User talk:Meters

If this page has been protected and you cannot edit it you may leave messages here. Meters (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Waldorf School of Baltimore

Your most recent edit had an edit description talking about non-notable students, but no students were mentioned in what was deleted by you. May have been an edit conflict since I edited that section just before you and deleted some of it. Thanx for looking at the article as well. Was feeling a little bit lonely with the COI editor.Naraht (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup. we edit conflcted and I already undid myself. I have no idea why the edit conflict ended up removing text that I hadn't touched. Meters (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

July

Davis resigned as the Guantanamo prosecutor on October 6, 2007, hours after William Haynes was made his superior officer. He said that he was not going to take orders from "the guy who said waterboarding is A-okay". He was ordered by his superiors to silence his criticisms.

You're telling me this is good information? That is what we should have in the Khadr article? a) it's not. b) if it is add only it back instead of reverting my edit and putting back other irrelevant information, that's misuse of the revert function. c) I have made dozens of edits to the article the past few days, being that I left one action out of my edit summary is not grounds for accusing me of blanking. d) Don't accuse me of sneaky vandalism, you're supposed to assume good faith, I don't understand how removing the above paragraph would push forward anyone's agenda. e) if you think my behavior is improper report me to someone, please. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

References

As I said on your talk page, hidign edits such as those under an unrelated edit summary smacks of sneaky vandalism. If you want to remove the info about Khadr's dress then feel free to remove it. Take the rest of it to the talkpage per WP:BRD Meters (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Get over yourself

I added that information back (like you should have) instead of reverting (which you did improperly). Please just report me to the sneaky vandalism or edit-warring noticeboard, you are currently cluttering my talk page. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I din't revert you, I undid you, with an explanation, and I told you that you were welcome to remove just the part about the clothing. Thank you for restoring the information about the prosecutor, but I see you still have not restored the contested information about the attorney. Either restore it or discuss it on the talk page as I requested. And don't make comments about other editors in your edit summaries. Meters (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that I have started a discussion of El Cid's behaviour at WP:AN3. Newimpartial (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Neurologic Music Therapy

@Meters: Can we move the discussion at User talk:Kyurim1 to here? I expect we are in agreement that COI editors routinely cause problems.

We have a user, Kyurim1, who is editing Neurologic Music Therapy and states that they are doing so "on behalf of the Academy of Neurologic Music Therapy". There are wiki-procedural problems with their edits. Among those problems, I do not immediately identify any promotion, and at a glance they seem like subject matter experts who out of professionalism want to develop the Wikipedia article in their field.

You say that this user should comply with WP:COI, WP:DISCLOSE, WP:PAID, WP:SPAM. When there is an identified problem with promotionalism, I would agree. In this case, I do not see any of those things. Because I see no COI or promotion, I say that there is no reason to ask this user to comply with COI process. Are you seeing promotion here? Is it your position that even without promotion, this user should follow COI process? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There is clearly a PAID COI issue here, and yes there are promotional aspects to some of the edits, as I have already explained on the user's page. If you disagree then we can take this to the COI board. I've already explained why I think the user needs to follow these guidelines and given examples of some of the problematic edits. This is exactly why we ask COI editors to discuss their proposed edits on the talk page rather than making the edits directly. I'm not going to go go through the whole thing again. If you disagree with my analysis then please make some specific points. Frankly, I can't understand how anyone can possibly look at this and have no COi or promotion concerns. As I said, Statements such as "For more information regarding Neurologic Music Therapy (NMT) or training in NMT, please visit: https://nmtacademy.co/" are definitely promotional andEdits such as "As an NMT, make sure you clearly understand the role rhythm has in changing brain function. Keep this paramount in your mind as you treat your clients." are not appropriate. I can pull lots of other questionable material out but if you don't see the problem with these edits and the either issues I raised there does not seem to be much point to it.

