User talk:Meters

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

If this page has been protected and you cannot edit it you may leave messages here. Meters (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Draft:Micronoma, Inc.[edit]

Hello Meters, I see you have been working to clean up Draft:Micronoma, Inc.. Do you believe that this submission can be saved or would it be best to TNT it as a promotional fluff piece by the company? The G12 I had on the draft has been declined because it looked like you may have been working on correcting the paid editors submission to make it acceptable. Please let me know your thoughts as I am willing to reverse my rejection if you think it is worth salvaging. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mcmatter. Sorry, I had no intention of preventing the draft from being deleted by cleaning it up. I was hoping the paid editor would take note and start fixing it, but it appears that is not happening. It has several impressive-looking references, but they are used to illustrate scientific facts, rather than show the company's notability. I don't believe there are any independent reliable references included about the company that speak to the company's notability. Maybe there's something out there, but I'm not interested in doing the paid editor's job for them. This strikes me as a PR piece produced by the company to promote themselves, and it was added in one edit by a paid editor who has not addressed any of the concerns that have been raised. The paid editor contested the speedy by stating This page is not unambiguously promotional, because there are several journals cited to substantiate notability and significance, no promotion of sales, and no copy write violation. All content is original copy by Micronoma or its affiliates. [1] As I've said, the journal cites have nothing to do with the company. Promotion is not simply a matter of trying to promote sales. and the fact that the copy was provided by the company suggests that his is actually a copyvio. Being a paid editor does not give them the right to present Micronoma's original copy as their own work. The editor has not yet responded to my raising this issue.
I see this as a dump and run of company copy by a paid editor who does not know how to write a proper article. WP:TNT is probably the best approach. Meters (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for asking. Meters (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted again. Meters (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Korean sentiment in China[edit]

"This content has been in the article for years." does not mean it belongs there. It may have been challenged in the past but it is out of date and irrelevant today. China and Taiwan are considered separate countries. As such, information about Taiwanese baseball cannot be included in China.Fiextqbe (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it does not belong. I don't know, and I don't get to decide We edit by consensus. The fact that teh sourced content has been there for years and your removal has been challenged means that you need to take it to the talk page and attempt to get consensus, per WP:BRD, for your edit. You do not get to arbitrarily decide that " information about Taiwanese baseball cannot be included in China". Meters (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said, it's not a minor edit to remove content that way, particularly after it has already been restored once. Meters (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't post a 'talk page'[edit]

I posted development information from various sources including InterAction magazine, and developers themselves, Roberta Williams, Cindy Vanous, etc, and links to the source material.BagginsKQ (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are claiming to be the IP I undid on King's Quest, that was one of the worst edits I have ever seen. If that was not you posting your thoughts or copying from a talk page then it was you copying extensive quotes from online forum posts in violation of copyvio. Meters (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the 'forum posts' are actually something that still exist in the topic, and were there previously. it contains quite a few links to 'forum posts' in the citations. Doeesn't look like the materials posted tonight were 'forum posts' but posts to other wikis and quotes from magazines articles.BagginsKQ (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Im talking about what you added. Don't do that again. I'm not interested in discussing it here. If you don't understand what was wrong with your (the IP's) edits then take it to the article's tall page. Meters (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC) copied from my protected talk page [reply]

Link removal[edit]

Hi my blog page link was removed as it was showing error, but as i have rectified it and trying to add it back it is not getting added may i know the proper reason for its removal. It was present for more than 1 month in Wikipedia without any issue and also does not promote any sales. kindly help me (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Manoj[reply]

Stop promoting your web page. Meters (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC) copied from my protected talk page [reply]

Bias Enforcement on 'Alpha and beta male (slang)'[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm trying to understand some of your recent behaviour on Alpha and beta male (slang). I see that you have reverted the removal of quite a bit of activist and alt-left reinterpretations of a 150 year old concept that was so far from established reference on the concept that it constituted original research and was obvious even at face value to be highly politically biased and motivated.

I then saw that you left a message on my talk page:

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you recently removed content from Alpha and beta male (slang) without adequately explaining why. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Blanking 75% of an article is not something that should be done with first discussing in on the article's talk page and gettign consensus Meters (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I have several questions/impressions, just because I don't know who I'm talking to yet or understand your behaviour. I hope to see clarification:

1. Did you read what you restored before restoring it?

2. If you did, what did you base the decision on other than your passing impression about consensus with unspecified 3rd parties who may or may not exist? Was there other criteria involved? Which people do you believe I required consensus from? Is there a wikipedia policy or standard being violated? You referenced none.

3. You ask me to leave a message on your talk page if I believe you made a mistake. Does this imply that you could not have made any mistake and that I could only perceive it as a mistake unless you agreed?

4. Do you normally require consensus with the originators or maintainers of biased content to remove it?

5. Based on the wording and behaviour I am led to believe that you are speaking from a position of authority. I do not know what the hierarchy is on Wikipedia and really only care about articles' factual accuracy. If you have some such authority that I should be aware of please explicitly declare it so that I can understand the environment I am engaging with.

