User talk:Meters/Archive 14

Thanks for removing Advertisement from "Delhi High Court" Page
Thanks, for the immediate response. --A.R.V. Ravi (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Meters (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not vandalising the 68000 page, Guy Harris is.
He wrote a section which must have taken him hours which is not relevant.

CPU bit ratings are simply NOT determined by "the instruction set architecture" he insists on diverting to. You will notice almost everything he wrote was not about the topic of that page, most of what he wrote was about a completely different system, the IBM 360. That whole section has no relevance to the discussion. I removed it because it is just a waste of time, it should be removed. Vapourmile (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes you are vandalizing that talk page. You do not have the right to delete a talk page thread. The other user is correct in restoring it, and reverting your blankings is not vandalism or edit warring. You have done so five times. You have broken 3RR today. Leave it alone, or you will almost certainly be blocked. The thread is from mid-2020. Just leave it be. And try reading all of the notes saying not to post to my unprotected page (this one) unless my main page is protected (which it is not). Meters (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

moved thread from protected talk page 03:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * user indef'ed April 2021 Meters (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Goffstown High School
Would you mind taking a look at Goffstown High School? It seem to be a complete fabrication. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I basically manually reverted most of the recent edits that were made to the article, but I might've missed a thing or two so perhaps you could take a peek. I think this is pretty much the same editor or editors you came across causing mischief on other high school articles like Bedford High School (New Hampshire). You've already warned a couple of them about the other articles, so it's seem pointless to do so again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. You didn't miss much (an extra 10,000 students). Obviously the same person or group using the same IP and account as last time so so I did up the warnings. Thanks. Meters (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On second thought asked for a NOTHERE block on the named account. Has never made a constructive edit, so not much point in waiting for more of the same stupidity. Meters (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And indef'ed. Meters (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for leaving them warnings like Special:Diff/1015206714 and Special:Diff/1015206892. -- Ashley yoursmile!  05:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

>

Take a look at this
These are the Italian IPs which have been disrupting Gaudie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. More extensive than I had realized. The Gaudie edits started shortly after Emilia Nuotio was installed as editor, which may explain the sudden Italian interest in this small Scottish school newspaper. Meters (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with sales of singles
Hello friend, I hope and you can help me, on the page of Hips don't lie and Waka Waka they have other numbers but here they downloaded them? I ask you to update the data well, Waka Waka is already at 15 million and Hips don't lie already at 13 million. Links: https://www.sonymusicpub.com/en/songwriters/741/shakira and Waka Waka: https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/06/235646/shakira-waka-waka-this-time-for-africa-world-cup-song-history-meaning. If these sources are used as verifiable for their respective pages I hope and they can be used as reliable sources also in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderShakifan29 (talk • contribs) 15:49, April 6, 2021 (UTC) AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Please sign your talk page posts.
 * The edit to List of best-selling singles was undone by user:Binksternet with the summary "Rv... these sources are not good enough" The original edit was made by user:Alejandro Ortiz 15, not by you, and you have both posted nearly identical requests on the article's talk page (actually three nearly identical posts, one now removed). Are you using both accounts? And just now a third account user:Bey-have was created to add the same same comment a fourth time. Not a good idea to create multiple accounts in an attempt to influence article content, if that is what you are doing.
 * As for the content, no I won't proxy the edit for you. I am not familiar with what types of sources are normally used for these sales claims, but the sources do not look particularly strong to me. I strongly suspect that Birksternet is correct. The material is under discussion on the talk page (four times). Wait for that those discussions to conclude. Meters (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And if those sources are being used in other articles that's an issue for those articles, not an argument to use those sources in this article. Meters (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I had 2 accounts but I lost the password for one, the Bey-have account was not me, that was another account. Only Alejandro Ortiz and I are my accounts. And in fact I could not eliminate Alejandro Ortiz's, I did not understand very well why it cannot be updated. I'm confused.AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, please sign your talk page posts. Use ~ to add a signature and time stamp.
 * It's rather odd that Bey-have was created a few days after your post to Talk:List of best-selling singles and first made a verbatim copy of your post, and then made a post to Talk:Rihanna, which you followed up on. Neither of you signs your talk page posts either. Meters (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, sorry but Bey's account is not mine, it must be because I have a friend Shakifan who had the idea of ​​singles, he must be the one who is that account, I only have Alejandro Ortiz and this one. Sorry if I caused any inconvenience. I just wanted to see if some data can be updated.AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Icing (Game)
Its a drinking game. What sort of citation is needed for house rules? Other drinking games dont have such citations. Bobaxos (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not going to include an unsourced claim about rules, particularly not about a local set of rules. If other articles have such unsourced content feel free to remove it. Meters (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As for what type of sources are required, read the links that are already on your talk page. Meters (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Apology
Like 2 years ago I vandalized some shit so sorry. 23winandym (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

