs names Maibang, how can the page name be MAIBONG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maibang (talkcontribs) 05:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes we can rename the page, but we have to get an admin to delete the redirect Maibang that is blocking the move. I've made the request and will move the article once that is done. The way you did it (copy and paste of the article) we lost all of the edit history so we did not know who contributed what. Meters (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The move was done by the admin who deleted the blocking redirect (the proper procedure for this). Meters (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

recon units[edit]

1st Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Recce platoon is in fact a recon unit in Canada and it's hardest member is in fact cpl Martin. I know him well. I'm was in the platoon. He still is. Cpl Martin is a legend in 1ppcli. We say to recruits on the recce course Matt Martin was never born he was forged on mount Olympus to inspire them to be like him. By deleting this you are removing apart of canadian military culture that should be known and people can be proud of. Canada should look at it's soldiers and know small things like this. Its human interest and it gives personality to canadas fighting men. Also you missed 1,2 and 3 rcr recon platoons and 3 PPCLI recon platoon. Those platoons all saw heavy fighting in Afghanistan and should have a mention on this page.

P.s the PPCLI pages is rife with errors. Our moto isn't "once a Patricia" we have several but that not one of them and we don't call the LER 4 PPCLI. None of us do. They call themselves that and it's insulting to us because they aren't Patricia's and nothing like us. The PPCLI battle school is one of the hardest infantry courses in the world and they weren't on one ever. My grandma might aswell say she's a U.S. Marine. I hope in light of this you consider allowing my edit as it calls to question the accuracy and legitimacy of other pages on Wikipedia if you do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaustecroix (talkcontribs) 04:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Also!!! Pathfinders no longer exist in Canada. That trade has been removed along with assault pioneers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaustecroix (talkcontribs) 04:43, September 30, 2014‎
@Beaustecroix: I didn't revert the edit [5] because of what you said about the unit. I reverted it because of the extra you added about unit members, "Hardest member being Cpl Martin. He was never born but forged on mount Olympus. Weakest goes to Cpl Watson." I have no problem with the edit the way you redid it (without the in jokes. That material does not belong in that article, since it is a general article about such units world wide. Maybe it could go in the article about the specific unit if the info is properly sourced.
If you are going to post on talk pages please learn the rules. Add new threads at the bottom, not the top. Add a header so the thread will be indexed rather than added to the previous thread, and sign your posts. Not only did you not sign them, but you deleted the autosigned signature on your first post. Meters (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Please add to or correct the various other articles. You obviously know far more about them than most of us. Meters (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Super Yacht Fan[edit]

Dear Meters,

Can you please reconsider your correction? I think you are overreaction regarding my 'spamming'. If I would be spamming, I would place dozens of links all over Wikipedia. But actually there are just 3 or 4 links from Wikipedia to my site, of which 1 or 2 were put online by myself. Apparently the competent moderator did not consider the info as spam. In this case it was not spam.. It is widely known that Bram van Leeuwen lived on his yacht Also it is a fact that his partner sold the yacht after he died And even Wikipedia mentions that Craig McCaw bought her So if I would be searching Bram van Leeuwen on Wikipedia, than I would consider this relevant, or at least interesting. The fact that my site has a general disclaimer does not mean that all data is incorrect. Wikipedia is referring to more sites with disclaimers.... So please reconsider.. I am no spammer. Peter Super Yacht Fan Peter-yacht-fan (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Just jumping in here, please read WP:ADV; this will make policy clear. Cordially, SeaphotoTalk 06:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you..
Meters, Can you place the info online? Than it is not done by myself :)

Peter-yacht-fan (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for you to avoid editing articles and adding properly sourced material. There is no issue of conflict of interest or advertising if you avoid citing your own website. Any material you add does have to verifiable from reliable sources though. Between this page, your talk page, and User talk:Edgar181 you have been pointed to WP:RS, WP:ADV, WP:COI, and WP:EL. That should cover what you need to know. It's also been suggested that you can take the issue to WP:RSN if you still think your webpage should be an acceptable source. I think it would be a waste of time, but it's available if you want a third opinion or don't understand why we have rejected your website.
The sources you mention above are less than compelling. The Youtube link might be acceptable if it were an official page of someone considered to be an authority on the subject (the owner, for example) but it does no appear to be such. may well be acceptable, but I'm not able to tell since I don't know how well they research their facts. That one would likely have go to WP:RSN. The wikiarticle cannot be used for a source, but it does appear to source the statement. If so that source can be reused.
Regardless of how good any sources are, I agree with User:Edgar181 that the specific edit you made to Bram van Leeuwen is not appropriate to the article. The article is about Bram van Leeuwen. We simply don't need to follow the ownership history of his yacht though all her subsequent owners following his death. Meters (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Regarding Moment of inertia, you could also be accused of editing warring since you have reverted me twice. I have contacted the first person that reverted my edits. I also added a section explaining the correction. I suggest that you respond to my explanation in the talk page. You might want to self-revert. The physics is clear in this situation. No amount of argument can change the fact that that image is not an example of conservation of angular momentum. Dger (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that argument. I reverted you once and pointed out that you should have taken it to the talk page per BRD after you had been reverted the first time (and a source was added to prove the point). I then started a discussion. You reverted a third time, and I again undid you per BRD and referred you to the talk page. Only after I warned you for edit warring did you start a new discussion, ignoring the one I had already started on the talk page.
Your mention of the picture of the figure skater seems to be red herring since edit since neither of the edits I reverted involved that image. Meters (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. The edit was indeed to the image description. Meters (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)