It appears that the editor is rewriting the article to to be about his particular group's approach to Neurologic Music Therapy. As I said on his page, unless they are the only group in the world working in this area, that is not appropriate. Meters (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

And when I mentioned WP:COI, WP:DISCLOSE, WP:PAID, WP:SPAM, WP:RS and WP:COPYVIO on the user's page, that was in the context of some of the policies that other users had already pointed the editor to before they made their edits. Meters (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the "please visit: https://nmtacademy.co/" is inappropriate.

I am not arguing with you, and I see no need for a mediator from COIN. I am just asking because I did not understand.

They made at least one foray into promotionalism so I suppose the rules come down on them. Still, they added an unusually large amount of text which seemed like general academic content to me, and if I had to guess, I would say that fewer than 1 in 10,000 paid editors ever cite an academic article related to their field but unrelated to a business. This seems like an unusual case to me. I read your words to be a harsher than I thought they ought to be considering that I perceived this user as here for reasons other than to sell a product or service. I am wrong about that, and as you said, they linked to their training. Thanks for talking this through. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I came down harshly on them. I was clear that it appeared to be good faith editing by someone who was trying to follow the rules but simply didn't understand how to do so, and either had not read or simply did not understand the links other editors had already provided. I was the one who happened to undo the edit so I added my comments. Your telling an editor with a stated conflict of interest who wanted to edit on behalf of his institute to be bold and go ahead and edit was a mistake on your part. Meters (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I do regularly tell organizations to have their staff edit Wikipedia. Here is a list of when I and other around me have done that. I recognize that most wiki editors say that institutional partnerships are off limits. It is a tense situation. I apologize for my mistake, but at the same time, I admit that I intend to continue to seek expert contributors to post to Wikipedia. I regret the conflict and am sympathetic to the counterproductive nature of the situation. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You should not. There is a very significant difference between having knowledgeable people edit in their areas of technical expertise and WP:PAID WP:COI editing. If you don't see it you should not be advising anyone. Meters (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Allegation that proposed deletion of Gurmukh (yoga teacher) is inappropriate

I find your statement laughable.

You first of all claim Sikhism isn't relevant to the discussion, but it is very relevant. It is plastered all over the individual's wikipedia page, suggesting they are using the faith as a way to promote their Yoga (hindu practice).

If it wasn't relevant, then why is this person's purported faith prominently mentioned all over their page? Why not just stick to yoga discussions and the famous clients without mentioning the embarrassing name of her child and the embarrassing last name she chose to adopt as a way to distinguish herself?

Secondly, you state that none of the reasons are valid, yet you're alleging that being on yogainternational.com somehow establishes notability. It does not. As I stated on the deletion page, others have been deleted for much less than what is proposed.

You are free to dig up an arsenal of yoga teacher links, but that in no way establishes this person has done enough to be notable. Not even with an arm full of links that I know you're likely harvesting right now, plus a 2009 vanity fair article, are enough to establish notability. All they do is suggest this person is a yoga teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.249.64 (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You clearly don't know how to make a valid argument for deletion. Whether the information needs to be in the article is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. So is whether her hid's name is offensive or silly. I'm not interested in your personal attacks. Stay off my page. Meters (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons VP discussion

Hi Meters. Just thought you might want to look at c:COM:VP/C#Possible attack files since the files seem to have been created/uploaded with you in mind. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Appreciated. Meters (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

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

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

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih^Talk 05:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. Thanks. Meters (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

i had no idea you didnt have this flag, or I would have invited you {{NPR invite}}. See you around. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 13:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Robert McClenon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Boastup, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No need to leave this if you are just adding another criteria to the one I listed. Meters (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Geez, I take the afternoon off to go swimming with my munchkin and all hell breaks loose. Thanks to you (and Arxiloxos) for the reverts. I left him a level 4im warning for harassment with some extra copy. In case you didn't catch on, this traces back to The Woody Show, which as a recent editor there, you should be advised is at AfD. Glad to see your participation at NPP and AfC. The old refrain regarding RfA still applies. John from Idegon (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that one was far beyond WP:AGF territory. Meters (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Henry Miller