IP disruption
Is 89.242.99.209 now editing as 82.132.184.170? See edits to Bob Moran. aeschyIus (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say yes. Same ISP, same city, same edits. Meters (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!
I just started editing and didn't really know the definition of minor edit. Thank you for defining it for me!

TubbDoose (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC) 
 * No probs. Now you know. The majority of your edits were fine, just not minor. Thanks for working on the article. Meters (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you + Question about "rm crypto sites, crypto site reprints" explanation
Thank you for answering my question so quickly. Does that explanation mean it was removed because I talked about cryptocurrency? I'm confused on why I can't talk about NFTs in digital fashion when they are so important to their distribution. Do you have any suggestions on how I can go about this?

I also contacted user:David Gerald like you suggested.

Thanks again,

Nathannghiya (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see David Gerard has answered you. Meters (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Avery (Given name)
Hi Meters, just to let you know that 71.191.251.153 has reverted your edit. It seems they don't want to use the discussion page at all. Is there anything that can be done about this? Cheers. English Prof 17 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * IP blocked by Ohnoitsjamie for edit warring. You did the right thing in opening a talk page discussion and refraining from continuing the edit war. Instructions for handling edit wars are at Edit warring. Meters (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Bruce Nuclear Generating Station
This is in response to your comment regarding other users engaging in edit warring with the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station ‎. If you disagree with the edit feel free to discuss it in the talk section. If you have any questions feel free to leave me a message and we can discuss it further. Until then, stop edit warring and leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.28.237 (talk • contribs) 08:14, May 10, 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not edit warring. I have never undone the edit. In fact, I have never edited this article. I simply warned the IP for edit warring and opened a thread about the edit on the article's talk page . The IP has has made the edit thirteen times Special:Contributions/100.12.28.237. and has never made a talk page post about it.
 * Opening an edit warring report on this. Meters (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Partially blocked from this article for one month. Meters (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved from unprotected talk page. Meters (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And now fully blocked. Meters (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And evading block as KB1338. Restoring edits by blocked IP on Vasa (ship) ‎ and Bruce Nuclear Generating Station . Meters (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not Montezuma Jones
Stop doing what? You do realize is not me?--Countryboy603 (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop adding the dumb commentary to Udder. It's not pronounced "utter" and we don't need the clarification. And I said nothing about the other user. Meters (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't need the clarification that males don't have udders, why haven't you reverted it?--Countryboy603 (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And again, I said nothing about that. You appear to be trolling. Please stop posting about this on my page. Meters (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Donte Hickman
Thanks for your edit of Donte Hickman. To be honest I wasn’t fully aware of what was happening in the process of the edits as citations and links were removed. I couldn’t tell if it was in draft space or not. I’d appreciate if you could put it back as it needs to be. I won’t make further disruptive edits. To be clear do I wave it in draft and others will edit to prepare for article? Or should I continue to edit with proper quotes and citations?

RestoringPeople (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You initially created this content at Draft:Donte’ Lamont Hickman but it was speedily deleted on Oct 7, 2020 by user:Diannaa as a copyvio. You recreated it there on April 27, 2021, and then again (in a sandbox I believe). The draft was declined twice and then moved to Draft:Donte Hickman by user:Dan arndt. You submitted it a third time on April 28, 2021, and then made a cut and paste copy into mainspace at Donte Hickman on May 5, 2021‎. The draft was declined the third time by user:Robert McClenon as a duplicate, with the comment: Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.


