User talk:Meters

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

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 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!

Users and articles to keep track of[edit]

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)

Content Deleted[edit]

I posted various information tonight which was deleted. The information is original to describe the High School in which I am the principal of. How do I cite this which was asked for in the deletion notice? Crestwood High School (Iowa)‎ Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfelderman (talkcontribs) 06:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to source the material. I was telling you that it had been removed because it was a copyright violation. It was a verbatim copy of a school brochure. If you personally own the copyright (or are the agent for the material) and wish to grant Wikipedia (and everyone else)the right to use it (including the right to modify it and use it commercially), then please follow the instructions on you talk page before restoring the material again. Wikipedia cannot host the material until you do so. Note that granting Wikipedia the right to use the material does not mean that Wikipedia will use the material. As I already pointed out in at least one of the edit summaries, some of the material you posted is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia since it is not of interest to anyone but members of the school community. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines to see what a school article should include. Meters (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, since I am an agent of the material (I DEVELOPED THE MATERIAL IN ITS ENTIRITY) and I copy the following statement into the page, I will not be violating copyright? The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Tfelderman (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not know who you are or that you have the right to grant us permission to use the material. That's why you must follow the correct procedure to verify to Wikipedia that you have the right to grant us permission to use the material. Anyone can claim to own the copyright. Read the link and follow the procedure. And as I said on your talk page, even that still will not give you the right to copy material from the other websites, unless you are also claiming that you wrote all of that material too. Meters (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ian Norman[edit]

I notice you've removed the picture. I do have permission from Ian Norman to publish this picture. How can I prove this to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abjer (talkcontribs) 19:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary and on your talk page, I didn't remove the picture from the article. I removed your attempt to display a picture which had already been deleted from Wikipedia. You never provided the required permissions and so the file was deleted. Wikipedia no longer has a copy of the picture anywhere. I don't upload images so I'm not the best person to ask. Try WP:UPIMAGE. It seems that you are discussing a copyrighted image which you did not take (not your own work). It will also not be possible to use the image as fair use since it is possible to create another photo. Did Ian Norman take it himself? It seems unlikely, so the copyright would be held by the photographer, unless he has assigned it elsewhere. Whoever owns the copyright has to explicitly grant Wikipedia and anyone lese the right to use the image freely (including the right to modify it and even use it commercially). Meters (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Lexington High School (Massachusetts) ULtimate frisbee[edit]

I don't really care about this other than you are creating an issue where there really need not be one. We are varsity status. I am sorry the AD hasn't updated the page. I have no control over that. I assure you the team has varsity status. If you really want everything sourced, there's plenty of stuff on the page that isn't. I don't know who you are, I don't know what your connection to LHS is, but you're actively hurting our ability to publicize our varsity status. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrljdavid (talkcontribs) 03:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm new to this. That said, I simply want the truth out about my team. Quite frankly, I find your rationale really selective. Looking at that page, there's lots of stuff that is unsourced, but you keep up on this small issue. I will add sources where I can, and I would suggest you leave it as is, and when the school AD office does the change, then nobody has to do anything else, since it's now "correct" on the wikipage. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrljdavid (talkcontribs) 03:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. See WP:VERIFY. I attempted to verify the information, but the school athletic webpage does not list that sport. Your addition was challenged, so you should have responded on the talk page rather than continuing to add it. See WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR. I have tagged the material as disputed and started the discussion on the talk page. If you do not provide a WP:RS it will likely soon be removed again by someone. It does not matter who I am, or what is or is not included elsewhere in this article or in other articles. We have no way of knowing if you really are the coach, so we have no way of knowing whether we should believe you or not. It also appears that you have used more than one account to make this edit today. If that is the case I suggest that you read WP:SOCK and consider yourself fortunate not to be blocked for violating WP:3RR. Meters (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you undo the edit eliminating the state championship and combining footnotes 35 and 36? Those are two different tournaments and two different accolades. Sources were provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrljdavid (talkcontribs) 12:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no point in asking me to make a change and then making it yourself two minutes later. Undoing my edit without an edit summary is the same as calling my edit vandalism, which it obviously wasn't. I thought there were redundant entries for the same championship. Now that I understand what the entries are for I have removed the lower level tournament result. See WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS. Meters (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would request you add the other one back. Winning the state championship is not a "lower level tournament". One is not a requisite for the other. In fact, Northeasterns, is before States. Please list both. They are both exceedingly significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrljdavid (talkcontribs) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the link. We only list the highest accomplishment. If Northeastern is higher than State, then State gets removed.

