User talk:Meters/Archive 1

diabled
sorry i am disabled and all i do is ediot wikipedia =( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.114.25 (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fake information, racist comments, and dubious unsourced nicknames will get you warned and eventually blocked. Meters (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Dave Winer
No one deleted anything that was true. I even provided proof that anything I deleted was untrue. EdJonston and others on that page simply can not handle anyone including things that don't flatter Dave Winer. Its rediculous to have people who personally know him editing negative comments out of the page. Their methods threaten Wikipedia's credibility.--Irelan12(talk)
 * I was discussing your Talk page behaviour, not article content. I suggest you read bad practice. You inserted your comment into the middle of someone's Talk page posting on Talk:Dave Winer. You didn't date your Talk page posting (there or here)using four tildes. And you started this thread at the top of my Talk page instead of at the bottom. Meters (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I instered my comment in the middle of my own talk page posting. Also, I apologize if you wanted this at the bottom of your page. Irelan12(talk)


 * No apology necessary... my talk page isn't so big that I didn't see your comment, so it wasn't a big deal. On a large, busy page a misplaced addition might not get seen at all, so it's to your own advantage not to start a new topics anywhere but the expected place, particularly if you don't date them.


 * As for your addition to Talk:Dave Winer, I apologize. I thought that you had added a comment in the middle of an IP's entry from 6 months ago but I was wrong. You made two entries today above the IP's entry. It's not a good idea (particularly if you don't date your post) since it makes it look like the post from 6 months ago is a response to your new post, but nowhere near as serious as I thought. You say that you also made the orignal IP entry. I have no reason not to believe you, but there is no way I or anyone else could have known that. If you want to extend your commants from a different IP or user account, just mention that you're the same user, but keep the additions after the original ones. Meters (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Roxboro
User talk:Meters

Please read my comment in the talk section of Roxboro,_Quebec. Your link to the french site does not work.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * fixed Meters (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

List of culinary vegetables
Hi, thanks for the note! Since the vandal seems to be hopping IPs, I think it may be more efficacious to simply semiprotect the page. I have done so for one month. Let me know if you run into any further problems. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Meters (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think additional blocks would be necessary? It seems this user's page blanking is focused, for whatever reason, on just that article.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect it will be required eventually. Someone took the trouble to write a polite, lengthy explanation of why the material should be included, and the IP's response was "Oh Blah Blah i don't care." followed by another blanking, a 3 week block (I might have the order wrong), and then continued blanking with a block evasion. It doesn't bode well for future good behaviour. I thought the block evasion warranted an automatic extension of the original block and a block on the new IP, but since it seems to be just this one article the semi-protection should work. Semi-protecting the article to stop one person on (so far) only 2 IPs seems disruptive to other IPs. I bow to your experience... do what you think best and I'l keep an eye on the Ips and the article. Meters (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that on 71.55.201.191 . No idea what this person's issue is, but that's often the way with vandals. I suppose we can block IPs as it becomes necessary.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese Legion
Hello. I changed the article in accordange to what Portuguese sources say about the matter. While my initial edition was the result of a confusion, my second one - a correction - was merely in order to put it according to what souces say about the question, and I quote: "From a grand total of 9000, as much as half deffected and came back to portugal in order to join the Portuguese resistance". --84.91.12.134 (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It looked suspicious but I wasn't sure. Thanks for clearing it up. You should probably add a citation for source you used. Meters (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Tommy Hoiland
did u change the stuff that was right? i mean if your gonna be no fun by all means remove the crap i posted, but i and several others did update his stats and where he currently plays along with current caps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.80.141 (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As I clearly said in my edit summaries, there was so much vandalism I couldn't tell if any of it was real or not. I gave you the benefit of the doubt with the first set of edits, but you kept adding garbage. Don't blame me. Oh, and if you're not going to bother signing your posts on my talk page, then stay off it. Meters (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

please stop using the word vandalism, i know you probably feel like a real big man talking that way, but seriously learn to take a joke, you neckbeard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.80.141 (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the word "vandalism" then stop doing it. This, this , and this are your recent edits to Tommy Høiland that are definitely vandalism.


