User talk:Meters/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Bev Facey Community High School

Hi, Meters. Hope you've had a good winter solstice holiday, whichever one you celebrate. I'll be glad for school to start again, as the silly school vandalism will slow down.

I'm wondering if when you have time, you'd look at the above article I just de - prodded. I realized after I pulled the prod, I don't really know the appropriate sources to clean it up. If you would be so kind as to clean it up and let me know when you have, it would be a great benefit in teaching this old dog new tricks. Thanks my friend. It's -2° with as much snow as I've seen total in the 12 years I've lived here. Hope the skies are treating you better. John from Idegon (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Will do.

The solstice is a welcome event since we get just over 7 hours of daylight this time of year. Windchill -34 C this morning — not quite cold enough for me to need a pair of long pants and my warm coat, but close (I'm remarkably cold tolerant even for a Canuck). Merry Christmas (Hanakka, Kwanza, or whichever) to you too. Meters (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Strange Prod, and a bit Pointy. The editor is a local and I'm sure knows all too well that that is a major school in the area. Not a school board I have dealt with before but I'm sure I can find good sources. Meters (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yaganti

Yes it makes sense to change the name of the article because to provide provide proper citations in many books it is mentioned as yaganti temple and there is also a village named yaganti so people will get confused so i changed the name from next time i'll use the move option if required, Thanks for the suggestion I have provided all the citations and references required for the article Yaganti and hence removed the maintenance tag.Please change the name for Yaganti to Yaganti Temple Abhiran (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2016 (IST)

Done. Meters (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Jack Holmes (Illustrator)

Hi, My friend was helping me contribute to the article we are making, to ensure it is made fairly and accurately. Is that not allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmarshall682 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. You are trying to create a new article and it has been put up for speedy (not the first time). Your friend creates a new accoutn and shows up at your new article, removes the unreviewed article template and posts to teh talk page that the article is fine. Read WP:SOCK, particularly WP:MEAT. Meters (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And blocked for socking. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davidmarshall682 Meters (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't realize unsubmitted user space works-in-progress would be reviewed. Meters (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Chard, Somerset

With reference to Wikipedia Chard, a spent conviction is reasonable grounds for editing an out dated article. Chard is my hometown and the incident with Mr Prior doesn't help to improve the towns image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardKnight (talk • contribs) 04:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems like a fairly big deal. It's sourced. You've been undone by two different editors. Take it to the talk page. Meters (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit of Birthplace

Hi Meters - I edited my wiki page birthplace. I am happy to email you a copy of my passport if you like? I realise you must get a lot of people saying they are who they are not. Well this is such a minor edit! Can you contact me via email and I will send you proof of ID? [redacted]

thanks Tracey 115.187.141.76 (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said on your named account talk page, you need to take this up with the OTRS team. Follow the link on your talk page. Meters (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe the email you need to use is info-en-q@wikimedia.org Meters (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Confirmed the above email is correct. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Conwell-Egan Catholic High School

Hello, you changed the section about notable alumni claiming the source I put down did not mention the person added to the list, but if you scrolled down to the bottom of the page, it did in fact have the persons name, stating they were on the team and showing they went to Conwell-Egan before Holy Family. Could you please revert it back since the source was legitimate proof? Thanks, (Jolllyreedgiant (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC))

There is nothing on http://www.clubbaseball.org/ that mention Bob Reed, and even if it did it would not be enough to show that he was notable. The page has been protected because that edit has been made at least 9 times in the last few days. If you make it again after the protection ends you will likely be blocked. Meters (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

For Petes sake, he doesn't even play NCAA baseball! Is he notable for not making the team? John from Idegon (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the baseball claim was just a last ditch effort to appear notable. The first 8 times the edit was made the only claim to notability was that the person had been on the student government, and there was a similar attempt to add an alumnus entry to another article based on a student government position at the same school here [1]. Meters (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

WPSCH

Since you've joined the ranks, you may want to add our alert page to your watchlist. Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article alerts . Thanks for all you have done and will do for school articles. Glad you're aboard. John from Idegon (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I was gonna explain to him (above) who Pete was. You would think a Catholic school kid would know that! John from Idegon (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. I nuked his last response because it was descending into trolling. You don't have to be Catholic to be familiar with that expression. Meters (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the latest generation has replaced Pete with a word beginning with "F". John from Idegon (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Timbaland production discography

Finally, thanks for replying, first off, that is the same user that has been banned a few months ago called 'Timbalandpage' because of deleting/editing stuff for no reason, and second, I am always sourcing stuff on the post I do, check out his History on edits, thank you ! Mika` (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If you think the removals are vandalism then leave escalating warnings on the other editor's talk page and report the user to WP:AIV if it continues. If you think he is a sock of User:Timbalandpage then present your evidence at WP:SPI and get the editor blocked. The two of you have spent months reverting each other on this article but have never left edit summaries, discussed this on the article's talkpage, or left talkpage warnings. You were both warned about edit warring but continued the behaviour. The page has now been protected at my request. As the protecting admin said, if the behaviour continues after the protection ends you may be blocked. Meters (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