6. What are some tips or policies I can rely on to avoid future acts of bias enforcement? Please understand that it's not really questionable about whether bias was enforced (here or otherwise) but that the question is how to avoid it from others in the future as I've noticed it to be a recurring theme in recent years. (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm sure Meters has read the article.
2. You require a WP:CONSENSUS to make such drastic changes to an article, usually acquired via a talk page discussion or a WP:RFC. In general, you should not remove content without giving a thorough explanation, which you did not.
3. Obviously it does not imply that Meters could not have made a mistake, nor does it imply they must agree with your perception of the revert as being a mistake in order for you to be able to leave a comment. Meters specified "if you think" meaning your perception, and nothing else, because that's the primary reason for you to leave them a comment. Let's not dwell on semantics though.
4. I don't know who "originators or maintainers" are but we normally require a consensus to remove large amounts of well-sourced content.
5. The only authority Meters has is that they are a very experienced editor.
6. Read WP:NPOV.
––FormalDude talk 08:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
(ec)You deleted 75% of the article without first discussing it on the talk page. That is an extraordinary edit (actually two edits), particularly with sourced content that is not a recent addition. There is an implied consensus in a case such as that. I didn't consider your edit summaries "removed original (and highly biased activist-angled) research" and "removed encyclopedia dramatica nonsense" as sufficient. I undid your edit and asked you to discuss it, per WP:BRD. My post to your talk page clearly had a typo. It should have read "... without [rather than with] first discussing in on the article's talk page ..."
So, you think that the material is "so far from established reference on the concept that it constituted original research and was obvious even at face value to be highly politically biased and motivated." Make your case on the article's talk page and we'll see what other editors have to say. And no, it is not consensus from the editors who added the material, it is consensus from any editors who choose to participate in the discussion.
  1. I read some of it. See my above comments on mass deletion of long-standing sourced content. I felt it needed to be discussed. I'm not an expert in the area, and some of the sourcing seemed weak, but some of the deleted sourcing seemed solid.
  2. See 1. and my above comments above. You made a Bold edit. It was Reverted. Now you need to Discuss the edit to reach consensus. That's WP:BRD.
  3. I implied nothing of the sort. That's a canned template. Editors do make mistakes in their reverts. Editors do make mistakes in who they warn. Editors do make mistakes in which warning template they use.
  4. No, but I think this edit should have been discussed first with any other interested editors. And it's not a question of "the originators or maintainers". No-one owns the content. You unilaterally deleted 3/4 of the article (sourced and not a recent addition) because you perceive it to be biased. You tried it, you were undone, now we discuss it.
  5. Your inference is incorrect. I do not speak from a position of authority. I have none on Wikipedia. Few editors do. I undid your edit, which anyone could have done, and I left you a low level canned template, which anyone could have done. I have a few editing permissions which you do not have, but these are not germane to this discussion as none of them were in use here. See WP:RIGHTS. I am simply a long-term, experienced editor.
  6. Are you saying that I am engaging in "acts of bias enforcement" by undoing your edit? If so, that's dangerously close to a personal attack. See WP:NPA. As for bias in general see WP:BIAS. You seem to be saying that you have been active on Wikipedia for years (and some of your edit suggests that you are not a new editor) Were you using a named account (and which one) or were you using IPs? If IPs, are you the same user who was using this IP prior to recently being partially blocked from Matthew Garrett?Meters (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks and there has been no discussion on the talk page. Article is stable. Yet another waste of time. Meters (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry about the edit! I won't re-add it. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

regarding removal of inaccurate content[edit]

user was confused about one thing and I was confused about theother

Regarding this edit diff, Lingam in Hinduism is neither phallus worship nor does it connotes in its primordial denotation. That statement is incorrect and detrimental to iconography. If you read through the article, it'd be pretty obvious. Given that, factually incorrect “phallus worship” should be removed. Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 23:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You are the one who added, that content to Human penis. Your summary is completely wrong, you did not discuss this on the talk page even though you claimed that you had, and you censored the article. Meters (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My summary was ambiguous, although I meant to have a discussion on the talk page to include that content. I didn't censored the article, I removed a piece of incorrect information from the article. I'm not sure how the removal of incorrect information is considered censor. Apologies for the ambiguous summary. Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 23:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly did censor the article .You replaced five instances of "dick" or "cock" with strings of astericks. Maybe you should actually look at what your edit consisted of [2]. Now please drop this. Meters (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OH, I'm totally sorry about that. I have a Chrome filter plugin that messed it up although I didn't mean to add *** in there. It's my mistake, sorry about that. Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 00:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And you used it again, on my page. Stay off my page please. Meters (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for this, I just noticed it right now after you mentioned the issue. I've removed it. Again, it's one of my bad days and I apologise. Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 00:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Meters,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Frank Stanley‎[edit]

First off, the article I sited that said he confessed is titled "Serial wife killer on death row offers info on where he buried body in exchange for execution date". Second, this line, "Stanley even sent a letter to the judge, offering to reveal where he buried Lynn's body if the state would set an execution date". And third please don't accuse me of being a "disruptive editor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mint69‎ (talkcontribs) 22:02, September 20, 2021 (UTC)

  1. Please sign your talk page posts
  2. Please add a header for new talk page threads
  3. Don't create improperly sourced BLP-violating articles in article space. I have removed some of the problems and moved it to draft space.
  4. It does not matter if the report says that he offered to locate the body. People on death row do all sorts of things. If they did not follow through and find the body and convict him, y7ou cannot say that he murdered her. Meters (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Kaseng55[edit]

Ok. I also requested page protection for Ontario, due to numerous troll edits. Kaseng55 (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested input on Katie Millar[edit]

If you have time I be interested in your input on Katie Millar, which I nominated for deletion. I'm trying to reconcile what seems like an inconsistency with our discussion on Talk:Manti High School. Thanks! Jacobkhed (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help Me![edit]

@Meters: I Can See In My Usertalk and yourtalk have have vandalized by unknown user. Please Do anything?. Best RegardsManiik 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 06:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported the IP for a block and have requested that my talkpage be protected. You can ask for protection for your talk page at WP:RFP Meters (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: I'm already Requested for Protection on My Talkpage. Best Regards. Maniik 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 06:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And blocked. Meters (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Christ.[edit]

Meters? What are you saying?😜 (ducks to avoid flying objects) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I don't think I've ever seen a user take an 8-year break and then come back and try to recreate the same material. The concentration on Pilipino TV and radio stations reminds me of a sockmaster well known for his hoaxes, but I have not yet checked to see if those changes are real. Meters (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source[edit]

Sorry for my disruptive editing. It's my first time editing wikipedia, so please be kind. By the way, Can you tell where to add these contents? It's a small result, but when these results come together in the future, I thought it will be meaningful and helpful to next researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not on Wikipedia. This is not the place to promote your research. Meters (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is Ultimate tic-tac-toe ‎ Meters (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to promote my research, but I'm sorry if you felt that way. Thank you for your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were promoting it, and it is WP:OR. I doubt very much that is anything but your work. You attempted to add it without any sources twice, and then you added it again but with a poor quality GitHub document that referenced the same Wikipedia page (and nothing else). You need a reliable, independent secondary source that discusses the work. I would be astonished if such a source exists. Meters (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:P. B. Buckshey[edit]