Meters (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

But they aren't linked. Northeasterns is a single tournament, an invitational. You don't qualify. Being chosen and winning is huge. northeasterns is not connected to states in any way. One doesn't qualify one for the other. Both are massive victories. Both should be included. You can't take away one or the other since neither is a "lower level tournament". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrljdavid (talkcontribs) 17:37, January 23, 2015‎

Did you read the link? Major extra curricular championships will be defined as the highest possible championship a team can win from that activity's organizing committee. If the Northeastern is just one tournament, it probably shouldn't be listed at all. Take it to the article's talk page for further discussion. Since you have a conflict of interest you should not make any edits to the article yourself without first proposing them on the talk page. And please learn to indent and sign your talk page posts. Meters (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

But I did read it from the link: "National championships, when referenced, may also be listed." THE USAU does not have a national championship, but they do have four subnational, regional championships. Since they are separate entities, they should both be listed. Why is this such a big deal to you? And since you asked, I will put it on the talk page.Mrljdavid (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Give me an email and I will send you a picture of my varsity certificate. This would be a primary source and would be all the proof wikipedia needs. Please stop creating false content. You are lying. As you said it isn't your fault the AD won't update the website and it isn't ours either. It is people like you who are preventing the sport from receiving the respect that it and its players deserve. Oh yeah, please stop with the threats, I'm furthering the truth. Bjoeqrnseung (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said on both the article's talk page and your talk page, your school's own webpage calls it a club sport. You've had almost two months to provide a reliable source that it is instead a varsity sport and have not provided one. If you Athletic Director refuses to call ultimate Frisbee a varsity sport there's nothing I can do. I really don't care if you give me a copy of a varsity certificate. It's not a publicly published source and I can't verify that it is real. Read WP:Verify. For the third time, the article can be changed when and if your school decides to call ultimate frisbee a varsity sport rather than a club sport. Calling me a liar for following Wikipedia's procedures is a personal attack. Calling my warnings threats is a personal attack. Please remove those comments and then stay off my talk page. Meters (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Northwood highschool[edit]

I have been making some changes to the northwood high school page and they have been taken down and they have been correct information as I am a close supporter of the school so please stop taking them down Thisisnotahoax1 (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of the edits were reverted as obvious vandalism, while others were taken down as unsourced or for BLP issues. And please pick one of your three accounts and stick with it. Switching between three accounts is not allowed (and looks highly suspicious when some of your edits are obvious crap. Meters (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
When you mix real edits with garbage don't be surprised when it all gets removed. That looks like an attempt to hide vandalism among real edits, which is a form of sneaky vandalism. Meters (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

MEGA (service)[edit]

We have a new account name that doesn't violate the name guidelines. We'd like to update Wikipedia and undo your changes to the MEGA (service) page.

AklMeditor1 (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing your name does not remove your conflict of interest in attempting to edit your own company's article. Please read WP:CONFLICT. You should declare your conflict of interest, and propose changes on the article's talk page rather than making them yourself. We welcome improvements to the article, but consensus by Wikipedia editors following Wikipedia's policies will decide what should or should not be in the article. Meters (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and appreciate the time taken with your explanation. I'll use the talk page.

I would appreciate when you have the time that we can discuss the reverts.

AklMeditor1 (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's on my watch list so I'll see anything that shows up. Thanks for following the correct procedures. Meters (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

AVG (software) [edit]

Hi there,

I am looking to make page updates to AVG's website and product pages, but my changes are being reverted. Can you help me understand why this is being done?

JasDhaliwal (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Jas Dhaliwal

I have not undone you for more than 4 months. My edit summaries then were unexplained del of sourced material and Take it to the talk page per WP:BRD. That meant I did not understand why you were removing the material and I wanted you to explain the deletion on the article's talk page, as I also said on your talk page. Since then you undone by User:Neil916, again for unexplained deletions. Now you've been undone by Cluebot and User:Onel5969, likely because you are again making deletions (even larger this time) without providing any reasons. We don't understand why you are removing the material, and want you to justify your edits. If you continue to remove sourced material without providing a valid explanation you may end up being blocked. Meters (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yup. What Meters said. You edited a page without explanation, and in some cases changing to incorrect information (e.g. changing Czechoslovakia to Czech Republic, which was not in existence at that time). Regardless, when you make such wholesale changes, you really should offer an explanation. Especially when you are deleting cited material. Onel5969 (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

BPS and Serb1914[edit]

Hello, Serb1914 is waging a covert informational war with the aim to systematically demonize Bosniak and glorify Serb political party and agenda. He is obviously biased and has been waging these wars for months already, yet nobody sanctioned him (in fact, he got his pages protected by a corrupt admin). I ask two things of you: 1. Protect BPS and unprotect SDS and SNSD pages, 2. Investigate and sanction Serb1914, Thank you. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I warned you for a personal attack on Serb1914, and you reply by calling admin User:EdJohnston corrupt for protecting Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Alliance of Independent Social Democrats from edit warring? Not a great idea.
Page protection and unprotection requests go to WP:RFPP. Warnings go on the user's talk page, vandalism reports go to WP:AIV and other reports to WP:ANI. Meters (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh really? Can you tell me why it is a bad idea calling an admin corrupt? Do you think you are untouchable? In an objective environment, EVERYONE can and should be subject to criticism, no matter who they are. I explained my reasons. Serb1914 is waging an edit war and commiting vandalism, and he obviously has a "friend in high places" (else we wouldn't be having this problem). I simply ask you to be objective and investigate him (and his allies). The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
And now you've been warned again for personal attacks. Criticism of editors' actions is allowed. Calling editors "mentally ill" and "corrupt" because of their actions is not. Meters (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and as far as I know I've never edited the articles you are concerned with, so please take this somewhere else. I've already given you the appropriate venues, but don't take that as a suggestion that I think there is any merit taking these issues there. I have no comment on that. Meters (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)