A recent issue with David

Hey Meter's I just wanted to let you know on your talk as well as i pinged you on the editor's talk, that I will be assisting him, and monitoring him to best of my abilities, I can see hes trying to do some good but he needs some assistance. If you have any questions please ask.--Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll reply there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

John de Rutier Article

Hi Meters. I agree I have only had interest in creating and editing this article after I went to a retreat years ago which was really good and I wondered why I could only find negative things on the web about this teacher. I thought I could present a more balanced view of him and let people make their own minds. I also have interest in a very old sword art school but it is almost impossible to find any references to it and good luck getting access to old museum scrolls. At any rate, I have noticed certain individuals that have vehemently attacked the article over the years. Look at the history. As of writing this Richard Gooi has just undone all of the edits made the the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee editors within a day of their edits, cleverly crafting a negative picture. Wikipedia is to be impartial and balanced. Who said it was to be slanted negative. See for yourself. Thank you.Planktonium (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

John de Ruiter Article

Hi Meters. Thank you for looking into the article. I had interest in creating and editing this article after I went to a retreat years ago which was really good and I wondered why I could only find negative things on the web about this teacher. I thought I could present a more balanced view of him and let people make their own minds. At any rate, I have noticed certain individuals that have vehemently attacked the article over the years. Look at the history. As of writing this Richard Gooi has just undone all of the edits made the the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee editors such as yourself within a day of their edits, I believe in an effort to craft a negative picture. See for yourself. Thank you.Planktonium (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainty not a member of the Arbitration Committee, and as far as I know none of the few users (besides you and User:Richard Gooi) who have edited that article are either. I don't think that any of us are even Admins.

My talk page is not the place to discuss this. Article content issue should have been on the article's talk page long ago, and now that the issue of your edits is at ANI you should be discussing this there. As I pointed out, you have a five year history of editing nothing but this article, making you an WP:SPA. User:Bishonen (who is an Admin) saw the ANI thread, notified you of the possibility of discretionary sanctions on WP:BLP articles, called your edits "tendentious and promotional" and warned you of a possible WP:TOPIC BAN if you continue. I agree with that, and bringing this here does nothing. Make your case at ANI if you wish. I don't think it will help, but at least any other interested editors will see it and consider it there. On my page they won't. Meters (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Its on the house... Keep up the great work, remember just because one thinks its harassment doesn't mean it is. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Zppix but I'm certainly not taking that harassment claim seriously. The facility for certain aspects of Wikipedia (piping, user essays, etc) but the complete lack of comprehension in other areas is making me wonder if this is Trolling rather than CIR. Meters (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't but anyways, I'll keep my eye out to quote some movie quote, "I'm watching [you]". Also feel free to drop in on IRC i'm usually around Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for taking care of the vandal IP earlier (while I was sleeping) and handling/reporting the ANI - good to know the community is looking out, much appreciated! Garchy (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Bored?

Hello Meters. Is there any good reason why this page is red? Is that something worth considering? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the poke. I have considered it. I'm doing more content creation now so when I'm finished the current round I should be a better candidate in the eyes of those who look for that. I think I probably have enough experience in any other areas that I am likely to work in immediately. Meters (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave you to it. But I think you probably could. Feel free to drop me a line sometime if you're too modest and want someone to rustle up some nominators. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Will do. thank you for the the vote of confidence. Meters (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There are not words in the English language to express how much I agree with zzuuzz on this. Perhaps in Hawaiian. Or Klingon. John from Idegon (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Two editors I respect after me now... could be trouble. Meters (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want to dangle your toes in the water first, try WP:ORCP. John from Idegon (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

IP

Did this user revert me for removing the very content they were complaining about? I get the sense this user wants to revert me just for the sake of reverting me but in a show of good faith I'm going to refrain from removing the tag in the page right now - although I do take offense to the "tag and go" strategy. Garchy (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of leaving a message on the user's talk page. Wait 5. 04:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Lost work

Thanks for your reply Meters, both places I was directed to do not show the version I had before my computer went off. It was titled Floor Springs and then went on from thereRod Fathers (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've lost it then. Save periodically, and don't leave open applications running to prevent this. Meters (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Texarkana Moonlight Murders

Okay, why were the unique podcasts removed and why the "Did Doodie Do It?" which is a unique look into one of the suspects?? JeremeK (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the WP:ELNO link I pointed you to on your talk page? You added 10 more external links to an already bloated section, not one of them with an explanation. I removed what I thought were the worse of the links inthe section, but the section is still bloated. The intent of the external links section is not to list every webpage that happens to mention the subject, but only links that actually add something to the material. We don't need to list every webpage, blog and podcast that that repeats the same material.

