User talk:Meters/Archive 2

RoboCop
No worries, everything's alright. Arbero (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Spoilers
Hi Meters. You reverted the change in World of Ptavvs articles, saying: "...giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative..." That is absolutely correct and I agree with you. However, the spoiler in question was not in the Plot section of the page, but in the Reception section! People often check out the reception before deciding on whether to embark on reading a novel, especially if it is long. So don't you think that any spoilers would best be revealed in the plot section and not in critical reception? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EUflinks (talk • contribs) 05:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't spend too much time trying to place any significance on the exact wording of the template text. Just don't remove spoilers, regardless of where they are. The general rule is too not remove or flag spoilers. You also removed that particular chunk of text from the middle of a direct quote. Meters (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please guide me
I am the author of Qutbi Bohra. Ever since i have uploaded this artice it has been repeatedly vandalized. You too had reversed a vandalisation. I am very new to Wikipedia, this is my first article. Even after giving all justification on talk page, giving 3 newspaper references, '1' in which the son of Khuzaima Qutbuddin, Abdeali himself endorses Qutbi Bohra. Further a newsletter by a faction of Progressive Dawoodi Bohra is also referenced where Qutbi Bohra is clearly mentioned. You can also see clearly how the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra is supporting Khuzaima Qutbuddin openly in newspaper references. I have written another article to clarify the stance that Qutbi Bohra is not connected to succession issue. In this article you will get a fair idea of the entire issue. If you see the contib of the person who has done the vandalism he is just after all the sites of a particular community. He has deleted my site protected it from edit. I request you to guide me in getting out of this situation and save my article. Thank you.

Araz5152 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about this topic to take a reasonable position. You should make your case at its article for deletion discussion here. Meters (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Daugaard
Your original edit note for removing the Governor's official campaign site: "(→‎External links: rmv promo link. Wikipedia does not need to link to his fund raiser) (undo)" 71.23.178.214 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And your point is? How does that edit summary possibly justify accusing me of partisan editing? The link has nothing but an appeal for support and funds. It seems to me to violate WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, but if I'm wrong, so be it. If that site qualifies as an official campaign website that is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia then I made a simple mistake. I don't appreciate your accusing me of bad faith editing. If you had made the slightest attempt to look at my editing history you would have seen that I have no history of significant edits to any political articles. Meters (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Qutbi Bohra
you have done a great job. i really hope it would help save the article. since you have gone through the entire write up of all the reasons and their validations, does it make a difference in your personal stance for the article? Thank you again for your time and efforts. Next time i will take care when inserting comments. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just took a break. I'll continue to fix Talk:Qutbi Bohra now. It was such a mess that I couldn't follow the arguments. Once I'm done reformatting it I'll see if I can form an opinion. Meters (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Finished changes. Add note to both editor's Talk pages and AfD. Meters (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:EricTomCape/sandbox
Hello Meters. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:EricTomCape/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly an attack page or negative, unsourced BLP. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If Erical Rapier is a real person I suspect that she would think that this is an attack page, or at least the start of one. Meters (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It now appears from other webpages that Erical Rapier is actually the of someone's role playing character, so a speedy on attack or BLP grounds is indeed not required. Meters (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Anger Music Group for deletion
Hello. The user has already tried to have the page I created get deleted and it was determined that the page was good and had no reason to be deleted. They then tried to do it again even after the mod said the page was good to go. Gatorbury (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, an AfD is not the same as a speedy. The speedy delete was declined because the article makes a claim of notability. That's enough to decline a speedy request and is why your article survived the speedy. It does not mean that your article is "good to go". Even if the claim of notability is not realistic (and I'm not saying that your article's claim is not reealistic) the speedy can be declined. To survive an AfD on notability grounds the topic of the article has to meet the much higher standard of actually being notable per wp:notability. Meters (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Login image
