User talk:Meters

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

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

So, (1) you want to write an article about your own band, and (2) to do so you have to invent a new musical subgenre, and (3) you then have to explain the new subgenre in the article about your band?

1. No. Don't write an article about your own band. See WP:COI. If it's notable per WP:BAND let someone else who does not have a conflict of interest write the article. If it's not a notable band then you should read the essay WP:GARAGEBAND.
2. No. Don't invent a new musical subgenre. This is something that should go through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force. I doubt very much that there would be any WP:reliable sources to support such a new subgenre, particularly since it seems to be something you have invented to describe your own musical style.
3. No. Do not describe a new musical genre in a band article. It should be described in an article about the genre itself. And you should not write that article (see answer 2).

And please stop asking me to reply immediately to your posts on my talk page. If it's on my talk page I've seen it. How quickly I reply, or if I reply at all is up to me. After our last discussions about your edits to Blue Cheer ([1] [2] [3]) and the postings on your talk page I'm not willing to get into another long discussion with you. I've answered your questions as clearly as I can, so please don't reply. Meters (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Residential School "Survivors" vs. "Alumni"

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

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

I don't understand your question. Schools have alumni. I already pointed you to WP:WPSCH/AG. As I said in the edit summary and on your talk page, the normal header for school articles is "Notable alumni". "Notable survivors" is not neutral. Don't keep doing this. Meters (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought the accepted term was "survivors." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system where "survivors" appears to be used throughout. Perhaps I am missing something here? Saskg (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, see WP:WPSCH/AG. Wikipedia school articles call all former students who attended (even for one day) "alumni". Changing that to "Survivors" is decidedly non-neutral. See WP:POV. The term wasn't even in use at the time, and you are assuming that every attendee at one of these schools should be labeled a survivor. This would prevent us from listing notable residential school students who did not survive, Chanie Wenjack for example. The majority of readers would have no idea what the header meant. If you want more opinions on this I will raise the issue with the schools project so other editors can comment. Meters (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit page Media bias in the United States

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

Page

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

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

Another Cat Creek

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

The edit is undone and the editor is indeffed. I think you must have edit conflicted with the undo. Meters (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Or it could have been that you used an interfaces that won't log a vandalism revert when there is no change. I've seen this before but I've never bothered to find out which interface does log such reverts.Meters (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

South Farnham schoolh

Hello

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

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

Jon Kedrowski

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

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

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

By the way, it looks like you have been using multiple accounts on this article. Meters (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Jon Kedrowski

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

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Good timing. I was just reading the latest edits to that article. It's a mess. The subject of the article seems to have offended the mountaineering community. We have a long term SPA (4 years) cleaning the article, and a host of throwaway accounts (possibly some meats or even socks?) slinging mud. The SPA has been accused of being the subject of the article but as far as I can see no-one has ever even asked the COI question. I guess I will drop a note on the SPA's page to start. I think a protection request to deal with all of throwaway accounts would be in order for now since there are some BLP issues. Meters (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

COI notice now on user's talk page and temp semi requested. I see that the article was created by the SPA User:Sandraz27 , and then edited by the SPA User:Jkedrowski who disappeared after being given a COI warning. Two days later the article was put up for deletion and the SPA User:ChrisJones25 was created to edit the article and the AFD. So, it appears that ChrisJones25 is that same user and thus has already been warned about COI. I'll wait for a response before deciding about a COI board. Meters (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

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

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

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

That's something I've wondered about for a while now as I've explored Wikipedia and noticed lots of "confessions" from supposedly honest and upstanding Wikipedia editors to other accounts/usernames they've used in the past. I guess the public "confession" must be the difference, because I've yet to see a confession to "sockpuppetry". I find myself wondering how so many former and supposedly reformed sockpuppets get into the sockpuppet investigation thing and how many of their "long-term investigations" are into their own undisclosed "alternate accounts". I also wonder how many legitimately unaware and "innocent" editors have been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia as a result of sockpuppetry they didn't know wasn't "legal" in the first place. After all, who doesn't have multiple email accounts and other "identities" on the internet where its all fine an dandy only to come to Wikipedia, begin editing, be quickly pounded upon by the fearless, dedicated and upstanding "model editors" who have time to do everything but actually HELP someone new and end up hounded and harassed to the point of using another account. I'm also intrigued by the number of holders of "alternate accounts" who claim to have never used or not recently used their confessed "alternate accounts" and wonder how many others they created and saved for a "rainy day". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.60 (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Many of your questions are answered at WP:SOCK. There are legitimate reasons for having alternate active accounts or for having had other accounts. This is not considered socking. And sometimes people who have socked for illegitimate reasons are allowed back.

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

A pie for you!

