User talk:Meters

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

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 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!

Can I put a wiki page on wiki for my band? Other bands have wiki pages on wiki. It should be fine with my band too.[edit]

If I made a new type of Rock Subgenre can I put it down under Rock? It should be fine sense people made up Rock subgenres? It will let people know there is a new Rock subgenre and can help bring back Rock music. If I make my wiki page for my band I would need to my new Rock Subgenre on the side under Background information for band wiki page sense that is what my music is. I do not want to put it under something else because that can confused my people who knows my music and listens to my music. Can I explain my Rock subgenre on my band wiki music page so people can know what music I made? Please answer me right away so I know you got this and I really want to put a page for my band on wiki.BlueCheerfan (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)BlueCheerfan

So, (1) you want to write an article about your own band, and (2) to do so you have to invent a new musical subgenre, and (3) you then have to explain the new subgenre in the article about your band?
  1. No. Don't write an article about your own band. See WP:COI. If it's notable per WP:BAND let someone else who does not have a conflict of interest write the article. If it's not a notable band then you should read the essay WP:GARAGEBAND.
  2. No. Don't invent a new musical subgenre. This is something that should go through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force. I doubt very much that there would be any WP:reliable sources to support such a new subgenre, particularly since it seems to be something you have invented to describe your own musical style.
  3. No. Do not describe a new musical genre in a band article. It should be described in an article about the genre itself. And you should not write that article (see answer 2).
And please stop asking me to reply immediately to your posts on my talk page. If it's on my talk page I've seen it. How quickly I reply, or if I reply at all is up to me. After our last discussions about your edits to Blue Cheer ([1] [2] [3]) and the postings on your talk page I'm not willing to get into another long discussion with you. I've answered your questions as clearly as I can, so please don't reply. Meters (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Residential School "Survivors" vs. "Alumni"[edit]

What is the correct terminology on Wikipedia? You appear to be reverting my edit.

Saskg (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Schools have alumni. I already pointed you to WP:WPSCH/AG. As I said in the edit summary and on your talk page, the normal header for school articles is "Notable alumni". "Notable survivors" is not neutral. Don't keep doing this. Meters (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought the accepted term was "survivors." See where "survivors" appears to be used throughout. Perhaps I am missing something here? Saskg (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, see WP:WPSCH/AG. Wikipedia school articles call all former students who attended (even for one day) "alumni". Changing that to "Survivors" is decidedly non-neutral. See WP:POV. The term wasn't even in use at the time, and you are assuming that every attendee at one of these schools should be labeled a survivor. This would prevent us from listing notable residential school students who did not survive, Chanie Wenjack for example. The majority of readers would have no idea what the header meant. If you want more opinions on this I will raise the issue with the schools project so other editors can comment. Meters (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit page Media bias in the United States[edit]

Hi I am Glen I austic I edit your page I want to apologize. GAJJR (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


Media bias page GAJJR (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edit is virtually incomprehensible. I removed it from Media bias in the United States and another editor removed the your identical edit from Media bias. Even if it were rewritten properly we don't need a Fox News blurb on this item. Meters (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Another Cat Creek[edit]

Hi, can you revert The Italian Job to the unvandalized version? I can't, even though i have extended confirmed. MikeTango (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit is undone and the editor is indeffed. I think you must have edit conflicted with the undo. Meters (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Or it could have been that you used an interfaces that won't log a vandalism revert when there is no change. I've seen this before but I've never bothered to find out which interface does log such reverts.Meters (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

South Farnham schoolh[edit]


Can you tell me why you are certain the headteacher is irrelevant and why do you keep changing my entry? The headteacher is vital is getting an ofsted rating a now he has left. Do you gave a house in the area you need to keep the price high by having such a bias entry on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith0774 (talkcontribs) 22:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is already answered on your talk page. This has mentioned in the edit summaries. There is a discussion of this on the article's talk page. I am not going to discuss it here also. And it is a violation of Wikipedia rules to ask an editor for identifying information. You are edit warring. Stop and discuss the edit on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Jon Kedrowski[edit]

Hi Meters, I'm unfamiliar with how to edit so I appreciate your patience. The Jon Kedrowski page is undergoing an edit war due to a recent controversy. It is highly suspicious that this page is being managed as an autobiography, with ChrisJones25 being the primary offending account. You can see that he has made dozens of edits where he removes any negative factual details about the subject, and his entire edit history over 4 years has only been to this page.