IMDB isn't a reliable source? Ok, then how about we remove all of the statements on Lehman's page that's cited by IMDB? Consider this the second time I'm calling you out on hypocrisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE1D:9720:AC7F:15FB:F82D:870B (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please, go right ahead and remove them. I didn't add them. And this can hardly be the second time you've called me out for anything since this is the first time you've ever posted here. Meters (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
If you have any doubts about whether IMDB is a reliable source, read WP:USERGENERATED Meters (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Visa requirements for East Timorese citizens thank you for letting me know[edit]

I will do it in the way you describe in the future. I have no plans to do anything like that in the near future but now I know. Also, no worries because that article has little history and one major user to edited it. But now I know.Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a worry because the new article you created now shows that you contributed all of the article, rather than the user who actually it. Meters (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
And now I've undone the redirect and asked for the new article to be deleted because the original name is actually the standard form. Meters (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the current name is wrong and smacks of Americans think they know best. The country's name is Timor Leste. However, Wikipedia has fully of bullies (not you but the general culture) so I will let it go. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Wowee Zowee public, there's no need to let it go, just do it properly. You did several things incorrectly:
  1. The cut and paste move lost the edit history. A proper move would have maintained it.
  2. Changing the format of the title from the standard "Visa requirements for X citizens" to "Visa requirements for citizens of X"
  3. Changing the name of the country without consensus.
  4. Changing the name of a county on just one article about the country (the main article is East Timor not Timor Leste)
I didn't undo it because of the change of the country's name (I didn't even notice it). I undid it because of 1. and 2. If you think the name of the country needs to be corrected then please bring the subject up on the county article's talk page Talk:East Timor to ensure that there is consensus for the change, and so that all of the country's articles can be moved at the same time. The possibility of a name change has been discussed before and so far there has been no consensus to change the title (most recently at Talk:East Timor#Move Request) Maybe it's time for another round of discussion. Meters (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


This is not a fan fiction website. Why are Ari's random music studies posted, but nothing else? If there's something shady about the guy that he publically does, it should be up there. His personal website can supply all the fanboy literature he wants, but not on Wikipedia. Take everything "irrelevant" off then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:ce1d:9720:ac7f:15fb:f82d:870b (talkcontribs) 23:24, February 1, 2015‎

Please take this to Talk:Ari Lehman where it belongs, and where other editors can comment. I didn't write any of the material on that page, and I've already started a discussion about the commercial website. Feel free to start a discussion about anything else ‎ you have concerns with. And please sign your talk page edits. Meters (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

lets discuss[edit]

Hello meters I saw your message but I think you should not make rude comments when you said obvios crap your point was right but please dont make rude comments it seemed inappropriate so thats why I removed it I am saying this in a nice way. If you think I should not of removed your comment we can definetly discuss more Thanks! Ranabhai (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes crap is just crap. You've deleted it three times, and I am not interested in discussing it with you. Please stay off my page. Feel free to take it to the appropriate venue if you think it is such a big deal. Of course, someone might then ask you how a new user who has never interacted with me happened to find my talk page and became interested inone of the 5 edits a socking vandalism account ever made. I suspect that you are a user who has been trolling my page recently, so I will delete anything else you add to my page. Meters (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
blocked. see [2] Meters (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI Discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Meters. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:CambridgeBayWeather Thanks. It's hilarious. Let's see how many how many ways...
  1. He took me to ANI without letting me know.
  2. He took me to ANI rather than 3RR to complain about edit warring.
  3. He took me to ANI for edit warring 10 minutes after leaving a warning, when I had made no edits.
  4. He's complaining about me removing his comments from my talk page.
  5. In my last response to him [3] I explicitly stated that I would delete rather than respond to any further edits from him on my talk page. I also left this message on his talk page [4].
  6. He agreed to stay off my talk page [5] Meters (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
They really seem to have a problem with understanding. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Would have already responded on the ANI page but had some connectivity trouble. Meters (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
And User:Ranabhai is now blocked as a "trolling sock". Meters (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Waynesville High School (Ohio) [edit]