Thank you for your support on the noticeboards and tireless anti-vandalism work! Going above and beyond... Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 20:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The username report was an accidental duplication. I didn't see your earlier report. Meters (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You got the wrong person "Meters"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning Mary Nolan

I suggest you read and respond *appropriately* to my reply on "my" page - per your suggestion - if you do not want it posted in it's entirety here. I strongly suggest you do not attempt to send me any more of your ridiculous little "warnings", complete with dumb icons, when I only cited facts already stated as fact ON WIKIPEDIA. There is no need to site my own sources when something has already been sourced on Wikipedia. Maybe you should have read the article, especially pertaining to Mannix, before attacking me for simply defending a victim of domestic violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talk • contribs) 10:45, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

If Wikipedia is, according to you, "not a reliable source", why don't you apply your obsession with rules elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

If you don't understand why edit summaries with accusations such as "a sleazy attempt by Louis Kessman to extort 'favors' from Nolan" [5], "The bastard who beat her within an inch of her life clearly behind this" [6] and "neary killed her and should have spent the rest of his life in prison"[7] are unacceptable, or why simply stating that something is "well documented" (repeatedly) is not acceptable sourcing [8] then you probably should not be editing Wikipedia.

I've had enough of your ranting. Stay off my talk page. If you want to discuss the edits take it to the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Reported to AN3. John from Idegon (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely edit warring, but I think we're in ANI country here now. I'm going to be offline until late tomorrow so I'll have to hold any comments until then (assuming they are still needed). Meters (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Back now, but no need to comment for now since

1. The IP is now responding on the article's talk page.
2. Other editors have addressed the sourcing, synthesis, and editor commentary in the article.
3. The IP is currently blocked. Meters (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Saint John's Catholic Prep (Maryland)

Meters,

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

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

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

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

SPI

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

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

James had been offline for the weekend and he did recall and took care of it. Thanks for the constructive criticism. It's appreciated. John from Idegon (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

user:DWAG 1422 AM

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

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

The Mosquito sound file

collapse since I don't want this continued

[[:File:Vandalised glass cage.jpg|300px|thumb|A glass cage vandalised with spray paint at a private railway history museum in Münster-Gremmendorf, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany]] Hi Meters, You have several times, on the prompting of a sock puppet, deleted a sound file demonstrating 17.4 kHz. Since you and the sockpuppet (the latter already blocked several times) are the only ones who are deleting the file, I would be grateful for your explanation before we move to the mediation stage. 1. As far as I am aware, there is no Wikipedia requirement to provide a literature reference for an image or for a sound file. See for example this image of vandalism in the Wikipedia article for vandalism. There is no literature cited to support the claim that it is a vandalised glass cage in a railway museum. Because it is obvious to the reader that it is a vandalised glass cage (it is less obvious that it is part of a railway museum). Likewise it is obvious to a pair of listeners (one older and one younger) that the sound file is inaudible to the older listener. If you start deleting all such obvious but unreferenced images and files from Wikipedia you will have a long job. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources. 2. Even if, for the sake of argument, you are justifiably unhappy that the file caption is unsourced or not adequately sourced, then you should change the caption, but not delete the innocent file. Unless there is a consensus that the file is not needed. I look forward to your response. 86.170.122.175 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Please take this to the article's talkpage where the discussion is. I've already explained my reasoning there , and I've already said that I don't object to the sound file. There's a big difference between a picture of a spraypainted bus stop and a claim that an audio file cannot be heard by persons above a certain age. If a caption makes a claim such as that, then it very much needs to be reliably sourced. Captions are not free from the requirement that claims must be verifiable. And in the future please do not clutter my talk page with images. I'm removing it. If you want to me to look at an image then link to it.Meters (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC) I'm not aware that an IP has previously removed this disputed claim from The Mosquito . I got to this article after removing the sound file from several article where it clearly did not belong, whether the claim was sourced or not. This article is different since I don't object to the sound file being left in the article, just the unsourced claim. I certainly have not been asked by anyone to look at this. You seem to be saying that I am acting as a meatpuppet for a blocked IP. I consider that a personal attack. Please either make your accusation at SPI, or remove the unfounded accusation. Meters (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your rapid answer. So we disagree on referencing procedure, but it seems you do agree that the sound file itself is not a problem. That being so, I would be grateful if you could restore the sound file. I could do it myself, but by now you will have animated the sock puppet, and it took us weeks to get him blocked (he keeps changing names). If you restore the file then that would stop him from muddying the waters by appealing to your precedent. Presbycusis is a serious matter as you age, and many readers would be grateful for an excellent article on the subject.86.170.122.175 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Don't refactor my comments. I already asked you once to take this to the article's talk page. This is a content issue. The discussion belongs on the article's talk page, and as I have already said, there is already a discussion there. The sound file is already in the article, so there is not point asking me to restore it. It was in the article when you made your last edit to it so you must already know that. Don't try to make points by making bogus requests. My mention of the socking issue is in direct response to your statement "You have several times, on the prompting of a sock puppet, ..." That is a direct accusation of meatpuppetry. Take me to SPI or remove the accusation. And stay off my talk page please. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion here. Meters (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC) I am not familiar with the term "meatpuppet", but do not trouble yourself explaining, it does not sound relevant here. And I am referring to the deleted sound file in the Presbycusis article. I would be grateful if you could restore it there. This is a personal request, with my stated aim to send a signal to the sockpuppet, hence I am requesting this on your personal Talk page, not on the Presbycusis Talk page. You are free to refuse, but your help against the long history of vandalism by the sockpuppet would be greatly appreciated. 86.170.122.175 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC) What part of Remove the personal attack where you accuse me of sockpuppetry, content issues belong on the article talk page, and stay off my talk page so you not understand? I see no evidence of anyone having removed this material from Presbycusis before. It was added in the edit immediately prior to my removal. If you think it belongs in the article then take it to the article talk page. Meters (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User User_talk:Prototypehumanoid

