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 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!

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your user page, which took me a lot longer to get than I care to admit. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Content Deleted

I posted various information tonight which was deleted. The information is original to describe the High School in which I am the principal of. How do I cite this which was asked for in the deletion notice? Crestwood High School (Iowa)‎ Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfelderman (talk • contribs) 06:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to source the material. I was telling you that it had been removed because it was a copyright violation. It was a verbatim copy of a school brochure. If you personally own the copyright (or are the agent for the material) and wish to grant Wikipedia (and everyone else)the right to use it (including the right to modify it and use it commercially), then please follow the instructions on you talk page before restoring the material again. Wikipedia cannot host the material until you do so. Note that granting Wikipedia the right to use the material does not mean that Wikipedia will use the material. As I already pointed out in at least one of the edit summaries, some of the material you posted is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia since it is not of interest to anyone but members of the school community. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines to see what a school article should include. Meters (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, since I am an agent of the material (I DEVELOPED THE MATERIAL IN ITS ENTIRITY) and I copy the following statement into the page, I will not be violating copyright? The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Tfelderman (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not know who you are or that you have the right to grant us permission to use the material. That's why you must follow the correct procedure to verify to Wikipedia that you have the right to grant us permission to use the material. Anyone can claim to own the copyright. Read the link and follow the procedure. And as I said on your talk page, even that still will not give you the right to copy material from the other websites, unless you are also claiming that you wrote all of that material too. Meters (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ian Norman

I notice you've removed the picture. I do have permission from Ian Norman to publish this picture. How can I prove this to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abjer (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary and on your talk page, I didn't remove the picture from the article. I removed your attempt to display a picture which had already been deleted from Wikipedia. You never provided the required permissions and so the file was deleted. Wikipedia no longer has a copy of the picture anywhere. I don't upload images so I'm not the best person to ask. Try WP:UPIMAGE. It seems that you are discussing a copyrighted image which you did not take (not your own work). It will also not be possible to use the image as fair use since it is possible to create another photo. Did Ian Norman take it himself? It seems unlikely, so the copyright would be held by the photographer, unless he has assigned it elsewhere. Whoever owns the copyright has to explicitly grant Wikipedia and anyone lese the right to use the image freely (including the right to modify it and even use it commercially). Meters (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Lexington High School (Massachusetts) ULtimate frisbee

I don't really care about this other than you are creating an issue where there really need not be one. We are varsity status. I am sorry the AD hasn't updated the page. I have no control over that. I assure you the team has varsity status. If you really want everything sourced, there's plenty of stuff on the page that isn't. I don't know who you are, I don't know what your connection to LHS is, but you're actively hurting our ability to publicize our varsity status. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrljdavid (talk • contribs) 03:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm new to this. That said, I simply want the truth out about my team. Quite frankly, I find your rationale really selective. Looking at that page, there's lots of stuff that is unsourced, but you keep up on this small issue. I will add sources where I can, and I would suggest you leave it as is, and when the school AD office does the change, then nobody has to do anything else, since it's now "correct" on the wikipage. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrljdavid (talk • contribs) 03:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. See WP:VERIFY. I attempted to verify the information, but the school athletic webpage does not list that sport. Your addition was challenged, so you should have responded on the talk page rather than continuing to add it. See WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR. I have tagged the material as disputed and started the discussion on the talk page. If you do not provide a WP:RS it will likely soon be removed again by someone. It does not matter who I am, or what is or is not included elsewhere in this article or in other articles. We have no way of knowing if you really are the coach, so we have no way of knowing whether we should believe you or not. It also appears that you have used more than one account to make this edit today. If that is the case I suggest that you read WP:SOCK and consider yourself fortunate not to be blocked for violating WP:3RR. Meters (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you undo the edit eliminating the state championship and combining footnotes 35 and 36? Those are two different tournaments and two different accolades. Sources were provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrljdavid (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no point in asking me to make a change and then making it yourself two minutes later. Undoing my edit without an edit summary is the same as calling my edit vandalism, which it obviously wasn't. I thought there were redundant entries for the same championship. Now that I understand what the entries are for I have removed the lower level tournament result. See WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS. Meters (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would request you add the other one back. Winning the state championship is not a "lower level tournament". One is not a requisite for the other. In fact, Northeasterns, is before States. Please list both. They are both exceedingly significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrljdavid (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the link. We only list the highest accomplishment. If Northeastern is higher than State, then State gets removed.

Meters (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

But they aren't linked. Northeasterns is a single tournament, an invitational. You don't qualify. Being chosen and winning is huge. northeasterns is not connected to states in any way. One doesn't qualify one for the other. Both are massive victories. Both should be included. You can't take away one or the other since neither is a "lower level tournament". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrljdavid (talk • contribs) 17:37, January 23, 2015‎

Did you read the link? Major extra curricular championships will be defined as the highest possible championship a team can win from that activity's organizing committee. If the Northeastern is just one tournament, it probably shouldn't be listed at all. Take it to the article's talk page for further discussion. Since you have a conflict of interest you should not make any edits to the article yourself without first proposing them on the talk page. And please learn to indent and sign your talk page posts. Meters (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

But I did read it from the link: "National championships, when referenced, may also be listed." THE USAU does not have a national championship, but they do have four subnational, regional championships. Since they are separate entities, they should both be listed. Why is this such a big deal to you? And since you asked, I will put it on the talk page.Mrljdavid (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Give me an email and I will send you a picture of my varsity certificate. This would be a primary source and would be all the proof wikipedia needs. Please stop creating false content. You are lying. As you said it isn't your fault the AD won't update the website and it isn't ours either. It is people like you who are preventing the sport from receiving the respect that it and its players deserve. Oh yeah, please stop with the threats, I'm furthering the truth. Bjoeqrnseung (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said on both the article's talk page and your talk page, your school's own webpage calls it a club sport. You've had almost two months to provide a reliable source that it is instead a varsity sport and have not provided one. If you Athletic Director refuses to call ultimate Frisbee a varsity sport there's nothing I can do. I really don't care if you give me a copy of a varsity certificate. It's not a publicly published source and I can't verify that it is real. Read WP:Verify. For the third time, the article can be changed when and if your school decides to call ultimate frisbee a varsity sport rather than a club sport. Calling me a liar for following Wikipedia's procedures is a personal attack. Calling my warnings threats is a personal attack. Please remove those comments and then stay off my talk page. Meters (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Northwood highschool

I have been making some changes to the northwood high school page and they have been taken down and they have been correct information as I am a close supporter of the school so please stop taking them down Thisisnotahoax1 (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of the edits were reverted as obvious vandalism, while others were taken down as unsourced or for BLP issues. And please pick one of your three accounts and stick with it. Switching between three accounts is not allowed (and looks highly suspicious when some of your edits are obvious crap. Meters (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

When you mix real edits with garbage don't be surprised when it all gets removed. That looks like an attempt to hide vandalism among real edits, which is a form of sneaky vandalism. Meters (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

MEGA (service)

We have a new account name that doesn't violate the name guidelines. We'd like to update Wikipedia and undo your changes to the MEGA (service) page.

AklMeditor1 (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing your name does not remove your conflict of interest in attempting to edit your own company's article. Please read WP:CONFLICT. You should declare your conflict of interest, and propose changes on the article's talk page rather than making them yourself. We welcome improvements to the article, but consensus by Wikipedia editors following Wikipedia's policies will decide what should or should not be in the article. Meters (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and appreciate the time taken with your explanation. I'll use the talk page.