Furthermore, I still believe this page warrants a discussion for deletion. Jon Kedrowski is not a notable mountaineer, author, nor academic. For comparison see . He is using this page to self-promote as his primary source of income is public speaking engagements. COWiki (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It does look like there may be a problem with that article, but you simply cannot PROD an article that has already survived AFD. It can be taken back to AFD again if you think there are grounds to do so. You can also raise the possibility of a COI from the WP:SPA at the COI board. Have you discussed the possible conflict of interest with the editor? The new accounts are suspicious but I don't know that a wp:checkuser would be prepared to look ionto this yet. Meters (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
By the way, it looks like you have been using multiple accounts on this article. Meters (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I assure you I have not created or made any other edits with any other accounts - this individual has rubbed many people the wrong way with his recent (and past) actions and lots of people in the Colorado mountaineering community have been editing the page. I have numerous grounds on which I believe this page should be taken back to AFD, and I would be more than happy to raise a COI - I just barely know how to navigate my way around to do anything about it. COWiki (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If all the accounts are different editors acting on their own that's fine. It's not OK if someone is using multiple accounts, or if someone is suggesting to other people that they edit this article. It's also not OK to make assertions about the identity of an editor as you and at least one other editor have done. No-one has ever raised the possibility of a COI on the user's talk page or on the article's talk page. Ask the user if he has a conflict of interest. If he says no and you don't believe him, or if he does not answer then you can take it to the COI board if you wish. And it's not OK to keep making disruptive edits as you did. One invalid PROD is a mistake. Ignoring the comments and doing it twice more is a problem. Meters (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Jon Kedrowski[edit]

There's a lot of dubious activity by SPAs at that page. I thought you might have a better understanding than I about what's going on. Thanks, GABgab 22:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Good timing. I was just reading the latest edits to that article. It's a mess. The subject of the article seems to have offended the mountaineering community. We have a long term SPA (4 years) cleaning the article, and a host of throwaway accounts (possibly some meats or even socks?) slinging mud. The SPA has been accused of being the subject of the article but as far as I can see no-one has ever even asked the COI question. I guess I will drop a note on the SPA's page to start. I think a protection request to deal with all of throwaway accounts would be in order for now since there are some BLP issues. Meters (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
COI notice now on user's talk page and temp semi requested. I see that the article was created by the SPA User:Sandraz27 , and then edited by the SPA User:Jkedrowski who disappeared after being given a COI warning. Two days later the article was put up for deletion and the SPA User:ChrisJones25 was created to edit the article and the AFD. So, it appears that ChrisJones25 is that same user and thus has already been warned about COI. I'll wait for a response before deciding about a COI board. Meters (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
hey man, just appreciate a slight mistake on my account that you reversed on the "meme" page. I agree.

looking at just your page of "to do", have the utmost respect. if you could drop me correspondence of any help, i really could use it, and will have your back forever. i might be mistaken, but this is coming from a fellow canuk been trapped in LA for 30 years, starting to miss Alta Brianfedirko (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

replied on user's page. Meters (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The difference between an "alternate account" and "sockpuppetry" is what exactly?[edit]

