User talk:Meters/Archive 10

Not that you need it, but....

This seems kinda silly, since you are one of the most active editors in the whole community on school articles, but this is just my way of saying thanks for all you do. My next task after this is to go to VP and enquire on whether there is a way to see who actually is active and at what level so I can send invites, barnstars etc. BTW, would you kindly watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article alerts? It provides a daily listing of PRODS, AFD, RM, GAN, etc. for the project. Thanks! John from Idegon (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Strange. The page is on my watch list but I don't remember seeing any recent alerts. Maybe I just missed the recent ones... things have been more than a bit crazy chez moi the last few weeks. Meters (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Your time zone is at least close to mine, and it hits my WL generally at about 2am. Perhaps that explains it. It runs every day. John from Idegon (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

My watch list is so big now that even at the maximum of 1000 edits I don't see a full 24 hours. I hadn't noticed that issue when it started. I'll have to trim my list again. Meters (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I trim mine regularly. Remove settled AfDs, IP editors, registered editors that I have no need to follow, articles outside my primary interest that I may have reverted vandalism on, etc. Mine hovers around 5200 entries. My own userepace takes up about a hundred pages. John from Idegon (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Plano West Senior High School ‎

You are right meters that was unsourced. It is however a real event. The school administration covered it up and let so many people of scot free to covere there asses. I am seeking justice on Wikipedia by making sure everyone will see the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukavisnijc11 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Making unsubstantiated negative claims is a bad idea. Doing it a second time is worse. Pretending to source it the third time with a generic ref that doesn't address the issues and predates the incident by 8 years is a really bad idea. Coming to my page and making more claims, well, just stop now. I'll leave you a level 4 warning, and if you keep doing this you'll likely be blocked. Meters (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Production car speed record

There is enough consensus to include the Agera RS on the list. Still you keep on removing it from the list. Therefore you currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Production car speed record, to use your own words.

Before removing the Agera RS again - please clearly state which criteria it is not meeting! Remember the Agera RS is a fully homologated, crash tested series produced car eligble for registration on all continents with left and right hand drive options, complying with world wide emission and OBD II regulation. Koenigsegg Automotive AB is an approved series vehicle manufacturer by the EU, NHTSA, EPA etc. More than 25 Agera RS were built. Options are allowed according to the consesus of the list - read the talk page carefully and you will see. That you dont fancy low production volume fast "boutique" car producers - is irrelevant! So clearly state your case and wait for consensus before you remove the Agera RS again - please.

Stop icon So to use your own words: You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Production car speed record. Final warning about this. Stop edit warring by removing the Agera RS. Wait until the talk page reaches a new - different consensus than now - that this car for some reason does not meets the inclusion criteria and if so then remove - not before. Sagenode (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to have admins compare your actions with those by me and all the other editors who have been undoing you and attempting to discuss this on the talk; page. I suggest you read WP:IDHT. Punted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sagenode reported by User:Meters (Result: ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 07:41, December 18, 2017 (UTC)

And blocked for edit warring. Meters (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I am still working on 3D selfie

Hi there. Thanks for trying to help. I am still working on the article. Am adding references. Please refrain from removing material until I am done. Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The material I removed seemed unnecessarily promotional. It's not an article about one particular company and how they get their scans processed, so I removed it. I tagged the rest of the article article as being unsourced rather than putting it up for deletion because it looked like it could be a notable subject with reliable sources, but you really should not create draft articles in article space. A completely unsourced article does not belong in article space. Meters (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Article seems reasonable and non-promotional now. Meters (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Konrad Johannes Karl Büttner