I want to recreate that page so I remove all unreliable sources UserABCXYZ (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real? You replaced a reasonable-looking draft with many apparently reliable sources with one line (and an ungrammatical one at that) and submitted it. That's such a bad edit I almost warned you for disruptive editing. Meters (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OP CU blocked. Meters (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
NPP Barnstar.png
  • On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The reason why I changed it is because this war has been going on for almost 60 years. There is definitely been more them 250k deaths by now. I don’t need any source. You can look it up yourself. Chriz.420 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do need a source. The number we currently state is the one from the cited source. If you want to change it you need to provide an updated source. And the fact that you changed it from 218,000 to 300,000 and then a day later to 350,000 suggests that you are just guessing at these numbers. Meters (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension Bridge/Tacoma Narrows/Dog[edit]

Hi! I noticed you reversed my edit on Suspension Bridge. I believe that the dog's death is noteworthy and also that the wording already suggested that something 'non-human' had died from the incident. Thanks Allthecows (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC) I should also mention I do have a source at Thanks for the consideration Allthecows (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, not needed even if sourced. Suspension bridge is an article about suspension bridges in general. We don't need minor trivia about a dog on one particular bridge. We link to Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940)‎ where that trivia is mentioned, and sourced. Meters (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair I wouldn't consider it 'minor'. If someone's dog died it wouldn't be trivia, nor minor. It's quite the part of the collapse due to notoriety. Allthecows (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we do mention it in the article about that bridge. This article is not about that bridge. We do not need to mention the dog. Take it to the article's talk page if you disagree.Meters (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Cash[edit]

Hi. Having seen your warning and then revert on my talk page, I just wanted to say I didn’t carelessly revert anything, I reverted back to the edition I had cleaned up earlier, during that time there had been various edits and although I could see you were also trying to undo the constant vandalism as well I knew that my last edited version was clean, hence I chose that edition to restore. Footballgy (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Footballgy:No, your version was not clean. You need to look more closely, because your edit [3] actually restored vandalism that I had already removed. You should not just blindly revert other editors' input without looking at what your changes are. Meters (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Next time you want to argue about an edit of yours you might want to actually look at it first. Meters (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, I didn't come on here for an argument, I was just making a point. Secondly Wikipedia has always been a hobby of mine for over 13 years, but I have never been fond of the side of it that promotes a faceless, nameless community where people often speak down to each other, so I didn't come on here to be spoken down too like a child. When you're editing from the mobile app version on an iPad things aren't quite as fluid as the desktop version and with all the edits that were made over a short period of time I clearly missed that vandalised section. Mistakes can happen, as per when you posted various times on my talk page before noticing I had good intentions. Footballgy (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Footballgy:I didn't "notice" that you had good intentions. Your intention is not something that could be observed. Your edit did nothing but restore blatant vandalism, and I took it as part of the ongoing attack on the article. When I looked at your history I realized what had probably happened. I instead assumed good faith, removed the warning and apologized. You said you had not made a careless edit and had reverted to a clean version. Call it what you want, careless, mistaken, whatever, but clearly it was not a clean version that you reverted to. People make mistakes, I understand that, but you blindly reverted without checking what effect your revert had, and then you brought it to my talk page, again without checking what you edit actually was. I call that careless.
You may not have come to my talk page to argue, but the point you tried to make failed spectacularly. You had no business reverting my edits without checking them. You didn't check the edit before you made it, you didn't check it after you made it, you didn't check it when I called you on it, and you didn't check it before you showed up on my talk page to complain about it. You say you don't like my tone. Well, I don't like having to clean up after careless editors, and I certainly don't like have to spend time explaining it to someone who can't be bother to look at their own edit. Now please drop this. Meters (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're just proving my point right here! Honestly, the cringing I do reading things on this website. Ciao Footballgy (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And you're proving my point. Again, please drop this. Meters (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my edit[edit]

~Hey, thanks for reverting my edit at List of senior high schools in Alberta. I don't know what happened but that wasn't what I intended. Best guess is I was working off of an old revision without noticing and accidentally restored it. Cheers,  DiscantX 21:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It happens. Meters (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel C. Tsang[edit]

Citation to the Tsang book added. For your information: "The question of child prostitution presents many questions...Denying young people the 'right' to be prostitutes or to engage in other forms of work is phony protection -- it denies young people experience and income that is probably no more harmful or helpful to them than it is for adults engaged in similar professions." (The Age Taboo, p. 49) "Should child pornography be outlawed? Should children be denied the 'right' to be photographed and filmed for erotica?...We don't think so, because taking nude photographs of children doesn't necesarily involve force or evil....A related reason to defend the right of a mingling between children and sex is to confront head-on the section of the right wing represented by people like Anita Bryant....If they open a crack they may unleash a flood of regressive laws against homosexuality, lesbianism, non-marital sex, teenage sex and who knows what else. Sexual repression is a political tool of the right wing, and we must vigorously defend the rights of young people to be winners rather than pawns in the struggle." (The Age Taboo, p. 51) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting that here? I saw your second edit with the attempt to add the source, and I didn't revert it. You still need to fix the reference though. You cannot cite a book in the middle of a reference to a news article about the author. Meters (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP has now fixed the ref and I thanked him. Meters (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Guidice[edit]

Hi, you recently removed my Teresa Guidice contribution due to lack of reference, I can provide this to support the information I gave . thank you [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazza8008 (talkcontribs) 09:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That source is a personal Instagram page, and it does not even mention the name of her fiancee, so we cannot use it. Even if it did mention him by name it would likely not be acceptable since it is a self-published source that makes claims about a third party. Please read WP:SELFSOURCE. I have no reason to doubt that she is engaged, and if she is reasonably well-known then I'm sure there are reliable independent sources out there that mention her engagement. Just find one. Meters (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sourced claim to the article. Meters (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

Házikecske portré.JPG

Incredible work!