I would appreciate when you have the time that we can discuss the reverts.

AklMeditor1 (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's on my watch list so I'll see anything that shows up. Thanks for following the correct procedures. Meters (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

AVG (software)

Hi there,

I am looking to make page updates to AVG's website and product pages, but my changes are being reverted. Can you help me understand why this is being done?

JasDhaliwal (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Jas Dhaliwal

I have not undone you for more than 4 months. My edit summaries then were unexplained del of sourced material and Take it to the talk page per WP:BRD. That meant I did not understand why you were removing the material and I wanted you to explain the deletion on the article's talk page, as I also said on your talk page. Since then you undone by User:Neil916, again for unexplained deletions. Now you've been undone by Cluebot and User:Onel5969, likely because you are again making deletions (even larger this time) without providing any reasons. We don't understand why you are removing the material, and want you to justify your edits. If you continue to remove sourced material without providing a valid explanation you may end up being blocked. Meters (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup. What Meters said. You edited a page without explanation, and in some cases changing to incorrect information (e.g. changing Czechoslovakia to Czech Republic, which was not in existence at that time). Regardless, when you make such wholesale changes, you really should offer an explanation. Especially when you are deleting cited material. Onel5969 (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

BPS and Serb1914

Hello, Serb1914 is waging a covert informational war with the aim to systematically demonize Bosniak and glorify Serb political party and agenda. He is obviously biased and has been waging these wars for months already, yet nobody sanctioned him (in fact, he got his pages protected by a corrupt admin). I ask two things of you: 1. Protect BPS and unprotect SDS and SNSD pages, 2. Investigate and sanction Serb1914, Thank you. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I warned you for a personal attack on Serb1914, and you reply by calling admin User:EdJohnston corrupt for protecting Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Alliance of Independent Social Democrats from edit warring? Not a great idea.

Page protection and unprotection requests go to WP:RFPP. Warnings go on the user's talk page, vandalism reports go to WP:AIV and other reports to WP:ANI. Meters (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh really? Can you tell me why it is a bad idea calling an admin corrupt? Do you think you are untouchable? In an objective environment, EVERYONE can and should be subject to criticism, no matter who they are. I explained my reasons. Serb1914 is waging an edit war and commiting vandalism, and he obviously has a "friend in high places" (else we wouldn't be having this problem). I simply ask you to be objective and investigate him (and his allies). The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

And now you've been warned again for personal attacks. Criticism of editors' actions is allowed. Calling editors "mentally ill" and "corrupt" because of their actions is not. Meters (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and as far as I know I've never edited the articles you are concerned with, so please take this somewhere else. I've already given you the appropriate venues, but don't take that as a suggestion that I think there is any merit taking these issues there. I have no comment on that. Meters (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

|

threads by now-blocked sock Sisterwendy
hiding these bogus barnstars
A barnstar for you! The Barnstar of Diligence Thank you, Meters, for your message. It is very helpful. Prior to receiving your note, I tried to submit a Talk or message for help, but got an internal error message? What should I do? sisterwendy Sisterwendy (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC) I'm not seeing any posts by you on your talk page or on Talk:Ari Lehman ‎. Where were you? Meters (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Barnstar of Diligence Thank you again for your comments, while strong. The reference to unlicensed at first glance appeared to connote a negative aspect. I'm not sure what vandalism means, but will be happy to review. Thanks for guiding me to the sandbox. I didn't know about this and will practice here. I just discovered the italics button and am excited about it. Thanks again. sisterwendy Sisterwendy (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Dear Meters, How is it sneaky and false if a subject was involved in a project (book, documentary) and reliable source citation added. Would you be able to guide me to the manual area, so that I can better understand? Thank you, sisterwendy Sisterwendy (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC) {edit conflict}What are you talking about? You removed some (partially) cited material [1] here. Yes the issue of whether the material was licensed is not properly cited, but your edit summary of Under Biography,I included Ari Lehman's involvement with the book Crystal Lake Memories, the documentary His Name Was Jason, DeRosa's trivia book; under film career, his appearance in Bravo TV's 2004 100 Scariest Movie Moments was complete garbage. I've already told you and the other editor that you need ot discuss these edits on the talk page. Continuing the edit war by hiding the reverts behind bogus edit summaries is not going ot work. Discuss it or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC) And please stop leaving barnstars. Just leave a message. Meters (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

IMDB

IMDB isn't a reliable source? Ok, then how about we remove all of the statements on Lehman's page that's cited by IMDB? Consider this the second time I'm calling you out on hypocrisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE1D:9720:AC7F:15FB:F82D:870B (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please, go right ahead and remove them. I didn't add them. And this can hardly be the second time you've called me out for anything since this is the first time you've ever posted here. Meters (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have any doubts about whether IMDB is a reliable source, read WP:USERGENERATED Meters (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Visa requirements for East Timorese citizens thank you for letting me know

I will do it in the way you describe in the future. I have no plans to do anything like that in the near future but now I know. Also, no worries because that article has little history and one major user to edited it. But now I know.Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a worry because the new article you created now shows that you contributed all of the article, rather than the user who actually it. Meters (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

And now I've undone the redirect and asked for the new article to be deleted because the original name is actually the standard form. Meters (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the current name is wrong and smacks of Americans think they know best. The country's name is Timor Leste. However, Wikipedia has fully of bullies (not you but the general culture) so I will let it go. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Wowee Zowee public, there's no need to let it go, just do it properly. You did several things incorrectly:

1. The cut and paste move lost the edit history. A proper move would have maintained it.
2. Changing the format of the title from the standard "Visa requirements for X citizens" to "Visa requirements for citizens of X"
3. Changing the name of the country without consensus.
4. Changing the name of a county on just one article about the country (the main article is East Timor not Timor Leste)

I didn't undo it because of the change of the country's name (I didn't even notice it). I undid it because of 1. and 2. If you think the name of the country needs to be corrected then please bring the subject up on the county article's talk page Talk:East Timor to ensure that there is consensus for the change, and so that all of the country's articles can be moved at the same time. The possibility of a name change has been discussed before and so far there has been no consensus to change the title (most recently at Talk:East Timor#Move Request) Maybe it's time for another round of discussion. Meters (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Lehman

This is not a fan fiction website. Why are Ari's random music studies posted, but nothing else? If there's something shady about the guy that he publically does, it should be up there. His personal website can supply all the fanboy literature he wants, but not on Wikipedia. Take everything "irrelevant" off then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:ce1d:9720:ac7f:15fb:f82d:870b (talk • contribs) 23:24, February 1, 2015‎

Please take this to Talk:Ari Lehman where it belongs, and where other editors can comment. I didn't write any of the material on that page, and I've already started a discussion about the commercial website. Feel free to start a discussion about anything else ‎ you have concerns with. And please sign your talk page edits. Meters (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

lets discuss

Hello meters I saw your message but I think you should not make rude comments when you said obvios crap your point was right but please dont make rude comments it seemed inappropriate so thats why I removed it I am saying this in a nice way. If you think I should not of removed your comment we can definetly discuss more Thanks! Ranabhai (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes crap is just crap. You've deleted it three times, and I am not interested in discussing it with you. Please stay off my page. Feel free to take it to the appropriate venue if you think it is such a big deal. Of course, someone might then ask you how a new user who has never interacted with me happened to find my talk page and became interested inone of the 5 edits a socking vandalism account ever made. I suspect that you are a user who has been trolling my page recently, so I will delete anything else you add to my page. Meters (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

blocked. see [2] Meters (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Meters. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:CambridgeBayWeather Thanks. It's hilarious. Let's see how many how many ways...