I have no COI with this person. I've met him a few times but am not a friend, family, etc. I am not receiving compensation, I'm not an employee of any entity related to him. Please restore my edits or I'll do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfulbright (talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You previously told me that you that you knew him personally and were editing the article because he had discussed his concerns with the article with you. That is a definite COI. Read WP:COI. We have had at least one previous discussion about your COI. If you restore those edits without first discussing them on the talk page I will tag the article with a COI template and raise this issue on the COI notice board for discussion. Meters (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, please review the additions I made and point out any that you consider not to be valid and cited additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfulbright (talk • contribs) 20:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page posts. I have already explained some of my concerns on your talk page. I'm not going to discuss them here also. Please take the discussion of article content to the article talk page where it belongs and where other editors can see it and give their opinions. That is the correct thing to do with contested edits per WP:BRD even without the COI issue. Meters (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You've alleged this COI in the past. I refuted it last time, and my edits stayed. Just because I know someone doesn't means there is a conflict of interest.

I posted a number of valid, cited articles and op-eds. You deleted those with no basis. I shouldn't have to go to a discussion page to ask you to restore valid cited references.

If you have specific concerns, such as your allegation of "whitewashing", then make a specific edit on that sentence rather than undo all my additions and edits.

I'm not a Wikipedia expert. Most people aren't. If only Wikipedia experts contributed, it wouldn't be Wikipedia, it would be a low-traffic back alley. Please stop throwing minor things like not signing talk page posts. 2602:306:CD54:2950:34B2:405A:B997:50A (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC) (sig moved to end of post)

If you don't want me to ask you to sign your posts on my talk page then either sign your posts on my talk page, or don't post here. And the signature goes at the end of your post not the beginning (I didn't notice at first that you signed this, or made this post from your IP rather than your named account). Again, I've already explained my specific concerns with some of your edits on your talk page. And as I said in my edit summary, and above, please discuss the edits on the article's talk page. As for the COI, you know him personally well enough to refer to his wife by her first name, and you started editing this article after you met with him and he expressed concerns to you over the article content. That's a COI in my books, but if you want to claim that you do not have a COI we can take this to the COI noticeboard for discussion by other editors. You don't have to work with him to have a conflict of interest, and having a conflict of interest does not mean that none of your edits will end up in the article. It just means that you should not edit the article without first discussing the edits on the talk page. Meters (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:72.198.49.108

Actually this IP user is harassing the editor in his talk page, that's why we both editors warned him for his behavior. We both want that you revoke house talk page access until his block expiration so that he cannot be able to harass. Their Thankyou. SahabAliwadia 18:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your edits are inappropriate, as I explained on your talk page. He's already blocked for 3 months. He is allowed to remove warnings. Don't add new warnings and son't restore anything he removes. Meters (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

My question still has not been answered. Will 72.198.49.109 get blocked from editing his talk page as well? Thank you. TheNewSMG (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Meters is not an administrator. He cannot answer the question you are asking. Best bet is to contact the blocking administrator. However if all they are doing is reverting your postings (which are useless anyway. He's blocked and is not allowed to reply. He cannot edit, so they are not warnings, so that begs the question, whose harassing who?), you're not going to get any traction. Best to drop the STICK. John from Idegon (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. I can't remove the IP's talk page access, I wouldn't if I could, and I doubt that any admin will block talk page access based on what has happened so far. Maybe if it keeps up. Just leave the IP alone, TheNewSMG. You might also want to read WP:GRAVEDANCING and Do not feed the trolls Meters (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

And TheNewSMG now indeffed for socking. Meters (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Your censoring

My name is Larry Dove and I am Pauls eldest grandson. I have facts of what I went through with him while he was alive and with you censoring my voice on falsified information on this site i will report his site to whoever i need to. Just because someone wants to erite a book and call is true doesnt mean it is. I was there I know the man for truth Debdove (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and report this to anyone you wish. People have tried to explain this to you before. If you continue to remove sourced material and replace if with completely unsourced accusations of homosexuality and sexual abuse you will be warned again and likely blocked again. Meters (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

And please don't use your family member's Wikipedia account. The user behind this account has already identified herself as the wife of the grandson of Paul Salomon [1]. Wikipedia accounts are for individuals only. Meters (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Debdove: If you think the sources used in the article are not accurate then please take this issue up at the reliable sources board WP:RS/N. Meters (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes she is my wife, her name is Debbie, my name is Larry as I said I am Paul's eldest grandson.