Myselfbychance (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

New message from SadX[edit]

Sorry for the mistakes I made, I'm a new comer, if you can help me with necessary guidelines for editing and reporting vandalism, that would be a great help. Thank you SadX (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Start with the links that are in the messages on your talk page. Meters (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Pearson[edit]

What is your problem? I AM David Pearson, that’s why I didn’t use a disguise, unlike your good self. I should know what I was doing between 1984 and 1986. Please restore the addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that you are who you claim to be, and if you are David Pearson then you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing that article directly. Meters (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing that an SPA IP on David Pearson (computer scientist) who has spent almost four years editing the article about himself without previously declaring his conflict of interest thinks that I am the one in disguise. Meters (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were warned more than once about your conflict of interest on this article. You were warned multiple times about making unsourced edits. And now your other IP user: has been blocked from this article and your new account user:Maizie007 has indef'ed for socking. Meters (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

dit you made to Nathan Bedford Forrest ‎, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted.[edit]

Hi, My name is Michael and I have a Masters in Civil War History

First off, this is why Wiki can't be considered a viable source when doing anything but recreational perusing. Yes, my addition probably crossed a little far into the "opinion" realm but when you read the entire Nathan Bedford Forest page you are left with a feeling that everything that has happened is truth and supported by some information that is sound and some that is weak and not relevant. Like saying a current decendent agrees with removing the bust of him. What relevance does his opinion mean? What political stance does he take. Does he care about his legendary ancestory. Does he not like being tied to him or is he a supporter of him and cares deeply about his family heritage. I can tell you one thing, Bedford Forrest's Children, Grandchildren, and Great-Children would deeply care about his legacy.

I'm a Civil War historian and know what I'm talking about and I'm tired of reading one sided depictions of almost all Confederates with someone (I'm guessing you) finding stupid information to support the feeling of (you might say the masses in the past here but now) the few offended and those looking to be offended and find those to point fingers as offensive. There is no concrete proof that Forrest was a Grand Wizard or even part of the KKK. Do you think that someone of that nature, if true, could mingle and kiss Black (African Americans) Citicens on the cheek? A real racist would never do that for any reason. It would repulse them. No matter what color the racist was. Unless they had decided to change their behavior and realize the errors of their way (another instance that should be celebrated not ignored, just seeking out information not matter how weak or strong to support their hatred of that historical person) and changing should be the ultimate climax of positiviy and celebrated. Forrest was in a no win situation. Even the KKK and other Southern's who still hated other races turned on him. He was called Bil Laden and Sadam Hussein (who I served and fought against) by the NAACP Leader Derrick Johnson (who is obviously biased).

Furthermore most of the stories about his involvement in the KKK were written after his death. They were hearsay and written by several KKK memebers who were not pleased with him to say the least. He was a border-line hated man in many Southern areas upon his death.

However, when you read the Wiki page on him it reads as some kind of indictment to support all this stupid behavior about erasing the past. Using quotes and statements by questionable people does little support argumentative accusations and what some think are facts. I think these pages involving many of these Generals are filled with too much shacky information instead of only concrete facts, which are really what people only need.

When the Jury is out on information I think these pages should stick to hard concrete facts. I don't like or dislike this General, just most people don't understand everything surrounding the easy part like, which battles were they in etc. 1976mkeith8 (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Michael Keith1976mkeith8 (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, no Godwin's Law bingo this time. But I'm glad good ol' William "Bil" Laden was brought up. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your account didn't edit Nathan Bedford Forrest. You have made no edits to Wikipedia other than the above edit to my talk page. I undid an IP's completely inappropriate edit. Since you to claim to be the person behind the IP who made this [5] edit, I'll take your word for it, but your claim to be a civil War historian with a Master's in Civil War history does absolutely nothing to justify that edit. It has no place in the article. If you wish to discuss changes to the article then do so on the article's talk page, but keep your opinions and blather out of the article. Meters (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack by 1976mkeith8 removed, and editor told to stay off my talk page [6]. Not interested in anything this editor has to say. Meters (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False accusation[edit]

Have you actually read the AN/EW, or are you simply responding to a complaint? I didn't accuse anyone. I did not address anyone specifically; no other editor was named, contrary to your statement above. An editor has taken personally the statement in question, without any evidence. You mentioned that the statement may have been removed. From this, I take it that it is in your power to do so. Is that correct? (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Of course I read it. I don't give warnings for things I didn't read. Stop playing with words. You suggested the user was socking. The user complained. You did nothing. I agree that it is a personal attack so I warned you. An independent editor has now told you that is unacceptable. Please do something about it, and do not post about this here again.
That warning is a canned template. Yes personal attacks may be removed by other editors, and no, I'm not going to discuss why I did not do so.Meters (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unsourced, it's REAL[edit]

I pay attention to the Kmart situation, and just merely noting it's the last Kmart in Michigan AND the Midwest is NOT unsourced! It is NOT, what was the word, DISRUPTIVE! I'm posting FACTS! There are sources already RIGHT THERE that back up what I say! This last time, I corrected a redundant edit from another person who said EXACTLY THE SAME THING I was saying! Why aren't you going after him? Huh?

I'm very good with my editing! If it's removed, I ignore why and just let it go! However, forgive me for posting the same things that have been said previously on this page! It has ALWAYS been noted on this page if a Kmart is the last one in a specific state if you'd only READ it! You going to remove ALL of those now?! The Kmart in Marshall IS the last Kmart there! It IS the last Kmart in the Midwest! It IS the last Kmart in its BIRTH STATE! I'm FROM Michigan! I had a cousin who devoted 17 years of service to Kmart before they eliminated the traveling middle management teams in the late 80s! I think I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about! Why is this such a big effin DEAL to you?! I'm merely posting FACTS that ANYONE would know!

But you know what? FINE! I won't say another thing on that page! you happy now?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbl1975 (talkcontribs) 15:14, November 21, 2021 (UTC)

You have a history of adding unsourced or improperly sourced material to this article. That's why you keep getting warned. Your source did not say that the store was the last one in the Midwest. That's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. We don't care what you "know" or if your relative worked for KMart. We report what reliable sources say, and your source did not say anything about other stores in the Midwest.
Since you're swearing on my talk page, I'm telling you to stay off my talk page. I am not interested in discussing anything with further you here. Meters (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit on Jarryd Hayne[edit]

My edit on Jarryd Hayne are not disruptive. It is a statement of fact and something he is now known for hence why I added it to the first paragraph. Ezbe98 (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable as a professional athlete, not because of that conviction. It should not be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead. We're not hiding it. It is mentioned in the article, and even in the lead, it just doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lead. You've been undone three times now, and user:Larry Hockett has given you a level 4 warning. I suggest that you read WP:BRD and WP:EW. Meters (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Sears store is already closed[edit]