Hi Meters. In the edit summary of your replacement of the image at the Login article, you referred to strange text on the description page. What exactly can you see? I see no strange text on my browser. JamesDouch (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was very strange. The description page said that the image was uploaded by you, but the file was created by user:Er. puja kumari and the description was very long and strange and had nothing to do with the image. I put a test edit speedy tag on the file (with a comment that it might actually be some sort of sneaky vandalism) and it was deleted  as vandalism "(Deletion log); 10:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Screen Shot 2014-02-07 of English Wikipedia login form.png ‎(G3: Vandalism)"). Your original, unaltered screenshot is now back so I'll put it back in the article. I've never seen anything like it before, and I don't know how it was done. Meters (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Killiechassie House
Hello Meters, forgive my slow manner, I got there eventually. This should now be listed here if you want to give your views to keep the page, or delete it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_March_15#Killiechassie_House Angela MacLean (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm trimming some of the excess foliage now. Meters (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction to QM rewrite
Buddy how does wikipedia work re. messaging users? Are we meant to have the convo on one of our talk pages, or alternate between the two!? Do you only get a new message alert if I edit your talk page? Re. the rewrite itself, (just added this on my talk page- not sure if thats where its meant to go!) but I did already add my rewrite to the talk page, ten months ago- with no replies. Without users articulating on the talk page why the current article is better than mine, I see no reason not to add mine back? Mcplums (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I just keep it where the talk atarts. As for your edits to Introduction to quantum mechanics, you comnpletely rewrote the article, shrinking it by more than 60k. That's a massive change, and the lack of response to your posting 10 months ago is not a sign that everyone will agree with the changes. You made the change to teh article and someone immediately reverted it. That means that the change should be discussed. See BRD. So, I put the article back to the way it was before your changes. I would suggest that you raise the whole issue again on the article's talk page, but as a new thread rather than as the addendum you have now added to the old thread. The idea of completely rewriting the article, as you have, needs to be discussed in general rather than just asking people to pass on your new version. I suggest first seeing if you can get agreement that the article is at too high a level. If people agree then you can work on individual sections. I agree taht soem sections seem to be at too higha level for a layman's intro, bu tI think you'll have much more success if you don't try to rewrite the whole article at once. Meters (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks. I have to say it's a bit frustrating watching such an obvious string of socks. I think that range blocks are going to be the only way to stop the IPs. I guess I should just bite the bullet and add a full list of the IPs with sample diffs to the SPI. Meters (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Winona Middle School
Please refrain from making non-constructive comments as you did to Winona Middle School .Gfrsdgerr1234 (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)If you continue you will be blocked thank you Gfrsdgerr1234 (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Gfrsdgerr
 * The school isn't notable. It's not a high school so it has been redirected to the school board per the normal procedure. And since you are an obvious sock of a blocked account, you shouldn't be making any edits. Meters (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * SPI started Sockpuppet investigations/Gfrsdgerr Meters (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Long since indeffed. Meters (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Make Believe Me's page.
Hey man, just wanted to revert the edits you made on the Make Believe Me unlinking both of their albums, as while you were removing the links, I was making the articles themselves. No problems here, just wanted to let you know why I reverted those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolcanoes (talk • contribs) 01:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I saw your first edit summary so I knew what you were up to. Meters (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Bruce Carroll
Ok, so I'm new to the Wikipedia editing process, so please help me to go about the correct way of removing this from my clients artist page. I work for his new publicist & the info I am trying to remove is false. Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art4artssakeent (talk • contribs) 23:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, to start with don't delete large chunks of referenced text without an explanation. And why do you say the information is false? The information I checked (not everything) seems to be verified by the cited refs.