The "Did Doodie Do It?" page is not simply another repetition but was removed because it's a personal webpage and there's no evidence that the person behind it is a recognized expert. He's related to one of the suspects so he has a conflict of interest in the subject. He states that he is a forensic psychiatrist. I have no reason to doubt that (there is a Taxas forensic psychiatrist named John Tennison) and it goes a long way to establishing his credibility, but it's not enough. I'm not willing to accept his personal webpage, particularly given his personal connection to the case. If this material had been published in a peer-reviewed publication is would be acceptable, but as it is is it's just self-published. Blogs and personal webpages are only acceptable id they are by a recognized authority. Simply being a forensic psychiatrist and being related to the subject does not make John Tennison a recognized authority on this case. Meters (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not exactly a terribly professional looking website either is it? It's a bit hard to take it seriously when someone has hacked the site to insert "cheap replica watches" into the first paragraph of the conclusions and "hublot replica" into the closing. Meters (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried to make it better

I know a lot about the Kennedy assassination having studied it since 2003 - over 16 years. I found the entry on it in Wikipedia very biased. I thought Wikipedia entries are supposed to be neutral and free of bias? I donated to Wikipedia the last couple of years with this understanding.

The term "fringe" theories is very biased and loaded. It makes it sound like anyone who does not believe in the official accounts is somehow deranged.

I simply deleted "fringe" theories in favor of "conspiracy theories" so people can decide for themselves (and perhaps research the case if they are interested.)

Forget it- I won't try to edit any more Wikipedia entries. What's the point?

Sincerely, 100.15.127.238 (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your first edit completely removed the header for the section, leaving all of the remaining conspiracy theory material as a subsection of the "Official Investigations". Your second edit completely removed the sourced section "Official responses to fringe theories". Don't try to push your POV on this article. The article is under Pending Changes protection partly because of edits such as yours. No-one will even see your edits to this article until they have been approved, and edits pushing the view that fringe theories are being hidden by a conspiracy are not likely to ever be approved. Meters (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Daffy Duck articleSandersman (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not know why the truth is vandalism. According to all sources except for Robert Clampett, Michael Barrier and "friends". Tex Avery created Daffy Duck. Robert Clampett was an animator on "Porkys Duck Hunt". Robert Clampett tried to say he created Bugs Bunny and Porky Pig as well. As an artist I believe that stealing credit is an abomination. The article needs to be changed to remove Robert Clampett reverences as creator. Robert Clampett was important in developing the character as well as others. This letter says it all... http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/unadulterated-hogwash.html Sandersman (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You are edit warring. You are using multiple IPs/accounts. You have already been blocked once for these edits. You are making edits such as [2] that are clearly vandalism. You have yet to discuss any of these edits on the talk page. Stop or be blocked yet again. Meters (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you blocking my edits?

I am only deleting Robert Clampett from creator profiles? I am not adding information. The first edits I have made from the IP address was last night. You are trying to block the change, why? I did not make edits at "line" 73. Sandersman (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:EW, WP:BRD, WP:RS, WP:SOCK, WP:VANDTYPES. Multiple editors have undone your edits. There may be something to the authorship claim you are removing but you need to discuss it. Discuss it on the talk page or leave it alone. There is no question that the repeated deletion of the sourced material that I provided a diff for is vandalism. Stop doing that. Meters (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Your IP is now blocked again. You are not allowed to edit at all,using any account, until that block ends. Meters (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We can see exactly what edits you have made. The diff I provided [3] clearly shows that you did make the deletion of the material (the line 73 diff). Denying it is not going to help. You also made that same deletion three times using your IP [4] [5] [6]. Meters (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Canadians: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz I leave my warnings manually so that I can consider exactly what level warning should be most appropriate, rather than defaulting to the next level. In this case I was in the process of leaving a level 2 warning since it was obviously a case of sneaky vandalism due to the fake edit summary. Perhaps you should wait a few seconds for editors to leave their own warnings before you jump in and take over. Please don't add warnings to my reverts again. And did you really think it was necessary to leave an experienced editor that Mickey Mouse template? Meters (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you help me?