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

East Spring Secondary School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pensacola Christian College Article

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

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

Proof

finished thread moved from unprotected talk page

http://www.hollywood.com/general/producer-jane-rosenthal-divorcing-59851662/ http://www.marketwatch.com/story/steven-a-cohen-among-the-million-dollar-donors-to-trump-inauguration-2017-04-19 https://www.bna.com/gop-super-pacs-n73014451059/ Jane rosenthal child wrote a series of children's books https://www.amazon.com/Isabella-Hatkoff/e/B001H6GE56/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_book_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 04:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC) So? Writing a kid's book doesn't make you notable. And "getting divorced" does not mean already divorced. And even once divorced it does not mean that a person should be eliminated form the article. And don't make retroactive changes. If someone was married when something happened that you are describing, you don't change the text to say "ex-spouse" or whatever just because they are not married now. Meters (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC) If Isabella Hatkoff is notable then WP:WRITETHEARTICLEFIRST and then go ahead and mention her by name in her mother's article, but don't identify a picture of a minor child by name otherwise. Meters (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC) The child in the picture is no longer a minor that photo is a decade old and that children's book sold a million copies http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Paula_Kahumbu Please learn to sign your talk page posts, and to indent them. And, as I said above, if someone is notable then write the article first. We generally don't mention any non-notable family members by name even if not minors. And why are you linking to a non-reliable source about someone called "Paula Kahumbu"? The source is not reliable since it is a user-generated site. See WP:RS. And I don't see what it has to do with the edits we are discussing. The children were Juliana Hatkoff and Bella Hatkoff. Meters (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC) I saw a page full of fake and verifiable information can you please look at it the Washington free beacon is not considered a real paper . Michael Recanati Flamingoflorida (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC) That article has nothign to do with the Hatkoff articles we are discussing. Meters (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC) I know can you please help with that article it contains personal information that is at best partly true I need help with it Flamingoflorida (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC) I don't know what you are trying to do, but I've done. A completely unreliable source on an unrelated subject, and now another unrelated subject? I'm not involved in that article at all. If there are problems with it then discuss it on that article's talk page. That's the first thing to do. Don't try to get random uninvolved editors to look at it. Please don't post anything else. I'm done with this thread. Meters (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi?

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

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

IP at Talk:Sacred geometry

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

@Doug Weller: Thanks. It smelled sockish, but I didn't know who. I will next time. Meters (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No objection from me if the thread is collapsed or even deleted. Meters (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Apokryltaros

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

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

And by the way, notice you have an dopeleger account User:Metres. Perhaps you might like to indefinitly block it so that no one can hack into it. In any case, cheers. 2600:1:F184:3FBA:1D5E:E6EC:4B47:1622 (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

One has to wonder why you are bringing this here. Meters is not an admin. John from Idegon (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other editor the IP contacted about this (User:Prhartcom) but I'm not interested in being canvased to pursue this. If an IP with zero prior edits goes back 2 years so he can point his finger at what was an obvious mistaken revert by someone who was in the midst of fighting ongoing vandalism, it seems fairly clear to me that the IP is indeed out to attack or harm User:Apokryltaros.

We all make mistakes. The "poop rat" revert was an obvious mistake, and one that was removed in the next edit to the article. When I make a mistake like that I fix it, or apologize to and thank whoever fixed it and or pointed it out to me. If I mistakenly warned someone I remove it and apologize. But that's me. Editors are allowed to remove whatever they like (with very limited exceptions) from their talk pages, and I don't blame Apokryltaros at all for deleting a long article quote about poop rats from his page.

As for speaking to him about this, that's what the talk page posts were. He's presumably aware that the community didn't agree with his latest actions, and if he followed up on the help desk thread then he's well aware. I just happened to be the one who posted to his page. There's no need for anything else. I don't recognize the account. If you think there is long-term pattern then ANI is the place to go, but you would need far more evidence to go on. I doubt it's there and I'm not interested in looking.

Why would I have my own doppelgänger account blocked? It's never going to be used, by me or anyone else. That's the point of a doppelgänger. Meters (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Marsha Johnson page

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

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

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

You are not a little over the line. You are lucky you have not already been blocked. Having looked at your history I find days' worth of personal attacks. I have bumped your warning to an imminent warning. One more incident of "vandal" "cockroach" "mean spirited" " transphobic pathologizing" or the like and I will report you. My WP:AGF is done.