 * So, we now have content from you on this subject at Draft:Donte’ Lamont Hickman, Draft:Donte Hickman, and Donte Hickman. We don't need two copies of this, let alone three copies.


 * If you want to continue work on this as a draft I will have it moved back to draft space and deleted from article space. Please don't resubmit it until you think it is ready for article space.
 * If you wish this to remain in article space as is then I will redirect the drafts to the article space version. Note that there is no guarantee that this article will survive in article space. It may end up moved back to draft space or even deleted. Meters (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:RestoringPeople - I have proposed for deletion the version of the article that is in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Meters - Thank you for calling my attention to this title. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to rename Gimli Glider to Air Canada Flight 143
I'm sorry for what I did earlier but I want to rename the page Gimli Glider to Air Canada Flight 143. Reason being that flight 143 is a straightforward name rather than giving the page a special name For e.g. Air Transat Flight 236 isn't given a separate name i.e. Azores Glider. You can however mention Gimli Glider in Bold and/or insert a redirect. Also, Gimli glider is not exactly a flight number or an incident but rather just a nickname given to a plane whereas Flight 143 is a proper flight number. It is also not true that there are many flights with the number 143. I could only find Philippine Airlines Flight 143. There are also many pages, mostly in the 'See Also' which still state the older name i.e. Air Canada Flight 143 such as the one in Air Transat Flight 236, a very similiar accident. If you are not comfortable with my opinion, you can let me know why in my talk page. If you are satisfied with my response, then please make the desired changes. Thanks! Username006 (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed on Gimli Glider's talk page before and consensus is to leave it with the common name. You started a thread about this on the article talk page, so there is no reason to also copy your entire post to my talk page and to User talk:Rchard2scout. And it's not appropriate to start threads on article talk pages (and user talk pages) and ask for responses to be left on your talk page. We keep discussions together in one place, and if you can't be bothered to watch the talk page where you started the thread then that's your problem. Meters (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's do it
Hey Meter! Let me know what you want to do next. It would be a fun collab to work with U. User: Brent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent Severnie (talk • contribs) 19:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm already fixing the mess. Again, please sign your talk page posts properly. There is no editor User:Brent. You are User:Brent Severnie and you add a signature and automatic time stamp with ~ . Meters (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey did you want me to take down some images? I haven't added any yet.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent Severnie (talk • contribs) 03:53, May 29, 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Metres, I'm still learning my way around here. How do you add images? I do have a few good ones of buildings and some leaves too I think would be great.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent Severnie (talk • contribs) 04:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My username is Meters, not Meter, and not Metres. And again, please sign your talk page posts.
 * I don't know why you are asking me about taking down images. I have not mentioned that to you. If you want instructions on how to upload images see Help:Menu/Images and media Meters (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * You can always ask for semi protection of your talk page if the block takes too long. Meters (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Old Scona Academic Edit
Hi! You removed a sentence from my edit on the Old Scona Academic Article. The sentence was "It is unfair to compare Old Scona Academic to other Edmonton High schools however as Old Scona's entrance exam manufactures a population of students already likely to score high on the diploma." Your note said the clarification was pointless but I kinda feel like its needed. Without it the page gives a long list of the successes of the school without giving any reason why. I don't think the responsibility of connecting the pieces should be on the reader. You are a much more experienced editor than I am though so I respect your decision either way. Thanks! TubbDoose (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC).
 * New threads go at the bottom of talk pages, not the top. I have moved it.