 * And finally, you should be very careful about editing this article as an employee of his publicist. That's a conflict of interest. You should read WP:COI and WP:PUBLICISTS. Noncontroversial edits may be made, but that certainly does not include rewriting the article to the publicist's liking. Meters (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The information that is being removed seems to be valid from all of the sources I have checked. The song seems to have musical charting and was on the Emmy's page as a nominated piece. It is also included on information for the other two artists mentioned. Upon checking the US Copyrights office, there too is suporting information. I do not see where incorrect information has been added. Canyouhearmenow 02:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confirmation. I'm not sure what they are up to, but I'll keep an eye on the article. Meters (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have gone onto the page and fixed the dead links and I cut out the fluff to state just the facts. There should be no other issue with the included information.Canyouhearmenow 03:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks. Meters (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Meters, again as I said I am new to Wikipedia and I appreciate the information on how to go about doing this correctly. Although I work for a publicist I am in no way trying to portray Carol in the "best possible light," but only the actual facts of his career. For starters this paragraph is at the beginning of his discography section ahead of his albums. Wouldn't it make more sense to go in a career section? And it's not so much the information that is false it's the way in which it is portrayed. This was brought to my attention yesterday by Carol's son who called me and asked me to find out about it because it was a song that he had never heard of & wanted some info on it. After doing some research I found that the song is not on sale anywhere & other than the articles that are referenced I'm still not for certain that all of the artists listed as singing on the song actually did. However, I am researching that currently. The whole thing is just very strange because this is hardly the biggest accomplishment of someone who is 7 Dove Awards & 2 Grammys and yet it's got an entire paragraph at the top of his discography. It would be one thing if it was listed as a small blurb in the career section but even that is stretching it a bit. The falsehood is the way in which the song is portrayed as if it was a huge hit. And yes it was nominated for an Emmy but it was a local enemy, which does not carry much prestige. All that to say no one is trying to hype his career up. if anything I'm trying to downplay what should be BUT that's neither here not there. My only concern is Mr. Carroll's page. "Hands of Hope" was not an officially downplayed. In response to Canyouhearmenow's "I don't know what they're up to" comment, they are up to displaying the facts in the most factual way possible. After reading some of your contributions, I'm not certain you're capable of that.released single under any legitimate label & therefore doesn't belong at the bottom of the discography either. So, Meters please tell me how I can go about correcting this. I am posting this here, because I've had no reply to the one I posted in a different area, because I'm not really sure how this all works lol. I guess since my original post canyouhearmenow has taken down two of their responses. Anyways like I said, the song was never actually released as a single. AND there is nothing ANYWHERE on a website with any validity that states the supposed artists in which it lists that did. Not saying it didn't happen, but it does make one wonder. So I ask again, how does this get either removed or placed in a better spot & severely edited?l — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art4artssakeent (talk • contribs) 08:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Art4artssakeent: I am unsure as to what you are talking about in reference to taking anything down? The only thing I did was take out some of the fluff in the article and re-cite some dead links. As far as the Discography section of Carroll's page, all articles have to start somewhere. It in no way means that this was Carroll's biggest contribution and I have not read anywhere that they were trying to make it into a huge deal. In fact I don't find anywhere that this song is available for commercial release? So, as far as playing down the event or piece I would suggest going in and adding more of Carroll's career highlights under his discography section in an effort to build the section. Anything that you put in that section at this point is going to look awkward due to lack of content. However, in situations like this as stated before it is not recommended for agents and publicists to edit said articles due to their writing content like a press release instead of an encyclopedic article. I would highly recommend that you read WP:COI and WP:PUBLICISTS in an effort to educate yourself to the proper editing. I edit a lot of articles in which subjects do not wish to have things added. If the material is capable of being verified then it can be added. I am the editor that added this material to start with and I did so after reading about the event where the song was performed by the artists mentioned as well as two of the writers. So, I am confused as to how that is capable of making one wonder? Just because a piece of work is not generated or sold does not make it none the less valid. Car makers design prototype vehicles that never hit the road but that does not mean they were never built. I also edit the Emmy articles and created many of those articles over the years. The fact of the piece being nominated on a regional level verses a national level does not negate the fact that the song was indeed nominated for an Emmy. An Emmy is an Emmy is an Emmy. This should also serve as a confirmation to you that there might not have been an over-hyping of the work since it was released only to a regional area. I think we may be getting a bit over worked over a situation that simply can be solved by added more of Carroll's career highlights that would in turn put this one in its proper context.Canyouhearmenow 17:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Art4artssakeent, you work for the artist's publicist, and you removed a large chunk of the article without explanation twice. Then you complained that the information you had removed was false. After two editors double checked the information and confirmed that it was not false, you backtracked. And then you say "After reading some of your contributions, I'm not certain you're capable of that [displaying the facts in the most factual way possible]." Pardon me if my assumption of good faith in you has reached its limit. I see no reason for you to make a statement like that about me. I've politely pointed out what you did wrong and pointed you to the links that tell you how to deal with having a conflict of interest and working as a publicist. Will I help you add pertinent information that is referenced to  reliable sources? Yes. Will I help you remove information that should not be in the article? Yes. Will I help you massage the article into what the artist's publicist (your company) or the artist or the artist's son want to see? No. Meters (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Meters, that comment was in no way directed at you. It was directed to canyouhearmenow. I apologize that it read that way. That was in no way my intent. I was asking you for help. This ENTIRE comment below is actually in direct response to canyouhearmenow, so please do not take it as being toward you.