Hello! The IP 204.130.228.108 you warned about edit warring has approached me and asked that the content be removed because of lack of adaquete source. They say that their grandfather was not part of the Nazi party. I am unsure of what to do in this situation as there is one source but it is a book so I am unable to check it. A quick google search shows nothing in relation to the Nazi Party. I told them I would remove it before I saw you warned them about edit warring and told them to take it to the talk page. Should I comment back and say to take it to the talk page as there is a source that says he was? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The subject of the article died decades ago, so this is not a BLP issue. The IP has an admitted conflict of interest as a family member, so we need to be careful thatthis is not a case of whitewahing. The cited ref appears to be a reliable source and is by Ernst Klee, who is known for investigating Nazi medical experiments. I don't know if the source is valid either, but it has been in the article for years and I see no reason to let a COI editor simply state that it is not valid and remove the info. The Ip should discuss this on the article's talk page, and we can request help to investigate the validity of the claim. Meters (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I didn't even mean to get into this, I was just patrolling recent changes and I saw the blanking of a section, which raised red flags for me. I added the suggestion to move the Nazi discussion to the talk page in my reply to them on my talk page. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll raise it at WP:RSN and see if we can find someone with access to the source text. Meters (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks so much for all of your help, I am still new at this.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

We use that reference extensively for biographical information in this article. It seems unlikely that the book would have such detail on the subject if he were not involved. I've raised it on the article's talkpage. If that doesot work I'll take it to RSN. Meters (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

My contribution to Quality (business)

Hello Meters: I'm responding to your message"You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Quality (business). Stop pushing this guy and his book. Meters (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The text I added was a definition of quality written by Victor Elias in his book The Quest for Ascendant Quality. Victor A. Elias: "Quality is the ability of performance, in each Theme of Performance, to enact a strategy."[7]

The citation I added is: Elias, Victor (2015). The Quest for Ascendant Quality: An Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy and Methods for Strategically Orchestrating the Transformation Towards & Beyond Quality Excellence in Everything you do. Sparta, NJ U.S.A. p. 51. ISBN 9780999080115

The significance of this contribution is that it's a significant departure from the fallacious definitions of quality that are based on Philip Crosby's definition of quality "conformance to requirements." For example, if quality is conformance to requirements how would you know you had quality requirements? would the requirements have to conform to requirements that conform to requirements? Although Philip Crosby's definition of quality was useful when people were in production and following blueprints, in today's world, creative effort needs to consider it's relevance to strategy. This is why Victor Elias' definition is not only the best version of the truth - but it's more useful for people actually considering what to think about when they want to improve quality.

Any assistance or advice you can provide to complete this, necessary entry, will be appreciated as I expect that I will have contributions to make in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QSR Guru (talk • contribs) 01:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You have done nothing on Wikipedia for two years but push this book and its author. You are a WP:SPA, possibly have a WP:COI, You raised this at the Teahopuse and it was suggested that if you continued you might be blocked. The link you attempted to add has no place on Wikipedia, and I have no interest in helping add this material to Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If you think you have useful contributions to make to Wikipedia then by all means make them, but I suggest that you stay away from anything to do with Victor Elias and his book. Meters (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Meters, Thanks for your prompt response. Please explain what is wrong with the link. I provided an appropriate and relevant quotation from a book and I'm assuming it's customary to include the source of the quote. QSR Guru (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not interested in discussing this. Please read WP:SPA and WP:COI and then disclose your conflict of interest, assuming you have one. Then read WP:EW and WP:RS. Who exactly had stated that this person and his book/theory are notable? Meters (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User had not edited anywhere since the above post. Meters (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyright and revdel

Hey, thanks for removing the text at AT&T Mobility. We typically need to revdel any revisions containing copyrighted text, and I have done so on this page. If you come across edits like this in the future, you can alert administrators to it either by using Template:copyvio-revdel or by contacting an administrator directly on their talk page. Primefac has created a script at User:Primefac/revdel that helps users place the template. Thanks for catching this! TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Meters (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of convenience