Its the point your site is fake.

I lived through it and cannot write a BOOK about what i went through due to his widow blocking me from doing so.

But she lets people write lies about him and you allow it because it's in a book.

If you refuse to allow me or my wife to post the truth to these lies on your site about my grandfather then just take his down as it is almost all fictional. His wife was into future tellers not him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debdove (talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't use your wife's account again or it will be blocked as a shared account. Create your own account.

I've already told you what to do if you want to challenge the reliability of the sources currently used in the article. We're not going to to change the article based simply on your say so. For one thing, we don't know that what you are claiming is correct, or even that you are who you say you are. Wikipedia often has editors falsely claiming to be people who they are not in an attempt to convince other editors to allow changes. Meters (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Debdove: Sharing an account with another person is explicitly forbidden under Wikipedia's username policy.

Wikipedia is not a battleground and is not the place for you to right great wrongs. Per Wikipedia's policy on No original research, if what you claim has never been published in a reliable third-party source, then it cannot exist on Wikipedia. According to the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth:

Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.

You've been told to take up disputes with sources to the reliable sources noticeboard. If you make any further edits to this article in the name of your crusade for truth, it will be considered disruptive editing and further action will ensue. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Giles Scanlon

I don't see how that was an attack page. They will occasionally give "humerous" Oscar awards for silly or negative reasons, and thy do give silly awards for other "worst" things. The only thing questionable is the hoax claim about being married to Ben Carson. Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The admins who have deleted the article twice disagree with you. If you don't recognize that as an attack page perhaps you should not review new pages. Meters (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Gosh where to begin with this one. It's a schoolkid talking about their mate. Giveaway: "[He] plays Floss in ... The Dumping Ground".[2] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I was mistaken about the first deletion. It was not as an attack page and I can't see the content. The latest version was unsourced, contained an apparently bogus claim that the person was in the show (not listed in the list of actors in the wikiarticle for the show), some insulting bogus awards, and a claim of homosexuality. That's a hoax and an attack in my books. My apologies for the overly harsh response to Pillowfluffyhead though. Meters (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

East St. Louis

You know, that looks like one of those pages someone made to show off their skills at mark up. We've both seen school pages where there is a table for everything. The ESL list doesn't seem long enough to even bother with a forked separate list. I'm contemplating merging in back to the settlement article. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklins' Junto is the equivalent of a Mastermind today.

