User talk:Meters/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Billion

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

Ananny

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

Probably the most persistent socker I've ever run across. Meters (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I picked them up in the New Pages feed. Spidey (Sock-ey?) senses went 'Ping!!!!' when I saw the name, plus the odd capitalisation of the page name. --220 of ^Borg 02:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Naturesharmony

Hello Meters,

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

As you can tell from the history log, I have been contributing minor edits to this page since March 2013. This page rarely changed until it came under attack by a competitor in April 2014. His first change was under the user name IP 50.125.49.35 which he later changed to IP 50.125.50.208 and finally Bruceki. At the same time he recruited others to slander the Nature's Harmony Farm name both on Wikipedia as well as numerous Facebook pages and blogs. Most of those sites recognized the subjective and personal nature of his non-factual attacks and banned him from contributing. In the past month, I have simply been trying to remove his slander from this site. Nearly all of the changes that he suggests to the Nature's Harmony Farm page are non-factual, strongly biased and link to HIS personal blog.

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

I also have concerns with some of the original content in the article. That's why I just tagged the article with COI but have not reverted your change.

The problem with your account is that you did not discuss the issues with the article with the editor reverting you, despite numerous attempts to get you to do so. You were blocked for a short period (I don't remember the exact reason given, but you certainly violated wp:3RR) and your unblock request was denied because of your WP:COI and refusal to discuss the edits. Rather than waiting for the short block to expire you then created a new account and made the same edit. This account was blocked for socking and the block on your original account was extended to an indefinite one for WP:block evasion. You then created this account, and made the edit again. And now that there's a sock puppet investigation, you attempted to change your name. It's completely untrue for you to say that you only have one account, user:Naturesharmony, since it wasn't even created until after your other two accounts were indefinitely blocked.

The Blocks apply to the person behind the account. You should not be editing Wikipedia at all, under any name or IP (and I will not respond to any more edits to my talk page by you). The only thing you can do now is to go back to your original account and make a convincing unblock request using that account. Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. If you don't convince the admins that you understand what you did wrong and that you will not do it again I doubt very much that you have any chance at all. And if you make any more edits to anything else (no matter how correct or well-intentioned) before this is resolved, it will just be more evidence that you should not be unblocked. Meters (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

Crime in China, Japan, and Hong Kong

Dear Meters,

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

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

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

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

Message from Jordangarnett

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

@Jordangarnett: (talk page stalker) You have repeatedly added Jordan Garnett to Park Vista Community High School, so it looks like you are trying to advertise yourself. See WP:SOAP. In addition, you have provided no source saying that Jordan Garnett is from Park Vista Community High School. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(e.c.):All the links you need are already on your talk page. You keep adding your own name to a school notable alumni list. Since you don't have a wiki article, you need to provide an independent reliable source to show that you attended the school and are notable. You have made that edit 6 times in the last few hours (undone by 4 different editors) so you have also broken wp:3RR and could be blocked for edit warring. Meters (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And now you're indefinitely blocked after making the same edit a 7th time. We tried to help you... Meters (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

Scientific terminology

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

Thank you

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

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

Allison Baver

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

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

about the troll(s)

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

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

Inappropriate user page usage

I note that you maintain several pages of "users to keep track of" (here, here and here). Per Wikipedia user page policy, this is not an acceptable use of your user pages. You should probably request deletion of those pages. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Sorry, I forgot to thank you for pointing out that the stale ones should go. Meters (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

NBR edits

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

Then just remove the unsubstantiated claim of 5000 members and leave it. The last four times you've inserted this claim you were not removing a claim of thousands of members, you were simply inserting your claim. You've been edit warring (with no discussion) to include the WP:WEASEL worded claim of just "three known members" based on nothing more than a picture of three people. That's as unsubstantiated as the original claim. The article is very unlikely to survive the AFD so don't get yourself blocked for edit warring. I agree that the article should be deleted. Meters (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I agree and will do this. Thank you for your advice. AntiCauliflower92 (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the edit warring case that had already happened. I'm a bit surprised that the IP was blocked without having received an edit warring warning, and I think you were a bit lucky not to get blocked for a boomerang, but, whatever. I'll remove the warning from your page since it was after the fact, and you've gotten the point. Meters (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Richardson family murders

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

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

Footnotes

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

As I said on your talk page, they don't need footnote to show notability if they are notable enough to have their own wiki articles. And they don't need footnotes to show attendance if the ref is included in their article. Please read WP:WPSCH/A. Meters (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The list is far too long. It should now be split into a separate article, leaving a prose section that contains just a few of the most notable alumni. This will also force the issue of requiring sourced proof that they attended the school. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Heights of Mexican soccer players