I have read your notices, and it would be for the convenience of myself, that I did operate all accounts in question to an extent, however the owners were close friends of which I was given verbal permission to edit. They have told me to comply and have them fall under the speedy deletion. If they are subject to deletion, please do at earliest convenience to disarm the problems ensuing. The content has since been deleted, from the permission of those who own it (close friends = roommates), and was done so on this account. Do what you need to do, whether it's banning or just simply deleting them. Thanks for making sure the website is as unclear as ever and makes no rationality in all other than seemingly being superior over an encyclopedia everyone uses for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.smith098 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@T.smith098: Why the hositilty and insult? I did nothing but politely inform you of the concerns over having multiple user accounts and hosting articles on your userpages. I treated you as a new editor who had made a mistake in good faith, and told you that articles belong in article space, not userspace. User:Marchjuly very correctly pointed out that AFC would be a better idea, particularly since it appeared you had a conflict of interest. User:MusikAnimal moved your four userpage articles to draft space. I can't see who nominated them for deletion, but User:Fish and karate deleted Draft:Tiernan Smith and Draft:Uncertain Sounds as promotional, while user:RHaworth deleted Draft:Supern0va Navigators as promotional. Draft:Assuring Violet is still there. Meters (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't read hostility here, I read frustration. Frustration that I can sympathize with. The user apparently missed the Wikipedia:Article Wizard and got caught in a web of talk page warnings and confusing community process. They tried to blank their own creations, in an attempt to undo their mistakes, only to be warned that they shouldn't blank them. Also, I have revisited Draft:Tiernan Smith and frankly I did find it to be that promotional, especially since it's a draft. However it's been a while since I've done any patrolling, so I understand the acceptability of pages in the Draft space has probably been reduced with the advent of WP:ACTRIAL. Anyway I'll take those concerns of mine elsewhere, but I did want to point out that I thought this user was being bitten. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what else happened to this user, but I don't see anything I did that warrants having him make comments to me about "making sure the website is as unclear as ever" etc Meters (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I also don't think this post made by the same editor was very helpful. Mistakes are expected from new editors and most experienced editors I've come across are quite willing to follow WP:BITE and WP:AGF; however, new editors who go around posting accusatory or otherwise rude comments on the user talk pages of others are often going to find those same others to be less understanding and paitent in their responses. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I've checked the two I deleted, and neither of them had anything within them anywhere near meeting our standards for notability. fish&karate 10:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that the deletions might not have been warranted. They clearly did not belong in userspace, which was the issue I was looking at. Meters (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...

Hey, just out of curiosity, why’d you revert my edits about River Bluff High School being the second EL school in America? It’s true, and I know this because I went to RBHS. Catscantread (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This [1] was blatant vandalism, and this [2] was unsourced, unclear, and dubious. After your first edit I wasn't going to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you want your edits to be considered seriously don't start off by adding pure garbage, don't make unsourced claims of derogatory nicknames ("The Swamp") and don't add unsourced claims with unknown acronyms. (What's an EL school and where's your proof that this is the first one in America?) If the school really is the first EL school in America then feel free to readd the infomation, but tell us what "EL" means and provide a WP:RS. Oh, and if you are going to ask about an edit from months ago please provide a diff to the edit in question. Meters (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, “The swamp” isn’t a derogatory name. Look up River Bluff High School in Lexington, SC. The school’s football field and playing courts are actually called that. I think you just don’t want o admit that you are wrong. :) Catscantread (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Agincourt collegiate institute

I go to this school and I'm just trying to improve the article LeoBLancer2 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Several of your school article edits are not helpful. Don't keep restoring your version of articles when valid reasons have been given for changing them. Meters (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"contributions to Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats"

Hi,

I received a notification from you, saying "I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats have been undone because they did not appear constructive"

The "user contributions" page for user 31.154.81.29 shows four different contributions, including the one you're referring to here.

I have certainly made NONE of these recommendations. If this IP address was shared, at some point, with someone else, I am not aware of it.

While I do use Wikipedia often, I have not modified any pages for many years. If I recall correctly, I may have done so many years ago, in order to fix typographical errors - not change content in any significant manner.

Thanks for reading.

Josh G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.81.29 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Your IP made the edit on January 25 [3]. Your IP is listed as a static IP, but if you didn't make the edit and the warning bothers you then I suggest that you follow the instructions on the IP's talk page If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. Meters (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

RE

I'm done. I reported his last talk page screw around at AIV. If it takes it takes, If not, not sure what I'll do next. John from Idegon (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw (I happened to add the next AIV report). It was likely a good faith error, but it just keeps happening. I would have let this sig ride without a report, (and auto sig has been added so it shouldn't come up again on any new posts) but I'm losing my AGF on the veiled insinuations.about why consensus is going against him. Meters (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It's going to get worse at that article. See last change. John from Idegon (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:3RR on Talk:Scrappy Little Nobody