See WP:DISPUTE for how to deal with disputes. Meters (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Edit war issue

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

Not a very useful or appropriate response in my opinion. IP hopping removal of material and addition of unsourced POV and the response is to threaten blocks on all of the various named accounts who have been undoing the edits, asking for sources, warning the IPs and trying to discuss things on the talk page? Making the edit once is good faith, making the same edit more than 10 times, mostly with fake edit summaries calling it a typo is not good faith editing by the IP. And that does not even consider the multiple times the IP has made the same edit to other articles. Meters (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, there were many problems with the IPs edits and behavior (it could have been WP:CIR not intentional vandalism). Tornado chaser (talk)

Update, a different admin agreed with me and reverted the POV edits. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Meters (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Correction of my earlier statement, there seems to be an ongoing debate among admins, one admin did revert bet there is not consensus. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ballarat Grammar School Song

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

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

Question

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

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

User:AlexanderOfTunis

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

@C.Fred: Definitely an SPA, and quite possibly a COI. It wouldn't hurt to ask the question. Meters (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Still at it, so I left a COI notice, pointed to EW, and started a discussion on one of the articles talk pages.Meters (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The two images they uploaded of the LA commendations that they claimed as their own work? I've nominated them for deletion at Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at some of the other articles and I'm seeing lots of very questionable external links. Meters (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Waldorf School of Baltimore

Your most recent edit had an edit description talking about non-notable students, but no students were mentioned in what was deleted by you. May have been an edit conflict since I edited that section just before you and deleted some of it. Thanx for looking at the article as well. Was feeling a little bit lonely with the COI editor.Naraht (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup. we edit conflcted and I already undid myself. I have no idea why the edit conflict ended up removing text that I hadn't touched. Meters (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

July

Davis resigned as the Guantanamo prosecutor on October 6, 2007, hours after William Haynes was made his superior officer. He said that he was not going to take orders from "the guy who said waterboarding is A-okay". He was ordered by his superiors to silence his criticisms.

You're telling me this is good information? That is what we should have in the Khadr article? a) it's not. b) if it is add only it back instead of reverting my edit and putting back other irrelevant information, that's misuse of the revert function. c) I have made dozens of edits to the article the past few days, being that I left one action out of my edit summary is not grounds for accusing me of blanking. d) Don't accuse me of sneaky vandalism, you're supposed to assume good faith, I don't understand how removing the above paragraph would push forward anyone's agenda. e) if you think my behavior is improper report me to someone, please. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

References

As I said on your talk page, hidign edits such as those under an unrelated edit summary smacks of sneaky vandalism. If you want to remove the info about Khadr's dress then feel free to remove it. Take the rest of it to the talkpage per WP:BRD Meters (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Get over yourself

I added that information back (like you should have) instead of reverting (which you did improperly). Please just report me to the sneaky vandalism or edit-warring noticeboard, you are currently cluttering my talk page. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I din't revert you, I undid you, with an explanation, and I told you that you were welcome to remove just the part about the clothing. Thank you for restoring the information about the prosecutor, but I see you still have not restored the contested information about the attorney. Either restore it or discuss it on the talk page as I requested. And don't make comments about other editors in your edit summaries. Meters (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that I have started a discussion of El Cid's behaviour at WP:AN3. Newimpartial (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Neurologic Music Therapy

@Meters: Can we move the discussion at User talk:Kyurim1 to here? I expect we are in agreement that COI editors routinely cause problems.

We have a user, Kyurim1, who is editing Neurologic Music Therapy and states that they are doing so "on behalf of the Academy of Neurologic Music Therapy". There are wiki-procedural problems with their edits. Among those problems, I do not immediately identify any promotion, and at a glance they seem like subject matter experts who out of professionalism want to develop the Wikipedia article in their field.

You say that this user should comply with WP:COI, WP:DISCLOSE, WP:PAID, WP:SPAM. When there is an identified problem with promotionalism, I would agree. In this case, I do not see any of those things. Because I see no COI or promotion, I say that there is no reason to ask this user to comply with COI process. Are you seeing promotion here? Is it your position that even without promotion, this user should follow COI process? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There is clearly a PAID COI issue here, and yes there are promotional aspects to some of the edits, as I have already explained on the user's page. If you disagree then we can take this to the COI board. I've already explained why I think the user needs to follow these guidelines and given examples of some of the problematic edits. This is exactly why we ask COI editors to discuss their proposed edits on the talk page rather than making the edits directly. I'm not going to go go through the whole thing again. If you disagree with my analysis then please make some specific points. Frankly, I can't understand how anyone can possibly look at this and have no COi or promotion concerns. As I said, Statements such as "For more information regarding Neurologic Music Therapy (NMT) or training in NMT, please visit: https://nmtacademy.co/" are definitely promotional andEdits such as "As an NMT, make sure you clearly understand the role rhythm has in changing brain function. Keep this paramount in your mind as you treat your clients." are not appropriate. I can pull lots of other questionable material out but if you don't see the problem with these edits and the either issues I raised there does not seem to be much point to it.