 * You ignored me when I said not to leave anonymous posts on my Talk page, and you ignored a bot warning (not my doing) on your Talk page to sign your posts on others Talk pages, so don't post anything on my Talk page at all. Insulting me is a personal attack and is not allowed. Meters (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Who are we hurting hear? the guy said it was funny what we were doing, not to mention he plays for some second tier norweigan club, so tell me, really tell me what the problem is, and try not to resort to HURR DURR VANDALISM, do you not understand humour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.80.141 (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Theories of humor
I agree with your comments, but I'd like to get the views of one more editor before we delete the section in question. What do you think?--Gautier lebon (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay getting back to you. Sure, lets get another opinion. Do you want someone to look a the technical merit of the contributions or just another look at teh conflict of interest issue? I don't know anything about the subject so I'm not qualified to determine if his input is actually valid. I'm just basing my objections on the conflict of interest and the use of multiple IPs.


 * It's even worse than I thought. 108.67.225.46, 207.229.130.243, and 147.126.46.145 are definitely socks of Cdg1072. 108. responded on 4 April to my "Probable socks" post on Cdg's Talk page and wrote in the first person to accuse me of defaming him. Similarly, on 31 March Cdg responded to two unconstructive edit warnings re. Theories of humor on 207.'s Talk page. He says that he proposed the deletions on the article talk page, but that entry was made by 147.126.46.145 on 29 March. It was then rewritten by Cdg on 31 March, AFTER he commented on 207.'s Talk page.

I'm confused here. You say that a call that something be deleted originated with another sock, and that I then edited it. Well I'm pretty sure that the said complaints all originated with me. I edited them many times because of the difficulty of the work.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 147.126.46.147 is almost certainly another sock. I suspect 64.134.166.22 is also him based on the edits. That IP (from Texas, not Chicago) edited the humor article for about two hours on 25 March (no other history and no overlap with the other accounts' edit times). Cdg and those 5 IPs account for almost all of the edits to this article in the last moonth.


 * I don't have enough experience to know what to do in a case like this, but this appears to be more than just a case of an editor using his own document as a source. If we want a technical review of the material perhaps Acadēmica Orientālis? He's had some recent input on this topic. Meters (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Under WP:SCHOLARSHIP this is a Primary source. Since the editor is the thesis author it would fall under WP:NOR. And since it is a Master's Thesis still in progress the following applies: "Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."


 * WP:SELFCITING is also a concern. Meters (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And now 147.126.46.146 has started editing the same section of the article. Since it is from Loyola University Chicago as are the previously mentioned socks 147.126.46.145 and 147.126.46.147 I assume this is Gdc again. Meters (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Added OR and Self Published templates to teh section for now. Meters (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I should not have told you or any editors that you were falsely accusing me, by saying that I promoted my theory. Surely it was "self-promotion," even/especially when I made a point of the weakness of other theories, which was an unecessary move. I clearly ought to have remained on the same IP address when editing, especially since I read about sockpuppetry beforehand.

Other editors said at the close of this discussion (which I perhaps should not have deleted) that I am an "unimportant philosopher." A rational response to such an assertion is not to take it personally. By the epithet, they don't mean that I don't have a strong humor theory. That would beg the question. They mean I haven't published a large number of other philosophy articles. I should not contest their view anymore, since I might always be referenced (or return myself) soon when my article is published. I don't deny that I am an academic philosopher, though I would be better classed as a psychologist and literary theorist. I tried at an inappopriate time to contribute a drastic improvement on the existing and unsuccessful theories of humor. This has been removed on grounds which are reasonable though not perfect. And I should have accepted the decision sooner.

However, WP does overlook the fact that my work in humor has been conducted in two graduate programs, and in each one the work earned an MA degree. (This explains why I studied at U. of C. and am now at Loyola. Sorry for any confusion). Thus, it is unusual that I have earned two master's degrees, both in philosophy, and both on comedy or humor. The theses for those degrees are not the paper you have seen. The latter of these MAs requires two more grades, but this is only matter of a few weeks.