Although I agree that the IP's behavior is disruptive beyond WP:AGF, I do not agree that it constitutes "obvious vandalism". You should stop at or before three reverts and wait for someone else, or ask User:Mz7 for help, else risk being frivolously blocked by Ritchie333. ⁓ Hello71 15:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

See User talk:Mz7#Re: Scrappy Little Nobody. ⁓ Hello71 15:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

USer:Hello71 I reported this IP for trolling and personal attacks and nothing was done. It continued, I reported them again, and again nothing was done. The IP then left yet another person attack, and continued with the trolling. I didn't undo it as vandalism, I undid it as an inappropriate change of another editor's talk page post. I can't be bothered to report this IP again. I don't know why noone wants to deal this obvious case, but as long he doesn't attack me again I'm ignoring the talk page and article Someone else can deal with it or not. I don't care. Meters (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I've started a thread at WP:ANI about this issue. Mz7 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

And blocked for disruptive edits and personal attacks. Meters (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

And blocked again. Meters (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting

Hey,

Thanks for reporting the IP from Australian International School Hong Kong. I reported them yesterday but I rescinded it because they stopped. I think you made the right move though, they've been blocked for 31 hours. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a note to my report that it might be good faith, but that the continuation of the behaviour was disruptive. Meters (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I also personally think it might be a COI just because they've been obsessed with this article and added info like "HKUST is widely regarded as one of the most notable universities in Asia-Pacific." with no source [4].HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It could easily just be a student puffing it up. It's on my watchlist now so I'll check what happens after the block ends. Meters (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it to mine too. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I realized I misquoted above, the correct quote is "AISHK is widely considered one of the most prestigious schools in Hong Kong." I do not know what HKUST even is. It is clearly too late for me to edit. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I know that feeling all too well. Meters (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Internet Censorship Reversal

Hi! I see you reverted my edition on Internet Censorship. Seen your comments, I couldn't agree more. I used the image because I saw it was been used on the Spanish wiki and in some other article on the English wiki, which is why I deemed it trustworthy on the first place. Seen it is not, I wonder which other data could be used to replace it. Do you think ooni would be ok? They don't state anything about their license, but I could send them an email; I doubt it is not open data anyways

Thank you once again for being kind and explaining your reasons for reversal, which is something not everybody does. Btw, I think the image says that the data is updated as of 2014 on its description, so that may the reason for the confusion

Marion Moseby (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Marion Moseby (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Hey Meters, I know that we are currently having a bit of a disagreement on the Cleveland High School page. I keep writing in a name because I truly believe it's necessary. To be fair, the term "Notable Alumni" is subjective, and to me the person that I add in is very notable. So please, let's at least compromise on this. I'm just asking for one name to be added in, it means the world to me. I hope we can come to an agreement. Thank you!

Cavsfan111 (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Cavsfan111

You were edit warring to include an unsourced, non-notable person on list of notable alumni. It has been explained to you, multiple editors have undone you, and this [5] was not only vandalism but a personal attack or harassment. Why would I have any WP:AGF in you? Now you have been blocked. I suggest that you pay attention to user:Mz7's warning that if you continue this behaviour your next block will be longer. Meters (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Tulsa Riots.

I am not sure how my correcting the facts is vandalism. My correction is accurate, published and was 2 years of my life. I have written hundreds of articles and never had anyone call my work vandalism. A student printed this article out and it is full of errors. I have never used this site before but historically this is very one-sided and inaccurate. I have over 5 thousand hours of taped interviews plus journals, records and transcripts. So with all due respect I really think my first person interviews with the survivors and primary source knowledge is more accurate. I earned my PHD in 1962 in History. When did you get yours. DrReedshistory (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@DrReedshistory: So many problems....

1. Your edit was very clearly not a minor edit.
2. Your edit was completely unsourced.
3. Your edit contradicted the sourced content in the article, and not just in a small manner. The sourced content also says nothing about 12 policemen being killed by the Blacks. An unsourced claim such as that does not belong in the article. let alone in the lead.
4. Your unverified claim of being a historian with knowledge of this event means nothing. We don't know who you are or if you really have any academic credentials. It's not at all uncommon for editors to falsely claim that they are the subject (or their spouse/child/parent/sibling/lover/agent/biographer/whatever) or involved in the production of a work or someone who has researched a topic. If you want to claim to be a historian then give us your real name and be prepared to prove your identity to Wikipedia. If you've published a history of the event then provide the publication details so we can evaluate whether it is a WP:RELIABLESOURCE.