I am the Superintendent of schools; the information you edited was accurate and updates information about our school. Why not ask me about it before deleting it? Can it be put back or did I just waste time. Pd0708 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Follow the instructions on your talk page if you have the right to grant Wikipedia permission to use the material. We cannot host it until you do so. Even if you do this, some of the material is simple not appropriate for Wikipedia. Almost nothing you added can be used as written, and much of it not at all. The Mission statement and the eight pillars of excellence are promotional. Terms such as "active and main employer" are unsourced puffery. The general information should go in an infobox not as prose. I suggest that you read WP:WPSCH/AG and Template:Infobox school for a start. I'll come back to the article later and set up the infobox myself if you don't. Meters (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
And since you are employed by the school system you have a conflict of interest in writing about the schools. Please read WP:COI. Meters (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The Fallout of 1956[edit]

I nomintated the page for AfD to prevent further edit warring, obviously this page needs to be deleted, the AfD will help it stick. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was about to do the same. Meters (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
snow speedy deleted as hoax Meters (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Mughal–Rajput War (1558–78)[edit]

After some research, there was no Mughal-Rajput war lasting from 1558-1578. There were however multiple campaigns by Akbar, which are also mentioned in the Akbar the Great article and are heavily sourced.
1561-1568 Akbar subjugates Rajput kingdoms to the Mughal Empire
1572-1573 Akbar campaign against Gujurat, re-annexed to the Empire
1576 Akbar campaign against Bengal, final annexation to the Empire
1581-1593 Gujuart insurrection, final annexation to the Empire
1592 Akbar conquest and annexation of Sind
1594 Annexation of Kandahar
1595 Unsuccessful campaign against Ahmadnagar, led by Prince Murad
1599 Campaign against Ahmadnagar, captures city, fails to establish Mughal rule
1601 Annexation of Khandesh
As such, since there are no sources stating a 20 yr war between Mughal and Rajputs, I suggest we start a discussion to delete that article. The current "source" for the article is a badly copied version which, does not mention a 20 year war and is hardly legible.[6] Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansas Bear (talkcontribs) 02:14, February 18, 2015‎

Nice work, User:Kansas Bear. Since the campaigns are already covered and there's no reliable source that uses the specific term I would gladly support such an AFD. Maybe this will get the sockfarm off my back. Meters (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, we should probably leave a redirect from this title to the Akbar article. Meters (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


I saw your edits on the talk page of the AVG (software) article regarding the blanking of the controversy section from September of last year. The user, User:JasDhaliwal, appears to work for AVG's PR department, that's why he's blanking it. He did the same on the AVG Technologies page. --Padenton (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:Padenton. I'll add that article to my watchlist. I see I've already discussed the issue with that editor here User talk:Meters#AVG (software) . If you believe the editor is who you say he is (and thus has an undisclosed COI) you should raise the issue at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard rather than WP:OUTING him in an edit summary. Meters (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that's where the noticeboard was. Was looking for that. I'll post him there if I see him do it again. Yeah, I didn't notice that policy until after I submitted my edit, so, oh well. For the future, I will do that though. --Padenton (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye out for him too. He's had more than enough warnings about these edits. Meters (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sedona Sky Academy#Sedona Sky Academy - Copper Canyon Academy[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sedona Sky Academy#Sedona Sky Academy - Copper Canyon Academy. Thanks. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 11:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

comment made Meters (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Article for deletion[edit]

Please see here --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

article deleted Meters (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

French Armed Forces[edit]

Actually, it is what the cited source says. Sorry to revert your warning of Mother Gota, but I already warned them once unfairly for reverting the removal of the paragraph. General Ization Talk 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

[Later] Yes, I see your correction and have restored the sourced text with corrections. General Ization Talk 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, we're talking on each other's pages at the same time. No biggie. Meters (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Eesean Bolden Page Error Fro Elliot John Gleave's Page[edit]

Yes, I am learning how to do this. I haven't done it before and I was using this page as a source template because of the set up. I apologize for the inconvenience it caused you. I wasn't even sure how to communicate here because I am that new to this. If you could remove the page completely so I can begin a new page for this person's bio it would be appreciated. I have my sources and information that have no ties to Elliot John Gleave. Thanks.Peridotwiki (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)peridotwiki

no probs. I've been bitten by that "accidentally recreated a new copy of an article that was just deleted" timing problem myself. I've put it up for speeedy. If you want ot comment on the article's talk page to confirm that it is an error that would help. Meters (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You actually did create the first version of the article. OK, so the speedy G6 is still correct, just not quite for the reason I thought. Meters (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I did something wrong when entering that source code and changed the page name. Still not quite understanding what I did. I will be more cautious about it. Do you have any good sources you would recommend to learn on youtube to see examples of page creation so I can prevent this error? Thanks for being cool about it. Also, I have sent the confirmation of the error to speedy. Peridotwiki (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)peridotwiki
Time for me to sign off. I'm confusing you with the other editor involved. Sorry. It seems the article was indeed accidentally recreated by the other user. Makes for a mess. You were trying to get rid of an article that was no longer showing up as your creation. Got it. I've removed the last warning from your page (even though I didn't leave it) since it was not warranted now that we've figured this out. Blanking the article would have been a perfectly valid request to delete it if it had still shown up as your creation. I would suggest starting off with WP:Help. There's info on jus tabout everything in there if you can find it. Meters (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, try signing up at Wikipedia:Training. Meters (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