 * 1) It's not appropriate to compare a school to other particular schools, and we don't in this article. We simply report how various sources have ranked it. Your comment "It is unfair to compare Old Scona Academic to other Edmonton High schools however as Old Scona's entrance exam manufactures a population of students already likely to score high on the diploma." simply has no place in the article. We don't care what your opinion is, we don't compare Old Scona to other specific schools, and it is not correct that the entrance exam "manufactures a population of students already likely to score high on the diploma". Any school in the city could give the same entrance exam. It is the entrance selection between the various applicants that results in a superior student body. As I pointed out in my summary "It [Old Scona] is the only Academic Alternative high school in the system. Students are selected via entrance exams." You might as well argue that it is unfair to compare the level of skill of the NHL's Edmonton Oilers with that of their development team, the American Hockey League's Bakersfield Condors, since the Oilers selectively choose to put the best players on the Oilers.
 * 2) We do mention that Old Scona is an academic alternative school that selects its students based on academic performance and admission testing. We can probably improve on that, but it's not as if we are pretending this is a normal school.
 * 3) This isn't the first time your edit has been undone. If you are the IP who restored it then you should not be editing the same material as an IP, and you should have followed WP:BRD and raised the issue on the article's talk page rather than restoring it.
 * 4) You said in your first version of his edit "Therefore the school's diploma results can not be viewed as evidence for superior teaching." We don't claim anywhere that the results are due to superior teaching.
 * 5) Don't remove a citation needed tag unless you provide a real source that actually supports the claim. The ref that you added is useless. It's a 10-year-old archived school page (which suggests to me that you are restoring material that has been removed from this article in the past)  and which does not support the claim "Old Scona's entrance exam manufactures a population of students already likely to score high on the diploma" in the least. Meters (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

AFD talk kerfuffle
Hi Meters. I think there are two things at play here. Whether the article should be redirected or deleted, and whether the IP has the right to remove their post from the WT:AFD page. The IP bodly redirected the article, but was subsequently reverted. This means the redirect is contentious and the IP should start an AFD about the article if they want it redirected or simply remove the AFD template and leave the article as is; the IP can have it both ways and the edit warring over that is wrong. IRegarding the stuff on the talk page, the IP removal of their post seems completely fine; nobody had responded to it and it was only a request for the file to be nominated. The editor who re-added that post did so in good faith, but there was no discussion removed and thus no need to re-add the post. The subsequent edit warring that happened is quite unfortunate and is might lead to more editors than the IP getting warned. The IP is likely going to end up blocked, but they did have the right to remove their talk page comment, at least in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no comment on the content of the article in question.
 * I'm not sure they had the right to remove the comment from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. They started an AFD but as an IP they have to finish it on that page. They can withdraw it instead, but simply deleting it is not appropriate while the page is tagged. And they certainly do not have the right to blank my post attempting to get this fixed. Meters (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And I did tell the IP (one of his IPs) that he needed to discuss the redirect on the talk page. Meters (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct about the IP removing your post; that was inappropriate. However, the first time the IP removed the post should have been the end of the story; it shouldn't have been re-added by another editor. The subesequent edit warring was basically just the IP removing their post and someone else re-adding it. Things changed after you added your comment, but before that the IP's comment shouldn't have keep being restored. Moreover, it makes no sense to tag an article with AFD if nobody intends to actually go create the AfD page where the article can be discussed. The IP tagged the article for AFD, then removed the tag and boldly redirected the article instead. The IP never started an AFD for the article; so, it's not unreaosnable to assume the decided not the do so. Once the redirect was reverted, however, the IP was totally in the wrong for edit warring over it. At that point, they needed to go to AFD to explain why the article should be directed. They didn't and now the page is locked so that only an administrator can edit it. If some want to AFD the article, they will either have to wait until the PP runs out or use the talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't need to explain this to me. The IP attempted to open an AFD, but did not follow through properly, and then did not properly withdraw it either, despite multiple requests. So, we had an AFD-tagged article with no corresponding talk page discussion. I assume that the mere presence of the AFD tag puts the article into some category, so it had to be dealt with, and not simply by deleting the talk page thread. Meters (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)`

Kmart
Okay I get it, and it was removed, but I wanted some kind of source saying how many there might be left, as the original part of that section was way too vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbl1975 (talk • contribs) 04:00, June 8, 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's vague because there are no reliable published sources giving an accurate count. The chain seems to be in the process of liquidation so the number is changing, and is not being reported. All of the attempts to add numbers to the article have been original research (WP:OR) or non-reliable sources by individuals. If a reliable source publishes a number we will be happy to report it. Until then we are stuck with generalities and old numbers. Meters (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We've hade editors do their own counts, reference their own web pages, reference individuals' web pages, and reference sites such as Forbes,com that consensus has deemed not to be reliable (WP:FORBESCON), so I'm being strict about this. I'm not accepting numbers unless we have reliably published ones. Meters (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Souhegan Cooperative High School
Hello Meters,