1. He took me to ANI without letting me know.
2. He took me to ANI rather than 3RR to complain about edit warring.
3. He took me to ANI for edit warring 10 minutes after leaving a warning, when I had made no edits.
4. He's complaining about me removing his comments from my talk page.
5. In my last response to him [3] I explicitly stated that I would delete rather than respond to any further edits from him on my talk page. I also left this message on his talk page [4].
6. He agreed to stay off my talk page [5] Meters (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

They really seem to have a problem with understanding. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Would have already responded on the ANI page but had some connectivity trouble. Meters (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And User:Ranabhai is now blocked as a "trolling sock". Meters (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Waynesville High School (Ohio)

I am the Superintendent of schools; the information you edited was accurate and updates information about our school. Why not ask me about it before deleting it? Can it be put back or did I just waste time. Pd0708 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Follow the instructions on your talk page if you have the right to grant Wikipedia permission to use the material. We cannot host it until you do so. Even if you do this, some of the material is simple not appropriate for Wikipedia. Almost nothing you added can be used as written, and much of it not at all. The Mission statement and the eight pillars of excellence are promotional. Terms such as "active and main employer" are unsourced puffery. The general information should go in an infobox not as prose. I suggest that you read WP:WPSCH/AG and Template:Infobox school for a start. I'll come back to the article later and set up the infobox myself if you don't. Meters (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And since you are employed by the school system you have a conflict of interest in writing about the schools. Please read WP:COI. Meters (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The Fallout of 1956

I nomintated the page for AfD to prevent further edit warring, obviously this page needs to be deleted, the AfD will help it stick. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was about to do the same. Meters (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

snow speedy deleted as hoax Meters (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Mughal–Rajput War (1558–78)

After some research, there was no Mughal-Rajput war lasting from 1558-1578. There were however multiple campaigns by Akbar, which are also mentioned in the Akbar the Great article and are heavily sourced.
1561-1568 Akbar subjugates Rajput kingdoms to the Mughal Empire
1572-1573 Akbar campaign against Gujurat, re-annexed to the Empire
1576 Akbar campaign against Bengal, final annexation to the Empire
1581-1593 Gujuart insurrection, final annexation to the Empire
1592 Akbar conquest and annexation of Sind
1594 Annexation of Kandahar
1595 Unsuccessful campaign against Ahmadnagar, led by Prince Murad
1599 Campaign against Ahmadnagar, captures city, fails to establish Mughal rule
1601 Annexation of Khandesh
As such, since there are no sources stating a 20 yr war between Mughal and Rajputs, I suggest we start a discussion to delete that article. The current "source" for the article is a badly copied version which, does not mention a 20 year war and is hardly legible.[6] Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansas Bear (talk • contribs) 02:14, February 18, 2015‎

Nice work, User:Kansas Bear. Since the campaigns are already covered and there's no reliable source that uses the specific term I would gladly support such an AFD. Maybe this will get the sockfarm off my back. Meters (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we should probably leave a redirect from this title to the Akbar article. Meters (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

AVG

I saw your edits on the talk page of the AVG (software) article regarding the blanking of the controversy section from September of last year. The user, User:JasDhaliwal, appears to work for AVG's PR department, that's why he's blanking it. He did the same on the AVG Technologies page. --Padenton (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Padenton. I'll add that article to my watchlist. I see I've already discussed the issue with that editor here User talk:Meters#AVG (software) . If you believe the editor is who you say he is (and thus has an undisclosed COI) you should raise the issue at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard rather than WP:OUTING him in an edit summary. Meters (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that's where the noticeboard was. Was looking for that. I'll post him there if I see him do it again. Yeah, I didn't notice that policy until after I submitted my edit, so, oh well. For the future, I will do that though. --Padenton (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for him too. He's had more than enough warnings about these edits. Meters (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sedona Sky Academy#Sedona Sky Academy - Copper Canyon Academy

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sedona Sky Academy#Sedona Sky Academy - Copper Canyon Academy. Thanks. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

comment made Meters (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Please see here --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

article deleted Meters (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

French Armed Forces

Actually, it is what the cited source says. Sorry to revert your warning of Mother Gota, but I already warned them once unfairly for reverting the removal of the paragraph. General Ization ^Talk 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

[Later] Yes, I see your correction and have restored the sourced text with corrections. General Ization ^Talk 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, we're talking on each other's pages at the same time. No biggie. Meters (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Eesean Bolden Page Error Fro Elliot John Gleave's Page

Yes, I am learning how to do this. I haven't done it before and I was using this page as a source template because of the set up. I apologize for the inconvenience it caused you. I wasn't even sure how to communicate here because I am that new to this. If you could remove the page completely so I can begin a new page for this person's bio it would be appreciated. I have my sources and information that have no ties to Elliot John Gleave. Thanks.Peridotwiki (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)peridotwiki

no probs. I've been bitten by that "accidentally recreated a new copy of an article that was just deleted" timing problem myself. I've put it up for speeedy. If you want ot comment on the article's talk page to confirm that it is an error that would help. Meters (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You actually did create the first version of the article. OK, so the speedy G6 is still correct, just not quite for the reason I thought. Meters (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I did something wrong when entering that source code and changed the page name. Still not quite understanding what I did. I will be more cautious about it. Do you have any good sources you would recommend to learn on youtube to see examples of page creation so I can prevent this error? Thanks for being cool about it. Also, I have sent the confirmation of the error to speedy. Peridotwiki (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)peridotwiki

Time for me to sign off. I'm confusing you with the other editor involved. Sorry. It seems the article was indeed accidentally recreated by the other user. Makes for a mess. You were trying to get rid of an article that was no longer showing up as your creation. Got it. I've removed the last warning from your page (even though I didn't leave it) since it was not warranted now that we've figured this out. Blanking the article would have been a perfectly valid request to delete it if it had still shown up as your creation. I would suggest starting off with WP:Help. There's info on jus tabout everything in there if you can find it. Meters (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, try signing up at Wikipedia:Training. Meters (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

changing east fork road edits

why do you keep changing my east fork road edits I'm only putting up factual legal info on prospecting all my links are legitimate and definitions from gov websites I find this appauling sincerely zephdronZephdron (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Zephdron (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary "undo rant that has little to do with the article's subject, restore the refs, etc" Sorry that you are appalled, but your edit had virtually nothing to do with the subject East Fork Road, Wikipedia is not the place for an anti-government rant, and you removed sourced material and its refs.. I don't know what you mean by 'keep changing" since you have only made the one set of edits and I have only undone once. Or have you been editing under another account? Meters (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Gordon Graydon Memorial Secondary School

Man you don't even go to that school... I actually go to that school and I know the traditions... We ACTUALLY nicknamed it that lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanoburste (talk • contribs) 07:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to start making constructive edits at any time. You're on your final warning. Meters (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

East Fork Road

Hi,

I got your message, I do not have multiple accounts and this was my first attempt to edit this page. The sourced information is out dated. How do I get it updated? SidewaysSherry (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if you are not using multiple accounts or coordinating your edits with other users. It's rather suspicious when mere minutes after a new user is undone and warned another new account is created and makes a similar edit to the same article. I might be more inclined to believe you if the article in question (East Fork Road) had seen more than just a handful of content edits in the last 10 years. Meters (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That edit looks good, thanks. I've got a lot of photographs of the East Fork Road, I will be adding one, perhaps along Oaks Picnic Area, however I need to sort through what I have for one which does not contain cars. Damotclese (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you -- East Fork Road