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

Juan00000000 Well, at the very least that is original research. Read WP:OR and use reliable sources instead. But I simply don't believe you. In this edit you reduced the height of a player by 28 cm. I find it hard to believe that a 4'-7" player was not only a professional but played on the national team. Meters (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello you have prove the that his real height stop lying to people about the height it like saying that there is actually 5'2 player in the nba that did appeared in the game miguel Herrera is 4'7 hi is really short — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan00000000 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you have to provide sources for the changes you are making to the articles. You have not provided a single source for any of the many height changes you have made, some heights that have been in the articles for years. If you have sources other than comparison to your own height let's see them. Meters (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

and indef'ed. Meters (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Im Sorry

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

Removal of Archbishop Wood HS Alumni Gay Hate Crime Article

Removal of Archbishop Wood HS Alumni Gay Hate Crime Article

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

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

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

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

I'm one of the editors who removed the material from the high school article Archbishop Wood Catholic High School. I didn't delete Archbishop Wood HS Alumni Gay Hate Crime''' (I'm not an admin) but I participated in the deletion discussion, and I fully support its deletion. The article has been deleted three times now, twice by speedy, and once by AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archbishop Wood HS Alumni Gay Hate Crime''', and the high school article is now protected. I'm not going to discuss the reasons for the removal of the material from the school article and for the deletion of the stand-alone article again. The reasons have been well explained on your talk page and at the deletion discussion.

Your comments on other editors are starting to sound like personal attacks, so I suggest that you stop. Meters (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

American Rotation (pool)

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

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

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

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

I'll create the redirect for you. Meters (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Maibang

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

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

The move was done by the admin who deleted the blocking redirect (the proper procedure for this). Meters (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

recon units

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

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

Also!!! Pathfinders no longer exist in Canada. That trade has been removed along with assault pioneers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaustecroix (talk • contribs) 04:43, September 30, 2014‎

@Beaustecroix: I didn't revert the edit [1] because of what you said about the unit. I reverted it because of the extra you added about unit members, "Hardest member being Cpl Martin. He was never born but forged on mount Olympus. Weakest goes to Cpl Watson." I have no problem with the edit the way you redid it (without the in jokes. That material does not belong in that article, since it is a general article about such units world wide. Maybe it could go in the article about the specific unit if the info is properly sourced.

If you are going to post on talk pages please learn the rules. Add new threads at the bottom, not the top. Add a header so the thread will be indexed rather than added to the previous thread, and sign your posts. Not only did you not sign them, but you deleted the autosigned signature on your first post. Meters (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please add to or correct the various other articles. You obviously know far more about them than most of us. Meters (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Super Yacht Fan

Dear Meters,

Can you please reconsider your correction? I think you are overreaction regarding my 'spamming'. If I would be spamming, I would place dozens of links all over Wikipedia. But actually there are just 3 or 4 links from Wikipedia to my site, of which 1 or 2 were put online by myself. Apparently the competent moderator did not consider the info as spam. In this case it was not spam.. It is widely known that Bram van Leeuwen lived on his yacht https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et9mZ387kgY Also it is a fact that his partner sold the yacht after he died http://www.superyachttimes.com/editorial/3/article/id/8815 And even Wikipedia mentions that Craig McCaw bought her https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feadship So if I would be searching Bram van Leeuwen on Wikipedia, than I would consider this relevant, or at least interesting. The fact that my site has a general disclaimer does not mean that all data is incorrect. Wikipedia is referring to more sites with disclaimers.... So please reconsider.. I am no spammer. Peter Super Yacht Fan Peter-yacht-fan (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Just jumping in here, please read WP:ADV; this will make policy clear. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 06:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you..

Meters, Can you place the info online? Than it is not done by myself :)

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

There's no need for you to avoid editing articles and adding properly sourced material. There is no issue of conflict of interest or advertising if you avoid citing your own website. Any material you add does have to verifiable from reliable sources though. Between this page, your talk page, and User talk:Edgar181 you have been pointed to WP:RS, WP:ADV, WP:COI, and WP:EL. That should cover what you need to know. It's also been suggested that you can take the issue to WP:RSN if you still think your webpage should be an acceptable source. I think it would be a waste of time, but it's available if you want a third opinion or don't understand why we have rejected your website.

The sources you mention above are less than compelling. The Youtube link might be acceptable if it were an official page of someone considered to be an authority on the subject (the owner, for example) but it does no appear to be such. www.superyachttimes.com may well be acceptable, but I'm not able to tell since I don't know how well they research their facts. That one would likely have go to WP:RSN. The wikiarticle cannot be used for a source, but it does appear to source the statement. If so that source can be reused.