If there are problems with the article we're happy to fix them, but we base the material on reliable, independent sources. As an academic historian, you must be familiar with the concept of providing your sources. Meters (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Links on Stefan Dollinger

Thanks, Meters. The distinction between Wikipedia and external links, I think, is a bit arbitrary or perhaps wiki-boosting policy (hopefully good info is good info, right?), but I can accept that. Thanks for pointing that out. I think you mentioned that before and I forgot. Cheers, Moochooroo (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

External examiner on Stefan Dollinger

You're right that normally external examiners are not important, so why list them? However, in the case of Dollinger it strikes me that Chambers (a synchronic sociolinguist from the Labovian North American school) is an odd choice to examine someone trained in the European historical linguistics tradition. For that reason, I'd keep it, just so that readers see these "odd" links. What do you thinks? I'll leave it up to you to make that call. Thanks for getting that article back in shape. Moochooroo (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. If the choice of external examiner is significant then:

1. we would need to explain why it is significant (we can't expect readers to understand the significance based on nothing but the examiner's name)
2. we would need a reliable source making the point that the choice of examiner was significant. Otherwise this is just your opinion. Meters (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this is a COI editor, quite possibly Stefan Dollinger himself. See editor's talk page. Meters (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

trademark on "World Record"

Please stop vandalizing my edits to Carolina Reaper, Pepper X and Dragon's Breath. All of those world's hottest pepper claims, that have been made outside of the 1.5 million for the Carolina Reaper, have never been confirmed by Guinness, and therefore may violate Guinness' US registered trademark, which I properly linked to their registration on the TESS at <http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:5389wn.5.47> and I listed their US TRademark registration number.CraigCarlton (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)CraigCarlton

@CraigCarlton: For the fourth time, it's a dead link. No-one can see it but you. And even if Guiness does have a trademark on the term it does not mean that the material you are adding is appropriate for these articles. Either discuss your edits on one of the articles' talk pages or leave it alone. If you continue you will likely end up blocked. And my edits are not vandalism. I have challenged your edits and clearly explained why your edits are being removed. It is a personal attack to incorrectly claim that I am vandalizing the articles.

Oh, and my talk page is not protected, so there is no need to post on my unprotected page. Thats why it says If this page has been protected and you cannot edit it you may leave messages here. Meters (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

See User talk:CraigCarlton and Talk:Carolina Reaper for more on this misguided effort to claim that no-one can use the words "World Record" unless Guinness had declared a world record. The supposed trademark the editor is discussing is actually the words "Guinness World Records" in a particular logo. Meters (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User indeffed. Meters (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Nina Dobrev

Hi, Meters! Can you explain me what you want to say with "Dobrev is clearly Canadian, whether she has citizenship or not. See Canadians. Canadian citizenship is not the only requirement to be considered Canadian, and is not even a required condition."? If we follow your way she is also ".. clearly Bulgarian whether she has citizenship or not (if you see Bulgarians)". Moreover, we have a 2 sorces in this article, which says Dobrev is Bulgarian. Your " only-Canadian way" seems like a double standard, I think. Because of the different points of view my variant is " Bulgarian- Canadian. If you see the history of this article this version was in a heading line long time before it and nobody was against. Regards!--Targatron (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stay off my page. This topic has been extensively discussed on the article's talk page. You are edit warring again immediately after your edit warring block expired,. It appears that you evaded your block using an IP, and the past history strongly suggests that your named account is also a block evading sock. I have reported you and the IP at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro. Meters (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd point you to the archived talk page threads on this, but since you participated in the threads you've already read them. Meters (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Crofton House School Edit

I don't *think* there was a conflict, per se. I thanked you because you reverted a missed vandal edit first before I could get to it. I didn't step on an edit of yours, did I?