Just seeing your message now about changes to the Souhegan Cooperative High School webpage. I appreciate the advice to leave better documentation on the changes. I will say, I am trying to restore that page to the March 2020 version. I am the former Chair of the Souhegan Cooperative School board, and former curator for this page. The board did a substantial amount of work to update this page over the last 3-4 years but changes were made after that time period by an editor who removed significant a substantial and inappropriate amount of information on the page. The edit I made was in reference to a former student who ran for state representative that included himself as a "notable alumnus". By the standard of the school administration and the board, this person does not qualify as a notable alumnus, and should not be allowed to use the Wikipedia page as a vehicle for their own self-promotion. I'm not criticizing that person per se, other than to say their inclusion into the list was inappropriate. I believe this person removed that information. Please change the removal back to the way it was at your time of editing if you would. Thank you kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wutzu9 (talk • contribs) 12:55, June 20, 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:COI and WP:OWN. You have a conflict of interest, no-one is the curator of the Souhegan High School, and this is not the school's page. It is Wikipedia's article about the school, and it can be edited by any Wikipedia editor following Wikipedia policy and consensus on any disputed content. I would strongly suggest that you not attempt to restore this article to your desired version from more than one year ago.
 * As for the alumnus I restored, he has a Wikipedia article and his attendance is in that article. That is all that is required for him to be included in a list of notable alumni. Whether people associated with the school consider him to be notable is not germane. If you feel Tony Labranche is not notable enough for an article then what you should do is to take his article to WP:AFD on notability grounds. I think you would be wasting your time though, since as an elected member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives he meets the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. I don't necessarily agree with that standard, but it is the consensus, so I follow it. Meters (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Tea
 Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

Cheerful Squirrel (talk) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove   and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Afghanistan edit
Hi, you undid my edit with the explanation that it was not an improvement, but the text is grammatically incorrect and I rectified it, without deleting the content. Johnnytest5 (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And how does that justify your removal of all of the sources and links? I have fixed the grammar error. Meters (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Colorado
Hi, i did add the link to the wikipedia page, many other us states have the same link. It is an important piece of information. Johnnytest5 (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2021
 * Discuss it on the article's talk page, not here. Meters (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Anthropornis
Hello. First sorry to undoing edits. I just saw an inaccurate image being used and decided to edit it. Previously used images have some problems. About the body shape and size of Anthropornis. It is talked in the page, WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 13. The image I replaced was made on that page and is probably accurate, but it might have been better to delete the image than to post it. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Discuss the edit on the article's talk page. As as said, if there is a problem we'll fix, but replacing the image with one comparing the length of the bird to that of a human wearing flippers is pointless. Meters (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about that. Let's talk in that page. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Whitney Houston
Hi Meters. I just talked to Bink and Escape about my new editing with removed colorful words sentence. We will discuss about my new editing. Until a final consensus is reached. please don't change anything on the first paragraph Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And what does this have to do with the fact that you have broken WP:3RR with one edit, are now edit warring another edit on the same page, and are attacking editors in your summaries? I have already commented on the talk page, and i se no response from you. Meters (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not want a war-edit. I just deleted tabloids And remove unsourced sentences and @ilovetati91 has been trying to damage these two pages and remove my questions on her talk page. Am I wrong for that? Do you think that's fair? Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please keep this off my talk page. You have already broken WP:3RR, you are now edit warring over another edit to the same article, you are attacking editors in your summaries, and your claim that you are simply deleting tabloid references is false (see where you also made contentious changes to the lead that are against the comment.) Discuss this on the article's talk page or leave the article alone. Meters (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Trinity Schools
I removed the twitter citation. Please explain the objections, though. The student attended Trinity School at River Ridge, one of three Trinity Schools. The alleged assault was performed by her teacher immediately after she graduated. The teacher later became a second in command at the school. The school administrators found out about it and did nothing. Would love to get other editors involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshal277 (talk • contribs) 04:26, August 1, 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk page, take it to the article's talk page per WP:BRD for discussion, don't restore it. You are trying to cram this material into several articles. An event between a former student and her former teacher that took place after she graduated and at a private residence is not something that belongs in the school article. It's covered in the religious community article, but I don't think it belongs in the school article or the Trinity Schools article. And technically you may have broken WP:COPYVIO by copying that content without proper attribution. Meters (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I left comments on the talk page. Looking forward to coming to some kind of consensus on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshal277 (talk • contribs) 04:56, August 1, 2021 (UTC)
 * Please sign your talk page posts. Meters (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I opened a dispute resolution for this topic
 * Marshal277 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC) ref to wikipage replaced by wikilink below
 * You really need to slow down. There's no rush to deal with this, and this is far from the only article I'm dealing with. You proposed a new version which didn't address most of the problems. A 24 hour wait does not mean that you should attempt to run to dispute resolution, again. I've requested input on this from the schools project. Meters (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And please link properly rather than using a reference to a Wikipedia page. The discussion is at Dispute resolution noticeboard Meters (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This turned into a real mess. Multiple accounts, content coatracked into multiple articles, etc. Five accounts CU blocked, Content rev-del'ed from People of Praise; Trinity Schools; Trinity School at River Ridge; and the peripherally-related Great Hearts Academies, Central Catholic High School (Portland, Oregon), Chesterton Academy,  and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis and talk pages. Meters (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Underworld series Infobox
I noticed that you discussed with DisneyMetalhead about his interpretation of the Infobox guidelines.