Regardless of how good any sources are, I agree with User:Edgar181 that the specific edit you made to Bram van Leeuwen is not appropriate to the article. The article is about Bram van Leeuwen. We simply don't need to follow the ownership history of his yacht though all her subsequent owners following his death. Meters (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

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

Good luck with that argument. I reverted you once and pointed out that you should have taken it to the talk page per BRD after you had been reverted the first time (and a source was added to prove the point). I then started a discussion. You reverted a third time, and I again undid you per BRD and referred you to the talk page. Only after I warned you for edit warring did you start a new discussion, ignoring the one I had already started on the talk page.

Your mention of the picture of the figure skater seems to be red herring since edit since neither of the edits I reverted involved that image. Meters (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. The edit was indeed to the image description. Meters (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

User:CanigetAsurogat/sandbox

Sandboxes, by their nature, are appropriate for this kind of thing, whether with 46KB or 1.4MB; such a page doesn't hurt anything, and it definitely doesn't qualify for deletion as vandalism any more than does this revision of WP:SAND. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't call that sandbox edit vandalism. It's mildly offensive and might fall under the category of offensive material which the header asks editors not to make, but so what. It will be blanked automatically. It's not at all the same thing as a sock of a blocked editor putting 1.4 M of useless crap (now less) in his sandbox. You didn't answer my question of whether this would have been better requested under G1 or U5 instead, so I assume that you would also not have accepted either of those. It seems very odd to have to bother filing a sock report on this user just to clean up his sandbox as block evasion. As for not harming anything, big useless files use resources, and at some size they can cause real harm. I've seen users create similarly useless Wikipedia files so big that creating diffs of them crashed the server. Meters (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't answer the question — I didn't realise that you were expecting me to comment on that. You're correct that I wouldn't be inclined to delete it under either of these. I'm willing to perform G5 speedy deletions; show me convincing evidence that this is a sock of a blocked user, and I'll be willing to delete it. Just also please be aware that I'm going to be rather busy over the next week (I'll be on the road all weekend, and preparing for my trip before then), so I may not be able to make a speedy reply. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Terry Goddard

Meters I think you are aware that I was editing Terry Goddard. I was trying to upload a picture of him but couldn't, I was wondering if maybe you could upload a photo of Goddard. Thanks.-Spongebob1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongebob1999 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Spongebob1999: Sorry, I shouldn't have reverted you. I figured out what was going on and was about to leave you a message when you posted here. You need to upload the image to Wikipedia rather than link to an external image. See Help:Introduction to uploading images. Note that the image has to be one which either does not need permission or for which you can grant Wikipedia permission to use. Basically, in this case it has to be a picture you took (not one you copied from the web or scanned from another source). Meters (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't upload it for you since I don't own the copyright on any of the photos you tried to link to. Meters (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ñengo Flow

The name of Ñengo Flow not is Edwin Laureano Rosa Vázquez Ortiz, is Edwin Laureano Rosa Vázquez. Thank's. :* — Preceding unsigned comment added by YosoyJamii (talk • contribs) 17:58, October 26, 2014‎

@YosoyJamii:You are trying to change the artist's name. It has been that way in the article for more than one year, and the biography links are now dead. We're asking you to provide a reference before you change the name. Meters (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And I'm finding many online references that do include the "Ortiz" as part of his name. Meters (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

BlueboyLI?

Thanks for your help in bringing some temporary calm to the Lee Zeldin and Tim Bishop pages. Wondering if you noticed the new unregistered IP that came along to revert edits in the same pattern as BlueboyLI? Election time, sigh... Just wanted to let you know I left a new message about it on the talk page of the admin who added the blocks. I have no idea if they're the same users, but just thought I'd let them know in any event. Shatterpoint05 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You and the other editors bent over backwards in attempting to get BlueboyLI to engage in the discussion rather than continue reverting. I'm surprised this didn't go to the edit warring board long ago. The new IP is suspicious since it is following the same pattern as previous IPs in showing up to continue edits to those two articles after BlueboyLI, but is not as blatant as the IP that was just blocked since the edits are different. It could just be coincidence. Meters (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Accounts blocked for edit warring and socking. Meters (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For being understanding and helping keep vandalism off Wikipedia EoRdE6 (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Open Episcopal Church

The article you just edited is unsourced, in terms of objective evidence. But I give up now and will cease editing and let the article remain factually incorrect and unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewkeats (talk • contribs) 17:54, November 9, 2014‎