That's something I've wondered about for a while now as I've explored Wikipedia and noticed lots of "confessions" from supposedly honest and upstanding Wikipedia editors to other accounts/usernames they've used in the past. I guess the public "confession" must be the difference, because I've yet to see a confession to "sockpuppetry". I find myself wondering how so many former and supposedly reformed sockpuppets get into the sockpuppet investigation thing and how many of their "long-term investigations" are into their own undisclosed "alternate accounts". I also wonder how many legitimately unaware and "innocent" editors have been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia as a result of sockpuppetry they didn't know wasn't "legal" in the first place. After all, who doesn't have multiple email accounts and other "identities" on the internet where its all fine an dandy only to come to Wikipedia, begin editing, be quickly pounded upon by the fearless, dedicated and upstanding "model editors" who have time to do everything but actually HELP someone new and end up hounded and harassed to the point of using another account. I'm also intrigued by the number of holders of "alternate accounts" who claim to have never used or not recently used their confessed "alternate accounts" and wonder how many others they created and saved for a "rainy day". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Many of your questions are answered at WP:SOCK. There are legitimate reasons for having alternate active accounts or for having had other accounts. This is not considered socking. And sometimes people who have socked for illegitimate reasons are allowed back.
Why are you posting this on my page? I've never had any interaction with you that I know of. You're obviously not a new user, but I have no way of knowing what IPs or accounts you have may have previously used. The fact that you went into user:Magnolia677's talk page archive to respond to a seven month-old talk page reply suggests that you are the named editor who started that thread, but I've never interacted with that user either as far as I know. I think Magnolia677's link to WP:SOAPBOX was a good one, and maybe you should read WP:DROPTHESTICK too. Oh, and sign your talk page posts, and don't edit archived pages. Meters (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg Thank you for your support on the noticeboards and tireless anti-vandalism work! Going above and beyond... Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 20:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The username report was an accidental duplication. I didn't see your earlier report. Meters (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You got the wrong person "Meters"[edit]

You somehow, "messaged" me saying that I had wrongly edited a page for a "East Mecklenburg High School" on 2 May 2017 @ 17:21. I was asleep at the time (or just waking up if memory serves correctly). You obviously had the wrong IP address or someone has hacked me and they used mine. To be honest, I'm kind of offended that you were able to contact me at all. I don't think I've ever made an edit on Wikipedia before because (1) my coding skills are non-existent and (2) I always double check myself on facts before I correct. I'm not sure if it was a typo on your part, or like I stated before that someone took my IP address to display as their own. I had never seen the page before in my life until you sent me a link to tell me that my edit was not constructive.

Since you scour Wikipedia so much, maybe you could go back to when I made this supposed edit, and find out what else they touched and when they visited that page. Because if they made a heinous enough edit for you to track down and message me about it, I'm sure they made more. So please do not contact me ever again. Ever. Once you've read this, please delete this little talk thread.

I love Wikipedia. It gives me a current and updated wealth of knowledge I couldn't possibly know without it. But this... This really makes me want to never visit this website again...

Don't contact me. Do some research. Leave me alone.

oh and here are your stupid little 05:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

here's 15 more 05:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)05:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)05:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)~

and 36 more for the road05:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)05:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)05:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)05:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)05:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)05:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)05:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:2:80F:0:0:0:62 (talk)

@2600:387:2:80F:0:0:0:62: Chill out. Here's the edit that came from your IP [4] It was a mobile edit and the time stamp is UTC, not local time. Since your IP is from Georgia (UTC -5) the edit would have been made just after 10 in the morning. It was part of a string of IP-hopping vandalism on that article which is why I gave it the warnings I did. Your IP now shows up as being a static IP, so if you didn't make the edit I can only assume that you have picked up a new IP and have been assigned the IP that was previously used by the mobile connection. If you don't like seeing warnings for edits that have been made by other users on an IP then I suggest that you create an account instead of using an IP. Meters (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Mary Nolan[edit]

I suggest you read and respond *appropriately* to my reply on "my" page - per your suggestion - if you do not want it posted in it's entirety here. I strongly suggest you do not attempt to send me any more of your ridiculous little "warnings", complete with dumb icons, when I only cited facts already stated as fact ON WIKIPEDIA. There is no need to site my own sources when something has already been sourced on Wikipedia. Maybe you should have read the article, especially pertaining to Mannix, before attacking me for simply defending a victim of domestic violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:45, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