Hi! Thank you for helping me with the John Edelman and disambiguation problem. However, he continues to be a problem, considering he is now editing the main John Edelman page with his A9 advertisement...improvements, attempting to subvert the New Page creation and review system and I assume he is going to continue. I ask for your help in providing him with the proper warnings, and citing the proper Special pages, because I am fairly new at this. Thank you again for your help! GabetheEditor (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've blanked the copy that got moved onto a talk page, and the disambiguation page has been put up for speedy deletion. We don't need a DAB page since there is, as yet, only one article for someone of that name. I have warned the editor for the attempted article hijacking, and I will continue to keep an eye on these articles. Meters (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm putting User talk:John Edelman(Proposed Edits) up for deletion too. Please don't move things to non-existent users' talk pages. Meters (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and I'm sorry, I moved it to the wrong area on accident. GabetheEditor (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Choke (sports)

Whatever was typed by me was based on historical data of Australia's record in test cricket. Reader must get to understand what really choking is. The matches which I mentioned about Australia qualify to be called as choking of Australians. Whosover has added the information about South Africa nowhere looks to have taken a neutral point and has used words like gaining reputation and further cementing that reputation. That user has tried to tarnish the reputation of South Africa. It is very bad to mock at the way South Africa has lost its matches. But if one wants to mock them then one must be prepared to read the truth and then accept if Australians are mocked in the same way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Energyconscious (talk • contribs) 07:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I undid your edit because it was not neutral. Starting off with "Australian cricket teams have rightly proved to be and remained as the masters or kings of choking" and continuing from there is not acceptable. It also was not sourced. Your second edit was undone by a different editor and you will have to ask that editor about the reasons. I undid your third edit because none of your claims were sourced. The individual scores can easily be sourced, but you also need to provide reliable sources that these losses are considered to be chokes and that Australia is known for choking. Your opinion does not matter. Meters (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, now I am asked to give a reliable source that these losses are considered to be chokes. How does wikipedia check the reliability of a source that is calling South Africa as a choker? Just because newspaper article gives choker title does not mean that it is a reliable source and media can be biased against a rival team. In the game of cricket, media has been used to belittle the opponent (off the field contest) and Australian media is an expert in that type of contest. The way choke(sports) has been defined by wikipedia, it should be sufficient if one can show many examples where a team which had been strongly favored to win lost. Are more sources still needed? It may be that without looking at the records or for some other reasons, sources failed to point out the choking tendency of Australia in test cricket but instead concentrated on the records of South Africa. Is wikipedia admitting that only opinion of news-paper and new channels matters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Energyconscious (talk • contribs) 06:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are responsible for adding sources to back up your edits. Again, your opinion does not matter. Wikipedia does not report what its editors think, or what they synthesize from multiple sources. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. If you don't have reliable sources that say Australia choked then don't put it in the article. Meters (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thaiyana Mali

Thaiyana Mali social blade reference was third-party reference. --I'm on day 4 (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to do better than a youtube report to show notability. If you think that qualifies as a reliable source then thisis going to AFD. Meters (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedied after I changed PROD BLP to a Speedy A7. Meters (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

St James Independent Schools

Hi Meters

I am perplexed as to your reverting sone of the edits I made recently to this wiki page. You messaged me "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at St James Independent Schools. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted". I have to dispute this and assure you that my intent s not to disrupt but to ensure the page is accurate and provides access to relevant information. The fact that such information may no be flattering to the school is irrelevant.

The edits I made which you have reverted were related to the External links section of the page. You have not only removed my edits but undoing so you have also removed links which were previously there. The only External links on the wiki page are now to the 3 official sites that relate to St James. There are no links to any other relevant external links.

1. to update the address of one of the website links previously listed under the external links section.... this website link has been out of date for a number of years. In doing so I also changed the description of the external link. If you think it is less accurate do please explain.

2. I added a new link under external links to a website that contains a directory of links relevant to the SES which is material to St James. You have removed this link. I believe this link clearly falls within Wikis own guidance on what can be considered to be a permissible external link "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail, or other reasons."

Please kindly reconsider your edits Ggfgfow (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Already explained in the edit summaries and on your talk page. See WP:ELNO. We don't list the same link more than once in external links, we don't list external links that are used in the article as references, we don't list dead links as external links, and we don't use user generated non-reliable sources as references or external links. Meters (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Luca Litrico

Hello help me to make my project. Its going to remove, I worked on it a long time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Litrico Article Why is nominated for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luca_Litrico Klimgeran (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You have posted this to multiple user's talk pages, you have asked about it multiple times at the teahouse, editors have posted to the article's talk page and to your talk page, and have worked on the article. If Luca Litrico is not individually notable the article is unlikely to survive AFD. Simply being the nephew of a company founder and now running the company his uncle founded is not notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED, We need independent, reliable sources showing the notability of Luca Litrico. Meters (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

.gov

Text from US government sites is almostaslways public domain; do not tag such articles as copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Meters (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Swiss UMEF University

The article Swiss UMEF University has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources can be found describing this organization, which therefore fails to meet WP:GNG. Passing references to UMEF do not bolster its case. The UN Global Compact refers to UMEF as "Delisted... Expelled due to failure to communicate progress."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Darouet (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm certainly not going to remove the PROD. I have not found any useful sources, and some of the ones currently in the article appear to not support the claims. Meters (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Now at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss UMEF University Supported deletion Meters (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse

On that thread about assassinations we both responded to, do you smell dirty socks? John from Idegon (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Not particularly, other than that all of the conspiracy guys start to sound the same to me. Having said that, I don't spend that much time on any of the US political articles, so I pmight not notice even an obvious sock unless I recently dealt with them. Meters (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It's going to be a rough few years. O, Canada is in E-flat, isn't it? I may have to practice it. John from Idegon (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

My main concern was he's not even autoconfirmed yet, but he knows how to format a numbered list? John from Idegon (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The only good thing I can say about your election is that it will help us forget our crack-smoking Toronto mayor, Rob Ford.