It appears that the editor is rewriting the article to to be about his particular group's approach to Neurologic Music Therapy. As I said on his page, unless they are the only group in the world working in this area, that is not appropriate. Meters (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

And when I mentioned WP:COI, WP:DISCLOSE, WP:PAID, WP:SPAM, WP:RS and WP:COPYVIO on the user's page, that was in the context of some of the policies that other users had already pointed the editor to before they made their edits. Meters (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the "please visit: https://nmtacademy.co/" is inappropriate.

I am not arguing with you, and I see no need for a mediator from COIN. I am just asking because I did not understand.

They made at least one foray into promotionalism so I suppose the rules come down on them. Still, they added an unusually large amount of text which seemed like general academic content to me, and if I had to guess, I would say that fewer than 1 in 10,000 paid editors ever cite an academic article related to their field but unrelated to a business. This seems like an unusual case to me. I read your words to be a harsher than I thought they ought to be considering that I perceived this user as here for reasons other than to sell a product or service. I am wrong about that, and as you said, they linked to their training. Thanks for talking this through. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I came down harshly on them. I was clear that it appeared to be good faith editing by someone who was trying to follow the rules but simply didn't understand how to do so, and either had not read or simply did not understand the links other editors had already provided. I was the one who happened to undo the edit so I added my comments. Your telling an editor with a stated conflict of interest who wanted to edit on behalf of his institute to be bold and go ahead and edit was a mistake on your part. Meters (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I do regularly tell organizations to have their staff edit Wikipedia. Here is a list of when I and other around me have done that. I recognize that most wiki editors say that institutional partnerships are off limits. It is a tense situation. I apologize for my mistake, but at the same time, I admit that I intend to continue to seek expert contributors to post to Wikipedia. I regret the conflict and am sympathetic to the counterproductive nature of the situation. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You should not. There is a very significant difference between having knowledgeable people edit in their areas of technical expertise and WP:PAID WP:COI editing. If you don't see it you should not be advising anyone. Meters (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Allegation that proposed deletion of Gurmukh (yoga teacher) is inappropriate

I find your statement laughable.

You first of all claim Sikhism isn't relevant to the discussion, but it is very relevant. It is plastered all over the individual's wikipedia page, suggesting they are using the faith as a way to promote their Yoga (hindu practice).

If it wasn't relevant, then why is this person's purported faith prominently mentioned all over their page? Why not just stick to yoga discussions and the famous clients without mentioning the embarrassing name of her child and the embarrassing last name she chose to adopt as a way to distinguish herself?

Secondly, you state that none of the reasons are valid, yet you're alleging that being on yogainternational.com somehow establishes notability. It does not. As I stated on the deletion page, others have been deleted for much less than what is proposed.

You are free to dig up an arsenal of yoga teacher links, but that in no way establishes this person has done enough to be notable. Not even with an arm full of links that I know you're likely harvesting right now, plus a 2009 vanity fair article, are enough to establish notability. All they do is suggest this person is a yoga teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.249.64 (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You clearly don't know how to make a valid argument for deletion. Whether the information needs to be in the article is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. So is whether her hid's name is offensive or silly. I'm not interested in your personal attacks. Stay off my page. Meters (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons VP discussion

Hi Meters. Just thought you might want to look at c:COM:VP/C#Possible attack files since the files seem to have been created/uploaded with you in mind. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Appreciated. Meters (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Meters. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih^Talk 05:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. Thanks. Meters (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

i had no idea you didnt have this flag, or I would have invited you {{NPR invite}}. See you around. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 13:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Robert McClenon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Boastup, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No need to leave this if you are just adding another criteria to the one I listed. Meters (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Geez, I take the afternoon off to go swimming with my munchkin and all hell breaks loose. Thanks to you (and Arxiloxos) for the reverts. I left him a level 4im warning for harassment with some extra copy. In case you didn't catch on, this traces back to The Woody Show, which as a recent editor there, you should be advised is at AfD. Glad to see your participation at NPP and AfC. The old refrain regarding RfA still applies. John from Idegon (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that one was far beyond WP:AGF territory. Meters (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Henry Miller

I have no COI with this person. I've met him a few times but am not a friend, family, etc. I am not receiving compensation, I'm not an employee of any entity related to him. Please restore my edits or I'll do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfulbright (talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You previously told me that you that you knew him personally and were editing the article because he had discussed his concerns with the article with you. That is a definite COI. Read WP:COI. We have had at least one previous discussion about your COI. If you restore those edits without first discussing them on the talk page I will tag the article with a COI template and raise this issue on the COI notice board for discussion. Meters (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, please review the additions I made and point out any that you consider not to be valid and cited additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfulbright (talk • contribs) 20:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page posts. I have already explained some of my concerns on your talk page. I'm not going to discuss them here also. Please take the discussion of article content to the article talk page where it belongs and where other editors can see it and give their opinions. That is the correct thing to do with contested edits per WP:BRD even without the COI issue. Meters (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You've alleged this COI in the past. I refuted it last time, and my edits stayed. Just because I know someone doesn't means there is a conflict of interest.