Thus the paper that you are talking about is actually not a "master's thesis." It contains a theory that I have mentioned before, but in a very different paper. This is an entirely separate article. The two "master's theses" had a different focus, and I have moved some way beyond them.

Ted Cohen, for example, directed my work in humor in 2006. He is a very "important philosopher" by the standards of Wikipedia, and my lack of esteem for him is irrelevant. I myself persuaded Ted Cohen, in conversation, that a theory of humor may be possible, which he has always denied in print. Another questionable feature of the Wikipedia policy guidelines is, if I may paraphrase in quotes, "If an idea is so important that it deserves immediate attention, someone would have reported on it already." I think this is awkwardly put. It is like saying, "If it so happens that an idea has been overlooked, and is quite important, then we can consider an author not published in the field." But that does not seem observed. It could read, "no matter the significance of a truth, its mention in WP requires directly relevent prior publication or a Phd degree." That seems to be the actual view. In my discussion of humor in wikipedia, I think I've made a strong case that nothing in the current theories in the article is at all persuasive as a global theory of stimulus and response, or represents a strong point of view of that much desired explanation.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. As another editor pointed out, once the work is published and reviewed, it may well be possible for it to be added in again. If you do the additions yourself, please be aware of the conflict of interest guidelines at {{WP:COI]].


 * I didn't mean to accuse you of intentionally using multiple IPs to maliciously make edits, but your use of possibly as many as 6 different IPs in addition to your account was very confusing, particularly when you edited Talk page discussions that you made with a different IP or account. Talk page discussions should never be edited since others may have already commented or made decisions based on the existing text. If you want to change or delete something you've said make a new entry or strikeout the original text, don't delete or modify it. And don't ever delete other editor's Talk page entries. I have restored the article Talk page, so you may want to go back and strikeout or make new entries on your sections that you deleted. Meters (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear CDG, it appears to me that you are a good-faith newcomer to Wikipedia, which we all were once. The discussion above should more properly have taken place on your personal talk page.  Please create your personal page, and your personal talk page, you will find that very helpful as you continue to contribute to Wikipedia.  You soon might be earning barnstars ... --Gautier lebon (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

3RR
Ill maybe reporting him, but Im on danger zone myself also maybe... but Im sick of this situation and hes not stopping when I added 3rr tag to his talk page. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I did the last revert for you and put up the block request. I'll take a look at the articles after he's blocked. Meters (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

User Warnings
Please don't issue an only warning for simple vandalism, like you did for User:205.133.153.198. Admins should not block after just 2 piece of vandalism from an IP, and starting with an only warning makes it impossible for other users to escalate the warning. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but did you look at the edit history? It wasn't simple vandalism, or a single vandalism. It was 7 clearly connected vandalisms by that IP and a second one from the same range, all in a matter of minutes. Once one IP got a final warning (from another editor) it switched back to the first IP, so I gave that one a final warning too. I did mention in the warning that the vandalism was hopping IPs. The next IP to vandalise got blocked, and then the other one also stopped. What would you suggest I have done differently? The edit you reverted was made just minutes after I gave him a final warning, and by the time you reverted him hours later he had long since made another vandalism edit, so in my opinion you should have had him blocked rather than bumping him down to a level 2 warning. Meters (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And just to clarify, I gave the IP an imminent, not a final. Isn't that what an imminent is for, to stop ongoing vandalism? Meters (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And that was totally my fault--sorry about that. I didn't look at the history of the article you were reverting. I looked at the IP's contribution history, and saw only 2 pieces of vandalism, and thought you'd jumped the gun; but I didn't to check if there was IP hopping. My humblest apologies--immediately issuing and "only" or "level 4" warning on an ip hopper is totally fine. Let me go take a look at the effected articles and see if any of them need semi-protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've protected Taylor High School (North Bend, Ohio); the other two that this IP contributed to only have a few pieces of vandalism in the last week. If there are any more you think need protection, feel free to let me know (or, actually, if it happens today, I'd recommend taking it to WP:RFPP because I'm not sure if I'll be on WP much today). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't think I'd done anything too unreasonable. Meters (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