long thread, most of which should have been on article talk page

Hello, I have noticed that you have reverted my edit about Franklin's Junto. I see zero issue with it. Could it possibly be located in an inappropriate spot, yes? But, the information is factual and I had about 3-4 citations for my claims. All reliable, and it's even stated in Think & Grow Rich. I believe it is beneficial to have my edit on the page. If you agree too, do you think it should be it's own 'paragraph'/sentence, so it doesn't collude with anything else? Thank you Meters! Aviartm (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Firstly, it's obvious nonsense; "today's standards" could not have been set in a 1937 book. Secondly, it did not have about 3-4 citations. It had one citation, to a "strategic marketing consultant" who produces the usual reams of bafflegab - no indication that she is a RS. Hill's book was influential and important; that doesn't make people who spout marketese while trying to ride on Hill's coattails into authorities on any subject. Thirdly, it's basically trivia. Every effective group of people in existence could be made to fit descriptions of effective groups of people from any number of self-improvement manuals; it would not improve Wikipedia to junk up their pages with all these spurious classifications. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC) First of all, today's standards can be set at any point in history. If said topic/wording is still used and very prevalent today, just as a Mastermind, it is still by "today's standards". No other word has been coined to describe such a group. Bad point. Secondly, it had 3 citations. According to Napoleon Hill, Junto is classified as a Mastermind group.(1) (2) (3) Thirdly, I classified Junto as such because it is a prime example within the business world and people who are enticed by masterminds and what they have to offer. Aviartm (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC) It had one citation. Here you are adding it to Junto (club) with that one citation. Here you are adding it to Benjamin Franklin with that one citation. The word "mastermind" (or the expression "master mind") does not appear in Waldstreicher, there is no mention of Hill's classification on p. 30 where the Junto first appears, "Napoleon" only appears in the book twice - to refer to Napoleon Bonaparte. This is because this citation, and Lemay 2005, were already on Benjamin Franklin when you inserted this nonsense; they don't support it. You have no citations either for the 1937 book having set "today's standards", or that it's a "prime example", or that "people who are enticed by masterminds" are somehow an authority, etc. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Aviartm, what you are doing by repeatedly restoring edits that have been removed on multiple pages is edit warring. You have been told more than once to discuss your content on the articles' talkpages. You have been told more than once to stop marking these edits as minor. They were not minor the first times, and they certainly were not minor when you restored them again. If you want to discuss the content of the edits then open discussions on the articles' talk pages so other interested editors can participate. Meters (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC) References I had 3 citations and I listed them for you. I did not have one here and over there. I had a complete total of 3. Why are you disclaiming this? You can go back to the original edit. Including, Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Dictionary.com, and Cambridge all have definitions for 'mastermind'. It's a real word. Then again, if I cannot prove it. How can you? A book or a piece of art does not have to state "this will become today's standards". I never claimed that a mastermind will entice people, but it has and can. And Junto is a prime example. Definition of Mastermind: plan and direct. Then again, usually, dictionaries publish a broad definition to words. But with the definition of Mastermind by Hill: The coordination of knowledge and effort of two or more people, who work toward a definite purpose, in the spirit of harmony. Aviartm (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC) You did not have 3 citations; that is simply not true. I have listed diffs of both edits where you introduced this junk and in each case one citation is added. The other two citations on Benjamin Franklin were there already and have no relevance to this nonsense. That "mastermind" is a real word is not in dispute and not remotely pertinent. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC) You are belittling clear cut evidence. Very moronic. I have showed you my exact original edit from the page. Very quite sad that you cannot believe my works and results!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviartm (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC) No, you haven't. I have shown you the exact diff; it is not my fault you can't read it. The two other citations were there beforehand and have no relationship at all to this nonsense you have added. Please also remember WP:CIVILITY; it is not appropriate to refer to other users as "moronic" (and it makes you look silly when you're in the wrong yourself). Once more: Here is the page before you turned up. The Waldstreicher and Lemay citations are already there. They contain nothing supporting this material about Hill. Here is your edit, adding one citation. Please follow these links and endeavour to comprehend what you are seeing. You had one citation, not three. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Meters, I have restored Junto/Benjamin Franklin once. Only once. And that is why I am here discussing the matters with you two, because you two are the most conflicted with it. Aviartm (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC) You have been told multiple times, by multiple editors, concerning edits to multiple articles to discuss your edits on the articles' talk pages. And yet you keep restoring edits without discussing them. In this case you made virtually the identical edit 4 times, it just happened to be on two different but related articles. So yes I call that edit warring. And you are still incorrectly marking your edits as minor. Please take this to the article's talk page and stop discussing it on my talk page. Meters (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC) References

United Firefighters Union of Australia

Hi - not sure if I am doing this right: I see my additional citations etc have been deleted again: I assume this is edit-warring. I am unsure how to proceed. My information is correct and validated so why is it being removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethicschecker (talk • contribs) 06:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You are at SPI and ANI. The article is now fully protected because of the edit warring. None of you can edit the article now. I have not touched the article, I have explicitly said that I will not comment on the content of the article until the ANI is finished. I have not looked at the content, have no opinion on which version is correct or better, and because it is fully protected I cannot edit the article either. Discuss the issue on the article's talk page. If you cannot reach a concensus then see WP:DR. Meters (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Why was I blocked when I was the only one attempting to discuss the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSWFire (talk • contribs) 23:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Sign your talk page posts.
2. You are fortunate not to be blocked, but your are not blocked or you would not have been able to post this to my page.
3. If you had been blocked it would not have been by me as I am not an admin, so why are you asking me? Meters (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked for socking. Meters (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Steve Lyons