You ignored basic talk page rules (and the clear instructions at the top of my page) to add new topics at the bottom and to sign your post. Your edits to the article in question have been reverted by 4 different editors now. They are unsourced, and POV or OR. Inserting talk comments in the article is never acceptable. Per WP:BRD you should have taken this to the article talk page after the first time you were undone. Meters (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2014 (UT

Sorry but I don't think the current state of the article in many respects is verifiable or objective , and I feel many editors need to.learn about what constitutes verifiable or objective evidence. I will let the article remain poor and badly sourced at your behest.Matthewkeats (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Matthewkeats:We're not asking for "the article [to] remain poor and badly sourced." We're asking you to explain and justify your edits. As the edit summaries of the four editors who have undone you said, your edits "need serious verification", "need to be more neutral", are "unsourced", are "talking in the article", and need to be "discuss[ed] ... on the talk page" I suggest you read WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:BRD, and WP:EDITWARRING.

Again, if you have concerns with what is in the article or the sources used, then discuss it on the talk page. Meters (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I provided sources where needed, and did not make any statements of fact that were either without sources, or that could not be substantiated by the sources already given; e.g, the already cited and linked OEC webpage displays the number of clerics in various regions I specified. The source given for the number of members, which I deleted in my edit along with the statement of number of members, is the OEC's own webpage which contains unsubstantiated evidence. This edit was reverted, which shows that others editing my own edits are not doing so in accord with the same standards they are allegedly imposing on me. In terms of neutrality, I deliberately made statements such as "what some clerics viewed as" to signal opinions rather than making statements of opinion as if they were facts. Anyway, I will desist from making edits as some of you editors are clearly satisfied with bias in one direction and are happy to enforce inconsistent standards and allow bad sourcing elsewhere. This is why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewkeats (talk • contribs) 19:44, November 9, 2014‎

Are you trolling, or do you just not understand the concept of providing verifiable sources?You provided no sources at all. for any of your statements. All you provided was one direct link to a church website. That's not how we do references, and the link did not confirm anything you had added other than the existence of that church and its association with Helen Hamilton. Meters (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry.

I want just any history of my edits removed from that page. Please do so now, if I can't do anything about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.46.97 (talk) November 12, 2014‎

@173.166.46.97:Which page are you concerned with? Talk:Monster of Monterey‎ will soon be deleted as a talk page of a deleted article,m so there's no need to worry about your edit history there. As for your talk page, you blanked it, but there is no way to remove the edit history. Meters (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Changes to list of Mississaugans

Why in the world don't you first flag things as needing a citation? While I'm sure you have good intentions, wiping things out it never the first step. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Zanimum I asked for citations on several entries, those that seemed very likely notable to me. The ones I simply removed were mostly more questionable, red-linked entries with no reliable sources that had been in the article for more than one year (many for more than two years, and at least one for more than three years). After that length of time with no link and no source I don't see the need to ask for a citation. A red-linked entry with no ref fails WP:Source list since neither the person's notability nor their connection to the town can be verified. I also removed at least one red-linked entry that had a source because the ref did not appear to me to be sufficient to show notability. List entries should be notable enough to warrant their own articles, and a single local media mention of a local artist/athelete/whoever is not enough. Meters (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Escalona

Meters,

I do not wish to enter an edit war with you, but I do not support people redirecting a page within the first hour of its existance, especially when it was created by a newcomer. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I am glad we have reached a somewhat conslusion to this war with your edit of the silly pig promise issue rather than deleting the page entirely. I wish to conclude by asking for a "peace truth" or "treaty" if you will saying that we will resolve from editing this page in unconstructive means and give iit a chance to flourish before determining its fate.

I would like to thank you in advance for your understanding, STJMLCC (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You are edit warring. Please undo your edit and discuss this on the article's talk page, per WP:BRD, as I said on your talk page.

Being a new editor goes not give you any special rights to ignore normal procedures. If you think that elementary school is notable enough for an article I suggest that you write it in draft space and see if it is accepted as an new article when finished rather than asking us to leave it alone in article space for a month.

The pig bit has nothing to do with why I redirected the article. It was just a totally inappropriate piece that I removed while waiting for you to undo your edit. Don't think that it signifies any conclusion to this.Meters (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

First I wish to inform you: New Account NOT New User, I Lost My Old Account's Information And Forgot Password. Second, It is not of any concern of mine wether the document gets deleted. I care only about the user stuck in the middle.