changing east fork road edits[edit]

why do you keep changing my east fork road edits I'm only putting up factual legal info on prospecting all my links are legitimate and definitions from gov websites I find this appauling sincerely zephdronZephdron (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Zephdron (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary "undo rant that has little to do with the article's subject, restore the refs, etc" Sorry that you are appalled, but your edit had virtually nothing to do with the subject East Fork Road, Wikipedia is not the place for an anti-government rant, and you removed sourced material and its refs.. I don't know what you mean by 'keep changing" since you have only made the one set of edits and I have only undone once. Or have you been editing under another account? Meters (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Gordon Graydon Memorial Secondary School[edit]

Man you don't even go to that school... I actually go to that school and I know the traditions... We ACTUALLY nicknamed it that lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanoburste (talkcontribs) 07:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to start making constructive edits at any time. You're on your final warning. Meters (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

East Fork Road[edit]


I got your message, I do not have multiple accounts and this was my first attempt to edit this page. The sourced information is out dated. How do I get it updated? SidewaysSherry (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if you are not using multiple accounts or coordinating your edits with other users. It's rather suspicious when mere minutes after a new user is undone and warned another new account is created and makes a similar edit to the same article. I might be more inclined to believe you if the article in question (East Fork Road) had seen more than just a handful of content edits in the last 10 years. Meters (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
That edit looks good, thanks. I've got a lot of photographs of the East Fork Road, I will be adding one, perhaps along Oaks Picnic Area, however I need to sort through what I have for one which does not contain cars. Damotclese (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you -- East Fork Road[edit]

Thank you for keeping up the East Fork Road page, as the National Monument continues to take hold and more and more homeless are evicted and more and more illegal miners and illegal ground fire people are arrested and hauled out, we might see an up-tick in vandalism and ideology-based updates to not only that page but a number of Angeles National Forest-related pages. Damotclese (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I got your message. I know I've vandalized before, but I legitimately researched the edit from last time, so I thought it was okay since I had sources and all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock4Prez (talkcontribs) 17:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That's why I called it sneaky vandalism. Making a clear vandalism edit here and following it minutes later with seemingly real edits to the same article just looks like an attempt to hide the vandalism. Your following edits seemed real, and I did not undo them as vandalism but as improperly sourced. I suggested in the edit summary that Huffington Post and a blog were not reliable sources and that you should use better sources. I might have gone looking for better sources myself, but as I said on your talk page, I'm not going to bother looking for reliable sources for an edit made by someone who just finished vandalizing the same page. Meters (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank You!!![edit]

I don't know how or why you heed edit the page for Sofia rosinsky. But thank yoy! TraintoOruruoo (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No probs. Even if she does not qualify for an article yet it seems clear that she will eventually. Meters (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Amber Lynn[edit]

Meter, while I can appreciate wanting to paraphrase i believe that was way more than necessary - Mighty'sMom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty'sMom (talkcontribs) 02:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. User:Diannaa's paraphrase was very appropriate. It was concise but still covered everything that was in the original quote, and removed the POV statement "Her passion for helping others has remained important to Lynn." Meters (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
There's simply no need to include that quote. Meters (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Francis Albert Eley Crew[edit]

Crew is described as the father of modern animal genetics in multiple sources including ODNB. I see at least a dozen references to his name on Wikipedia and 100s if not 1000s on Google so describing him as a non-entity is clearly wide of the mark. He is one of the few Britons to have been both a Fellow of the Royal Society of London AND the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Even without a Wikipedia article (which should appear on Monday) he is clearly an eminent person in British science and of more notoriety than most already on the King Edward list and certainly the most notable person from Tipton by a long mark... but fine.. just make more work. An article on Crew is clearly long overdue.--Stephencdickson (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Frankly I am stunned that you have not heard of him --Stephencdickson (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Stephencdickson Write the article first. I did not call him a non-entity and I never said I had never heard of him. As I clearly said, I was making no comment on whether he was notable. I was simply pointing out that he could not be added to lists of notable alumni and residents without a Wikiarticle or sources to show establish his notability and connection to the school and town.
I suggest that you read WP:PERSONAL. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Your comment about me is uncalled for and verges on a personal attack. It simply inflames what should be polite discussion about a very minor issue. I could just as well respond that I am stunned that you comprehension of English is so poor that you misunderstood my explanation, "I made no claims as to his notability or lack thereof. I simple point out that he cannot be included in list of notable people without having proof in Wikipedia of his notability. It's not up to me or anyone else to prove the notability of someone you are attempting to add to a list of notables." Meters (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