Meters. You thought my edit on the New York City store was vandalism when the store was actually closed just a few days ago. You didn't even think it was real. Guess what? Google said the store is permanently closed. The source I provided said that it would be closed on November 24, 2021 but at the time of writing this talk message it's November 26, 2021. That is two days ago when the store closed Meters. You even falsely said that my edit on the New York City store is vandalism when it actually happened. It's November 26, 2021, not September 2021 nor October 2021. P.S. My edit on New York City Sears closing is not vandalism nor disruptive. On the sources I've provided, it said the store would close on November 24, 2021 yet you said it is unsourced. Based on what I see, you were removing sourced information.ThereIs NoPeople (talkcontribs) 21:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did not add a new source, and the existing source was from September 22. As I said on your talk page You cannot claim that a store has closed with a source saying that it will close. If you don't understand the difference then this may be a case of WP:CIR. So yes, your addition was improperly sourced. The warning template said nothing about vandalism or disruptive editing [7]. Perhaps you should actually read the warning before deleting it next time. And a Google search is not a reference. It does not even bring up any references that show that the store is closed, so I'm undoing your latest attempt too. Either provide a source that shows that the store is closed or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I've made a brief, unsuccessful search for a current ref showing that the store has actually closed. Meters (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems strange to discuss THE Sears store in NYC. I'd be willing to bet that there are far more than ONE Sears store in NYC's history. But what do I know? (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you reopening a thread from weeks ago that you were not involved in? Please don't do that. Meters (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

Boer Goat (8742860752).jpg

Everyone can use a goat in their life. :D

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Corona Del Sol High School[edit]

Unfortunately, there is an ongoing Rivalry between Corona Del Sol HS and Desert Vista HS even though the Desert Vista Thunder have a rivalry with Mountain Pointe HS. Gilbert HS and Highland HS are Rivals in Arizona and Mesquite HS and Gilbert HS had a social Media Battle for their burger to be named on the menu at ZinBurger in 2014 in Gilbert, AZ. This seems to be the biggest mistake as Desert Vista and Corona Del Sol are in the same district of the Tempe Union High School District, but they do not list rivalries based on where they are located. Even though DVHS is still in Phoenix, Arizona, they do have a legitimate Rivalry with Corona Del Sol HS in Tempe, Arizona. Rivalries are not based on Local Jurisdiction at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BA38P (talkcontribs) 06:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with which schools are in the same districts, and everything to do with you adding unsourced claims of rivalries. As I said on your talk page: We don't list rivals unless there is a reliable, independent source showing a significant rivalry between the schools. If there are media reports about the rivalries then add the sources. Meters (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your eyes on this. I'm putting together a SPI now. They seem determined. Please alert me if further disruption arises. BusterD (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was going to open one myself soon if my request for page protection kept sitting there. Meters (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD:Ah, I see you've taken care of the protection too. Thanks. Meters (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ BusterD (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup., just added my comments. Meters (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st woman firefighter UK[edit]


Yes I am very new to this Wiki stuff, how did you guess 😂.

There seems to be an attempt to re-write history to exclude Sue Batten as the 1st Full-time Firefighter in the UK and am trying to correct this. Not only did I serve with Sue Batten after I joined the LFB in 1985, there is another Wiki page which states that she was the 1st woman firefighter. It cites the following reference:

"Courage High!: A History of Firefighting in London", Sally Holloway, 1992, p.239, 242

Do I need to gather more evidence? If so what sources are acceptable?

Many thanks (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs to the edits or at least link to the article in question next time, particularly if you are going to switch accounts. I assume this is in regards to Women in firefighting and [8] edit by user:Doris1664?
Your edit removed a sourced claim and replaced it with an unsourced claim. Now you've provided a source you've pulled from another article. Have you actually read the source? If not, you don't know what the source actually says. There seems to be a problem with conflicting claims and sources for the "first female" firefighter in the UK. There are claims and sources for Josephine Reynolds, who started training in spring 1982, and started work in summer 1983. There are sources and claims for Sue Batten starting in September 1982, but it's not clear if that date is the start of her training or of her work. There are also sources and claims for Mary Joy Langdon, who preceded both of them in 1976. You need to clarify the timelines and exactly what is being claimed. Meters (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to Rick Arrington’s Wiki[edit]

I apologize. I have added information in the past with no problems. I was not aware that I had to provide a source. Other than having been friends with Rick Arrington and his family, I got this information from his public obituary. Did not realize that I was breaking any rules. I thought Wiki wanted help with information so I got it for them. I will not add anything in the future. Please accept my apology for breaking your rules . Sincerely, Hope Anderson 2607:F280:3023:FD0:1CC5:8D70:6A8:34F3 (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to add reliably sourced material, but it must be sourced, neutrally worded, and in your own words. You cannot copy material from a copyrighted website. Meters (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed changes on emerald pages[edit]

Thank you Meters for taking the time to review the changes I have applied on the wikipedia pages. Apologies if i have inadvertently upset you or made unauthorised changes. I felt the info on emeralds are outdated, I am a passionate member of the industry and I think the public visiting Wikipedia pages will benefit from updated information. I have done my best to link the info I amended with articles already available to the general public, and linked them to the relevant articles. Please could you let me know if you could consider allowing updating the current information or explain why I shouldn't be allowed to do that? in the current version it all looks a bit one sided and outdated to me. Again, apologies for having caused trouble, I hope you see the reasons behind my changes and consider them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gems21 (talkcontribs) 16:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First please address the apparent COI and uploading of copyrighted images. Meters (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I thought that the sandbox can be used for anything, anything I want to and is somewhat of a test space. Is that not correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensedooms (talkcontribs) 17:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your talk page posts. Use ~~~~ to automatically add a signature and time stamp.
Yes it's a test space, but no, you cannot use it "for anything". As the sandbox header says: "Please DO NOT place promotional, copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content in sandboxes." It's bolded and in all capitals, and I already quoted this on your talk page.
And you also did not need to post to my unprotected talk page as my regular talk page is not protected. I clearly state at the top of both pages that User talk:Meters/unprotected should only be used when User talk:Meters is protected. Meters (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC) thread moved from unporotected talk page 22:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

You Undid My Edit[edit]

Hey, I literally attend KJHS. Why did you undo my edits? Can you please restore them? Big Black Yo Mama Balls (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your claim that the school is a special education school failed verification, and the campus field is not intended to be used as you did. Meters (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now the editor is indef'ed. Meters (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And just to confirm, Kehillah Jewish High School is is certainly not a Special education school. If anything, it is a superior school, with 100% college acceptance. Meters (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed to user:BritanicaUser but still indef'ed Meters (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undid edit[edit]

Hey, I am a faculty member at Gonzaga College High School can you please not undo my edits. I will be contacting Wikipedia if this is you do not restore soon. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthengineer093 (talkcontribs) 18:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making unsourced or promotional changes to Gonzaga College High School. And please read and follow WP:COI. Meters (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Year[edit]

Hiroshige, New Year's Eve Foxfires at the Changing Tree, Oji, 1857.jpg
Have a happy New Year filled with light and magic!