Thank you for your consideration STJMLCC (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this previously, I apologize if my arbitrary methods have offended you, but wish to state that I will not enter edit wars as I have previous expirences so I officially step out of the issue and only hope that you give this document a second thought before redirecting it once again.

Hoping for a new start and an ally rather than an enemy, I already have enough of those, STJMLCC (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I've asked you multiple times to discuss your edits on the article's talk page. If the article creator wants to discuss things he or she is welcome to join in. For all you or I know he or she understands the reason and is perfectly happy to leave it as a redirect. Since you are not a new editor you know better than to edit war over this. Meters (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I will say again, I officially step OUT of this issue.

Still Hoping For An Ally Not An Enemy STJMLCC (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are stepping out of it and will not discuss your edit in the thread I have starting on the article talk page, then you should self revert. It's not an issue of win or lose, or allies or enemies. I'm happy to work with anyone, but if you won't discuss the edits there's not much I can do. As it stands it does not look notable, and you are not providing any additional reasons or information. Meters (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Limb body wall complex Edits

Thank you so much for fixing my corrections. I am new to this and only have basic knowledge. I don't know if this is the correct way to use a talk page, but could you direct me on how to add photos? I am not knowledgeable enough to read the wikipedia helps, yet. I am also having trouble with categorizing this page, and adding links so that it is not an orphan article. Any direction would be appreciated. I have much more information to add here. Beasmom (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Beasmom You're very welcome. You're off to a good start. I'll take another pass through your latest additions and you can look at what I've done. Two quick hints:

• When reusing the same ref there is no need to re-enter all the same info. Name the ref once and just call the name for subsequent uses of the ref. The article body looks the same on the displayed page but is much shorter and easier to read in edit mode, and the list of references is shorter. I'll put in a named ref for the Journal of Laboratory Physicians ref so you can see how to do it.
• You should try to fill in the refs rather than just using bare URLS. If you click the "Cite" button while editing it will bring up a menu for adding cites to make it easier. See Help:Introduction to referencing/3 for info on using this toolbar. See WP:REF for detailed referencing info. Don't worry if you can't figure it out right away. The bare URLs you have used are sufficient to allow more experienced editors to fill in the missing bits. The biggest concern is that it may be impossible to update or replace a dead link if it was just a bare URL.

For uploading images, you should start with Help:Introduction to uploading images/1. It's critical that any images you upload are meet the copyright requirements for free use on Wikipedia. If not they will quickly be deleted. Where did you get the images?

Don't worry about the categorization for now. That can be quite difficult to do, and there are knowledgeable editors who can do it. Similarly, don't worry about linking other articles to this one for now. Get this article into good shape and we can figure out what should link here later. I'll keep an eye on how it's doing.

I'm happy to help you with this article in any way I can. Meters (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Spoilers

While providing complete plot synopses would certainly be helpful to students of a genre, not to mention students using Wikipedia for book report material, there are times when a complete synopsis ruins the original experience for anyone at all interested in actually reading a book or seeing a movie. It is not tacitly understood that a silent spoiler alert precedes a plot synopsis. That's like arguing an intersection implies vehicles should stop before crossing, ergo obviating the need for stop signs. Sounds ridiculous put that way, yes? One should never make a blanket imputation of subtlety of thought to any human being. A simple solution would be to use the mechanism game wikis use of flagging plot synopses with a warning which anyone can override if they do need to read the synopsis, as for example reviewers or programmers. In the specific instance in question, I read the plot synopsis of the movie "The Spanish Prisoner" which relies almost entirely on the audience not knowing who is really who and what is really going on. That's the genius of the movie. Though not for anyone who read the synopsis before -- and probably then, instead of-- seeing the movie itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Theater Cricket (talk • contribs) 00:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You inserted the spoiler alert three times. As the message on your talk page said, see Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers. Did you do that? It says Wikipedia previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers. The "No disclaimers in articles" guideline details why spoiler warnings are no longer used on Wikipedia. It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.

Wikipedia talk:Spoiler is where you should propose any changes to the policy, not here, but the issue has been discussed before. I would suggest that you read the archives first to see what previously been said on the issue. Meters (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

incorrect editing

Hello! Please stop your disruptive editing as you did on Mughal Rajput war,youngistan,and list of wars involving india. You have been editing articles and putting incorrect facts and I tried to keep editing them. I am not trying to be rude.