Please learn to sign your talk page posts. It was removed as being unsourced, so, yes, you do need to source the claim. It does not matter if it is stated as fact elsewhere in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is is not a reliable source. If the claim is elsewhere in Wikipedia and it is reliably sourced there then you can simply reuse the source, but the line "(well documented)" is not sufficient. You are edit warring, some of the material you are adding is WP:POV, and many of your edit summaries are unacceptable. I'm not going to respond to this on both of our talk pages. You chose to bring it here and I've answered it here. I see no reason to repeat myself. The article content should be discussed on the article's talk page in the thread that was started yesterday. Meters (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Correction, YOU are edit warring. You are also completely off base to suggest that if something is already sourced elsewhere within the same Wikipedia page that it needs to be sourced again. Ridiculous and not true. No one badgered whoever posted this original claim of Mannix beating Mary Nolan unconscious on Wikipedia. And yet here you are - edit warring with me over it. Why don't you go waste your time with whoever originally sourced this claim - you will get nowhere here. These "rules" are actually courtesies and definitely not yours to decide. You also deliver simple suggestions (that would be entirely voluntary on the part of the editor) in a manner akin to barking out orders - each one with a different "warning" symbol. Seriously??? Have you ever heard of prefacing your suggestions with respectful phrases like "It would be more helpful to users or editors if you started utilizing the following..." But to give you a taste of your own medicine, I will refrain from such niceties here and command the following: Stop pretending you have any authority over anyone else's voice. Stop missing the material point by myopically focusing on - and "policing" - VOLUNTARY, MADE UP rules. Stop attempting to micro manage people.

Finally, when you say my edit summaries are "unacceptable" - that only applies to your opinion, and is therefore completely irrelevant. THAT is WP:POV. They are entirely acceptable to ME. That is what matters. Oh no! You've come up against someone who sees through your ridiculous guise of faux authority.

If Wikipedia is, according to you, "not a reliable source", why don't you apply your obsession with rules elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

If you don't understand why edit summaries with accusations such as "a sleazy attempt by Louis Kessman to extort 'favors' from Nolan" [5], "The bastard who beat her within an inch of her life clearly behind this" [6] and "neary killed her and should have spent the rest of his life in prison"[7] are unacceptable, or why simply stating that something is "well documented" (repeatedly) is not acceptable sourcing [8] then you probably should not be editing Wikipedia.
I've had enough of your ranting. Stay off my talk page. If you want to discuss the edits take it to the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Reported to AN3. John from Idegon (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Definitely edit warring, but I think we're in ANI country here now. I'm going to be offline until late tomorrow so I'll have to hold any comments until then (assuming they are still needed). Meters (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Back now, but no need to comment for now since
  1. The IP is now responding on the article's talk page.
  2. Other editors have addressed the sourcing, synthesis, and editor commentary in the article.
  3. The IP is currently blocked. Meters (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Saint John's Catholic Prep (Maryland) [edit]


Would you please consider leaving the Saint Johns Catholic Prep (Maryland) page with my previous edit for one week? It is for a senior prank. All the edits are made with good humor and no racist/sexist/ offensive edits will be tolerated.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Qwoieyoqwye (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Qwoieyoqwye