I posted a number of valid, cited articles and op-eds. You deleted those with no basis. I shouldn't have to go to a discussion page to ask you to restore valid cited references.

If you have specific concerns, such as your allegation of "whitewashing", then make a specific edit on that sentence rather than undo all my additions and edits.

I'm not a Wikipedia expert. Most people aren't. If only Wikipedia experts contributed, it wouldn't be Wikipedia, it would be a low-traffic back alley. Please stop throwing minor things like not signing talk page posts. 2602:306:CD54:2950:34B2:405A:B997:50A (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC) (sig moved to end of post)

If you don't want me to ask you to sign your posts on my talk page then either sign your posts on my talk page, or don't post here. And the signature goes at the end of your post not the beginning (I didn't notice at first that you signed this, or made this post from your IP rather than your named account). Again, I've already explained my specific concerns with some of your edits on your talk page. And as I said in my edit summary, and above, please discuss the edits on the article's talk page. As for the COI, you know him personally well enough to refer to his wife by her first name, and you started editing this article after you met with him and he expressed concerns to you over the article content. That's a COI in my books, but if you want to claim that you do not have a COI we can take this to the COI noticeboard for discussion by other editors. You don't have to work with him to have a conflict of interest, and having a conflict of interest does not mean that none of your edits will end up in the article. It just means that you should not edit the article without first discussing the edits on the talk page. Meters (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:72.198.49.108

Actually this IP user is harassing the editor in his talk page, that's why we both editors warned him for his behavior. We both want that you revoke house talk page access until his block expiration so that he cannot be able to harass. Their Thankyou. SahabAliwadia 18:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your edits are inappropriate, as I explained on your talk page. He's already blocked for 3 months. He is allowed to remove warnings. Don't add new warnings and son't restore anything he removes. Meters (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

My question still has not been answered. Will 72.198.49.109 get blocked from editing his talk page as well? Thank you. TheNewSMG (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Meters is not an administrator. He cannot answer the question you are asking. Best bet is to contact the blocking administrator. However if all they are doing is reverting your postings (which are useless anyway. He's blocked and is not allowed to reply. He cannot edit, so they are not warnings, so that begs the question, whose harassing who?), you're not going to get any traction. Best to drop the STICK. John from Idegon (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. I can't remove the IP's talk page access, I wouldn't if I could, and I doubt that any admin will block talk page access based on what has happened so far. Maybe if it keeps up. Just leave the IP alone, TheNewSMG. You might also want to read WP:GRAVEDANCING and Do not feed the trolls Meters (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

And TheNewSMG now indeffed for socking. Meters (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Meters, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Your censoring

My name is Larry Dove and I am Pauls eldest grandson. I have facts of what I went through with him while he was alive and with you censoring my voice on falsified information on this site i will report his site to whoever i need to. Just because someone wants to erite a book and call is true doesnt mean it is. I was there I know the man for truth Debdove (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and report this to anyone you wish. People have tried to explain this to you before. If you continue to remove sourced material and replace if with completely unsourced accusations of homosexuality and sexual abuse you will be warned again and likely blocked again. Meters (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

And please don't use your family member's Wikipedia account. The user behind this account has already identified herself as the wife of the grandson of Paul Salomon [14]. Wikipedia accounts are for individuals only. Meters (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Debdove: If you think the sources used in the article are not accurate then please take this issue up at the reliable sources board WP:RS/N. Meters (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes she is my wife, her name is Debbie, my name is Larry as I said I am Paul's eldest grandson.

Its the point your site is fake.

I lived through it and cannot write a BOOK about what i went through due to his widow blocking me from doing so.

But she lets people write lies about him and you allow it because it's in a book.

If you refuse to allow me or my wife to post the truth to these lies on your site about my grandfather then just take his down as it is almost all fictional. His wife was into future tellers not him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debdove (talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't use your wife's account again or it will be blocked as a shared account. Create your own account.

I've already told you what to do if you want to challenge the reliability of the sources currently used in the article. We're not going to to change the article based simply on your say so. For one thing, we don't know that what you are claiming is correct, or even that you are who you say you are. Wikipedia often has editors falsely claiming to be people who they are not in an attempt to convince other editors to allow changes. Meters (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Debdove: Sharing an account with another person is explicitly forbidden under Wikipedia's username policy.

Wikipedia is not a battleground and is not the place for you to right great wrongs. Per Wikipedia's policy on No original research, if what you claim has never been published in a reliable third-party source, then it cannot exist on Wikipedia. According to the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth:

Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.