 * Ok just so we can be clear on a couple of things... I am not a publicist, nor do I work at a publicity firm. I am a retired officer turned retired owner of a security company turned freelance investigator. Lots of turns. Lol. Anyways, I don't need to get too personal. I am old school as they say and not very tech savvy & a publicist who hires me occasionally to do some investigating asked that I look into this. I guess this edit was removed & put up again a few times by the person who is in charge of running Mr. Carroll's internet profiles. It actually would've been ignored, but Mr. Carroll's son is planning something for his father & came across this song that he didn't know existed & called the publicist to find out about it. That's where I come in. I don't think it's being overblown at all. I have actually found a treasure trove of fascinating information & have learned the ins & outs of how Wikipedia works.
 * Moving on. I couldn't understand how some things on Wikipedia could be so easily edited while others were edited then replaced with the material edited out within a matter of minutes sometimes seconds. I'm still not exactly sure how all that works other than the fact that there are certain people that have certain things on watch lists. Now, why would anyone want Bruce Carroll's page on a watch list? There's only one reason… they have a personal agenda. Having been around The Nashville music scene especially the Christian music scene since the late 70s I pretty much know everyone there is to know in this small little circle. The only reason to I say that is because after reading the article & seeing this strange paragraph sticking out, I knew exactly who Bruce Carroll and David Meece were, but I had never heard of a David L. Cook. I didn't really think anything of it until I went to his Wikipedia page. Wow. . And after seeing how much you've edited of everything that he's affiliated with I find it hard to believe that you posted that because you came across an article and then some Emmy nods. That is a whole different matter of its own, however I am going to get to the bottom of it. It's really crazy to think we live in a world where anyone can be what they want to be on the Internet. But this man has gone above and beyond… No pun intended. Lol. Anyways, I'm going to look into getting this current matter at hand resolved & removed. So thanks for the enlightenment? I don't really know what else to say. Art4artssake  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art4artssakeent (talk • contribs) 01:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's not meant for me, then please don't put it on my page. Put it on the talk page of the editor you intend it for. Meters (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know
I didn't realize I shouldn't insert my comments anywhere, but I take it you're probably right. I'll avoid it from now on. Sorry. Funfree (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Talk pages just gets too confusing otherwise. Meters (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Banc de Binary
Hello, there's been whitewashing and promotional editing on the Banc de Binary page by CorporateM, could you rollback to Blackkite? Is there anything that can be done about users like CorporateM who see Wikipedia as a cashcow?HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not following this one any more. I'll leave it to the editors who have an idea of who the various SPAs and COIs are. Meters (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We've got it broken down here. Historian is an SPA, BDBJack works for the company, and Okteriel is a potentially paid editor. The rest, to the best of my knowledge, are actual disinterested editors. CorporateM (Talk) 14:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Marion Zimmer Bradley edits by Moira Greyland
Meters - please don't bite the newcomers. Your reverting Moira's edits was utterly unhelpful - you could have gone through and put in proper indenting for her at the very least. I've restored her edits with formatting, but it's now over a month later, and Ms. Greyland hasn't come back to Wikipedia at all. Argyriou (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, but I stand behind what I did. I undid a probable BLP violation with numerous violations of the talk page standards (no less than seven unsigned and unindented comments inserted into the middle of other peoples long-dormant threads and comments. I left a polite summary here saying "please add these again but without disrupting the original discussions" and then I immediately left a polite, detailed message on her Talk page here explaining exactly what was wrong with her additions, why it was a problem, why I had removed her comments rather than modifying them myself, and how to recover the comments without having to retype them. I also provided her with the link to WP:TPHELP. I don't consider that biting a newcomer at all. I don't think I could have been any more polite or helpful. As for your suggestion that I should have taken it upon myself to refactor all of her comments myself, well, I might have, had the material been less of a BLP nightmare. I wasn't going to touch that mess of a discussion of lesbianism, paganism, molestation, and pedophilia to do with Marion Zimmer Bradley and her husband. I (and you) had no way of knowing if the editor really was their daughter, as she claimed. You, on the other hand, took the responsibility for restoring the edit. You don't get a bye on a BLP (or any other) violation just because you're restoring someone else's edit. And just adding indents and signatures is not enough to clarify edits that have been inserted into the middle of someone else's comment, as some of them were. A few rounds of that and no-one will know who wrote what.