No. You are vandalizing the article. If you keep it up either the article will be protected, or you and user:BruhBruhBruh143 and user:Trevorhickman1021 will be blocked. Meters (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi, Meters. Hope this message finds you in good spirits. I don't do much at SPI, so I'd like to ask you with your much greater experience there to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JacksonViking to see if I did it right. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Sorry for the delay... trying to finish proofing some non-Wikipedia writing. The master is from almost 2 years ago and has no subsequent tagged socks. That's a low traffic, stale case. You are unlikely to find an admin who even remembers this case, even User:JamesBWatson who made the original block, so you would need to provide clear evidence that this is the same user via diffs showing similar edits. I had to look fairly hard to find the edits where JacksonViking made the same controversies section edits (I missed it the first time because I was not looking far enough back). The most recent smoking gun [9] was five months before the user was indeffed, and more than two years ago, so you should definitely link to a diff of one of the master's edits in this case. There have also been multiple IPs recently making this same edit (once per IP) over the last few months, but I don't think any of them have been blocked. This could well be the same user from 2015, but it might be easier to get a new block based on the recent repeated addition of material against consensus, and then consider SPI if it continues with new accounts. Meters (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
James had been offline for the weekend and he did recall and took care of it. Thanks for the constructive criticism. It's appreciated. John from Idegon (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

user:DWAG 1422 AM[edit]

I just blocked him as a likely Bertrand101 sock, but don't know my way around the sockpuppetry board. I guess Bertand101 needs reopening, but don't want to make a mess of the thing.Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Already reported, I believe. Meters (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The Mosquito sound file[edit]

collapse since I don't want this continued

[[:File:Vandalised glass cage.jpg|300px|thumb|A glass cage vandalised with spray paint at a private railway history museum in Münster-Gremmendorf, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany]]

Hi Meters, You have several times, on the prompting of a sock puppet, deleted a sound file demonstrating 17.4 kHz.

Since you and the sockpuppet (the latter already blocked several times) are the only ones who are deleting the file, I would be grateful for your explanation before we move to the mediation stage.

1. As far as I am aware, there is no Wikipedia requirement to provide a literature reference for an image or for a sound file. See for example this image of vandalism in the Wikipedia article for vandalism. There is no literature cited to support the claim that it is a vandalised glass cage in a railway museum. Because it is obvious to the reader that it is a vandalised glass cage (it is less obvious that it is part of a railway museum). Likewise it is obvious to a pair of listeners (one older and one younger) that the sound file is inaudible to the older listener.

If you start deleting all such obvious but unreferenced images and files from Wikipedia you will have a long job.

Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources.

2. Even if, for the sake of argument, you are justifiably unhappy that the file caption is unsourced or not adequately sourced, then you should change the caption, but not delete the innocent file. Unless there is a consensus that the file is not needed.

I look forward to your response. (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Please take this to the article's talkpage where the discussion is. I've already explained my reasoning there , and I've already said that I don't object to the sound file. There's a big difference between a picture of a spraypainted bus stop and a claim that an audio file cannot be heard by persons above a certain age. If a caption makes a claim such as that, then it very much needs to be reliably sourced. Captions are not free from the requirement that claims must be verifiable.
And in the future please do not clutter my talk page with images. I'm removing it. If you want to me to look at an image then link to it.Meters (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware that an IP has previously removed this disputed claim from The Mosquito . I got to this article after removing the sound file from several article where it clearly did not belong, whether the claim was sourced or not. This article is different since I don't object to the sound file being left in the article, just the unsourced claim. I certainly have not been asked by anyone to look at this. You seem to be saying that I am acting as a meatpuppet for a blocked IP. I consider that a personal attack. Please either make your accusation at SPI, or remove the unfounded accusation. Meters (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your rapid answer. So we disagree on referencing procedure, but it seems you do agree that the sound file itself is not a problem. That being so, I would be grateful if you could restore the sound file. I could do it myself, but by now you will have animated the sock puppet, and it took us weeks to get him blocked (he keeps changing names). If you restore the file then that would stop him from muddying the waters by appealing to your precedent. Presbycusis is a serious matter as you age, and many readers would be grateful for an excellent article on the subject. (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't refactor my comments.
I already asked you once to take this to the article's talk page. This is a content issue. The discussion belongs on the article's talk page, and as I have already said, there is already a discussion there. The sound file is already in the article, so there is not point asking me to restore it. It was in the article when you made your last edit to it so you must already know that. Don't try to make points by making bogus requests.
My mention of the socking issue is in direct response to your statement "You have several times, on the prompting of a sock puppet, ..." That is a direct accusation of meatpuppetry. Take me to SPI or remove the accusation. And stay off my talk page please. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion here. Meters (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the term "meatpuppet", but do not trouble yourself explaining, it does not sound relevant here. And I am referring to the deleted sound file in the Presbycusis article. I would be grateful if you could restore it there. This is a personal request, with my stated aim to send a signal to the sockpuppet, hence I am requesting this on your personal Talk page, not on the Presbycusis Talk page. You are free to refuse, but your help against the long history of vandalism by the sockpuppet would be greatly appreciated. (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
What part of
  1. Remove the personal attack where you accuse me of sockpuppetry,
  2. content issues belong on the article talk page, and
  3. stay off my talk page so you not understand?
I see no evidence of anyone having removed this material from Presbycusis before. It was added in the edit immediately prior to my removal. If you think it belongs in the article then take it to the article talk page. Meters (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User User_talk:Prototypehumanoid[edit]