Thanks! Supershaan aka thetoolkitbrah aka theshitman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supershaan (talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your first account User:Theshitman is blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account with a username that violates the username policy. IP 108.49.134.183 and User:Thetoolkitbrah were blocked as sock accounts after you continued with the same edits. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Theshitman. You are not allowed to edit under any username or IP. If you think your original block was incorrect (i.e., not vandalism), or you admit to your vandalism and can convince an admin that you will not do it again then read WP:Appealing a block and appeal the block on User talk:Theshitman. Note that because your original username is not acceptable you would have to request a temporary unblock for the purpose of an immediate name change. If your edits were not vandalism then I apologize for the trouble. You were making very drastic, unsourced changes to the article (changing the outcome, and claiming millions of casualties) that appeared to be vandalism. I doubt that you will be able to convince anyone that these edits were not vandalism unless you provide WP:reliable sources to suppoort your version. Even if your edits were correct, you were still edit warring and socking. Meters (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

indeffed as a sock. Meters (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dany Heatley

my comment on the page was both accurate and productive sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstar allstar allstar.allstar (talk • contribs) 23:58, December 2, 2014‎

There's no position called "Allstar" on a hockey team. If you want to add a sourced comment to the article about any allstar game appearances then do it in the article, not in the position field in the infobox. Meters (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And indeffed. Meters (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ISP Supplies

we had a previous history [2] and I did some stupid mistakes after that, so you well have to assume good faith that he didn't make baseless inflamatory remarks (though they are probably still a civility issue) Avono (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone an abusive editor for the speedy request on User:Blakewenloe91/ISP Supplies when it was still in article space is not a question of civility to me. That's a personal attack as far as I am concerned. He or she is free to undo the edit, but not to attack the editor. And he came very close to tarring everyone who restored the speedy with the same brush. Any past history does between you two does not excuse it.

I userfied the article to avoid an edit was, but I fully support your original speedy request on it. I was involved with a promotional editor User:ICBusinessDigital yesterday who was adding links and articles for his company (a digital ad company) and ISP Supplies, presumably one of their customers (see [3]). When I searched for info on ISP Supplies I ended up on one of the same page that was being linked to yesterday. I would be surprised if the two accounts are not the same person, so he has already been told about issues with COI, promo, etc. Meters (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

HW

I didn't look into it too much, but your recent interaction with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is par for the course. He seems to go on binges where he makes changes to articles based on his opinion and/or personal interpretation of policy. Personally, I think he gets bored, gets an idea for something, and then starts making edits across any number of articles. Granted, he does make some good edits especially on BLP articles, but in my opinion he creates more work for other Editors than any kind of positive net contribution. But that's based on my interaction with him. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed more than a bit excessive to me. Glad to know I'm not he only one. Meters (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets have a pint and wait for this to blow over.

Kick back, relax, and just wait. A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 20:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

any one up for a game of Duckhunt? ;)

Avono (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Yup, the quacking is deafening. I already have the account at SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theshitman and the article on proposed changed protection. Not much else to do (unless we take him to AIV) until the next sock shows up. Meters (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And blocked as I was writing the above. That was quick. Meters (talk)

Self-Reliance Article

Sorry. I was trying to change some of the things in the existing article and since this was my first time, I pressed the move button. I also thought that the article was in my sandbox, and therefore I thought I could work on the other article there without it being public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpatel9 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's back in your userspace now, and the version in the incorrect namespace has been removed.. I figured you had done something you didn't mean to do. As I said on your talk page, you probably shouldn't make large scale changes to an article all in one edit in any case. It's better to break it into smaller chunks so other editors can evaluate the changes to each section separately. 04:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

right-of-way - you're absolutely correct

Hi Meters

You're absolutely correct. The right-of-way would be the correct term. From a legal standpoint the railway owned the right-of-way land. (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Kent

It would be a very narrow greenbelt if it was just the trackbed. Meters (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Moscrop

sir, I am aware some of my edits were vandalism but it remained there because I forgot to delete it(it was only a joke) The suspensions and everything else are 100% legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMLSislove (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

So, why should we believe unsourced edits from an admitted vandal? I pointed you to WP:RS on your talk page. Frankly, I'm not going to believe anything you add to that article unless I can verify it. Meters (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

i sourced the bird activist... happy now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMLSislove (talk • contribs) 22:51, December 13, 2014‎

No. You also restored the negative BLP claim without a source. I've remove it yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 22:52, December 13, 2014‎

How do i souce something that has no online sources? not arguing just trying to learn — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMLSislove (talk • contribs) 23:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers, TV coverage, books, whatever. For the fourth time, read WP:RS. You have already been pointed to it on my talk page, on your talk page, and on the article's talk page. Maybe there's a reason we keep giving it to you. Meters (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did you flag my thing for speedy deletion, it is not a company just a group of people who live by the school motto... CMLSislove (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I requested that your userpage be deleted since it appears to be nothing but promotion for the CMLS. It does not matter if the group is not a commercial company. Read WP:USERPAGE and the other links already on your talk page. The name of your group and the list of your members does not have anything to do with Wikipedia. Userpages are not for promotion, and they are not free webspace.