Hello I am writing content about the youtuber Steve Lyons and other youtube celebrities. The subject has articles and videos discussing his life. I have received references about his life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Losangelesnews (talk • contribs) 21:29, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean "you have received references"? It appears o me that you have taken over a DAB page with a promotional article about a non-notable person. Meters (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Enright

I am contesting the speedy deletion nomination for my page Enright Ridge Urban Ecovillage. Okay, so to get around this I should 1) Create a non-promotional username as myself and 2) Since, I am a temporary intern and I am getting paid to create this wikipedia page for them I should follow the process as outlined in WP:PAY. Will this help me to be able to publish this page? This page is not meant to be a promotional or marketing page, simply an educational and awareness piece to compliment the existing web pages that are set up within this small non-profit organization. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERUEV (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Your user name is somewhat problematic as it is the initials of your group, and you are clearly a paid editor. Changing your username and following WP:PAY will not address the issue of the possible lack of notability of the subject. You need to find reliable, independent sources that discuss Enright Ridge Urban Eco-village. It's unusual enough that I'm sure they exist (and a very quick search has already found several acceptable sources) so I'll remove the prod. Please propose your edit son the article's talk page rather than making them yourself. Meters (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ohm update

Hello I am a member of development team and my updates to OHm coin continue to get rejected. Please advise what is triggered the automatic deletion of the development of these edits OssianMills (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi OssianMills, I think I can help. Your edits to OHM (cryptocurrency) are unambiguously promotional. We're trying to create a factual, neutral encyclopedia here, not a billboard for advertising your company. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

now indeffed for spamming. Meters (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The SPI you opened

Thanks for catching those edits and for opening that SPI on those accounts. I'm messaging you to let you konw that I've responded to the SPI and closed it. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

no probs. Meters (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that I've ever had that quick an SPI response, by the way. Meters (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Barnstable High School

2602:306:CFC1:630:E84F:43A8:C079:559B (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC) i hope i am doing this right. What can I do to prove I went to the highschool I went to? Very new to this process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cfc1:630:e84f:43a8:c079:559b (talk • contribs) 06:09, September 19, 2017 (UTC)

See WP:RS, and the issue isn't whether you went to the school so much as that you are attempting to add yourself as a notable alumnus without any evidence that you are notable (or attended). Normally alumni are not added to alumni lists unless they already have a wikipediua article (see WP:ALUMNI). Meters (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit War

Yes. I am in an edit war. I added a section and am being persecuted because of it for no good reason. Please verify that the offending party has also received a warning. Also, the same person has followed me into another dialogue and is persecuting me there as well. If I alone have received this warning, then please explain. What is meant to be gained by starting edit wars with me? What is that supposed to accomplish? Ostensibly I am supposed to settle disputes in talk. In practice, the people in question will tend to talk at me for a bit pointing to rules associated with wiki that may or may not be pertinent ultimately pronouncing judgement (unfailingly negative) concerning my edit. So at this point, because you are next in line, it is for you to tell me what wikipedia is. You do not have urls to back you up as the supposed 5 pillars are a subject that none of my detractors are willing to talk about. If you really believe wiki is what it says, then there is a tremendous amount to be discussed concerning the behavior of those towards me within the last two days. Is this something you are capable of? If not, then who is? Audeamus42 (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC) 09/24/17, 2:25

I've been talking about them. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Audeamus42, you are not being persecuted. I have not warned the other editor. The edit in question appears very badly flawed and I support its removal. You are clearly edit warring to include this material. You have made no attempt to discuss the edit on the talk page. I have opened the discussion. You have had a previous warning for edit warring, and multiple other high level warnings in the one day your account had been active. I left you your warning as one last chance for you to figure out how things work here and what is acceptable editing. Read WP:BRD and the various links on your page and follow them or you will likely be blocked. Meters (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: September 2017