Since you already warned User_talk:Prototypehumanoid wrt his edits on Calculus, I want to point you to the continuation (and next) of this shortly interrupted behaviour. I put a similar note on user_talk:NeilN. Purgy (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

East Spring Secondary School[edit]

hello metres, I am puzzled on why my East Spring secondary front gate picture was removed. I know that you have removed the picture on the infographics of the school merger by a website called channel news asia. I am hoping for you to let me revert the Section where it wrote that the School name will be spelled out as EAST SPRING SEC. You have removed the whole school song lyrics. I am hoping that i could put back the whole song lyrics. With out the bolded letter infront of every letters of the school lyrics, people may be puzzled on how we would get EAST SPRING SEC as the lyrics Randomeditor2345 (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. The new picture may be OK. Did you take it? I did not notice that you had changed the picture when you restored all of the other material. Read the links I left on your talk page. It is promotion to list the school song lyrics. General readers simply don't care what your school song is. Meters (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

so would i able to add the school frontgate picture? and thanks for the informations that you have told me , i learnt alot as a new editor. Randomeditor2345 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Randomeditor2345: No. Once again you did not license the picture properly. It will be removed if you do not fix it. License it properly before you add it. Meters (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Randomeditor2345 (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

How about the school uniform part, why is it being removed? Randomeditor2345 (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, read the links on your page. The article guidelines for school articles has a section "What not to include" and it specifically mentions trivia about school uniforms. Meters (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

But for the page, Dunman Secondary School. They were able to talk about their school uniform Randomeditor2345 (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bad content in a different article is not justification for adding similar bad content to this article. Meters (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Pensacola Christian College Article[edit]

I've suggested edits to the article, as a general rearrangement under better headings is obviously necessary (see the sample under the talk page). Also, I've included a couple suggested edits on the article itself, since, as you mentioned, I don't have the authority to make changes directly, having COI. Cheers. DenisGLabrecque (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look late today. Having a COI doesn't mean that you "don't have the authority" to make edits. It's just not a good idea. Some COI edits are perfectly acceptable, others are well-intended but biased or promotional, while others are knowingly inappropriate (fake info, whitewashing, etc). Thanks for proposing changes. Meters (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


finished thread moved from unprotected talk page

Jane rosenthal child wrote a series of children's books — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talkcontribs) 04:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

So? Writing a kid's book doesn't make you notable. And "getting divorced" does not mean already divorced. And even once divorced it does not mean that a person should be eliminated form the article. And don't make retroactive changes. If someone was married when something happened that you are describing, you don't change the text to say "ex-spouse" or whatever just because they are not married now. Meters (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
If Isabella Hatkoff is notable then WP:WRITETHEARTICLEFIRST and then go ahead and mention her by name in her mother's article, but don't identify a picture of a minor child by name otherwise. Meters (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The child in the picture is no longer a minor that photo is a decade old and that children's book sold a million copies