--KNHaw ^(talk) 19:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No problems. I just assumed that since you warned the account before I could get to it that you had attempted to revert too. The system sometimes seems to accept simultaneous reverts without giving an edit conflict notice. You revert, and don't get a conflict notice so you assume your edit took hold, but when you check the history it's actually tagged with another user. Meters (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Barnstable High School

My apologies for getting in your way. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

No problems at all. Looks like there were three of us who noticed that bloated article and started cleaning up at the same time. Meters (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Ardsley, New York

Hi! I'm a resident of Ardsley so you editing out the factual mention of Mark Zuckerberg being a former resident was a annoying. It is well known knowledge and I didn't realize I'd have to sight it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andimack555 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Read your talk page. You added an unsourced claim to one page that contradicted his page, and then attempted to use that Wikipedia article as a source in another. Meters (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not trying to 'mess around'. I'm new to this whole wikipedia thing and I am trying my best. All I wanted to do was update my small town's wikipidia page, because I think it's a cool fact. I didn't mean to cause a kerfuffle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andimack555 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

When an experienced editor undoes you and explains what you are doing wrong you should pay attention. It wasn't sourced, it contradicted his article and it wasn't a minor edit. Restoring it as a minor edit was a bad idea. Meters (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay so I don't understand why you care so much about the one square mile town that is Ardsley New York's wikipedia page, however, I did source my edit with an accurate source. So I do not understand why you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andimack555 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

This time you added a reference that says he attended school there. That is not the same as saying he lived there. And please learn to sign your talk page posts. Meters (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

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! Escargoten (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Also make note of the one above it, where you were not invited. Geez. John from Idegon (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Escargoten's one was closed 45 minutes after it was opened, before I even saw this. Thanks for the ping on she school thread. Meters (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ ‎

Did u comment on my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassie B Miller (talk • contribs) 20:08, March 15, 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Read the links I posted on your page to see why I removed your edit. Meters (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

But you didn't just remove my edit you removeed my whole conversation. Cassie B Miller (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Read the links on your page. The article's talk page is not a forum for you to give your opinions about the church, it's not a social media site for people to chat about the church, and it's not a place for you to recruit others who share your opinions, Meters (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

just read it but I still don't understand I did wrong I did copy anything I was talking about the same subject as was on the page, this has happened before and I've done nothing wrong no one on here replies back when I try to tell someone on Wikipedia that some of your information is wrong about ICOC, and everytime i try to help out ex members my comments get deleted everything that I post this I've understood as acceptable content about ICOC gets deleted I'm very ticked off about that Cassie B Miller (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Listen it's not opinions it's facts and that is what me and a bunch of ex members have tried to tell everyone on Wikipedia I don't know why you are getting short with me I'm just trying to help but it seems like no one at Wikipedia cares about help ex ICOC members so fine you don't want me or any ex members to help the at Wikipedia to get more information fine we'll do it some place else Cassie B Miller (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not start a new thread with every comment. I'm getting tired of reformatting your posts.

Since you state that you have edited the church article or talk page before but your account shows no article or talk page edits until today I have no way of knowing what edits you are talking about. I assume that you were using an IP or a different user account. Please provide the name of the account, the IP address you were using, or diffs/links to the edits you made. Meters (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to deleting pictures and point POV on well-sources contents, you may be blocked from editing. 螺钉 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a disruptive edit. I undid your edit as POV (as did user:SounderBruce) and told you to take it to the talk page or leave it alone..Meters (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

user:SounderBruce didn't delete pictures. He only want to change the wording and we had an agreement on the wording for the second picture. 螺钉 (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You do know that we can see exactly what edits people have made, right? Sounder undid you here [6] as NPOV and warned you for POV edits. You restored the edit here [7]. I removed the material again as POV here [8] and warned you. Meters (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

And you certainly had no agreement with Sounder about the wording in the caption. Meters (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The current wording for the second picture is actually what user:SounderBruce uses [9], after I talked to him in his talk page. Please stop your deletion of the pictures. I'll also change the tone of voice for the first picture caption.螺钉 (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIR. SounderBruce did not make that edit, and you did not discuss this with him on his talk page. Meters (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You are at level 4. If you restore it and it is still POV you will be reported. I suggest that you propose the new wording on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Ofo (bike sharing)

I've added new contents for ofo discussion. Are you ok with the picture and captions now? 螺钉 (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are incorrect. You have not posted any new captions since I removed your latest POV-captioned image and commented on the talk page. And you have not yet answered my direct question whether you have a COI on this topic.