Thank you for keeping up the East Fork Road page, as the National Monument continues to take hold and more and more homeless are evicted and more and more illegal miners and illegal ground fire people are arrested and hauled out, we might see an up-tick in vandalism and ideology-based updates to not only that page but a number of Angeles National Forest-related pages. Damotclese (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

SFHS

Hi, I got your message. I know I've vandalized before, but I legitimately researched the edit from last time, so I thought it was okay since I had sources and all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock4Prez (talk • contribs) 17:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That's why I called it sneaky vandalism. Making a clear vandalism edit here and following it minutes later with seemingly real edits to the same article just looks like an attempt to hide the vandalism. Your following edits seemed real, and I did not undo them as vandalism but as improperly sourced. I suggested in the edit summary that Huffington Post and a blog were not reliable sources and that you should use better sources. I might have gone looking for better sources myself, but as I said on your talk page, I'm not going to bother looking for reliable sources for an edit made by someone who just finished vandalizing the same page. Meters (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank You!!!

I don't know how or why you heed edit the page for Sofia rosinsky. But thank yoy! TraintoOruruoo (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No probs. Even if she does not qualify for an article yet it seems clear that she will eventually. Meters (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Amber Lynn

Meter, while I can appreciate wanting to paraphrase i believe that was way more than necessary - Mighty'sMom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty'sMom (talk • contribs) 02:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. User:Diannaa's paraphrase was very appropriate. It was concise but still covered everything that was in the original quote, and removed the POV statement "Her passion for helping others has remained important to Lynn." Meters (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There's simply no need to include that quote. Meters (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Francis Albert Eley Crew

Crew is described as the father of modern animal genetics in multiple sources including ODNB. I see at least a dozen references to his name on Wikipedia and 100s if not 1000s on Google so describing him as a non-entity is clearly wide of the mark. He is one of the few Britons to have been both a Fellow of the Royal Society of London AND the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Even without a Wikipedia article (which should appear on Monday) he is clearly an eminent person in British science and of more notoriety than most already on the King Edward list and certainly the most notable person from Tipton by a long mark... but fine.. just make more work. An article on Crew is clearly long overdue.--Stephencdickson (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Frankly I am stunned that you have not heard of him --Stephencdickson (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Stephencdickson Write the article first. I did not call him a non-entity and I never said I had never heard of him. As I clearly said, I was making no comment on whether he was notable. I was simply pointing out that he could not be added to lists of notable alumni and residents without a Wikiarticle or sources to show establish his notability and connection to the school and town.

I suggest that you read WP:PERSONAL. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Your comment about me is uncalled for and verges on a personal attack. It simply inflames what should be polite discussion about a very minor issue. I could just as well respond that I am stunned that you comprehension of English is so poor that you misunderstood my explanation, "I made no claims as to his notability or lack thereof. I simple point out that he cannot be included in list of notable people without having proof in Wikipedia of his notability. It's not up to me or anyone else to prove the notability of someone you are attempting to add to a list of notables." Meters (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

My comment was simply meant to imply that Crew is very well known as you had implied he was a non-entity in your deletions from Tipton and his school. As I had referenced the additions deletions seemed unwarranted whether or not he had an article as Crew is a well known figure in his field--Stephencdickson (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't imply anything. I stated in both edit summaries "no wikilink or sources to show notability." What you chose to infer is not my problem. I'm not going to waste time further discussing this minor issues with someone who apparently doesn't know the difference between implication and inference. Please drop this. Meters (talk)

Rockets

I don't agree, but sure have it your way... It is always better to have a direct link to the article. It's not like the reader can see what the pipe says; they both say rockets on the page.Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not always better to have a direct link. The guideline I pointed you to WP:NOTBROKEN clearly states several cases in which redirects are better. This case is not one of the listed cases since I am piping the name of the redirect, but I still think it worthwhile. The reader may not be able to see the difference, but anyone editing the page can see it. It's less confusing to have Rockets piped to "Rockets (wafer candy)" than to "Smarties (wafer candy)". It makes it obvious that it's the correct target rather than a vandalism attempt to create a false pipe. Meters (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Touché, I see where you're coming from about an editor being misled. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Last thing

It's a bit unfair Meters that the page has been frozen for me but the edits I made not accepted. Please have a look at this page- I am only standing for a cause. What's going on on this page isnt fair or right. Heavily biased information is what this is about. I urge u to get involved. Thanks. Lauren55 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra was protected temporarily because of the edit war, as an alternative to you being blocked. The admins are being lenient with you because you are a new user. Consider yourself lucky, because you could easily have been blocked. You are making contentious edits to an article that is under discretionary sanctions. I would suggest that you read the links provided on your talk page about edit warring. attacks, and discretionary sanctions. And add WP:3RR and WP:NPOV. Meters (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Paul Tracy

I'm not sure why you deleted "the thrill from West Hill". It took my 5 seconds to find this. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I was just about to put it back in with a ref. Meters (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Help me to learn why the information was removed from the article called Colorado

The information that i aded was deleted why?i am new to this and want to get better so that i don't cause any more trouble that you have to delete Today is what maters (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Today is what maters Your edit said "The average year in Colorado contains 300 sunny days." As I said in my edit summary, your edit was unsourced and probably an overgeneralization. You didn't provide a source for that statment, and I didn't believe it was accurate. Statements in Wikipedia need to be verifiable. That means we need to be able to verify that the information comes from a reliable source. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS.

There are more than 100,000 square miles in Colorado, and 10 or 11,000 feet of elevation variation. I assumed that with 100s of miles of land from plains to mountains your statement was an overgenaralization at best, and more likely incorrect and I was right. It turns out you were repeating what is basically a Public Relations mantra. See http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu/questions.php. According to the Colorado Climate Center, a more accurate description would be an average of 115 sunny days, 130 partly cloudy and 120 cloudy days per year, but even that varies with location. Meters (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed help

That is great help. now all that i want to ask you about is, how do i ad to the conversation that above, under the headline.Today is what maters (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Click the "edit" button bedise the topic rather than starting a new topic. Meters (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that you mean the link that says "(edit source )" Today is what maters (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were asking how to add comments to an existing talk page thread? For that, at least on my interface, the button is labelled "edit". Maybe it's different on other interfaces. Meters (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

that is what i was talking about, and that is strange. thank you again for all the help.Today is what maters (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In the mobile configuration it is very easy to figure out, thanks again for your help. i wuold like it if you would tell me how users find my talk page Today is what maters (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

I'm really disappointed with you. If you had take a look, it was the longstanding lede. Feel free to discuss on the article's talk page. I was part of the AfD and I understand the concerns raised there. The problem is, you don't know the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And you unilaterally changed the lede, and you ignored everything that was stated in the AFD. If the inclusion criteria had not been set back to what they had been I believe the article would have been deleted. Continuing to change the lede back to the one that created the need for the AFD is disruptive. Feel free to take this to the talk page if you like.