April 21 2012
Wow, User:70.56.234.3 keeps showing up on the most recent edits blanking their userpage after both you and I have undone their edits. Now it's just turning into a silly edit war! Any suggestions on what to do next? I don't patrol recent changes too often, so I'm not too sure what to do next. Yaminator  talk 22:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've requested a block. It should be pretty obvious that he's a vandal. Lets just wait until he's blocked to do the final restores on the article pages. Since he's an IP hopper there's probably not to much point in worrying about the User Talk page. Meters (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, great! I was about to ask where to post for these sorts of requests, but I've found it. Thanks for your help... :) I'll keep this precedent in mind for the future! Yaminator  talk 22:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have said that I added my comments to the request that someone else had already put up. Blocks ar eusually pretty quick for obvious cases like this. Meters (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Florence Christian School
No, not really. That's why I added the extra tags and only removed the obvious untrue info. Otherwise, I don't trust this article either :/. But I do know it's in South Carolina from some minor research c:. I'll try to check the article with what's on their site in the meantime though. A Personಠ_ಠ 03:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the links. All 4 point to the same dead link that seems to be just for the school team anyways. I'll go back in the history and see if I can fiond a real link. Meters (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I just revised the page design and organized/corrected it a bit :| otherwise it still seems a bit... bad A Personಠ_ಠ 03:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly better than it was. I'll watch it for a while to see if the students start hacking at it again. Meters (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

St Olave's Grammar School
My edit was not vandalism but factually correct. The lady was an ex scholar of the school and was sentenced to prison for partaking in the London riots. As newspaper articles referenced which school she had attended, she is de facto a notable ex student.
 * Fair enough, it was a good faith edit. My apologies for using a generic Vandalism warning instead of one of the more appropriate Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons, Defamation regarding article subjects, or Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material warnings. I'll change the warning on your page. Your edit stated that an alumnus of the school committed a crime and went to jail. Since you linked to the wrong person's Wiki page your post is factually incorrect and you defamed the subject of the Wiki page that you linked to. Even without that error your edit is unacceptable since you did not provide a source to show that the student in question both did the crime and attended the school. And please don't post on my Talk page again unless you sign your posting. Meters (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:120.149.114.194
Hi, I already put a warning on their talk page about their edit on Al Goldstein if you don't mind I am going to remove your warning since it is basically redundant to have two warnings for the same thing. Please LMK. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. I reverted him so I warned him, but I see it was your revert that got there first. For some reason I didn't get an edit conflict. Meters (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh that's unusual that you didn't get a edit conflict error. Anyway thanks and good eye on catching the vandalism. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's happening quite a bit lately on reverts. I've had cases where I did made the revert, but someone else has put the warning in first, do I assume they're not getting the edit conflict message either. Meters (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Toby (Tobuscus) Turner
I'm new to this Wikipedia editing thing, so forgive me if I edit incorrectly. I posted a whole bunch of new independent references that discuss the subject and reference to him as in the entry. If these aren't sufficient, just tell me and I'll add more. And I'm not the subject in question, I'm merely a fan that believes the subject belongs in the section of the article. Thanks, Toby123buscus (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding 10 references to support one entry on a list of alumni looks pretty lame. If you don't cut it back someone else will. I've already told you that the references from his own website, IMDb, and YouTube are not reliable sources, and some of the other ones seem pretty dubious too. I still don't see any ref to support the use of puffery such as "internet icon", and I still don't see any ref to prove that he attended the school. I won't touch it for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else yanks it before I get back to it. I suggest that you fix it before they do, because you're going to get blocked if you keep this up. You've had more than enough warnings, explanations, and pointers to the relevant pages. Meters (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I should have also said that it's not the quantity of refs, it's the quality. One reliable source for the Annoying Orange gig is all you need. Drop the puffery, and find something to show he attended the school and you're fine. The school ref doesn't have to be online, just ref his year's yearbook if you can't find an online source.