I'm already watching the article's talk page, and participating in the discussion Please don't post here about this. Meters (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I've replied your questions in the discussion. You are not responding. This source says more obviously that Ofo floods cities with bikes: "City leaders are worried that Ofo will flood cities with thousands of bicycles -- as they have in China -- and offer cheap rides in an effort to build market share and put their lesser-funded rivals out of business". I think your persistent deletion of pictures is WP:COI and POV. There is nothing wrong with the picture. Ofo and other bike-share companies flood bikes in cities. This is a well-known fact. 螺钉 (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

What part of I'm already watching the article's talk page, and participating in the discussion Please don't post here about this do you not understand? When I reply on a talk page, or if I reply at all is entirely up to me. I'm not in the same part of the world as you, and I don't spend 24 hours a day on my computer. I'm going to bed.

And saying that I have a COI simply because I have an opinion about your blatantly POV captions is completely groundless, and verging on a personal attack. I don't care at all about the particular company, or your perceived controversy. What I care about is that whatever does get said in the article is neutral, accurate, and properly sourced. Claiming that the company is deliberately flooding the streets with their bikes as a marketing plan, and deliberately blocking sidewalks and bus stops is not acceptable unless there are reliable sources that say exactly that. The sources you have provided do not say that. Your image captions are POV. Read WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and W:RS, and do not post to my page again. Meters (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It is really not my intention to talk to you here. But could you count the number of bikes in the picture? You're not responding to questions in the discussion and keep deleting contents from the article. That's destructive and impolite. 螺钉 (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not his intentions to talk to you here. His cat is holding him at gunpoint forcing him to. I have an equally clueless and connected editor at Domino's Pizza. This relates to this, and looking at it, it looks markedly different than any course I've seem here. I'll not even opine on the advisability of teaching marketing students how to edit Wikipedia, but I think we are going to need help. Ping Cullen328, who is both an admin and has experience with WikiEd. John from Idegon (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

user:John from Idegon You have to love POV-warrior SPAs who think other editors are at their beck and call. Enough other editors have raised the same POV issues on the article's talk page that I see no point in continuing to debate every point over and over. Meters (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Stop make false warnings. You're abusing POV. 螺钉 (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

And you are ignoring my requests to stay off my talk page, and the input from all of the other editors on the article's talk page. When you come back from your block you can try again, but not here. Meters (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Moot now since block had been extended to indef. Meters (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

refs and double standards

it's funny how you put the "stop edit warring or you'll be blocked" tag on MY talk page, but not on the OTHER editors' pages, who keep reverting and removing a valid source (for invalid made-up unproven reasons), which is not very consistent or fair...but shows obvious bias on your part. Not cool....not necessary. Do not put that stuff on my page again unless I violate 3RR, or cross a clear red line...which I never did here, and I never do in general. Or if you're gonna put that stuff on my page, do it to the other editors also who are rudely reverting and NOT bringing anything to to the article Talk page at all, if you notice, and who obviously are deleting an agreed-upon source (from some time back) for more "I DON'T LIKE" reasons and FRONT excuses like "advert"?? and are just merely asserting "unreliable" without really showing how or why. This academic learning type website is NOT forbidden by Wikipedia. You obviously have a bias here, so little to no credibility. I did not edit war here, and if I did, so have the others. They're doing the same thing I am, but in the opposite way. Just cuz (maybe) you agree with their view does not make it any less "edit-warring" though, if that's the case...at least on this matter. Just being blunt here. Be even-handed or just refrain from contacting me at all. Can't have it both ways. THEY are removing a source THAT WAS ESTABLISHED A LONG TIME AGO...for this uncited statement. Look back at the record here. Good day. 71.246.98.233 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I did look at the history. You made the same edit 5 times. You falsely claimed there had been a previous consensus to use the source. You were undone by two different editors. One of them gave you an edit warring warning. After you blanked it the warning was confirmed by an uninvolved editor who asked for the diffs or links to the supposed agreement to use the source. I didn't give you a 3RR warning, or any other warning. I simply posted to your page replying to the other editor that It was discussed at Talk:Sphere#Lead, and the consensus was to not use the ref. The link is to a 2015 discussion. It appears likely that you are the same editor who was unsuccessfully trying to insert this material in 2015, given that you restored the material complete with the 2015 access date. And now you have been blocked for edit warring by another uninvolved editor. Go away. Meters (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I hope you could help me with something...