DisneyMetalhead is very active in his editing of franchise and film series articles and I have had problems with his interpretations of the guidelines before. In this case I think he is mostly making his reasonable point unclear by mixing separate issues. He said he would take the matter elsewhere, but it wasn't clear where he planned to take it. He took the matter to Template_talk:Infobox_media_franchise in case you care to comment, but I understand if you don't have any further interest in it. I made a comment, his suggestion is not unreasonable but personally think it would be better to keep more detail. -- 109.79.80.88 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll comment there. Meters (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

thanks for the clean up
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.69.189.65 (talk • contribs) 22:36, August 8, 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * That and your Wikipedia paycheck must make you a rich person! Meters (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Milton Demographic Data
Hi Meters. Is there a problem with my edit? The ethnic/racial data on the table did not reflect the 2016 census. The numbers and percentages for Filipino and Arab are way off, and the percentages for the other groups are slightly off because in the code they were calculated using the wrong total population count. In the census, the data in the Visible Minority section uses a different total population count from the one on the main census page. This is because the information in the Visible Minority section is based on the long-form questionnaire which uses a different methodology compared to the short-form questionnaire used on the main page. YukonPhantasma (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please explain your edits on the article's talkpage as I requested. I'm not the only person who has undone your edits to this page. Certainly your edit summary 'The number of Europeans was determined by subtracting the number of Aboriginals from the "Not a Visible Minority" number in the census seems to be a problem. Do you really think that everyone who is not  a visible minority is either Native or European? What about Russians or Australians, for example? Meters (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No one else has undone my edits. European Canadian is another term for White, and yes, it does include Russian (look at the Wiki page for Euro-Canadians)and Australian Canadians (because they have European ancestry if they're white). Would you rather I make it White instead of European Canadian? YukonPhantasma (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I misread an undo by Magnolia677. Anyways, I don't understand what you are doing. I don't agree with your statement that European Canadian is another term for White (not all Europeans are White, and not all Whites are European). For the third time, take this to the article's talk page and explain your changes. My talk page is not the place to discuss article content.