See your talk page, the article's talk page [7], and the article's AFD [8] Meters (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually restored a version of the lede that existed for several years. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what version of the lede you restored. After all, I am the one who investigated the entire history of the article for the AFD, so as to present the changes to the lede. You reverted to a version of the lede that you unilaterally decided would be a good idea years ago. It completely changed the inclusion criteria for the list and has created problems ever since. There was, and is, no consensus that your desired version of the inclusion criteria is correct, and the AFD shows that your desired version is invalid and would likely lead to the article being deleted. It's time to drop it and mcve on. Please keep any further discussion of this issue on the article's take page where other users may see it. Meters (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus for a minority view?

Hello, You reverted my last edit that changed a statement claiming that all researchers in the relevant fields were in agreement, which is not true on a factual level. A simple google search reveals not all researchers agree on this topic, instantly invalidating the statement of universal acceptance for old earth/local-only flood views. I did not add the young earth/global flood views, but simply edited the statement to reflect that differing opinions on the possibility of such an occurrence do exist in these fields, from credible sources -- a factual statement.

In your revert edit, you requested a consensus on my edit in the talk section. The difficulty in your revert is that while a majority of authorities in the field believe in a particular view on the topic, there is a large minority that support an entirely different model. The two are mutually exclusive. So, how then, can one get a majority consensus for a minority view? You present me with an impossibility.

Finally, I had incorrectly marked my edit as "minor" -- my mistake. It was reverted before I even had time to fix the notation. Is there no other way to fix the "minor edit" mark than to add double spaces and save with the edit description? Thank you, -RTLDan

Please take this discussion to the article's talk page Talk:Flood_myth where everyone who is interested can see it and participate, as I suggested. There's no point in splitting it up over multiple talk pages. Meters (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Proof that McKinley High School in Lima, OH is real

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinley_High_School — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.52.40 (talk • contribs) 00:52, January 7, 2016‎

Did you even look at what was at that link? That's a disambiguation page with nothing about a high school in Lima. I said that I would remove the warning if you could provide a reliable source. Don't waste my time. Meters (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Cedarcrest High School

Ray Labate is the new principal of Cedarcrest High School, which can be verified on the Cedercrest High School page. Lavarias has retired. I simply wish to update the article and am not vandalizing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fig28awsome44 (talk • contribs) 22:50, January 8, 2016‎

I already checked the school website here, and it still shows the original principal's name. Meters (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And your edit here was clearly vandalism. If it's a real edit then source it and don't mix it with garbage.Meters (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Badminton at the 1978 Commonwealth Games

I should have completed the Mixed Team event information before deleting the table. I will do that now and then delete the table. The table will then not be useful because all of the information is contained within the new page. Please also note the table does not actually accurately reflect the medalists from the Gold Medal match and Bronze Medal Matches.Racingmanager (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Racingmanager If the table needs fixing then do so, but don't delete it without first getting consensus. I see no valid reason to remove the summary table from the main article 1978 Commonwealth Games . The detailed article Badminton at the 1978 Commonwealth Games has additional info we don't need in the games article, but we still need the summary. Meters (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hip hop

My friend vandalized hip hop. Please do not block me from editing. I can prove this because for the reason he says "I'm in special Ed." And I wouldn't write that. TheMasterLlama (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You sure you want to claim that? That would mean your account is compromised, and should immediately be blocked. If, on the other hand, you admit that you made a few vandalism edits but you don't make any more tehn your account is OK. Meters (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

And indeff'ed. Meters (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Being asked to cite a correct translation of my native language (welsh).

RE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window#Etymology

The Webster 1828 reference is questionable validity. I offered it a 'possibility' of being correct in my edit ,which is reasonable if in some odd context such as a historic American bastardisation it might be. Though this is not appropriately referred to I should emphasise.

I do not believe a reference is appropriate. Drzebedeezee (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

DrzebedeezeeYou added it to the line that was referenced as coming from the 1828 Websters, but it is not in that source. If you have a WP:RS that suggests your proposed etymology then please add it. Don't add teh suggestion if it is just something that you think makes sense. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say about subject, not editors' opinions. Meters (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Amid your efforts in making Wikipedia a better place, I would like to thank you for your cooperation. The question is to how to prevent this from reoccuring? This user have created multiple accounts. Over 30-40 from what I have seen. Is there's a way to perhaps prevent it? and How to I report a sockpoppet user in the future if it ever happened again? Could you provide me with simplified instructions. That would be so helpful, Thanks again.

Regards, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are reported at WP:SPI. There are detailed instructions on how to make a report (click on "Show" next to "How to open an investigation"), but it's more involved than a simple vandalism report at WP:AIV. You'll need to provide clear evidence to support your claim of sockpuppetry, usually in the form of Diffs of identical or nearly identical edits by the sock and the master or other known socks. See WP:D&L for the simple guide to using diffs. Meters (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe the accounts you are interested are socks of User:Sprayitchyo . Since there is already an SPI for this account (called the master for "sock master") all you would not open a new SPI for additional socks, but just add them to existing sock investigation for Sprayitchyo. The same rules apply for evidence, but new socks on an existing case are often acted on quite quickly. Meters (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Caloy Loyzaga

Thread removed. Already discussed on editor's talk page, already started thread on article's talk page, already pointed out that I don't want this discussed here too.

Jason Graves

Just a heads up, Graves has returned to edit his own article, and for some reason the COI tag had to be re-added by me. I also went ahead and made various guideline edits to the page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93:Yup, that was the user named Jason Graves removing tags again. It's been two months... maybe he thought we would miss it. I pointed out the potential issues (COI vs use of someone else's real name, and COPVIO) then but got no response. I see two ways to handle this:

1. Since he removed the COI tag again we take that as a claim that he is NOT Jason Graves and ask for a preventative block under WP:IMPERSONATE
2. Assume that he is Jason Graves (as seems likely) and raise it at WP:COI/N. Assuming that consensus is that he is indeed Jason graves then the COI tag will stick.

I've never been to COI/N before, but I'm still inclined to go with option 2. What do you think? In the mean time I'll check the new material for more copyvios. I've already found some of it online on various pages that have been up far longer than this Wikipedia page. Meters (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's got to be him. I had a similar issue on the Howard Drossin article some months back. They just seem to ignore established Wikipedia guidelines and treat the page like they would on their official website. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll put up a COI/N. Meters (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Strike copyvio comments above. This article has been around longer than I though so it is possible that the material was on Wikipedia in the past and mirrored to the other pages before being deletedform Wikipedia. Seems unlikely, though. 02:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

At [[9]] Meters (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Gowda

Hey Buddy, I have been referencing wikipedia for 10 years now. It has helped me with my masters research way back in 2007, though i could not reference it on my articles for the exact reason of whats happening in the repeated vandalism of gowda page. i contribute to wikipedia pretty much every year for the last few years financially but i never bothered creating an account to edit content till i came across this page which i know off since i am from that part of the world which uses the title. I disagree with the content propagated by irrigator. i would be more than willing if you had to validate the content posted by me and delete it if it is not factual or offensive. i reference noted people. If Mr. Irrigator disagrees he can discuss with a few others and me who object to his content like me and tinfactory who added his content without vandalizing existing content. There is always room for dialogue and accommodating all the content without deleting others content as long as it is about not promoting an individual or family. Mr. Irrigator's image references his family tree. which is not content that can be validated and publicly referenced in place of notable people like the one currently in place. Please feel free to continue the dialogue and add content or edit based on any factual or known evidence.