The rules on SPIs and CUs make it very difficult to pin down a sock who makes even a half-effort to avoid detection. I once had a CU respond to an SPI by confirming my suspicions, and then hint that he had also found numerous other (unnamed) socks active on the same article that he couldn't touch unless someone raised SPIs naming those accounts. Meters (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

subtitle of an article?

In the mobile view of Arthur C. Lundahl below the title, it reads "Organiser of IMINT and an arial-photography expert". These sub-titles are on almost every article. I always edit in source code, but i never came around that sub-title source code. Would you please tell me how to add/edit sub-title? Here is a screenshot of what i am talking about. I apologise for bothering you with such trivial, and stupid question. Thanks again.

File:Arthur Lundahl screenshot.png

usernamekiran (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a stupid question at all. I don't do mobile work so I don't know where that is coming from. I'm not aware of anything in the source code for those summaries. Try asking at the help desk. Meters (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The sub-title will be from the Wikidata page for the subject, the code for mobile display inserts the description as a sub-title. Nthep (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured it was something like that but I didn't want to possibly steer him in the wrong direction. Meters (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrongful replacement of disinformation scam.

I deleted a section added to the page J. Marvin Herndon by Aszilagyi. I left the justification by citing the following reference: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/explainretractions.pdf If you had taken time to read that document you would see that Andras Szilagyi is one of the disinformation team that has assaulted public health journal editors with lies and misrepresentations to intimidate them into retracting two of my peer-reviewed and published papers without my even being given an opportunity to respond to their criticisms. Those papers were not "flawed." That Wikipedia post is libelous disinformation intended to discredit me and damage my good name. It is intended to deceive the public of a very real public health threat. This disinformation team is also associated with Mick West's disinformation website metabunk.org. It is fundamentally wrong to allow Wikipedia to become party to hiding public health threats from the public and it is wrong to allow Wikipedia to be used to unwarrantedly damage my good name. Please delete that repulsive posting by Aszilagyi.Marvin Herndon 05:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)J. Marvin Herndon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Herndon (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker)Marvin Herndon, I would suggest you tread very carefully with this line of dialog. You're treading very close to violating WP:NLT, which would get you blocked immediately if you were to cross the line you are oh so close to. No opinion on the crux of your point, but I will offer that the source you cite above is hardly reliable. John from Idegon (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Yes, I did look at the link. It's copy of something the editor, Marvin Herndon, wrote himself. It's not a reliable source for any claims made about the reasons behind the retractions of the papers. The Wikipedia article simply states (with citations) that the articles in question were retracted. There is no mention of why. I see no BLP issue or libel, and the editor has been asked to discuss it on the talk page. As for the editor's attempt to remove the mention of him having written the papers in the first place, there may well be some justification for removing the currently-unsourced "proponent of the chemtrail conspiracy theory" but I see no reason to remove mention of the papers. Meters (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

And I left a template message on his talk page on dealing with his obvious conflict of interest on his own biography. John from Idegon (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with Bobloblawas

I noticed you just reverted Bobloblawas's edit on Jedi Training: Trials of the Temple. Do you mind helping me with another one of their edits? I don't want to break WP:3RR, but this content is clearly promotional and needs to be removed. Elisfkc (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the material is promotional. Unfortuantely I cannot remove it now without putting you at risk of being blocked for edit warring via WP:canvassing. Please raise the issue on the article's talk page and let someone else look at it. Meters (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Moot. Taken care of by User:Primefac before it got to the talk page. Meters (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Fun and games. Boblob taken to SPI, requested name change, and ended up indeffedas NOTHERE. Meters (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Underwear IP

I /64 blocked that IP for six months and will reinstate the IPv4 block if they come back to the old range. Acroterion (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was expecting this to be Borcker, bu the geolocation to Greece rather than Italy is not typical. Meters (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent activity by a user with strange vandalist traits