User accounts are for individuals, not groups. Your account is up for a block as a shared account since your userpage states CMLS is the Chaggot Motorcycle Lightning Squad and currently has 23 members and goes on to list all the members. Thus it appears to be a shared account for the group. See WP:ISU. If the intention is not to use this account as a shared account then you should ask for a name change. See WP:RENAME. Meters (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I just remove my list of members? I was trying to make a specific page and not a user page CMLSislove (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, you can remove the list of members, but that does not address the concerns with your username or the use of the userpage as pronotion. If you are trying to create an article about the group you will need to move it off your userpage, and provide verifiable sources to show that it is notable. That means multiple, independent, reliable sources to show that that group is notable. See WP:NOTE. Has it been covered in major newspapers or media outlets? Books? I doubt it has any coverage, except possibly in your school newspaper, but if it has, good luck. Meters (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, just to clarify on the motto, I can confirm that the motto has been, as of this September, changed to CMLS, the new VP Mr Wozney had it changed after Mrs Sortome left. My teacher told us that someone was vandalizing our school page. Is this true? I was asked to go clean it up and make changes where necessary. Please don't hesitate to ask me any more questions regarding the school info! Take care. Moscropstudent99 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Then provide a source for the new motto, because otherwise I'm going to assume that you are just a sock of the now-blocked CMLSislove. And see my comments on Talk:Moscrop Secondary School ‎ for why the supposedly notable student isn't notable. Meters (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the credibility of Khalid. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscropstudent99 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

added Aug 2014 source for original motto (found by another editor) Meters (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Harriton High School Article

Ok, I understand that you think these specific students should not be mentioned, but the guideline you referred me to says "...detailed information about current or former pupils, parents of current or former pupils, administrative staff, school secretaries, teachers etc. is usually inappropriate..." The information that I wish to include in the article simply mentions the names of the current officers of the club, who have taken over after the previous advisor retired. This information can be found in several places online and is certainly not infringing upon these students' privacy in any way whatsoever. If I had given "detailed information" about these students, that would be one thing, but I am just listing what is public information. Recognizing these students is certainly not infringing upon Wikipedia's guidelines, and I am therefore requesting that you revert back to the previous version of the article. Ryanandrewjake (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Ryanandrewjake

I will not restore those edits. I quoted the applicable guideline WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#WNTI on your talk page, and you continued to add students' names. Wikipedia does not mention individual students by name unless they are individually notable. There's nothing to show that these students are notable. Simply being on the executive of a high school club or group does not qualify as "exceptional circumstances" and my interpretation is that we don't mention them by name. Meters (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

...for helping keep track of this guy. FYI, 172.56.0.0/23 and 208.54.64.0/24 are T-Mobile; 66.99.0.0/19 and 64.107.0.0/19 are the Chicago Public Library (he still edits from there, mainly on other wikis, since it's currently blocked for three years), and 64.107.219.x is Triton College. He also edits from Dominican University (don't remember the IP offhand) and from numerous stores with display computers (Staples, Best Buy, etc.). I know his name and where he lives, and am reporting his threats to law enforcement. He's been harassing us for more than eight years. If he starts harassing you I can send you more info by email, such as the deleted Long Term Abuse page (Jimbo deleted it in a vain attempt to get him to stop). This was his account with the longest history, and I think sockpuppets are archived under that name. Antandrus (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been keeping a page on his recent (2 years or so) activities, but I see people are already well aware of him. Meters (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest RevDel on those summaries. Meters (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

done by User:Acroterion Meters (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Accusation of Copyright

Hello, this is TNTdonut, and I am responding to your message on my talk page claiming that I copyrighted MarcoPolis.net. This article is not mine, and my edits were only minor grammar corrections. I myself had no idea that this page was originally a copied or closely paraphrased version of the webpage. It may seem I wrote it all, but I merely restored the original article because it was deleted for peacock terms and I fixed those. I did not write this article or even visit the page itself. I committed no copyright violations. Your accusation is false and invalid. If it is true that the page is copyrighted, then by all means, delete the page. My only objection was to the peacock terms that could easily have been fixed rather than speedily deleted. ಠ_ಠ @TNTdonut (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have looked a bit closer before recreating the page. It's a blatant copyvio of the url that is sourced. You recreated the article, so you are responsible for it.Meters (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, but it isn't my work. I am responsible for the page, and I now say that it should be deleted. But, the work itself is not mine and I take no responsibility for that writing. Maybe instead of accusing me like that you should pay attention to what I previously wrote. "I merely restored the original article because it was deleted for peacock terms and I fixed those." The reason it was deleted was for advertising and promotion. It said nothing about 'blatant copyvio' or whatever you are talking about. If according to you, it really is copyright, then please delete it. I did not write that. ಠ_ಠ @TNTdonut (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter. Again, you are responsible for the new article since you recreated it. If you didn't know it was a copyvio that means that you recreated it without even bothering to follow the references. The article was speedy deleted and normal editors have no access to deleted files, so perhaps you can explain how you managed to have a copy of it?