Thanks, Sudsiv03 (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Sudsiv03

@Sudsiv03:You claim that you have been on Wikipedia for 10 years, but your account is only two days old, and in that time you have done virtually nothing but undoing another editor's edits to Gowda. If you are an experienced editor as you claim, than you must know the Wikipedia definition of edit warring. You are edit warring on the article, as is the other editor. As I said on your talk page, I don't know which of you, if either, is making valid edits. I posted to both of your talk pages. You are way past 3RR and you have not attempted to discuss the issue on the article's talk page or on the other editor's talk page. You have not warned the other editor for vandalism (or anything) and this appears to be a content dispute rather than vandalism, so repeated undoes are edit warring. Discuss the issue with the other editor. Meters (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sudsiv03

I claim to have referenced Wikipedia for 10 years, please look at what i have mentioned before jumping to conclusions. i created this account a few days ago to keep what i had edited in that page using an ip before irrigator started the edit undo of my edits to Gowda. I do not claim to be an experienced editor, i do not have the time nor interest for it. But the content in wikipedia has been useful to me for the past 10 years for reference so i have made generous contributions financially over time. The content that was posted in gowda using an ip was by me and the change was undone by irrigator and i created a user just for the sake of discussion so i undid the changes to reflect the valid content. If the other user who is supposed to be an experienced editor should have known the rules of editing better than me and practiced the rules claimed by you more efficiently. Now that you have intervened and are moderating the content. If you want to validate the changes done to the page i am open for discussion on the content.

Thanks, Sudsiv03 (talk) Sudsiv03

My apologies for misunderstanding the context of your "10 years" mention. I'm not interested in or knowledgeable about the content of the article in question. It's up to you and the other editor to discuss it. Get consensus on the talk page from other editors if you can't agree. See WP:DISPUTE if that does not work. Endlessly reverting each other with no discussion is just going to result in blocks. Meters (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Buddy,

Irrigator has gone and revered the content of 2 users. He is being very persistent on reverting anything anyone else posts to the page and he has posted his family tree as part of a community page which is inappropriate. Please suggest what's the best course of action..

Thanks. Sudsiv03 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, discuss the issue with him. The two of you have made absolutely no attempt to discuss this, leave warnigns, or reach compromise. You already have the various inks for edit warring, resolutions etc. if you choose to go that way. If this keeps up I will report both of you and let the admins decide what to do. Meters (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I will leave some notes on the talk page of the article and hope it works out. I am cool with the admins reviewing the article and the users. Please feel free to report to the admins and irrigators has undone mine and another users content.----

Are you real?

Because the speed and efficiency of your edits seem to come from either a robot, or someone who is constantly watching Wikipedia (I don't mean this to be insulting in any way, it's just an observation.) How do you do it? Also, why are you so interested in high schools? You got mad skillz, bro. Ily <3 MLM 02:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfraidOfFlying (talk • contribs)

I don't know what you are talking about. I've only undone one of your edits, and that was 17 hours after you made it. Meters (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please discus your warning with me here

I dont understand why you gave me a 4th warning when I had already recieved a 3rd for the same edit. Please reply here as I see it as more pertinent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein#Albert_Einstein_is_now_classified_as_a_non-religious_Prophet

MaFi0s0 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for the duplicated warning. There must have been an edit conflict on the undo of your edit and it caused me some confusion. I have removed my warning. Meters (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please follow talk page convention and add your threads at the bottom of talk pages rather than the top. Meters (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I got my edit reversed

I got the message from you that my changes to the wiki of Chinmaya Dunster "did not appear constructive"!? They were requested by Chinmaya Dunster himself since he is not a techi. I am a friend and web designer and was asked by Chinmaya Dunster to make some corrections and additions. I read the various COI here yet I do not really understand the issues in this case. I have not added any bias just added more facts and resources to back them up. So can you please be more specific what do you mean by your quote.

PS: I hope this is the right way to address this!? Dbriedel (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how you could have read WP:COI and not understood the problem. You were asked to make changes to the article by the subject of the article, who is a friend of yours. That is a conflict of interest per WP:EXTERNALREL. Bias is not a necessary condition (see WP:COINOTBIAS. Your last edit removed the infobox and the lede. That is not a constructive edit, and is why I warned you.

Wikipedia is not concerned with what Chinmaya Dunster wants to see in the article. If there are WP:BLP issues or factual errors please point them out and they will be addressed. If you want to suggest other additions to or deletions from the article please suggest them on the article's talk page so that editors who do not have a conflict of interest in this article can discuss whether they are appropriate changes. Meters (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

South-Doyle

Berry was placed on administrative leave yesterday. You may want to keep an eye on it: [10]. Bms4880 (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. I was wondering why the removal was worded that way. There had been some recent messing about with the name and I thought the removal might have just been due to uncertainty over what the clean version was. Meters (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

First Congregational Church of Albany

Thanks for holding the line on that one ... I think the editor in question might be a sock of Puritan237, who's raised the same issues and made the same edits. So I've asked on their talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not true. Daniel Case asked me to stop editing the page and I did so. I don't edit here under any other name than Puritan237. Puritan237 (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Puritan237, there's no need to ping me on my own page. I had the same concerns about either possible socking or meatpuppetry. See discussion on User talk:JJH405. Meters (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

How much we mention about criminal charges

WP:BLPCRIME is, alas, silent on this sort of thing. Perhaps we should discuss it at the BLP noticeboard. I think it's relevant to report what the initial charges were as a) under American law this has always been something the press can freely report regardless of what ultimately happens and b) they weren't dropped. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

That's all I found, too. Plea bargaining is so common that this issue must have come up before. I'd be amazed if it hadn't. Please let me know if you take to the board. Meters (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Susan Block

Dear Mr. Meters,

All the entries on Dr. Block are done by an ex employee who was fired for tampering with security cameras at the institute. He uses the name Eliza Barrington (there is no such person) but his real name is Vince Watkins. If the defamatory material is not removed at once we will take further action against you and Wikipedia. It's criminal of you to allow these kinds of posts giving people's private addresses and other information that might endanger someone.

Max

Posted: 02/26/2016

This is a notice to cease and desist at once from any further publication of this kind of libelous and defamatory material against Dr. Block, staff and associates. By publishing private information you put people at risk. We will follow up with Wikipedia management. You have been put on notice.

Max Lobkowicz

Legal & Business Affairs Village Holdings, Inc 310-568-0066 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B63:CE80:35AE:C8C8:1C33:80EA (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

2602:306:8B63:CE80::/64 blocked one month for legal threats. Talk page rev del'ed as needed Meters (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

stop

Stop editing Joseph Case High Swantown (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Why? My edits are perfectly valid. I updated the enrollment, added added a more recent ref, and removed a few infobox items that were not needed. Meters (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I go to the school. I appreciate the helpful edits but there is no need to remove alumni or the vice principal. I was about to make a page for Mark G Hoyle and you removed that from the school Swantown (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry no disrespect but I appreciate the constructive edits Swantown (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't bother adding alumni to the school article until they have a wikiarticle. There is no guarantee that your proposes article on any particular alumnus will ever be written, or that it will survivie if it is written. Rrad WP:Write the article first And a decision has been made to no longer add lower-level staff (including the vice principal) to school infoboxes. Meters (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Apply directly to the forehead (commercial)

I did not copy my page from a Wikipedia mirror site.MML Ruler (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, you didn't. You actually made a cut and paste copy of HeadOn, gave it a new name, and then redirected the original to your article after it was put up for speedy. If you were trying to move the article that is not the right way to do it since you lost all of the article's edit history, and any links or references. Meters (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my personal attack to Pinkbeast