 * I just found his Wikipage. Jus twikilink to it nad you don't need any refs for notability, just attendance. You still need to dump the puffery. I'll do it tomorrow if you don't do it. Meters (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Linked it to his new wikipage and removed all of the notability refs. Meters (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed, again.--JacktheHarry (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I see that Toby Turner has been deleted. For my future ref the other pages in question are Niceville High School and The High Fructose Adventures of Annoying Orange. Meters (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Add List of YouTube personalities and List of International Baccalaureate people. also Requested articles/Biography/By profession, Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Internet and tech culture and Requested articles/Business and economics/People in business Meters (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * For future Speedy cut and pastes: This article has now been created almost 30 times under a variety of names including Toby Turner, Toby turner, Tobuscus, Toby "Tobuscus" Turner, Toby Turner (Tobuscus), and now Toby Turner/Tobuscus. There may be other variants of the name that I didn't find. It has had at least 2 AFDs Articles_for_deletion/Toby_Turner and Articles_for_deletion/Tobuscus. Meters (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Add Toby 'Joe' Turner and Collective Digital Studio (as Wikipedia Talk:Articles for creation/) Meters (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just shovelled out more of the manure.--JacktheHarry (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. He does seem to get around. The articles for creation seem to be a loophole. If they don't meet criteria for a speedy on Gx basis they seem to be able to hang around forever since they appear not to be eligible for speedy Ax (not actually an article).  Meters (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

He returned again, surely this is some kind of record? I think we should start a list of everywhere it has popped up. These are all the ones I know...
 * 1) --JacktheHarry (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) --JacktheHarry (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) --JacktheHarry (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) --JacktheHarry (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) --JacktheHarry (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) --JacktheHarry (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) --JacktheHarry (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) --JacktheHarry (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) --JacktheHarry (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) --JacktheHarry (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) --JacktheHarry (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Do not worry, you are not in trouble. -- J (t)  00:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. A pretty straight forward case so it didn't matter that I wasn't around to add my input. Meters (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Whats wrong the Kingdom of Smallia?
what wrong with the artial? its like any other Micronation based Atrical — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicronationKing (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't put the speedy deletion tag on it. You would have to ask the editor who did. I'm just reverting your deletion of the tag. As the article creator you are not allowed to delete that. An admin will drop by and evaluate the article and your request to keep it. If you want to keep it you had better find some independant, reliable sources. Right now it is unsourced and looks like a hoax. Meters (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've put source on it how many do it need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicronationKing (talk • contribs) 03:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's the quality of the references, not the quantity. You have one reference to the website of People's State of San Andreas, another self-declared micronation. I don't think that is going to pass as a reliable source. ReadWP:RS Meters (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Closed. Kingdom of Smallia deleted Meters (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The Infamous Naked Mile
Hi, I went to original and reliable sources on my edit. Was there a problem? Thanks! PS I'm a UMich alum and current AA resident, so I know this event well. Also know who has the deepest repository of Naked Mile data.
 * reply to 99.185.56.156
 * It's interesting info, but there are a few problems:


 * It doesn't belong in the lead since the article is actually about the movie, not the original run. I suggest moving your material and references to a new section and just leaving a note in the lead that the movie was based on the original run.
 * The 2 references to the run's home page have to go. The home page doesn't support anything and just serves as a blatant promotion for DVD sales.
 * The ref to the history page is a problem. I was going to say that it can't serve as a reference simce it's your webpage and contains first-hand input (see WP:NOR, particularly WP:PRIMARY) but you may be able to make a case for using it as a self-published source about itself (see WP:ABOUTSELF).
 * What you really need is an independant, reliable source that says that the movie's run was based on the UMich run.
 * Good luck Meters (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost two weeks and not a single change. Time to revert. Meters (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Warning
I didn´t put my edit back in again. I just rewrote as it sourced with a new reference inserted. Regards,  Vanthorn  msg &larr; 20:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't give you the warning. I gave you a suggestion relating to teh previous warning. You can take it or leave it. As far as your claim that you are not putting your edit back in... it may not be word for word but it is clear to me that you are edit warring on Christie Brinkley. You really should self revert and discuss it with the editors involved. Meters (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but how...?
&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a fluke, as I wasn't following the article or the case. I caught the edit summary and it's usually not a good sign when an IP deletes a big chunk of someone's User page. Meters (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Balloon
Thanks. I agree with you there. Of course it also means that I may have left another page with vandalism on it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know I wan't missing something. Meters (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Boruch Szlezinger
I've declined the CSD on Boruch Szlezinger; the article was substantially different. Can you explain how you saw the (now-deleted) earlier version of the article? :). Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't. As far as I know there is no way for a non-admin to see a deleted page. You might want to ask User:PKT since he and I edit conflicted on adding the Speedy G4 template. It was a bad translation (significantly inproved today) of a French page I found on the web and there were other obvious problems, but I put it up for G4 rather than a proposed deletion since I thought that it had just been deleted the first time on July 28. It didn't seem likely that the article had changed significantly in one day when it had not in the more than one week it was up for deletion. Clearly I was badly mistaken on the date, and I wouldn't and shouldn't have G4ed it. The current AFD seems to be supporting a G4 speedy, so it looks like no harm was done. I'll add a note to the discussion. Meters (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough then; thanks! Ironholds (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Royal Spa Brass
It appears that WideFox has withdrawn his accusation of vandalism at Royal Spa Brass. The only article at which I am accused of vandalism is Jon Bruning. Do you think that I should address other articles besides the one that I'm accused of vandalising? What could I say?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

User 61.18.190.15
Dear Meters,

It looks like the a user(s) at IP address 61.18.190.15 deleted your warning about that user(s) vandalism as unfounded. Also, someone then gave that IP address an Anti-Vandalism barnstar. Please see 61.18.190.15 (talk).
 * Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's possible I did make a mistake. There were definitely ownership and COI problems at the time, but looking at it again, I may have misinterpreted which user was which. Had they contacted me I probably would have apollogized and self reverted. Or the IP may have flipped to a different user. In any case it was in April, and that IP has been active since then but not on that article so I don't see a problem (I can't speak for the subsequent edits on other articles since I didn't review them). Thanks for the heads up. Meters (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like the user(s)did the revert. Thanks for the update.Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

im testing edits in sandbox, why do you revert them?--189.222.52.154 (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He un-reverted it. You are clear. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)You mean you're testing your vandalism edits. Since it was the Sandbox I didn't need to bother, and I had already reverted myself by the time you left this message. You've had your last warning. If you make even one more of those edits to a real article, using any IP, I will ask for you to be blocked. Meters (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

User problems
Hello Meters i see you fine some mistake with this User 69.158.0.223 I'll see what I can do with User 69.158.0.223 Thanks You Errorzero (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Since 69.158.0.223 made an edit that claimed to be from you here I think my assumption that you are also editing as 69.158.0.223 (and probably also 69.158. 0.223 2.224) is valid. Anyways, what you need to do to establish notability for this article is to find some reliable third party sources rather than the developer's web site. Newspaper articles or news releases would be perfect. Good luck, Meters (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

ThunderousMastering
Agreed. Saw this account when I was perusing CAT:UAA. With his latest edit, it looks like he may be looking to change his name; we'll have to watch. If he edits outside his userspace on ThunderousMastering, I'll probably file a report at UAA. Thanks for this. NTox · talk 23:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just about to post a refactoring warning with some explanations for him. Meters (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. NTox · talk 23:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(Uw-)unsourced
Yep. Thanks for fixing it! :) Trivialist (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
Please explain a potential violation of Wikipedia's Copyright policy given the Copyright status of work by the U.S. government This information exists nowhere else and you removed it while I was in the middle of editing it with threat of a ban. Also explain why references with quotation marks stopped working. Last, Please undo your deletion change so I can finish it. Project 112