You've been told to take up disputes with sources to the reliable sources noticeboard. If you make any further edits to this article in the name of your crusade for truth, it will be considered disruptive editing and further action will ensue. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Giles Scanlon

I don't see how that was an attack page. They will occasionally give "humerous" Oscar awards for silly or negative reasons, and thy do give silly awards for other "worst" things. The only thing questionable is the hoax claim about being married to Ben Carson. Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The admins who have deleted the article twice disagree with you. If you don't recognize that as an attack page perhaps you should not review new pages. Meters (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Gosh where to begin with this one. It's a schoolkid talking about their mate. Giveaway: "[He] plays Floss in ... The Dumping Ground".[15] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I was mistaken about the first deletion. It was not as an attack page and I can't see the content. The latest version was unsourced, contained an apparently bogus claim that the person was in the show (not listed in the list of actors in the wikiarticle for the show), some insulting bogus awards, and a claim of homosexuality. That's a hoax and an attack in my books. My apologies for the overly harsh response to Pillowfluffyhead though. Meters (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

East St. Louis

You know, that looks like one of those pages someone made to show off their skills at mark up. We've both seen school pages where there is a table for everything. The ESL list doesn't seem long enough to even bother with a forked separate list. I'm contemplating merging in back to the settlement article. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklins' Junto is the equivalent of a Mastermind today.

long thread, most of which should have been on article talk page

Hello, I have noticed that you have reverted my edit about Franklin's Junto. I see zero issue with it. Could it possibly be located in an inappropriate spot, yes? But, the information is factual and I had about 3-4 citations for my claims. All reliable, and it's even stated in Think & Grow Rich. I believe it is beneficial to have my edit on the page. If you agree too, do you think it should be it's own 'paragraph'/sentence, so it doesn't collude with anything else? Thank you Meters! Aviartm (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Firstly, it's obvious nonsense; "today's standards" could not have been set in a 1937 book. Secondly, it did not have about 3-4 citations. It had one citation, to a "strategic marketing consultant" who produces the usual reams of bafflegab - no indication that she is a RS. Hill's book was influential and important; that doesn't make people who spout marketese while trying to ride on Hill's coattails into authorities on any subject. Thirdly, it's basically trivia. Every effective group of people in existence could be made to fit descriptions of effective groups of people from any number of self-improvement manuals; it would not improve Wikipedia to junk up their pages with all these spurious classifications. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC) First of all, today's standards can be set at any point in history. If said topic/wording is still used and very prevalent today, just as a Mastermind, it is still by "today's standards". No other word has been coined to describe such a group. Bad point. Secondly, it had 3 citations. According to Napoleon Hill, Junto is classified as a Mastermind group.(1) (2) (3) Thirdly, I classified Junto as such because it is a prime example within the business world and people who are enticed by masterminds and what they have to offer. Aviartm (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC) It had one citation. Here you are adding it to Junto (club) with that one citation. Here you are adding it to Benjamin Franklin with that one citation. The word "mastermind" (or the expression "master mind") does not appear in Waldstreicher, there is no mention of Hill's classification on p. 30 where the Junto first appears, "Napoleon" only appears in the book twice - to refer to Napoleon Bonaparte. This is because this citation, and Lemay 2005, were already on Benjamin Franklin when you inserted this nonsense; they don't support it. You have no citations either for the 1937 book having set "today's standards", or that it's a "prime example", or that "people who are enticed by masterminds" are somehow an authority, etc. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Aviartm, what you are doing by repeatedly restoring edits that have been removed on multiple pages is edit warring. You have been told more than once to discuss your content on the articles' talkpages. You have been told more than once to stop marking these edits as minor. They were not minor the first times, and they certainly were not minor when you restored them again. If you want to discuss the content of the edits then open discussions on the articles' talk pages so other interested editors can participate. Meters (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC) References I had 3 citations and I listed them for you. I did not have one here and over there. I had a complete total of 3. Why are you disclaiming this? You can go back to the original edit. Including, Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Dictionary.com, and Cambridge all have definitions for 'mastermind'. It's a real word. Then again, if I cannot prove it. How can you? A book or a piece of art does not have to state "this will become today's standards". I never claimed that a mastermind will entice people, but it has and can. And Junto is a prime example. Definition of Mastermind: plan and direct. Then again, usually, dictionaries publish a broad definition to words. But with the definition of Mastermind by Hill: The coordination of knowledge and effort of two or more people, who work toward a definite purpose, in the spirit of harmony. Aviartm (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC) You did not have 3 citations; that is simply not true. I have listed diffs of both edits where you introduced this junk and in each case one citation is added. The other two citations on Benjamin Franklin were there already and have no relevance to this nonsense. That "mastermind" is a real word is not in dispute and not remotely pertinent. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC) You are belittling clear cut evidence. Very moronic. I have showed you my exact original edit from the page. Very quite sad that you cannot believe my works and results!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviartm (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC) No, you haven't. I have shown you the exact diff; it is not my fault you can't read it. The two other citations were there beforehand and have no relationship at all to this nonsense you have added. Please also remember WP:CIVILITY; it is not appropriate to refer to other users as "moronic" (and it makes you look silly when you're in the wrong yourself). Once more: Here is the page before you turned up. The Waldstreicher and Lemay citations are already there. They contain nothing supporting this material about Hill. Here is your edit, adding one citation. Please follow these links and endeavour to comprehend what you are seeing. You had one citation, not three. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Meters, I have restored Junto/Benjamin Franklin once. Only once. And that is why I am here discussing the matters with you two, because you two are the most conflicted with it. Aviartm (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC) You have been told multiple times, by multiple editors, concerning edits to multiple articles to discuss your edits on the articles' talk pages. And yet you keep restoring edits without discussing them. In this case you made virtually the identical edit 4 times, it just happened to be on two different but related articles. So yes I call that edit warring. And you are still incorrectly marking your edits as minor. Please take this to the article's talk page and stop discussing it on my talk page. Meters (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC) References