He/she deserves it. He/she is constantly reverts edits with no sence of reason. Gergvdfv (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What part of "Comment on content, not on the contributor" did you not understand? Using multiple accounts to continue the edit war and the personal attacks is not going to help. Meters (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Re:Don't call them "stupid"

How can I call an argument that says that a statue is not enough proof for a 2000 years garment to exist, and claims that the garment has to be preserved until now for its existence to be proved. The above claim is similar to say that Romans did not wear toga, because there is not any 2000 years old toga that has survive until nowdays. This claim is TOTTALY STUPID, and it should be called by its name. I call stupid the claim, not the person who claimed this stupidity. Gergvdfv (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't care about the argument, you clearly called the editor "totally stupid", not the edit. As I said on your talk page, just don't call them anything. You're on your final warning for personal attacks. Meters (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

ok i promis thay I will not call any editor stupid anymore. But am I allowed to call a stupid edit, as a stupid one? Gergvdfv (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest at this point that you not make any comment at all about your opinions. I would also suggest that you leave that section of the article alone. You have been undone several times. You are clearly making contentious edit. Discuss it on the talk page and see if you can get consensus for your edit. Meters (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

relegated

I changed it once! So f'n relax! You're acting like I did it multiple times. Sorry I misused a single word in my entire entry. Chill out. Toeknee44 (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not once. You used it [here, it was corrected here with a very clear edit summary pointing out that "regulated" was incorrect. You restored the mistake here. and if you are going to swear at me, stay off my talk page. Meters (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I apologize.

I apologize for what I did before. I promise to not to the same actions again. Kkamjong taetae (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. No problem if you stop. If you continue you will almost certainly be blocked for vandalism. Socking to continue edit warring an obvious vandalism edit is not a good idea. Meters (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"Sharia" changes

Hello Meters, I'm Cataleya. I deliberately made the changes in "Sharia" regarding the rights of slave women and apostasy. But I didn't intend to delete the entire paragraph of rights of women, which I think I did. I wanted to delete the line which stated that the women slaves in Islam were not given the liberty to move freely (which actually they are) and edit the line which stated that apostasy is a sin and deserves death punishment. Apostasy does not need punishment until the person starts propagating against Islam and turning people against it. If u disagree with my thoughts and need references, I will be obliged to provide. Nevertheless, I'm sorry for the inconvenience I caused. Regards, Cataleya Cataleya B (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I messed up on some things, and Meter was happy to correct me. Thanks for being here! :) Epicawesomewolf (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning proposal and straw poll

This is to make you aware of this discussion regarding the "royal family" content dispute at Peyton Manning, where you recently edited or commented on the talk page. Your participation to resolve the matter would be welcome. Tracescoops (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

answered Meters (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

New User

Hello. Do you know of any teenager who is in Wikipedia? Precious Connel (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I do, but it's not information that users should be giving out, and I won't pass it on. It sounds like you are looking for some type of social media interaction, which Wikipdeia isn't. The user talk pages are primarily for Wikipedia users to communicate with each other for the purpose of improving article content. I suggest that you read WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK.

Merger of High school into Secondary school

Sorry, but the merger of High school into Secondary school, which you supported (merely based on the fact that high schools are secondary schools, like apples are fruits), seems to be particularly ill-judged. Note that I have just proposed undoing that merger, with a quite comprehensive rationale on Talk:Secondary school#Revert merger of Secondary school and High school. Feel free to join into the discussion. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

PanchoS It's a pity you didn't see fit to contribute your opinions during the three months the merger proposal was open, instead of attempting to undo the merger less than three hours after it was done. Calling the merger discussion "particularly ill-judged" is a slap in the face to the people who did participate. Did you bother to read the two articles? It's quite clear that this is not a case of "apples and oranges" but rather a case of "apples" and "pommes". The secondary school article is discussing education "after primary school and before higher education". Secondary school made multiple references to "high school" and High school made multiple references to secondary school or education. Meters (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Didn't see fit" doesn't hit the nail. For some reason I missed the discussion or possibly didn't find the time to join in – I admit I don't really remember. No doubt it would have been better if I joined in earlier. Believe me, it would have been preferable for me, too. Only when the articles were actually merged, the changes popped up in my watchlist. Now I understand this is deplorable, but while the procedure does matter, a reasonable result is what our encyclopedic work is all about.
High schools are a specific type of secondary schools. Middle schools, gymnasiums, grammar schools, lyceums, Gesamtschulen etc. are other types of secondary schools. Finally, there are secondary schools named "secondary schools". We clearly don't need another article listing all kinds of secondary schools per country, as secondary education already does. Rather we need to be more precise in working out the specifics of the different types of secondary schools, while covering as well the country-to-country differences within the respective school types. Undoing the merger doesn't solve the deficiencies of these articles, but the merger has substantially aggravated it. --PanchoS (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: The secondary school article is discussing education "after primary school and before higher education".
While lacking precision, this is a basic definition of generic secondary schools. Now that you supported merging in the more specific type of high schools – what would be your argument not to merge in Middle schools, gymnasiums, grammar schools, lyceums and other specific types of a secondary school. Then again, do you believe this would improve our coverage of the topic, given that it would then be essentially redundant to secondary education which already constitutes an overview article about all kinds of secondary schools worldwide. --PanchoS (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a long discussion here. It's counterproductive to split this between the demerger discussion and individual talk pages. As I said on the demerger propoasal, "as the articles stood when merged, the merge was appropriate." There's no point in having two articles that discuss the same concept under different names. Meters (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

delta Delta Phi Zeta

Who get to say that the page is notable or not? Isn't that just opinion? Becuase in my opinion, I do think that it is notable. Thanks. Xmskab (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability and WP:CLUB. Your single chapter sorority does not appear to be notable. Meters (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

I think I'm starting to get the hang of this. :) Kailey 2001 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. There are quite a few boards to keep track of. Thanks for pointing out that username. I agree that it was unacceptable. Meters (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Henry I. Miller

I am not Wiki-literate and I have no interest in editing except to end the harassment from others, as manifested in recent (and previous) edits to my entry. You may not like the terminology, but additions such as "Tobacco industry" and "Climate change" are inaccurate, intentionally misleading and defamatory. I cannot tolerate the damage to my reputation that such misrepresentations cause.

See, for example, my discussion of the tobacco industry claims at http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/12/a-david-and-goliath-parable/, and also in http://www.hoover.org/research/cigarette-smokescreen, where I explain that the primary hazard from smoking is not the nicotine but the inhalation of smoke. I refer to smoking as a "scourge" and observe that, "Tobacco is an inherently, irredeemably dangerous product." Those sentiments are exactly the opposite of what the editors of my entry are trying to convey. I have never received any compensation of any kind, direct or indirect, from the tobacco industry or tobacco companies.

Similarly, with regards to climate change, I do not work on or write about climate change. My connection to the George Marshall Institute ended at least 15 years ago, and in any case had nothing at all to do with climate change. Once again, its mention in my entry is simply harassment and an attempt to defame me.

I have no interest in promoting myself via Wikipedia. I just want an end to the harassment and distractions.