My comment was simply meant to imply that Crew is very well known as you had implied he was a non-entity in your deletions from Tipton and his school. As I had referenced the additions deletions seemed unwarranted whether or not he had an article as Crew is a well known figure in his field--Stephencdickson (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't imply anything. I stated in both edit summaries "no wikilink or sources to show notability." What you chose to infer is not my problem. I'm not going to waste time further discussing this minor issues with someone who apparently doesn't know the difference between implication and inference. Please drop this. Meters (talk)


I don't agree, but sure have it your way... It is always better to have a direct link to the article. It's not like the reader can see what the pipe says; they both say rockets on the page.Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not always better to have a direct link. The guideline I pointed you to WP:NOTBROKEN clearly states several cases in which redirects are better. This case is not one of the listed cases since I am piping the name of the redirect, but I still think it worthwhile. The reader may not be able to see the difference, but anyone editing the page can see it. It's less confusing to have Rockets piped to "Rockets (wafer candy)" than to "Smarties (wafer candy)". It makes it obvious that it's the correct target rather than a vandalism attempt to create a false pipe. Meters (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Touché, I see where you're coming from about an editor being misled. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Last thing[edit]

It's a bit unfair Meters that the page has been frozen for me but the edits I made not accepted. Please have a look at this page- I am only standing for a cause. What's going on on this page isnt fair or right. Heavily biased information is what this is about. I urge u to get involved. Thanks. Lauren55 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra was protected temporarily because of the edit war, as an alternative to you being blocked. The admins are being lenient with you because you are a new user. Consider yourself lucky, because you could easily have been blocked. You are making contentious edits to an article that is under discretionary sanctions. I would suggest that you read the links provided on your talk page about edit warring. attacks, and discretionary sanctions. And add WP:3RR and WP:NPOV. Meters (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Paul Tracy[edit]

I'm not sure why you deleted "the thrill from West Hill". It took my 5 seconds to find this. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I was just about to put it back in with a ref. Meters (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Help me to learn why the information was removed from the article called Colorado[edit]

The information that i aded was deleted why?i am new to this and want to get better so that i don't cause any more trouble that you have to delete Today is what maters (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Today is what maters Your edit said "The average year in Colorado contains 300 sunny days." As I said in my edit summary, your edit was unsourced and probably an overgeneralization. You didn't provide a source for that statment, and I didn't believe it was accurate. Statements in Wikipedia need to be verifiable. That means we need to be able to verify that the information comes from a reliable source. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS.
There are more than 100,000 square miles in Colorado, and 10 or 11,000 feet of elevation variation. I assumed that with 100s of miles of land from plains to mountains your statement was an overgenaralization at best, and more likely incorrect and I was right. It turns out you were repeating what is basically a Public Relations mantra. See According to the Colorado Climate Center, a more accurate description would be an average of 115 sunny days, 130 partly cloudy and 120 cloudy days per year, but even that varies with location. Meters (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed help[edit]

That is great help. now all that i want to ask you about is, how do i ad to the conversation that above, under the headline.Today is what maters (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Click the "edit" button bedise the topic rather than starting a new topic. Meters (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that you mean the link that says "(edit source )" Today is what maters (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were asking how to add comments to an existing talk page thread? For that, at least on my interface, the button is labelled "edit". Maybe it's different on other interfaces. Meters (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

that is what i was talking about, and that is strange. thank you again for all the help.Today is what maters (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In the mobile configuration it is very easy to figure out, thanks again for your help. i wuold like it if you would tell me how users find my talk page Today is what maters (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

I'm really disappointed with you. If you had take a look, it was the longstanding lede. Feel free to discuss on the article's talk page. I was part of the AfD and I understand the concerns raised there. The problem is, you don't know the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
And you unilaterally changed the lede, and you ignored everything that was stated in the AFD. If the inclusion criteria had not been set back to what they had been I believe the article would have been deleted. Continuing to change the lede back to the one that created the need for the AFD is disruptive. Feel free to take this to the talk page if you like.
See your talk page, the article's talk page [7], and the article's AFD [8] Meters (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I actually restored a version of the lede that existed for several years. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm well aware of what version of the lede you restored. After all, I am the one who investigated the entire history of the article for the AFD, so as to present the changes to the lede. You reverted to a version of the lede that you unilaterally decided would be a good idea years ago. It completely changed the inclusion criteria for the list and has created problems ever since. There was, and is, no consensus that your desired version of the inclusion criteria is correct, and the AFD shows that your desired version is invalid and would likely lead to the article being deleted. It's time to drop it and mcve on. Please keep any further discussion of this issue on the article's take page where other users may see it. Meters (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus for a minority view?[edit]

Hello, You reverted my last edit that changed a statement claiming that all researchers in the relevant fields were in agreement, which is not true on a factual level. A simple google search reveals not all researchers agree on this topic, instantly invalidating the statement of universal acceptance for old earth/local-only flood views. I did not add the young earth/global flood views, but simply edited the statement to reflect that differing opinions on the possibility of such an occurrence do exist in these fields, from credible sources -- a factual statement.