After consideration, I will stop adding MobyGames.com as an external link. Futhermore, I will go through every article on my watchlist and remove MobyGames.com as an external link from each and every article. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of cleaning up other MobyGames.com external links that weren't on my watchlist (some added in by others and some added in by me). Thanks for the heads-up about WP:ELNO. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk page discussions

Thank you for taking part in the talk page discussion on Wanda Metropolitano. Because I am relatively new here, especially to "behind the scenes" stuff like dispute resolution, may you tell me how these discussions conclude? Is a deadline set and then the votes in each direction are counted? Does an admin look at the comments like a judge and pass a verdict? I am just looking to learn here. Thank you Harambe Walks (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

No deadline, and no official conclusion (and it's not a vote as such). We're just looking for a consensus of editors. If it cannot be reached then there are more formal methods of reaching a resolution but I doubt very much they will be necessary in this case. I see no justification for the gallery in Wanda Metropolitano. and the edit warring WP:SPA IP is unlikely to be able to provide a reason why we need this gallery. I'll check the article talk page later. Meters (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

We reached a consensus. A helpful editor named Seth Whales restructured the gallery to show phases of construction of the stadium. Thus, it does not violate WP:GALLERY as the images have a clear educational theme. Everyone is happy. Don't you love this website sometimes? Harambe Walks (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Content removal from FC Steaua București

Over the last few days I've been trying to remove a fairly large portion of content from FC Steaua București. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia guidelines I found were not quite specific about how to do this, so at first I reverted to a version of 2007 and afterwards I simply deleted the respective content from the edit option. What are the steps I need to make in order to do this? I may also add that this relatively significant part of content was conceived, written, edited and added by me in this page in 2007. It has not been modified in any way by any other user (apart from maybe just a few minor edits), so it is basically the same as when it was first introduced. I no longer wish for this content to be associated with this page - especially since the FC Steaua București page has been in a dispute with the CSA Steaua București (football) page - and my portion of content has been used as an argument for the latter page's current protection, due to an incorrect claim of disruptive editing. SupervladiTM (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

See the discussion on the article's talk page and the warnings on your talk page. I'm not going to discuss this in yet another place. The guidelines are not specific about this because, as I've said twice, you do not have the right to remove your content. Reverting to a version from 2006 (not 2007 as you claim) is absolutely ridiculous. Discuss this on the talk page if you don't understand, but stop doing this or you will likely be blocked. Meters (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Phonetic palindrome

I'm sorry I blamed you for the reversion of the 'Phonetic palindrome' merge. I didn't read the history carefully enough. I've made a note on the article's Talk page. RoachPeter (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar fo you

		The Schools Barnstar
		I just wanted to thank you on behalf of WP:WPSCH for all your work on schools. It doesn't go unnoticed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that a large chunk of my watch list is now school articles. Meters (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Railfan23 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I was going to open an SPI on that user, but I see it has been taken care of at ANI. Meters (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User:SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK CU blocked, adding to my list of recent SPIs in case this continues. Meters (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Meters, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I would now like to escalate your responses to someone in higher authority. This is totally unsatisfactory. Yes I am an author of a book with a proper isbn number : ISBN: 9780646583877 The book contains 25 years of research you can check that research at www.thesilentmoon.com I am a professional historian I don't care if there is a reference to my book despite your style guides saying there should be. At the moment your entries for these people and series of events is factually incorrect and destroys the truth and historical record. I take this matter with utmost seriousness and will pursue the matter until you provide me an appropriate response.

Thanks Geoff

removal of my entries Frank the Poet

Hello Meters: My entries to Frank the Poet are based on 25 years of research which I happen to include in my book and website so that everyone can see my evidence. One of the wiki demands is that when editing sources of information are referenced this is what I did. It has nothing to do with self promotion. I can't meet reference demands and this new demand you are enforcing. Can you please return these pages to include my very accurate and objective research.

Thanks Geoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbacks Again (talk • contribs) 03:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

In short, no. This has been answered on your talk page and on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Destruction of Wiki Historical Records. I'm not going to restore your theories and ht ementions of your self-published book. Meters (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)