United Firefighters Union of Australia

Hi - not sure if I am doing this right: I see my additional citations etc have been deleted again: I assume this is edit-warring. I am unsure how to proceed. My information is correct and validated so why is it being removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethicschecker (talk • contribs) 06:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You are at SPI and ANI. The article is now fully protected because of the edit warring. None of you can edit the article now. I have not touched the article, I have explicitly said that I will not comment on the content of the article until the ANI is finished. I have not looked at the content, have no opinion on which version is correct or better, and because it is fully protected I cannot edit the article either. Discuss the issue on the article's talk page. If you cannot reach a concensus then see WP:DR. Meters (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Why was I blocked when I was the only one attempting to discuss the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSWFire (talk • contribs) 23:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Sign your talk page posts.
2. You are fortunate not to be blocked, but your are not blocked or you would not have been able to post this to my page.
3. If you had been blocked it would not have been by me as I am not an admin, so why are you asking me? Meters (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Steve Lyons

Hello I am writing content about the youtuber Steve Lyons and other youtube celebrities. The subject has articles and videos discussing his life. I have received references about his life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Losangelesnews (talk • contribs) 21:29, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean "you have received references"? It appears o me that you have taken over a DAB page with a promotional article about a non-notable person. Meters (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Enright

I am contesting the speedy deletion nomination for my page Enright Ridge Urban Ecovillage. Okay, so to get around this I should 1) Create a non-promotional username as myself and 2) Since, I am a temporary intern and I am getting paid to create this wikipedia page for them I should follow the process as outlined in WP:PAY. Will this help me to be able to publish this page? This page is not meant to be a promotional or marketing page, simply an educational and awareness piece to compliment the existing web pages that are set up within this small non-profit organization. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERUEV (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Your user name is somewhat problematic as it is the initials of your group, and you are clearly a paid editor. Changing your username and following WP:PAY will not address the issue of the possible lack of notability of the subject. You need to find reliable, independent sources that discuss Enright Ridge Urban Eco-village. It's unusual enough that I'm sure they exist (and a very quick search has already found several acceptable sources) so I'll remove the prod. Please propose your edit son the article's talk page rather than making them yourself. Meters (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ohm update

Hello I am a member of development team and my updates to OHm coin continue to get rejected. Please advise what is triggered the automatic deletion of the development of these edits OssianMills (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi OssianMills, I think I can help. Your edits to OHM (cryptocurrency) are unambiguously promotional. We're trying to create a factual, neutral encyclopedia here, not a billboard for advertising your company. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

now indeffed for spamming. Meters (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The SPI you opened

Thanks for catching those edits and for opening that SPI on those accounts. I'm messaging you to let you konw that I've responded to the SPI and closed it. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

no probs. Meters (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that I've ever had that quick an SPI response, by the way. Meters (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Barnstable High School

2602:306:CFC1:630:E84F:43A8:C079:559B (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC) i hope i am doing this right. What can I do to prove I went to the highschool I went to? Very new to this process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cfc1:630:e84f:43a8:c079:559b (talk • contribs) 06:09, September 19, 2017 (UTC)

See WP:RS, and the issue isn't whether you went to the school so much as that you are attempting to add yourself as a notable alumnus without any evidence that you are notable (or attended). Normally alumni are not added to alumni lists unless they already have a wikipediua article (see WP:ALUMNI). Meters (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit War

Yes. I am in an edit war. I added a section and am being persecuted because of it for no good reason. Please verify that the offending party has also received a warning. Also, the same person has followed me into another dialogue and is persecuting me there as well. If I alone have received this warning, then please explain. What is meant to be gained by starting edit wars with me? What is that supposed to accomplish? Ostensibly I am supposed to settle disputes in talk. In practice, the people in question will tend to talk at me for a bit pointing to rules associated with wiki that may or may not be pertinent ultimately pronouncing judgement (unfailingly negative) concerning my edit. So at this point, because you are next in line, it is for you to tell me what wikipedia is. You do not have urls to back you up as the supposed 5 pillars are a subject that none of my detractors are willing to talk about. If you really believe wiki is what it says, then there is a tremendous amount to be discussed concerning the behavior of those towards me within the last two days. Is this something you are capable of? If not, then who is? Audeamus42 (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC) 09/24/17, 2:25