The vandalism isn't much strange. But it is very well planned, methodical "disturbance". Kindly visit and skim User talk:Rævhuld. I came across this user when he created a discussion on talk page of JFK regarding JFK's alleged quote about "splintering CIA to thousand pieces". He was served ANI notice for this strange issue.
As Rævhuld was trying to create disturbance regarding JFK through legitimate methods of wikipedia, i had added his talkpage to my watchlist (JFK means a lot to me lol, so it is my policy to keep an eye on activities of users which i suspect for vandalising JFK related articles). Recently he did some edits there, and now i think he has requested to archive all the discussions of his talkpage, i am not sure what it is. If his talkpage becomes clear again, he might start creating disturbances again. Would you please take a look at his talkpage? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The strange cats mentioned at ANI have all been deleted. His thread on the JFK talk page seems to be real, but there are eyes on it (more knowledgeable than mine in this area) and it does not look like it will be included in the article. His talk page archive requests are odd but likely just a new editor not knowing how to do things. He can archive himself, or delete the threads as he pleases. In the long run it makes little difference if a problematic editor (not saying he is one) clears his talk page. Experienced editors know to check the talk page history for any editor who continues to be a problem. Meters (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• thanks. You are right. I did some digging, and found the old version. You should read it. It is funny, and food for thought as well.
  also, i made requests for Pending changes reviewer, and for file moving. But an admin got impression that i am trying to collect hats. Can you do something regarding that? I am not requesting you to grant me the authorisations directly. Would you please see the request pages? I have explained the reasons there already. I am requesting you to take an appropriate decision. Thanks again. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so I don't grant permissions, and there really is no appropriate action for me to take. I fully agree with the admin who rejected your file mover request. You have no demonstrated need for that permission, no experience, and don't understand the difference between Wikipedia and Commons. Wanting to move one file is not a reason to ask for a permission. As for the Pending changes reviewer permission, wait and see what the admins decide, but I suspect that you will not be granted it at this time. Meters (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Rideau Park School (Edmonton)

The original source (Ouchi p. 146-147) stated "Alberta Achievement Test" but it did not specify which grade levels it applied to. It may be referring to all levels since it said: "The Alberta Achievement Test provides detailed subscores that are meant to be used for just this kind of diagnostic work. The third-grade language arts test, for example,[...]" I can send you a copy of the source if you would like to see it. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Let's do that. I'm familiar with the Alberta system and should be able to figure out exactly which tests were used. The Alberta standardized testing for elementary schools is in the process of changing. When that study was done there were additional HLATs that have now been replaced by fall evaluations. Meters (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits

Not my userpage but that editor has been undoing my edits without any explanation Himel Rahmon (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So? That does not give you the right to blank their user page. Stop doing it. Meters (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ask them what they are doing on their talk page, or take it to the article's talk page. Blanking their user page is vandalism. Meters (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

And given a short block by User:CambridgeBayWeather after a third blanking. Meters (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Not doing much for a while. I blocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sara Li

I have expanded the Sara Li article and also added some sources. At least take a look. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked at your changes. I don't see anything to change my opinion that the article does not show her notability. Nothing has been added to the article since you created it almost 4 years ago, you added nothing to the article for the first three weeks that it was at AFD, and what you have added since then does not show her notability.

1. The birth of her daughter is not notable. It's fine to include it in the article, but personal details such as that, sourced or not, do not contribute to notability.
2. The additional sourced info showing that she placed 10th in Melodifestivalen 2012 is a good addition, but again does not show her notability. The fact that she placed 10th was already discussed at length in the AFD and shown not to meet the requirements for notability.
3. The new material re her participation in a musical game show Så ska det låta does not show notability in my opinion. She appeared on one episode of a TV show that has been running for 22 seasons. Meters (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

AFD closed as redirect to band, as expected. Meters (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Promotional Material on Eatzi's

Good afternoon Meters,

I'm new to the Wiki community and wanted some advice on how to better handle the page I am editing. I came across it and it is drastically outdated. I put together the history, summary and awards they won. Is my phrasing poor? I thought that if their were relevant articles cited that it could be posted. Thanks for the help and feedback. Jeffdnfg (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edit was undone twice by User:Mean as custard. You raised the issue on his or her talkpage and were told that, while some of the material might be useful, it was too promotional. You restored the identical edit again. This is WP:edit warring. When someone objects to your changes it is up to you to raise the issue on the article's talkpage so that other editors can reach consensus on the material. See WP:BRD.

I agree completely with Mean as custard's evaluation, and that is why I also undid your edit. There may be some material in the edit that we can use, but the tone is far too promotional. Largely-unsourced lists of minor local accolades, YouTube videos, and WP:peacock terms may make for good PR copy but not good Wikipedia articles.

I note also that some of your material is identical to that that a WP:paid editor recently attempted to add to the article, suggesting the possibility that you have a conflict of interest in editing this article. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. If COI applies to you you should propose edits on the article's talk page rather than making them yourself. If PAID applies to you, you "must disclose [your] employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contribution to Wikipedia." Meters (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Now at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EatZi's Meters (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

And closed as Delete. Meters (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Meters, Thank you for the feedback. When I was updated, I undid the changes and was revising them to a less promotional tone. I will take my work to the talk page and hope you are willing to take a look. Jeffdnfg (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Meters, How can a consensus be made on the talk page if you deleted the reworked information?Jeffdnfg (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You made the identical edit three times. You never undid yourself, and after your edits were revdel'ed and you were warned for copyvio by User:Diannaa you then copied the almost identical material onto the article's talkpage. If it's a copyright violation Wikipedia cannot host it anywhere, including article talkpages.