Hi Meters, Best wishes that the new year brings peace, prosperity, health and happiness.
Thank you for everything you do for the encyclopedia and this community.

Image: New Year's Eve Foxfires at the Changing Tree, Oji, Utagawa Hiroshige, woodcut, 1857

Netherzone (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you, and to you too. Meters (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!! 😊👍 Kpddg (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


If you are going to correct my spelling, please learn the doubling up rule . I do not care that you say the commonly used Canadian spelling of focussed is the way you spell it.. Obviously you commonly spell similiar to Anericans, do not follow rules , and do not spell siniliar to Australians! Knowledge1253 (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledge1253: McGarry, Ontario is a Canadian article, so it uses the most common Canadian spelling, which is "focused", per the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. It is irrelevant how Australians, or Americans, or anyone else spells it. Please leave it alone. And I suggest that you read WP:BRD. You made a change and it was reverted. You should not have made the change again without discussing it on the article's talk page.Meters (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't make assumptions about how I spell. How I spell is also irrelevant. I don't change Wikipedia articles, in any manner, to suit my preferences. I edit according to policy, guidelines, and consensus. Meters (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not bothering to read your reply. You do not even know the basic doubling up rule. Knowledge1253 (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my talk page please. Meters (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OP indef'ed. Meters (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I added кисело мляко, because the origin of yogurt is from bulgaria. not turkey Agent11 (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Agent11: What you did is change the derivation of the word. That is not necessarily the same as the origin of the food. As I said in my summary: "back to long-standing lead that follows from the Etymology section" and as I said on your talk page: 'The lead is a summary of the article, and the body of the article says that "yogurt" is from the Turkish yoğurt, not from the Bulgarian кисело мляко' Meters (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reversal on Claude Wagner page[edit]

Hi, ok I did not know this rule of no child without a wiki-page in the infobox. Is the solution to mention the other children section in the main text ? Thanks for your help, --Zibou7 (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't mention non-notable children by name at all, for privacy reasons. It is acceptable to simple state how many children the subject has, provided there are reliable sources. Meters (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Message on my talk page[edit]

I'm not a Wikipedia veteran, so I apologize if I make any mistakes in posting this message. You left a message on my talk page with a warning to stop my disruptive editing. My intentions were not to be disruptive, but to fix up the Luray High School page a bit. In doing this, I added a photo, which I attempted to remove after it was flagged. I must have accidentally marked that it was a fair use image when posting it- I deeply apologize for this. I do realize that I should have carefully read the guidelines for updating pages before doing so. I did not add an explanation for the removal of the photo because I honestly wanted to get rid of it, as it seems I claimed it was available for my use when it was not. In the future, I will include explanations for all of my edits, and as long as this message does not find my account with an editing ban, I would like to remove the photo, this time with a proper explanation. Tediting (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't upload this image as fair use, and no fair use claim of an exisitng bildign would be valid as a new, free photo could still be taken. You uploaded it as your own work, with the claim that you owned the copyright. You are not going to be blocked for one mistake, but please don't do this again. I have removed it from the article. Meters (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Andrew, Duke of York[edit]

Removed last post and collapse since the user refuses to drop this.

You think there's a risk that crackpot conspiracy theories about the British Royal Family being Illuminati reptiles will be taken seriously? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was that your talk page post was "not helpful or particularly funny". That was not an appropriate post to make. Meters (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
edit diff [9] for future reference. Meters (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a perfectly valid comment. Perhaps you "don't do irony"? You can't answer the perfectly plain question I pose here? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can answer the question. I choose not to because it is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with how inappropriate your response to the IP's edit request was. If you restore that edit I will remove it again and template you this time. And please do not post about this here again. I am not interested in discussing this with you and I will consider any further post here on this matter to be trolling. Meters (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: that post on Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites...[edit]

That editor's "false accusation" post was apparently referring to the Shubenacadie Indian Residential School, where 16 graves were found that predated the school's founding. Shearonink (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I was wondering where that came from . I didn't see it in the article and it was more than a bit difficult to believe that anyone was actually claiming 30,000, let alone 60,000. Meters (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that an IP that resolves to Slovenia is so invested in this Canadian Shearonink (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that too. More than a bit odd. Meters (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Annnnnd the IP also posted over at Talk:Canadian Indian residential school system re Kamloops about Not One Body Has Been Found. Conspiracy theorist alert... Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A curiosity that I just now noticed - when I was looking over the talk page and some of its controversies...The 109. IP-range has a persistent interest in this article and its POV/NPOV...the two 109. editors do resolve to different countries/different ISPs though. Nothing concrete but struck me as another oddity... Shearonink (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Good job! Morgan "Mogsy" Daniel (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Good job on making sure vandals don't get Wikipedia their way! Morgan "Mogsy" Daniel (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for stepping in. May I suggest that it's time to step away per WP:DFTT? The editor's first language is not English and so I suspect that some concepts are being lost in translation. As for backstory, is the edit I reverted per WP:NOTFORUM (it clearly had nothing to do with the topic). It was only a few days later that I determined, from the language used in their edits, that the editor was likely a Quebec sovereignist, not that there's anything wrong with that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I'm ignoring the last outburst in hopes that he will find something else of interest. Meters (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