Hello there, Meters. Thanks for the info about my attempt to change a reference on List of sex symbols. Perhaps, however, you could help me with something. I need a little help modifying the original reference you restored about Arnold Schwarzenegger. Whenever I try to call up the reference itself, which is a Google reference, I have a little trouble calling it up. The page usually says that Google couldn't direct me to the reference. My concern is that if I can't successfully call up the link, then nobody will be able to know it's a legit reference. Any help you or anyone you know here on Wikipedia can give me would be much appreciated. Thank you for your understanding and hopeful cooperation. Mr. Brain (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Just leave it alone. I've already tagged it as a dead link using {{dl}} A bot will see it and attempt to add an archived copy of the page. Refs do not have to be online to be valid, and since this ref is to a book it should be fairly simple to find the source and verify the claim if desired. Your source was completely inappropriate. A collection of click-bait photos does not support the claim that he was regarded as a sex symbol. Meters (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, it's helpful if you provide a diff to the edit [10], or at least a link to the article List of sex symbols when asking about an edit. Meters (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That was a very solid looking ref. A 400+ page book with an ISBN, published by a reputable company, and the cite includes a page number. The book definitely exists (two seconds on Google shows that), and it appears to be a reliable source. The only remaining question is whether the cited page supports the claim. I have no reason to suspect that it does not.If you do, well, feel free to find a copy of the book. Meters (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

And five more seconds on Google finds the text of page 90: "As much as Arnold was touted as bodybuilding's ultimate sex symbol..." Meters (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on 04:18:54, 26 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Voyageintheabyss

• Voyageintheabyss (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Northeast Elementary School (Goldsboro,North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regarding my Northeast Elementary article,I can't acknowledge any sources as there are no sources. I literally go there. I also don't know how any thing I said was child-like.<<redacted>>

Voyageintheabyss (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested. The draft is not worth spending any time on. Nothing you wrote there belongs on Wikipedia. Don't make wild guesses or make stuff up, and don't mention students by name. Meters (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the first line "Northeast Elementary is a school in Pikeville,North Carolina." would be acceptable if it were sourced, and the school were shown to be notable. Meters (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I have my doubts that you really are <<redacted>> but just in case you really are, see WP:YFA. Meters (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Barry's Bay AIV report

Your AIV report about Barry's Bay made me laugh, since I grew up nearby... --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kelapstick:Small world. If you know anything about the town please check the article. I undid two years worth of garbage and some may have slipped through. Meters (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Gal Gadot

I'm sorry to bother you again, Meters, but I'd like to ask you about an article about Gal Gadot. I spotted an article about her on www.cinemablend.com. If it's a reputable article from a respected website, would it then be OK to add her to the List of sex symbols?

I don't mean to have asked a seemingly dumb question, but I know how important strong references are to you. I thought checking with you first would be an appropriate option. Mr. Brain (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't answer that. You didn't link to the particular page discussing her so I can't see what information you are referring to. Does it explicitly call her a sex symbol? Based on your previous edits you seem to incorrectly think that simply having pictures online or being described by a non-reliable tabloid as having sex are sufficient, The best I can say is that if the site does explicitly call her a sex symbol then maybe she can be added. I don't know how reliable that site is, and I would prefer not to have anyone added based on only one site. Meters (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Mr. Brain, I have to go quite a bit stronger than my colleague. Terms that objectify women are by their very nature controversial. Having one source of questionable reliability is nowhere near sufficient to support using a controversial adjective of very questionable factual value. You would need to show that a preponderance of sources describe her as such, and even then, good taste and the mere fact that this is the 2010s, not the 1960s should be enough to discourage using it. John from Idegon (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Still at it, and still adding sources that don't support the claim [11] Meters (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon While I share you feelings about the objectification, to be fair to Mr Brain, most of his questionable edits on this topic have been to List of sex symbols, and they have involved man as well as women. Meters (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)