Do you have a conflict of interest in this article? Is this attempt to propose a complete rewrite by posting it to the talkpage an indirect admission of a COI or are you now trying ot follow WP:BRD? If you do you have a COI you should clearly say so. If you are a PAID editor you must say so. Either way, dumping an entire version of the article into talkspace with zero commentary or explanation is not the way to propose a change. See WP:COIRESPONSE and WP:COITALK. Propose small changes at a time so that they can be discussed. Meters (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Swiss UMEF University

Swiss UMEF University is an organization in Switzerland, not Afghanistan. It is accredited as such in Switzerland, not Afghanistan. There's no decent function in redirection.Bizetshine (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The article was either going to be redirected or deleted. If you don't like the outcome of the AFD take it to the appropriate venue, don't attempt to undo the redirect. Meters (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Plum3600

On your current account you wrote that you are retired on your other account. Then on your other account which you no longer use, you wrote that you have no means in using it. So me adding a retired template is totally okay. But again that is your account page so I do truly apologise. --Plum3600 ^"talk" 21:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The template you added says that I am a retired user. I am not. On my main page I say that I retired the account. It is an alternate account that I am not using, and I clearly say so on that account. Please don't add templates to other editors' users pages. Meters (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I put this on the Blue Cheer page and took it off when it was fine. Please answer me right away so I know you got this.

Done with this thread

Wiki cannot have or leave me block when you never answer me back. I try to connect you though report and I could not find another way to connect you before and now I did. I did not really think this is really the page to connect wiki sense this page let you leave the note on the page and not let you send a not. I try sending you a letter but when I did it does not send and say The message can't be sent because at least one of the addresses isn't formatted correctly. I add something at Blue Cheer wiki with no links this time and it was not spam. I put down about the demo that was never release before (which is a Blue Cheer song that was never release before). If I cannot have the post on Blue Cheer wiki then what is the sense of a wiki? Please answer me right away so I know what is wrong with it sense it seem like there is nothing wrong with it. I think I may add it again when you took the note off on the page without telling you because I thought I did not put it up there and not thinking right when I though I put it up there, sense there is seems like nothing wrong with it. I went to talk to you the 2 time before posting it up again and you never answer. I got a letter from wiki when I put the post the link again on the Blue Cheer wiki. Wiki did not take it off then so why did Wiki take it off a little later and not right at that time? I know I post something again on demo music page with a link. I did that because I put it somewhere else and I thought it would be fine somewhere else and that It was not fine to put the link down before because I put it at the wrong place. I have a link on the Blue Cheer page before. So, I thought having a link on the demo page would be fine. I know I did gave wiki like around 6 reports about this. I did because I got a note from wiki before right away when they took something off I post. So, I thought they would answer me back. I know I send my 2 report to soon when I send my report. I made a few mistakes on that one and sending a 2 note is not that bad just in case the person miss they first one from having have lots of people. I needed it to be answer right away. It said on wiki report if wiki made a mistake by taken something off that is nothing wrong to wiki. What is the sense of report if you do not respond back?BlueCheerfan (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)BlueCheerfan I don't know what you mean by "you never answer me back". You have been undone on Blue Cheer five times now, once by a bot, twice by me, and twice by User:Mlpearc. Your addition of largely the same material on Demo (music) has been undone three times, once by a bot, once by Mlpearc, and once by User:Ponyo. You have not attempted to discuss the material on your talk page, on the articles' talk pages, or (until now) on our talk pages. Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted material, and we cannot link to an external website that violates copyright. See WP:LINKVIO. The YouTube posting of the "Be In Band" demo is not something we can use. Your claims that "Be In Band" is the only song by the group that had never been released before is unsourced, and I don't think that an unauthorized YouTube copy of a demo counts as a release in any case. The issue of whether the demo needs to be mentioned at all has been opened for discussion on the article's talk page at Talk:Blue_Cheer#mention_of_demo. I don't think there will be any support for including your material, but that's where any discussion should take place. I'm not going to discuss it on my talk page. Meters (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC) What I mean before when I said "you never answer me back" is that you never answer my letter when I said what is wrong with it when I post no links with it and want to understand better what is wrong with it when nothing is wrong with it. The letter I put here is what I was sending you through report. Wiki did not send a note like you did know but just gave me a warning. I thought something was not right sense it said on wiki ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. I put down a letter at article's talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blue_Cheer#mention_of_demo BlueCheerfan (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)BlueFusefan I have no idea what "report" you are talking about. There is no report system that I know of. We use talk pages to discuss edits. You didn't attempt to discuss this edit on the article's talk page, or my talk page, or the other editors' talk pages. You didn't attempt to discuss this on any other talk page in Wikipedia. You didn't send me an email (not that that would have been the appropriate way to discuss the edit), and I have no way of knowing if you attempted to send the other editors emails. Meters (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC) I got something from Wiki that said ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again. That was the report I am talking about. Wiki give's you a link to report if something goes wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueCheerfan (talk • contribs) 19:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Please indent and sign your posts. That report feature jsut takes you to the bot's talk page, and your edit history shows that you did not post there either. Meters (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an unbiased vote