In your revert edit, you requested a consensus on my edit in the talk section. The difficulty in your revert is that while a majority of authorities in the field believe in a particular view on the topic, there is a large minority that support an entirely different model. The two are mutually exclusive. So, how then, can one get a majority consensus for a minority view? You present me with an impossibility.

Finally, I had incorrectly marked my edit as "minor" -- my mistake. It was reverted before I even had time to fix the notation. Is there no other way to fix the "minor edit" mark than to add double spaces and save with the edit description? Thank you, -RTLDan

Please take this discussion to the article's talk page Talk:Flood_myth where everyone who is interested can see it and participate, as I suggested. There's no point in splitting it up over multiple talk pages. Meters (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Proof that McKinley High School in Lima, OH is real[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:52, January 7, 2016‎

Did you even look at what was at that link? That's a disambiguation page with nothing about a high school in Lima. I said that I would remove the warning if you could provide a reliable source. Don't waste my time. Meters (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Cedarcrest High School[edit]

Ray Labate is the new principal of Cedarcrest High School, which can be verified on the Cedercrest High School page. Lavarias has retired. I simply wish to update the article and am not vandalizing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fig28awsome44 (talkcontribs) 22:50, January 8, 2016‎

I already checked the school website here, and it still shows the original principal's name. Meters (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
And your edit here was clearly vandalism. If it's a real edit then source it and don't mix it with garbage.Meters (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Badminton at the 1978 Commonwealth Games[edit]

I should have completed the Mixed Team event information before deleting the table. I will do that now and then delete the table. The table will then not be useful because all of the information is contained within the new page. Please also note the table does not actually accurately reflect the medalists from the Gold Medal match and Bronze Medal Matches.Racingmanager (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Racingmanager If the table needs fixing then do so, but don't delete it without first getting consensus. I see no valid reason to remove the summary table from the main article 1978 Commonwealth Games . The detailed article Badminton at the 1978 Commonwealth Games has additional info we don't need in the games article, but we still need the summary. Meters (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hip hop[edit]

My friend vandalized hip hop. Please do not block me from editing. I can prove this because for the reason he says "I'm in special Ed." And I wouldn't write that. TheMasterLlama (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You sure you want to claim that? That would mean your account is compromised, and should immediately be blocked. If, on the other hand, you admit that you made a few vandalism edits but you don't make any more tehn your account is OK. Meters (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
And indeff'ed. Meters (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Being asked to cite a correct translation of my native language (welsh).[edit]


The Webster 1828 reference is questionable validity. I offered it a 'possibility' of being correct in my edit ,which is reasonable if in some odd context such as a historic American bastardisation it might be. Though this is not appropriately referred to I should emphasise.

I do not believe a reference is appropriate. Drzebedeezee (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

DrzebedeezeeYou added it to the line that was referenced as coming from the 1828 Websters, but it is not in that source. If you have a WP:RS that suggests your proposed etymology then please add it. Don't add teh suggestion if it is just something that you think makes sense. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say about subject, not editors' opinions. Meters (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


Amid your efforts in making Wikipedia a better place, I would like to thank you for your cooperation. The question is to how to prevent this from reoccuring? This user have created multiple accounts. Over 30-40 from what I have seen. Is there's a way to perhaps prevent it? and How to I report a sockpoppet user in the future if it ever happened again? Could you provide me with simplified instructions. That would be so helpful, Thanks again.

Regards, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are reported at WP:SPI. There are detailed instructions on how to make a report (click on "Show" next to "How to open an investigation"), but it's more involved than a simple vandalism report at WP:AIV. You'll need to provide clear evidence to support your claim of sockpuppetry, usually in the form of Diffs of identical or nearly identical edits by the sock and the master or other known socks. See WP:D&L for the simple guide to using diffs. Meters (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe the accounts you are interested are socks of User:Sprayitchyo . Since there is already an SPI for this account (called the master for "sock master") all you would not open a new SPI for additional socks, but just add them to existing sock investigation for Sprayitchyo. The same rules apply for evidence, but new socks on an existing case are often acted on quite quickly. Meters (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Caloy Loyzaga[edit]

Thread removed. Already discussed on editor's talk page, already started thread on article's talk page, already pointed out that I don't want this discussed here too.