Thank you
Hello. I wanted to stop by and thank you for your recently-added contribution to my talk page. I don't know how much you know about me or my editing history here on Wikipedia, but I have recently become a targeted subject for comments that were vandalistic and/or constituted spam/personal attacks. The instances of that happening have increased quite sharply of late. I appreciate you looking out for me in this case. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No probs. I'll leave your talk page on my watch list for now. Meters (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Are these all Sockpuppet investigations/GeraldFord1980? Meters (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding to my list of sock cases so I'll know who it is next time. Meters (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to double-check on those at some point, but if my memory serves me correctly, all of these kinds of edits do seem to originate from the suspected sockpuppet you mentioned. I know for sure that recent edits of this kind on my talk page have been reverted in recent weeks by 3 users in particular:, , and . Although I have only just barely begun working more frequently with the last user I mentioned, I have had years of eding alongside the first two users, and any of the three might be more qualified to answer that question than I am. But while I'm replying here, I think it's also worth mentioning that the current situation seems to be similar to something else I dealt with around 18 months ago. At that time, I made an edit to a Wikipedia article that was categorized as a part of a specific WikiProject of which I'm a member. My edit in that case was consistent with the policies involved, but the person whose edit I had reverted took issue with that and shortly after started harrassing me outside of Wikipedia. I was able to get that situation resolved. But within the last 6-8 months at least, there has been a resurgence of anonymous editors (most of whom have, unless I'm mistaken, been directly tied to the sock puppet you mentioned) who are spamming Wikipedia pages in general and my talk page in particular with the same kinds of rubbish. My apologies for the lengthy response here. I just want to make sure you have everything you need on your end to understand the situation here, and brevity is not my strong suit. But I'd rather give you too much information than not enough. Thanks again for looking out for me. I appreciate you. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry you're dealing with this annoyance again. The user in question's editing patterns are similar to the socks, I'll look into that more.
 * P.S. Just for your future knowledge: I didn't get pinged because my username doesn't include a space. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  04:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you as well for keeping an eye on this. I've fixed the username spacing issue you mentioned. I appreciate you. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That was a wild ride
In retrospect, I was too AGF-ish and not aware enough of deeper BLP policies such as WP:BLPCrime and those relating to low-profile individuals in general. Novellasyes (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been kicking myself. I've been around long enough that I should have flagged that as a BLP vio earlier. OK to AGF with a new user making mistakes, but if I had been aware of the number of WP:SPAs making the edits and the number of very peripherally involved articels being used as coatracks my AGF would have ended much earlier. Meters (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Message to Meters
Hi again! I see you left a message on my talk page regarding minor edits, Okay I understand that now, My apologies as I'm new to the Wikipedia and I didn't knew that, I'll make sure to follow up your explanation in the future and use minor edits when necessary. and just to know on which article did you noticed that? (asking out of curiosity) and I have like put minor edit tag on many edits, although those edits were reasonably correct but I can't undo that action but would make sure to keep in mind when to use it and when to not. Thank you! HimuTheEditor (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No biggie. I didn't list an article because I noticed that several of your edits had the same issue. It does not mean that there is anything wrong with the content of the edits. It was just a heads up. Meters (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Kmart
So that went off the rails spectacularly. What happened? I just happened to see an IP removing vast amounts of text from the talk page claiming "REDACTED FOR "OR"" and that seemed worth investigating. Notfrompedro (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A WP:SPA who has spent the last 7 months (on this IP, and probably longer than that if I remember correctly) trying to get his WP:OR and WP:SYNTH into the article, and does not appreciate me in the least. He has a personal webpage, or pages, about KMart that he has attempted to use as references, and has contributed material about KMart to Fobes.com, which he has also attempted to reference. He is not at all impressed that he does not meet Wikipedia's definition of subject matter expert and that Forbes.com is not considered a reliable source unless it is written by a staff member or also published in Forbes Magazine. See WP:FORBESCON. I think he has done similar things with Sears. Meters (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's quite a history! I guess the odds are high he will be back? Notfrompedro (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think so. I'm fairly certain this is the same guy I've been dealing with for more than a year. He eventually admitted to being the person who wrote the Forbes.com material, so his name is out there, but I'm not going to repeat it. He was phoning all the stores to determine which ones were still open when I first ran into him, I think. He claims to have connections at various media outlets, and I've told him that if he can get a reliable outlet to publish his numbers I will accept that as reliably sourced. He seems to be claiming that the recent NYT report is because of him calling them. Fair enough, I trust The NYT to have done their due diligence and verified the claims they publish. Meters (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Does this editor always use the same IP or do they create accounts? Notfrompedro (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know for sure. I may be conflating edits by different editors. There have been an number of WP:SPAs in this area making similar edits, including at least one indef'ed named editor user:Sw wicks, who was actually the one phoning the stores. I doubt they are all different, but no point in a WP:SPI now as all old ones are stale. Meters (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Moody photo
Photo is 100% from 2020 on the date specified - Meta data can be supplied as proof. The billboard article was also updated recently as per our request to use this more recent approved image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanRockLegend (talk • contribs) 17:48, August 23, 2021 (UTC)
 * Please sign your talk page posts.
 * Please link to the article (Ivan Moody) in question, provide a diff to the edit in question, or link to the image in question (File:Ivan_Moody_of_5FDP_performing_live_in_Oberhausen,_Germany_at_the_K%C3%B6nig-Pilsener-Arena.jpg).
 * Please explain why you are asking about this when it was user:Hcm2021 who uploaded the image and made the edit.
 * Whether the image is from 2017 or 2020 is irrelevant. It appears to be a copyrighted image, which has been uploaded as "own work" by someone who did not take the picture, according to the information that the uploaded provided. Meters (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you and Hcm2021 the same user? Meters (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your statement that a request was made for Billboard to update the date, The info supplied to you was that Billboard have recently updated that image to an article from 2017. SIGNED OceanRockLegend. FN — Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanRockLegend (talk • contribs) 18:28, August 23, 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote The billboard article was also updated recently as per our request to use this more recent approved image. That seems quite clear. Your company asked Billboard to update the webpage. I'm really not interested in bandying words with an SPA COI editor who now appears to be less than forthcoming. Please address the rest of the issue I raised. Meters (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And User talk:Hcm2021 also confirms that The Billboard article was revised last week per the request of Ivan Moody's management team. My WP:AGF is about done. Meters (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked as an undisclosed paid editor. Doug Weller  talk 19:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