Hi,
Your unbiased vote is requested here.

Thanks. —usernamekiran[talk] 20:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not all that interested in the article, and definitely not getting involved in the edit warring or the arguments. This ended up at the edit warring board again, and the editors now have an interaction ban. Meters (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

RE: Nomination of Marshall Neal for deletion

Thank you for your assistance.

Unique Freaq Unique freaq (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Unique freaq (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of analyzing the new links. It will be posted in a few minutes. Meters (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Canton High School (Massachusetts) Edits

Hi,

I just wanted to reach out to you directly and thank you for your help in guiding our projects. This is a new experience for us, and sometimes the sheer amount of information and guidelines can be overwhelming. We feel good that we're starting to narrow our writing to only what's accepted. We plan on continuing to provide details about the school, but we will be more consistent in checking each other's work before requesting the edits. What we're finding is that we have very little noteworthy elements about our school, and for other details we struggle to find sufficient resources to verify. All of this makes our project a bit trickier, but we're going to try to carry on. Thanks again, Murphychs (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That's actually a common problem with many school articles. There simply isn't much of interest to general readers once the basics are covered. They are almost invariably found to be notable if taken to WP:AFD for deletion (to the point where there is a school article notability specific exemption written into the speedy deletion criteria), but it can be difficult to find independent sources. Here's a good one for enrollment, staffing, and demographics https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&SchoolID=250330000451&ID=250330000451 Meters (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your school has been around since at least 1970 so it might be worth adding a history section. Any significant renovations or expansions? Did it replace an earlier school? You've also won at least one State championship that could be mentioned (hockey in 2009–10). Meters (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Murphychs: Your school is much older than I realized. Here's a ref that mentions an 88-year (now 91-year) sports rivalry http://www.thecantoncitizen.com/2014/11/26/man-about-canton-169/ Meters (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Corrections, additions and edits to Marshall Neal's article

I have made corrections, additions and edits to Marshall Neal's article, in attempts to improve it and save it. If you have time, I would really appreciate it if you could review it for me and provide your professional input.

Thank You, Unique freaq (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Unique Freaq Unique freaq (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Neal (and there's nothing professional about my input). Meters (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

New Texas Giant ‎

I understand that the addition of the new texas giant was not meeting the requirements for Wikipedia i respect your discussion to delete the article and restore it I will not touch that article again and in the future I will add sources to the article. Thank you and have a great day

Signed collin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collin is cool (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about deleting the article. I undid your change since you incorrectly changed a direct quote and made other unsourced additions. Meters (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor indeff'ed. Meters (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Penn High School content

Hello, thank you for notifying me that deleting answered questions on the Penn High School Talk Page is inappropriate. I am new to Wikipedia and I am reviewing the appropriate procedures. However, I do not think that I was acting "way over the line" by heavily revising the content that I added and was asked to revise. I apologize that I did not provide explanations as to why I revised it so it appeared that I was deleting content. Sorry. Can you please undo these changes. Specifically I am talking about the two sentences and subsection that you deleted; I believe they are appropriate even though I did not thoroughly described what I was doing (I recognize my mistake that I did there). Jdfirst (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I've re-written and re-added it. A nubie power tip for you, Jdfirst: Adjectives are generally not your friends here. The only time we would use a subjective phrase is if we had reliable independent secondary sources that used that phrasing. Power tip #2: Encyclopedia writing is not like writing a paper or an essay. We do not write on a given subject, we summarize what reliable independent secondary sources have written about a subject. Also, please make note of my edit to this section header. Section titles are written in sentence case here, capitalizing only the first word and any proper nouns. The square brackets create Wikilinks, but only when placed around the exact tile of an article. John from Idegon (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Restoring article content that had been deleted with an explanation is not a good thing to do, but common with new editors. Removing the explanation from the talkpage is another no-no. but again somewhat understandable given that you your question in the wrong place. Deleting it a second time, after you had already been warned not to do that, is not understandable. Restoring the article content while deleting the explanation on the talkpage, and asking your question again makes it look like you are intentionally ignoring the talkpage discussion and the warning on your talk page so that you can restore the material. That's what was over the line. Meters (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)