Please learn to sign your talk page posts, and to indent them. And, as I said above, if someone is notable then write the article first. We generally don't mention any non-notable family members by name even if not minors.
And why are you linking to a non-reliable source about someone called "Paula Kahumbu"? The source is not reliable since it is a user-generated site. See WP:RS. And I don't see what it has to do with the edits we are discussing. The children were Juliana Hatkoff and Bella Hatkoff. Meters (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw a page full of fake and verifiable information can you please look at it the Washington free beacon is not considered a real paper . Michael Recanati Flamingoflorida (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

That article has nothign to do with the Hatkoff articles we are discussing. Meters (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I know can you please help with that article it contains personal information that is at best partly true I need help with it Flamingoflorida (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to do, but I've done. A completely unreliable source on an unrelated subject, and now another unrelated subject? I'm not involved in that article at all. If there are problems with it then discuss it on that article's talk page. That's the first thing to do. Don't try to get random uninvolved editors to look at it. Please don't post anything else. I'm done with this thread. Meters (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


Hello Meters. If you need longer than three hours of protection for your talk, please file at RFPP again or let me know. In my view, a month would be justified -- if you want that. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks, I'll ping you or list again assuming it starts up again. It will probably be needed. This has been going on, off and on, for more than a year. I had a bit of a break while the culprit moved from Winnipeg to Toronto. Meters (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

IP at Talk:Sacred geometry[edit]

That was a sock of User:Brad Watson, Miami - I've blocked it. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks. It smelled sockish, but I didn't know who. I will next time. Meters (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
No objection from me if the thread is collapsed or even deleted. Meters (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi, just random, but about this editor, he has a tendancy to assume bad faith. He once was warned too, [[10]]. I actually left a similar message to that editor. He did it several times too, example [[11]]. Recently, he did it again [[12]] [[13]]. I have brought this to you because you were the last one I know to warn him. So, do you think he must be spoken to? No one ever gives him the severe warnings even if he freely gives them to other editors, and he has continued to frequently act in bad faith. 2600:1:F184:3FBA:1D5E:E6EC:4B47:1622 (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not out to attack him nor hurt him. I just want your opinion on what should be done about his attitude toward IPs and newcomers who are not always vandals. And frequently calling even true vandals names in edit summaries is not good either. 2600:1:F184:3FBA:1D5E:E6EC:4B47:1622 (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, notice you have an dopeleger account User:Metres. Perhaps you might like to indefinitly block it so that no one can hack into it. In any case, cheers. 2600:1:F184:3FBA:1D5E:E6EC:4B47:1622 (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
One has to wonder why you are bringing this here. Meters is not an admin. John from Idegon (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I can't speak for the other editor the IP contacted about this (User:Prhartcom) but I'm not interested in being canvased to pursue this. If an IP with zero prior edits goes back 2 years so he can point his finger at what was an obvious mistaken revert by someone who was in the midst of fighting ongoing vandalism, it seems fairly clear to me that the IP is indeed out to attack or harm User:Apokryltaros.
We all make mistakes. The "poop rat" revert was an obvious mistake, and one that was removed in the next edit to the article. When I make a mistake like that I fix it, or apologize to and thank whoever fixed it and or pointed it out to me. If I mistakenly warned someone I remove it and apologize. But that's me. Editors are allowed to remove whatever they like (with very limited exceptions) from their talk pages, and I don't blame Apokryltaros at all for deleting a long article quote about poop rats from his page.
As for speaking to him about this, that's what the talk page posts were. He's presumably aware that the community didn't agree with his latest actions, and if he followed up on the help desk thread then he's well aware. I just happened to be the one who posted to his page. There's no need for anything else. I don't recognize the account. If you think there is long-term pattern then ANI is the place to go, but you would need far more evidence to go on. I doubt it's there and I'm not interested in looking.
Why would I have my own doppelgänger account blocked? It's never going to be used, by me or anyone else. That's the point of a doppelgänger. Meters (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