JFK Assassination, Opening Paragraph is Innacurate
I'm not sure how things work round here. I attempted to reword my statements in order to be more "civil" The fact remains, if it is the consensus is that the opening paragraph remain misleading, what does this say about those who make the consensus that it remain so ?

One is lead to believe that all of those in the thread pointing out the factual errors in the article are being stone walled. Far be it for me expect that my edit be accepted. This is not the point. The point is that the error must be addressed.

I mean no offence, but the question remains. Who makes this consensus? Is there no agreement at least that the paragraph in question is not acceptable and needs revision?

Why has nobody been able to make headway on such an obvious flaw? What is the meaning of this?

Yours sincerely, Quinn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinnjin78 (talk • contribs) 06:03, August 28, 2021 (UTC)
 * Please sign your talk page posts with ~ to generate a timestamped signature.
 * Please link to the page in question Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy
 * You showed up on a talk page and requested a contentious edit (as your first edit ever on Wikipedia). You were politely told that consensus was against this edit and were pointed to a talk page discussion about it. You responded by reopening the edit request, and leaving a long rant, finishing with "in it's [sic] current form, the article is dishonest. Perhaps the consensus is the result of a handful of dishonest editors." Offence taken. Meters (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

talk:canadians
which comment are you talking about?Catchpoke (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your last four edits to Talk:Canadians. You accused user:Walter Görlitz of being disingenuous and of WIKILAWYERING, and now you have progressed to calling him a troll and a hypocrite. You are well into personal attack territory now. Knock it off. And don't erase my warnings from your talk page and then expect me to discuss this on my talk page. I'm not involved in the content discussion on the article and I have no interest in continuing to discuss your page  warnings here.  Meters (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * user indef'ed Meters (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

umm
I meant to get it as like currently inhabited like not no people there. Welp Mystic880 (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just leave it alone. If it's a community it is redundant to say it is inhabited. If no-one lives there it is not a community. At most it might have been community at one time, but it is no longer.