And could you please go and follow the link now so you can stop saying "if is really copyright", as if there was even the slightest possibility that it wasn't. I'm tagging it for a speedy deletion copyvio. Meters (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

done, and I've also remove the strange editS TNTdonut made to the AFD that broke the header. Meters (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I will explain. 1.) I went to new articles without categories and opened this one 2.) I started to remove peacock terms and fix grammar 3.)I saved it only to see that it was deleted for promotion and advertising, NOT copyright infringement 4.)I restored it because I fixed the problem with advertising. There, you happy now? It gave me the option to restore the page. And another thing, how many times do I have to say, if it really is copyright, DELETE IT! I am telling you I did not write this, and yet you persist to argue with me. And whats with "done, and I've also remove the strange editS TNTdonut made to the AFD that broke the header." What edits, what header? I only added my response! I WANT IT TO BE DELETED! How can I be more clear! I W-A-N-T I-T T-O B-E D-E-L-E-T-E-D! I hope you are done now. ಠ_ಠ @TNTdonut (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Done meant I'd requested a speedy on the article, and the strange edits you made were here where you broke the header on the AFD entry for the file we're discussing. But now I'm done discussing things with you. Please stay off my talk page. Meters (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Canterbury School (Fort Wayne, Indiana) ‎

Hi,

I am responding to the recent note that I am violating copyright with the edits I made to the Canterbury School Fort Wayne Wikipedia page. I am the school administator responsible for updating the school's the Wikipedia page. I was using content from our website, which I am also responsible for and which I and our staff mostly wrote, to update the Canterbury School Wikipedia page. I received a note that I cannot use this info.

Karen Belcher (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Karen Belcher, Director of Digital Communication, Canterbury School, Fort Wayne, IN 46804

We cannot use such material unless you first provide Wikipedia with the right to reproduce and modify it. The link you need to read is already on your talk page as Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Note that just because you may grant Wikipedia the right to use the material does not mean it will be acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Overly promotional material., for example, will not be used. You also have a conflict of interest in writing about a school at which you work. You should read WP:COI. Good luck. Meters (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Scott Card racist?

(Note: Per wp:CANVASSING I am "non-biasedly" advertising a topic for discussion by posting a notice on the ten most recent users who commented on the page in question's talkpage and also the ten most recent users who edited the article in question.)

Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?

(Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.)

See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card#RfC: Subject of blp racist?

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Left my thoughts. Meters (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I have noticed an increase in sockpuppets pushing an Uzbek POV over numerous articles, including Siktirgitir. Would now be the time to file another sock report? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear:Not sure of my connection to this. I have filed SPIs on Indian topics, but not Uzbek, so I think you have left this on the wrong page. Meters (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I see this is the Shitman case I started, but I'm not aware of the connection to Uzbek. Meters (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's ok. They're all starting to look the same to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a connection to Turan22. Sorry Meters. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Meters (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Age of marriage

Please, don't correct me in the age of marriage in Spain. If I'm not mistaken, you corrected me from 14 to 16 under special circumstances and you just cited one article from a newspaper, El País. But that article is wrong. It was just aproved a project of law to reform the Civil Code but that project has never been made into a law because Spain is under serious economic circumstances (the international crisis has motivated "populist propositions" from the government to divert from the financial problems). The actual law, which I cited, is clear: you can marry with 14 years although that's very unusual because the requirements (especially a waive from a judge) are very restrective. Of course, you can correct my very bad English if the sentence wasn't right.Nestreg (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nestreg: You are mistaken, as the edit history clearly shows. The edit you are referring to was made by User:Jomanava here. Take it up with him or her. Meters (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Meters, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, FrontierMountie (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Mark Welsh Biography

Moved to Talk:Mark Welsh § Romance scam

I've already left my thoughts on this on the article's talk page. I've moved User:Minerva2016's post there to keep the topic in one place. Meters (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10