About your Dopeleger, I meant so it is not broken and used by a hacker. As for my original post, Thanks for your opinion. 2600:1:F184:3FBA:1D5E:E6EC:4B47:1622 (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Marsha Johnson page[edit]

thanks for the message. i was getting so frustrated that i lost it for a second. you are absolutely right and i have revised.Rebismusic (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Meters (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

i know, i am slightly losing it with this process. I need to step back and just let the misinformation that these people are perpetuating stand. Is there a way to get a third party to review this stuff and make some impartial decisions about content, or is it just for the dogs to decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebismusic (talkcontribs) 06:39, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

You are not a little over the line. You are lucky you have not already been blocked. Having looked at your history I find days' worth of personal attacks. I have bumped your warning to an imminent warning. One more incident of "vandal" "cockroach" "mean spirited" " transphobic pathologizing" or the like and I will report you. My WP:AGF is done.
See WP:DISPUTE for how to deal with disputes. Meters (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

i hear you. for the record, "mean spirited" and " transphobic pathologizing" were intended to refer to the tone of the source material that he was pushing, not the editor. i have significantly dialed down my statement to him and apologized for insulting him.

thank you for you input, i appreciate it.Rebismusic (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit war issue[edit]

Me and you have been reverting IPs at Beaconsfield, I brought this (what I thought was some socks) to ANI and they said we could be blocked for reverting their good-faith contribs, so I thought I should let you know. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a very useful or appropriate response in my opinion. IP hopping removal of material and addition of unsourced POV and the response is to threaten blocks on all of the various named accounts who have been undoing the edits, asking for sources, warning the IPs and trying to discuss things on the talk page? Making the edit once is good faith, making the same edit more than 10 times, mostly with fake edit summaries calling it a typo is not good faith editing by the IP. And that does not even consider the multiple times the IP has made the same edit to other articles. Meters (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree, there were many problems with the IPs edits and behavior (it could have been WP:CIR not intentional vandalism). Tornado chaser (talk)
Update, a different admin agreed with me and reverted the POV edits. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Meters (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Correction of my earlier statement, there seems to be an ongoing debate among admins, one admin did revert bet there is not consensus. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ballarat Grammar School Song[edit]

Recently you removed the School Song from Ballarat Grammar School. All of the lyrics in that song were correct (except for the vandalized version with the word "infidel" substituted in). Nowhere else on the web that I can find has the lyrics to that song. I feel like it would be a shame if those lyrics are lost from the internet. The song was definitely in the wrong section "House system", and it is problematic that there was no citation, but those lyrics are correct. I'm quite new to wikipedia, and I don't know what to do. I can probably find a book in the next few weeks that can confirm those lyrics, but what happens if I can't do that? Thank you for all tat you do on wikipedia. ThomasBur (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't list school song lyrics. It is seen as promotional. See What not to include in the schools project article guidelines. If the lyrics can be shown to be in the public domain they can be added to Wikisource and linked from the article. Meters (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


How is adding contact information promotional? Is that not just general information? Thank you. Andyali (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to provide readers with information about the show, not to publicize the show or allow readers to contact the producers. This isn't the show's webpage. We don't need their phone number, or their email, or their text. The Woody Show is already full of unsourced trivia. The last thing it needs is more junk. Meters (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


Give the preoccupation of AlexanderOfTunis (talk · contribs) with the Alberts and the Queen of Angels Foundation, do you think there may be a COI issue? —C.Fred (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Definitely an SPA, and quite possibly a COI. It wouldn't hurt to ask the question. Meters (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Still at it, so I left a COI notice, pointed to EW, and started a discussion on one of the articles talk pages.Meters (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The two images they uploaded of the LA commendations that they claimed as their own work? I've nominated them for deletion at Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Looking at some of the other articles and I'm seeing lots of very questionable external links. Meters (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Waldorf School of Baltimore[edit]

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)


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".[1] He was ordered by his superiors to silence his criticisms.[2]

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)


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[edit]

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)