¡Una barnstar para ti![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png El Barnstar original
Thank you! Niccola321 (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Look in and comment at the previous editor's Talk page, that did the original revision of the in-text note. The notes were respectfully placed, in an effort to call attention, without visible tags. I will not fight you both, but I believe you are wrong, based on a decade and a half of interactions here with other editors. I also somewhat question your both coming onto an article with major ongoing work, where you seem not to have a history of committed editing, and removing good-faith work. (It would be another matter here, had you been regularly editing and interacting here.) Please reply at the other editor's Talk page, where this discussion was already begun—and feel free to delete this here. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:2116:D61F:ECC0:1821 (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment on your talk page, and my comment on the other user's talk page. In my opinion you are wrong. Please drop this, don't do it again, and follow WP:BRD in the future. Meters (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the article before I gave it my attention. You can see the state of the article now. I strongly object to your placing the hugely disproportionate, disruptive editing template at my Talk, over the single, simple disagreement over an in-text note (in the context of days of clearly scholarly, constructive edits). This type of heavy handed disrespect is why I and colleagues frequently lose interest in editing here. I ask you to remove the template stating "disruptive" at my Talk page (for the potential misinterpretation and snow-balling that it can promote), in lieu of clear, comprehensive days-long evidence to the contrary (despite the much more minimal "BRD" violation that triggered it). Do as you will. The missed AGF opportunity seems to be a case of IP bias, and the lack of respect seems clear. 2601:246:C700:558:2116:D61F:ECC0:1821 (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "please drop this" do you not understand? And what part of WP:BRD do you not understand? I don't appreciate the attacks. This is not an AGF issue, it's not a lack of respect, and it's not IP bias, You made an edit that was challenged, and rather than following WP:BRD you restored it and chewed out the editor. I agreed completely with the other editor's removal of your editing comments. Now drop this. I do not wish to continue this on my page. Meters (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for editing the Muskogee High school page, I know you haven't touched it in a while but it should be noted. The problems you mention in the talk page are still present. I am trying to curtail it but trying to find unbiased objective information is difficult for this school. Trey Wainman (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look another look at it. Meters (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Lawson[edit]

There is a particular user that has added every notable relative they can find to Ms. Lawson's lede. This same user has done the same to others associated with her. I find it excessive (and obsessive), considering there is a page for the Gordy family, listing said relatives, already linked and available (plus her connection to beyonce is stated in early life). Can you undo it? Bianca's locked.

2600:1702:2A40:3E40:40B6:D656:8FB5:70C4 (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dedraftified Automated conveyor roller condition monitoring[edit]

Hi there, wanted to let you know I undid your draftification of Automated conveyor roller condition monitoring. This article was far too old to be draftified; it was created in 2017 and was draftified by you in 2021.[10] The consensus now and which was in place at the time you draftified [11] is that it's only appropriate to draftify new articles. If you believe it's unready for mainspace, take it to AfD or PROD it. Draftification is not appropriate for long established articles. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess:How do you figure this consensus was in effect when I draftified the article? Did you actually look at the timestamps? I moved it to draft on August 10, 2021. The policy page discussion did not close until September 13, 2021 and was not even opened until August 13, three days after I draftified it. You took an article that was legitimately moved to draft, with an explanation of why it was done so late in the game on it's talk page, and moved it back to article space after more than six months without edits, when instead it should have been deleted as an abandoned draft. Meters (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Took to AFD and deleted. Meters (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
This is for you for guiding me, You are the Original Barnstar. Thanks. Nancyalex1 (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Meters I just want to let you know that User made some edits to the Timeline Of The COVID-19 pages for the months of April 2020, July 2021, August 2021, and September 2021 and I have updated the pages for the both the months of August And September 2021 and a lot oft he writing was poorly written. S201050066 (talk) March 7 2022 11:51 am UTC.

Nomination of Audi Q9 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Audi Q9 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audi Q1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

A7V2 (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by a short-lived SPA account who had problems with sourcing and copyvio. I redirected it and have no objection to deletion at all. Will comment at AFD. Meters (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for protecting Wikipedia against vandalism. For this, I award you this barnstar. Williamwang363 (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Union Theological College[edit]

Is it still the case that listing every member of faculty is inappropriate? If so, you might want to check the flurry of edits of late by Ardenssedvirens

Sola Reformanda (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the staff list, and I'll check the other edits. There seems to be a recent influx of WP:SPAs on this article. Meters (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to be the user who has sparked this comment. I was browsing the Union Theological College page and noticed there were some inaccuracies and a load of loaded comments, so I registered with Wikipedia to make a few corrections. I noticed that a couple of users had made changes in the past few weeks and only been active on the pages for UTC and St. Mary's Twickenham: Notabigot and Curious critters. I also notice that the Sola Reformnda account appears to have been created in the past couple of hours solely to comment on these issues. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good day[edit]

Can we talk? Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to talk about? I think the warnings on your talk page are clear enough. If you don't understand why you shouldn't be making unsourced WP:POV claims such as "widely considered to be one of the greatest and most influential operating systems ever made", with fake edits summaries and minor edit flags then you probably should not be editing Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean, although I do feel saddened.

However, I do notice a ton of articles which do make such claims without a source. Examples:

Why do you think these have stayed? Should they not be removed, too?

I did not mean to offend you. I did not think I was being a vandal...

Do you not think these articles should be rephrased until a source is provided, since you insist it needs to be there? Please don't lash out. Thank you for your time. Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or here

Maybe it could be possible to reword it? Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not lashing out. I warned you for making unsourced WP:POV edits with fake edit summaries that were incorrectly marked as minor edits. It does not matter if other article have issues. If you think there are similar unsourced claims on those articles then you are at liberty to take action on those articles. It's not an excuse to for you to make the edits you did. Now please drop this. I don't want to continue this, and I'm not going to discuss this further. Meters (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of elevator related content[edit]

How is Caribbean Coast's elevator system not notable? Also, Island Resort in Hong Kong does have Destination Dispatch elevators, and Schindler indeed installed the elevators in Bel-Air, Coastal Skyline and Caribbean Coast. (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the idiosyncrasies section included other strange floor numbers besides the 3-digit ones in Hong Kong. (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't source any of what you added. And even if you had sourced your edits, many of them would not be appropriate. The Caribbean Coast simply having the tallest elevator in a particular locale does not make it a "unique installation". If it did we would have to include the tallest elevator in every city in the world. Similarly, your claim that the Island Resort has a notable installation of Destination dispatch seems like your opinion. What makes it so notable that it should b ethe only installation in the world that we mention? And your edit did not mention any idiosyncacy with the Hong Kong numbering. It simply said that there are three digit numbers. Meters (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the other unique installations and I believe there is a policy that notability doesn't depend on primary language or geographical location of area. (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with language or location. You are making unsourced edits and adding inappropriate content. If you disagree that they are inappropriate then take it up on the articles' talk pages, not here. Meters (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Indo Canadian page[edit]