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties."[1] The term only applies to the work of the federal government, including the governments of "non-organized territorial areas" under the jurisdiction of the U.S Government,[2] but not state or local governments. In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act,[3] such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as "noncopyright." The act only applies to U.S. domestic copyright as that is the extent of U.S. federal law. The U.S. government asserts that it can still hold the copyright to those works in other countries.[4][5] In addition, many publications of the U.S. government contain protectable works authored by others (e.g., patent applications, Securities and Exchange Commission filings, public comments on regulations), and this rule does not necessarily apply to the creative content of those works. Thanks72.188.73.163 (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The web sited as the example you provided and in the those cited in the entry "see http://mcm.dhhq.health.mil/cb_exposures/cold_war/cwexposures.aspx for example" states: 1. This World Wide Web (WWW) site is provided as a public service by the Force Health Protection & Readiness Policy and Programs. 2. Information presented on this WWW site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. Thank You72.188.73.163 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies if the material is public domain. You didn't cite a source or claim that it was public domain when you added it to the article, so it appeared that you were claiming that it was your work. I suggest in the future you use one of the public domain tags from Template_messages/Sources_of_articles and note in your edit summary that it is public domain, and where it was obtained from. As you point out, the website requests that you acknowledge teh source o fht ematerial if reusing.
 * That the information exists nowhere else has nothing to do with copyright.
 * I don't understand your question about references containing quotation marks.
 * I'll revert my undo and remove the warning on your page. Thanks of rclearing it up. Meters (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciated, I was working on those citations when it reverted.  It seems one reference was not working and complaining. It was correctly formatted so I saved it anyway. I checked and re-checked, renamed, and it only worked if quotation marks were not used. I was looking for an author to cite but only because I could not locate a good template. It was only up 7 minutes while I worked out thart reference. So If I used say  or, does that tag go also in the edit summary, talk page or only within the applicable sections Thanks again. 72.188.73.163 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia guide suggests using the appropriate public domain tag in the References or External links section. For the edit summary I would just say that it is public domain text and add the URL to avoid misunderstanding like this one. Your idea of puttin it on the Talk page is probably even better since it makes it easier for people to find it later. The summary would just have to say someething like "Public domain, see Talk". Meters (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I read that it was appropriate to place such a notice at the end or near the end of an article or section. I'd like to place it only in the applicable sections.  Is there a section specific template that does not mention the whole article that I should use?72.188.73.163 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Probably best to use the Talk page to explain which section notice applies to. Meters (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA
Hello,