Jason Graves[edit]

Just a heads up, Graves has returned to edit his own article, and for some reason the COI tag had to be re-added by me. I also went ahead and made various guideline edits to the page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93:Yup, that was the user named Jason Graves removing tags again. It's been two months... maybe he thought we would miss it. I pointed out the potential issues (COI vs use of someone else's real name, and COPVIO) then but got no response. I see two ways to handle this:
  1. Since he removed the COI tag again we take that as a claim that he is NOT Jason Graves and ask for a preventative block under WP:IMPERSONATE
  2. Assume that he is Jason Graves (as seems likely) and raise it at WP:COI/N. Assuming that consensus is that he is indeed Jason graves then the COI tag will stick.
I've never been to COI/N before, but I'm still inclined to go with option 2. What do you think? In the mean time I'll check the new material for more copyvios. I've already found some of it online on various pages that have been up far longer than this Wikipedia page. Meters (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It's got to be him. I had a similar issue on the Howard Drossin article some months back. They just seem to ignore established Wikipedia guidelines and treat the page like they would on their official website. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll put up a COI/N. Meters (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Strike copyvio comments above. This article has been around longer than I though so it is possible that the material was on Wikipedia in the past and mirrored to the other pages before being deletedform Wikipedia. Seems unlikely, though. 02:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
At [[9]] Meters (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Hey Buddy, I have been referencing wikipedia for 10 years now. It has helped me with my masters research way back in 2007, though i could not reference it on my articles for the exact reason of whats happening in the repeated vandalism of gowda page. i contribute to wikipedia pretty much every year for the last few years financially but i never bothered creating an account to edit content till i came across this page which i know off since i am from that part of the world which uses the title. I disagree with the content propagated by irrigator. i would be more than willing if you had to validate the content posted by me and delete it if it is not factual or offensive. i reference noted people. If Mr. Irrigator disagrees he can discuss with a few others and me who object to his content like me and tinfactory who added his content without vandalizing existing content. There is always room for dialogue and accommodating all the content without deleting others content as long as it is about not promoting an individual or family. Mr. Irrigator's image references his family tree. which is not content that can be validated and publicly referenced in place of notable people like the one currently in place. Please feel free to continue the dialogue and add content or edit based on any factual or known evidence.

Thanks, Sudsiv03 (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Sudsiv03

@Sudsiv03:You claim that you have been on Wikipedia for 10 years, but your account is only two days old, and in that time you have done virtually nothing but undoing another editor's edits to Gowda. If you are an experienced editor as you claim, than you must know the Wikipedia definition of edit warring. You are edit warring on the article, as is the other editor. As I said on your talk page, I don't know which of you, if either, is making valid edits. I posted to both of your talk pages. You are way past 3RR and you have not attempted to discuss the issue on the article's talk page or on the other editor's talk page. You have not warned the other editor for vandalism (or anything) and this appears to be a content dispute rather than vandalism, so repeated undoes are edit warring. Discuss the issue with the other editor. Meters (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


I claim to have referenced Wikipedia for 10 years, please look at what i have mentioned before jumping to conclusions. i created this account a few days ago to keep what i had edited in that page using an ip before irrigator started the edit undo of my edits to Gowda. I do not claim to be an experienced editor, i do not have the time nor interest for it. But the content in wikipedia has been useful to me for the past 10 years for reference so i have made generous contributions financially over time. The content that was posted in gowda using an ip was by me and the change was undone by irrigator and i created a user just for the sake of discussion so i undid the changes to reflect the valid content. If the other user who is supposed to be an experienced editor should have known the rules of editing better than me and practiced the rules claimed by you more efficiently. Now that you have intervened and are moderating the content. If you want to validate the changes done to the page i am open for discussion on the content.

Thanks, Sudsiv03 (talk) Sudsiv03

My apologies for misunderstanding the context of your "10 years" mention. I'm not interested in or knowledgeable about the content of the article in question. It's up to you and the other editor to discuss it. Get consensus on the talk page from other editors if you can't agree. See WP:DISPUTE if that does not work. Endlessly reverting each other with no discussion is just going to result in blocks. Meters (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Buddy,

Irrigator has gone and revered the content of 2 users. He is being very persistent on reverting anything anyone else posts to the page and he has posted his family tree as part of a community page which is inappropriate. Please suggest what's the best course of action..

Thanks. Sudsiv03 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, discuss the issue with him. The two of you have made absolutely no attempt to discuss this, leave warnigns, or reach compromise. You already have the various inks for edit warring, resolutions etc. if you choose to go that way. If this keeps up I will report both of you and let the admins decide what to do. Meters (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I will leave some notes on the talk page of the article and hope it works out. I am cool with the admins reviewing the article and the users. Please feel free to report to the admins and irrigators has undone mine and another users content.----

Are you real?[edit]

Because the speed and efficiency of your edits seem to come from either a robot, or someone who is constantly watching Wikipedia (I don't mean this to be insulting in any way, it's just an observation.) How do you do it? Also, why are you so interested in high schools? You got mad skillz, bro. Ily <3 MLM 02:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfraidOfFlying (talkcontribs)

I don't know what you are talking about. I've only undone one of your edits, and that was 17 hours after you made it. Meters (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)