According to latest census data Bengali speaker numbers are now neck in neck with Tamil speaking numbers so the change was warranted. And I think it can three or four languages I don't understand where is the permanent rule that it should be only three languages. The Bengali speaking community is becoming a major growing part of the Indo Canadian community. So I would request you to please withdraw your unedit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllahuAkbar1234567 (talkcontribs) 12:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you to source your claim, and to get consensus to change the number of languages listed. Discuss it on the article's talk page, not here. Meters (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize you went to Milwaukee Marshall[edit]

Maybe do research next time before deleting (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP edit warring to include an unsourced, BLP violating alumnus entry with no wikiarticle. Meters (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McGarry, Ontario.[edit]

Hello, it's thequebecborder. I grew up in McGarry, Ontario and my folks were around the time the robbery happened and I believe it's a great detail to have around for such a no-name town to have on it's Wikipedia page. Michael Barnes is a rural author who has published multiple books available to purchase on Amazon about towns in Northeastern Ontario like Kirkland Lake, Ontario and I believe it to be a reliable source. Books like his are available to purchase off Amazon: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thequebecborder (talkcontribs) 12:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. My main talk page is not protected. I cannot make it any clearer than I have that this page should not be used unless my main talk page is protected.
  2. Please sign your talk page posts.
  3. It's irrelevant where you or your parents are from. We don't edit based on personal experience or knowledge.
  4. This isn't the town's PR or local history page. Wikipedia isn't here so that "a no-name town" can have something on its Wikipedia page.
  5. I didn't challenge Michael Barnes's book. You did not reference it. You referenced your material to the page, which appears to have been written by Barnes. What I challenged was that you included multiple details that were not supported by the source, and at least one detail that is actually contradicted by the cited source.
  6. As I said on the article's talk page, it's improperly sourced trivia about a relatively minor incident 50 years ago. I cut it down to a short, neutral mention. If you want to include more then comment on the article's talk page and see if you can get consensus to do so. Meters (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't spam my page with ads for his book. Meters (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC) thread copied from my protected talk page [reply]

McGarry, Ontario[edit]

You have drastically reduced the amount of history and core things like events that happen in this town, including completely nuking my paragraph detailing the robbery that happened even with a reliable source, i'd like a further explanation to why you're doing this.

Thequebecborder (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the article's talk page, where I already explained this. Meters (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your supposedly reliable source does not mention most of the details you added to the article, and it actually contradicts one of them. As I said. it's improperly sourced trivia about a relatively minor incident 50 years ago. Meters (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Well sorry for my mistakes. Please forgive me. But here is one more thing. According to the planet articles, all planets have a slight flattening at their poles, except for Venus and Mercury. However, Mercury says 0.0000 while Venus says clearly 0. Now, in the sources about Mercury's flattening, the tamplate says:

Equatorial radius (km) 2440.5 Polar radius (km) 2438.3

In Venus, the page doesn't load, to me at least, maybe it has a problem and maybe it needs a fix or something, i don't know. But Anyways, acording to all dimesnions Wiki, Venus is a perfect sphere. Source:

So what i know for now is that Mercury is slightly flaettened like all the other planets and Venus is more commonly known as a perfect sphere. That's all. Bye! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Abysshark (talkcontribs) 07:10, April 22, 2022 (UTC)

As I said, your addition is full of errors and is not sourced. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. And no, you cannot use a user-generated site as a source. Meters (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank-you for your unsolicited guidance and information. Please stay off my talk page. MsMisinformation (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're banning me from your talk page for leaving you a level 1 WP:NOTAFORUM warning? Get real. Meters (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
user CU confirmed to be a sock.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knowledge1253 Meters (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abysshark and MsMisinformation[edit]

Would it seem far-fetched to suggest that both of them might be the same person? MsMisinformation seems to have used Abysshark's talkpage to apologise for stuff that Abysshark did. They couldn't have had any sort of issues with each other, as there are only two pages that both have edited, this page, and User talk:Abysshark. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your SPI report that this is the McGarry, Ontario sock (thanks for opening it), but I'm not convinced about Abysshark. The edit to the user's talk is certainly very suspicious, but Ms is more than a bit WP:CIR and may just have been hounding my edits. I'm surprised and disappointed that an abusive sockpuppet has been accepted for mentoring. Meters (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Refused mentoring, returned to article, indeff'ed. Meters (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sumter County School District (Georgia)[edit]

With respect, Sumter County School District (Georgia) is in Georgia, as the name notes. The high school you are linking to is located in Alabama, and is part of an entirely different school district; see Sumter County School District (Alabama). I am undoing your linking as it is pointing to the wrong school. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Don't know how I didn't notice that. Meters (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image was not inappropriate[edit]

Wikipedia is not a Pg-Rated outlet dude... Smfh LikkleBwoy (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The image cannot be used for copyright reasons. ... discospinster talk 23:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on your talk page We cannot use fair use images of album covers in articles about the artist. See WP:NFC#UUI Meters (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then i got'chu LikkleBwoy (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'ed NOTHERE Meters (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hacksmith[edit]

Hi Meters - you removed James Hobson from List of people from Ontario, on the basis that the reference I found doesn't mention his birthplace. That's true, but the article makes it clear that he's lived in Kitchener for years, and apparently still does. To me, that qualifies him for the "from Ontario" list. Please reconsider your edit. Regards, PKT(alk) 12:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my apologies. Restored. Meters (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my edit of Black Hills?[edit]

How was my edit anything but acceptable?

The person that reverted my edit, all they do is get into fights with others.

They don't try to communicate.

Since you've decided to review that, please don't bother commenting on my edits on any unrelated pages such as "oil sands", thanks in advance. (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss the article content on the article's talk page. Don't attack other editors. Don't use article talk pages as a forum. Meters (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean about the Black Hills‎ edit. I have nothing to do with that page, and I certainly didn't "decide to review it". Even if I had looked at that page, it would be irrelevant as to whether I continued to work on Oil sands. Meters (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]