 * By the way, if you are going to refer to something that happened a month ago it would be nice if you left a link to the edit, or at least to the article in question. Meters (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Benaphore
Someone retagged it and I've deleted it. Yes, the page was CC licensed, but non-commercial and no derivatives. That isn't compatible with our CC-BY-SA 3.0, which allows both commercial use and modification. You have to be careful with this - if there is an NC or an ND in the string (or the words 'non-commercial' or 'no derivatives' are there), it's no good for us. Took me some time to get the hang of this - before coming here, I'd just worked with 'copyright' or 'not copyright'. Much easier... Peridon (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I was going to go back and take a closer look at it eventually. Meters (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Trinity Christian School (Fairfax, Virginia) ‎
I understand your discomfort, but it is clear to see that the last edit was not me...it seems to be someone else who is trying to get me banned or something. My IP address is not the same as his. Please do not falsely accuse when you don't fully understand the situation. 212.91.188.166 (talk)‎. . (8,772 bytes) (+258)‎. . (Updated info to reflect proper information. Website will be updated in short time.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaflopper (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you keep inserting the same highly suspicious material without edit summaries, and tagged as minor edits, don't be surprised if I assume it's you again when an IP pops up after you are warned to make the same edit.Meters (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether the IP was you or not, you've made more than enough bogus edits to Trinity Christian School (Fairfax, Virginia) to warrant the final warning. Meters (talk)
 * Are you a wikipedia mod?
 * Please do not accuse when you do not view the full history. If you had bothered to look up the full history you would see that I did not add those edits in the first place. I undid edits by another IP address that seemed like vandalism because they deleted major chunks of the text. Just as you have, I assumed that those edits were vandalism due to the large amounts of material deleted.
 * Look deeper into issues before assuming someone is vandalizing, there is often something else going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaflopper (talk • contribs) 19:28, June 27, 2014‎
 * I didn't assume that large deletions were vandalism. Unlike you, I read the school webpage and the school profile to see what could be verified, and left edit summaries to explain what I was doing. Also unlike you, I provided sources. I also read the page history to see what was going on. By reverting a deletion you become responsible for that content. Repeatedly inserting nonexistent sports like Badmitten, courses that the school does not offer such as Soviet History, and other unsourced material is a problem, and you can't blame it on whoever first put it in. If you can't be bothered to check that the info you are putting back is valid, then don't do it. I've been removing this crap from that article for months, and I'm fed up. As I said above, "If you keep inserting the same highly suspicious material without edit summaries, and tagged as minor edits, don't be surprised if I assume it's you again when an IP pops up after you are warned to make the same edit." If you can provide reliable sources for this material I will happily remove the warning. I don't think you can, because the school's website and school profile are quite informative, and they make no mention of these courses, and sports. I couldn't find a source that listed the school's clubs, but I really doubt that there is a Commissar Club or a Ukrainians for Soviet Russia Club. I could be wrong, but your edit replacing the Christians for Rock over Classical Club with the Commissar's Club just seems too much. Meters (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)