i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no. I'm not knowledgeable enough on that topic. Meters (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Chloe's Closet Season 2 Is Real
There Will be New Character And New Season on Chloe's Closet.Its True. See go to www.moonscoop.com/files/FREE/Chloes%20Closet%20MIPTV%202012.pdf and you will Go Down a Screen until you find the words. Season #2 Now in Production and go down until you see Carys Mozart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.246.204 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The second season is real. A simpler link (and much smaller download) to use as a ref in the article is http://www.moonscoop.com/actu-250-detail.html, but it does not mention the new character. Meters (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria for AFCs
Hello Meters. I reverted your speedy request for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catherine Senor. AFCs can not be speedy deleted under any of the Criteria for speedy deletion (A) criteria, as they are drafts and not yet articles. Please have a look at the WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions which discusses when AFCs can be deleted; really this is only if the page is and an attack, copyvio or pure vandalism. Hope this make sense. All the best, France 3470   ( talk ) 01:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup. It makes sense, but not all admins agree with your interpretation. There is nothing in the Speedy criteria (or even in Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations) that says that a draft that has been submitted for review cannot be speedied under an Article category. It seems like an obvious enough concern that it should have come up before, but I can't find it in a cursory search. I'll raise the question at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Meters (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
 * Sounds like a good idea. I know the issue has been raised at various times at WikiProject Articles for creation, but it doesn't appear to have been discussed in any depth recently. Found this though Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2012 3. France 3470   ( talk ) 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It just seems like a loophole if A criteria can't be used and nothing else applies. I've seen abandonded submissions sit around for months. Anyways, didn't mean to do anything wrong, and I think my suggestion for clariying hte situation on the speedy page would be quick and light weight.Meters (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose the standard process if the submission is 'abandoned', and not suitable for creation, is to decline it. Blps without sources can also be blanked using afc cleared. I think you're quite correct in realizing that there is a widespread lack of understanding about AFCs; In fact I recently tagged some AFCs for deletion as G12 candidates, that were subsequently deleted under G8 (which certainly can't be right). France 3470   ( talk ) 19:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What
What is wrong with what I'm saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.200.97 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you really don't understand why this edit is unacceptable, then you should probably stay off of other people's Talk pages. Meters (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * okay 99.141.200.97 (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fairfield high School
RE your recent edits at the above article. I went ahead and removed the playboy model that you had removed and put back. Please don't take offense, but the only things on the net of her are nude pictures, which might tend to prove she was a playboy model, but do nothing towards showing she went to fairfield high. This has been going on for a month, with different IPs every time. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. I was just retroactively deferring to your edit that removed the not-so-reliable source but left the list entry. Thanks for explaining. Meters (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for sandbox edit
I was just testing the redirect function in mediawiki. If you check the history, I immediately undid the redirect after making it. --71.91.199.42 (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No biggie. Next time just leave the header portion alone so anyone else who goes to the sandbox won't get confused. Meters (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Zink magazine
Ah. I missed that. I only noticed that the two edit warriors had all of the edits on the last page of edits for the article and didn't realize that there were earlier edits. It is a mess, though. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. I have no idea which of the edit warriors is in the right (if either). If there isn't much of the articel left and no-one else is working on it maybe another AFD will let us get rid of it. Meters (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The named editor is adding some BLP violations, the anon is writing a puff piece. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I wasn't interested enough to bother to find out. They were both way past 3RR with no attempt to communicate at all, so I just warned both of them. I'm cleaning up the worst of the BLP and promo in the article. I'm surprised to have to say that there actually may be enough notability for this article to survive. Meters (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. If some of the above made no sense it was because I was getting mixed up between two different articles I was watching/working on. Meters (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Brisk
What's wrong with the added Brisk family tree? Ugly I admit, but I don't know how to make it pretty. More talented users can choose to edit it to make it more palatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.168.8 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You completely overwrote the existing tree with your edit to Template:Brisker Family Tree, and you already put exactly the same material on the Talk page. Since you don't know how to add it to the tree yourself, let someone else add it to the template if they agree that it should be there. Meters (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Why
When proposing an article for deletion, it is best to give a reason (preferable one based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines) why the article should be deleted. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out, but it's probably a good idea to wait at least 30 seconds to see if the person proposing the deletion is in the process of adding a reason. You sent that message while I was still notifying the file creator. Meters (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason should be added at the time you add the template. Adding the template without a reason seems somewhat pointless.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake. I realized it as I was notifying the article creator, but you had already left your message on my page before I could go back. As I said, maybe you should wait a few seconds before reacting. Meters (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for quick answer on my IP talk page. Could I ask you to tell Fut.Perf. that I at last have answered his message. I cannot tell him myself, since his TP is semi-protected. Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. Meters (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

kjlbac
Maybe I didnt explain my article correctly, but I just feel that it is weird that an article has not yet been created for this company. I used to work in packaging and International Dispensing corp has been huge to the development of the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjlbac (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The company may well be notable, but your article didn't show that, and that is why I tagged it for speedy deletion. Meters (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Five Elements of Humor
Is the entry about Zac Toa at Theories of Humor an example of Original Research? Why is this acceptable, given that similar entries in the article have been deleted? Editors deleted the entry by an established scholar in the field, who has now been invited to speak at a humor conference having Daniel C. Dennett and John Morreall as the keynote speakers. Five Elements appears to be a self-published, and very brief, and not influential text. If Five Elements is not Original Research, then can the other deleted theory return? It appears that I am already known as the individual delivering the paper at the humor conference with Dan Dennett. Cdg1072 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)