Henryimillermd (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Henry Miller

User:Henryimillermd If the article is about you, as it appears to be, and there are issues with the content, the correct thing in most cases is to discuss the issues on that talk page so that editors without conflicts of interest can make the changes. See WP:BIOSELF. Whether it is about you or not, anything which is a WP:BLP violation should immediately be removed. If there is any disagreement about this the venues to raise the concern is WP:BLPN. The article needs to be balanced and written in a neutral tone. However, some of the material you are removing is well sourced and does not appear to be an issue. The article should not misinterpret anything and if Miller (you?) has changed his position then a balanced article should say so, but you don't get to remove material simply because you don't like it. Continuing to edit the article while ignoring the attempts to discuss COI and content issues with you on your talk page and on the article's talk page is not helping. That's why I've raised the issue at COIN. I'm asking for a consensus that you are a COI editor with respect to Henry I. Miller.

I agree that some of your concerns over the material you removed are valid, but my talk page is not the place to discuss the particulars of your edits. Please take this to the article's talk page where the discussion has already started so other editors will see your concerns and participate in the discussion. Meters (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I will copy this to the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by another editor with an apparent COI

Hello - forgive my Wikipedia ignorance. I don't know whether I'm supposed to reply to your comment on my Talk page there or here.

I don't have an external relationship with Henry Miller. I've met him a handful of times over the past five years. I don't have any professional or compensatory relationship with him, his organization, employer, competitor, product, etc. He once mentioned to me the inaccuracies he felt were written about him on the Wikipedia page, and I looked into the matter and found what I believed to be inaccurate statements and/or statements unsupported by citations. Cfulbright (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends link I pointed you to on your talk page? You don't have to have a financial or professional relationship with him or any of his organizations to have a conflict of interest. You know him personally. Thus you have a conflict of interest. Per your own edits here File:Henry Miller and dog.jpg you know him well enough to have visited him at his home, to have taken the picture of him and his dog that is now in the article, and to call his wife by her first name. As i said on your talk page "Some of your edits are clearly not corrections of serious errors or defamation, and should not be made by you. Instead you should disclose your connection to the subject and propose changes on the article's talk page so that uninvolved editors may consider them." There were definite problems with the article, and it was indeed slanted negatively and unfairly, so I'm trying to WP:assume good faith on your part, but claiming that edits such as this are COI justified as correcting inaccurate statements and/or statements unsupported by citations" does not help. I've managed to get other editors involved and the worst of the problems with the article were quickly corrected. Any remianing problems should be discussed on the talk page. Continuing to edit the article, and commenting on the talk page without disclosing your conflict of interest are a problem.

If you are editing the article because Miller complained to you about it that is a form of sock puppetry. You should read WP:SOCK, particularly WP:MTPPT. It's more than a bit suspicious that twice now you have shown up on this article at the same time Miller was being warned for his conflict of interest in editing it. Meters (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

For you

		The Original Barnstar
		For caring about me. <3 Kailey 2001 (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Longest Palindrome in the world

Thank you for your corrections and deletions. I understand your point completely.You are absolutely right that there is not at all point to collect hundreds of foreign language examples to English site. It made the whole article look like a circus. On the other hand that has nothing to do with the important fact about the longest palindromes in the world. If not in Wikipedia, then where should people search information about world's longest palindromes? Media, scientific journals or other official authorities aren't at all interested in such a marginal, crazy and unique "hobby". Now English speaking world may incorrectly claim also in the future that for example David Stepehen's palindrome is the longest in the whole world with 58 00 letters. Original referring was leading the reader to see just one of those many Finnish palindromes which often are much longer than Stephens's and includes only meaningful sentences all the way. Talking about the quality is of course impossible. But if you want to get to know more if Finnish should be mentioned also in English "palindrome-Article" or not, then please really read that removed referring to Juha Kotonen's palindrome. At this very moment Finns are also translating the longest palindrome in the world into English.

I'm not going to get into this on my talk page. My comments are already on your talk page, and if you want to discuss the usefulness of your addition the correct place to do so is on the article's talk page, so that the other editors who have undone your additions can participate. Meters (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning "former"

Hey. When a player retires, they become a "former" player, not "retired." Look at any other player (Brett Favre, Terrell Owens, Terrell Davis). If you want to lead a crusade and get the opening line changed, go for it. But I'm just following the example set by every other former player. TropicAces (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

User:TropicAcesI'm sure that I have seen an essay that no-longer active players should be listed as "retired" rather than as "former" since former has the connotation that they have died. I'm not starting a crusade... you were the one who added the comment with the all caps yelling. Meters (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Rona Ambrose Reversion

Hello Meters,

I left the content of the paragraph intact.

I edited unnecessary superfluous and redundant material. Wikipedia discourages needless wordiness, and rather encourages short and concise content. Please see Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read for more details.

I specifically removed, "Continued opposition discontent over Ambrose's conduct led the" as this sentence is unnecessary, and redundant. I removed "Had the motion passed, a vote would then have been held in the House of Commons, and, because this was deemed to be a matter of confidence, could possibly have triggered an election.". because it is completely unnecessary. It is mere superfluous speculation. Please undo your reversion. The unsourced content I removed kept all key aspects of the original content intact, and reduced unnecessary wordiness, redundancy, and superfluous detail. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, where to start?

1. Please don't create talk threads on my user page (or anyone's). That's what the talk pages are for, and why I have moved this thread here.
2. As I pointed out, your edit [11] was not a minor edit, and your edit summary was inaccurate since it did not leave all content intact, as you claimed. it does not matter if you think the content was redundant, or superfluous, or speculative. You cannot remove content and leave an edit summary saying that you left all content intact. Leaving that edit summary and calling it a minor edit might be seen as an attempt to hide your changes.
3. Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read is an essay. It's not a policy (which has wide acceptance and should normally be followed), or even a guideline (which has general consensus). It's just the opinion of a number of editors, and this one is usually only used as a snarky dismissal of an overly-long talk page thread. It's not justification for your content removal.
4. Will I remove the material for you? No. You recently came off an edit warring block for something that involved Rona Ambrose, so I'm not touching this. Please follow WP:BRD and discuss the edit on the article's talk page. If the changes are good consensus will easily be reached. I would suggest that you not attempt to use WP:TLDR in your reasoning. Meters (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much. I had no idea I was breaking a rule. I feel badly and want to apologize. Thanks again.Lollollolll (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Note on SPI

Hi,

Just wanted to let you know that the Barnyard pecker case is almost certainly another incident of socking by LTA Sheds thus guys argh g ugh b. Their typical MO involves username violations, harassment (especially of Bongwarrior, but there are certainly others), and spamming of phony block notices. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 20:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Meters (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Summer

I think we should add August 15, known as "Ferragosto". --Sean Ago (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that one, but you should stop removing January dates from the southern hemisphere. Meters (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just seen and read your edit; I didn't find a note about it in the page. --Sean Ago (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Try reading the lede. "when it is summer in the Northern Hemisphere, it is winter in the Southern Hemisphere, and vice versa." Meters (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Unwarranted warning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meters&diff=prev&oldid=717254438 Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

And I see:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lecrae&diff=717101208&oldid=717100515
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lecrae&diff=717102057&oldid=717101728
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lecrae&diff=717103045&oldid=717102449

That walked right up to WP:3RR yet you claim it was unwarranted and then tag my talk page. Go ahead start the conversation and explain your behaviour. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Since you deleted my edit while I was logged out at work, I have to ask the question, how have you not lost your admin rights? Care to answer the question now? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Caramilk Edit Warring

This is your final warning for incessant and unconstructive reverts made to the page Cadbury Caramilk. Please cease edit warring and altering factual content.