User talk:Meters/Archive 6

Ugent: User:MehrdadFR
Urgent. Hello Meters.

The User:MehrdadFR seems to have a political agenda because he is putting information that is supporting the Islamic Republic of Iran POV, and is deleting other NPOV information and references from academic sources about contemporary (and controversial) subjects about Iran such as the hijab, chador, womens' rights etc. The problem is that this user has hijacked these issues, when the articles, content and references should be NPOV and sober.

Could you do something about this user?

Thank you. Artoxx (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No.


 * 1) I'm not an admin so I can't do anything you can't do yourself.
 * 2) I'm not involved in any discussion or edits to these articles.
 * 3) As your SPI shows you are WP:canvassing multiple editors over this. Meters (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And blocked after CU.Meters (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Escoper
Hi Meters. I'm not that well versed yet with Escoperloits editorial pattern, except for his spamming of the talk page of the article in question every now and then, that is. However, what I'm 100% sure of, is that this account has a clear POV agenda, and should therefore be reverted on sight. Furthermore, I already caught him once socking. I dare to bet a good amount on it that its not his first time that he's socking either. Definetely not a new user. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest on Arkay Beverages
reply re

pour sur je me suis confondu de compte voila ce que c'est d etre novice. merci en tous les cas de votre aide ! arkay beverage est bien une page autre que la mienne.. merci pour tous vos conseils Reynald Vito Grattagliano (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean Arkay Beverages isn't your page? It's irrelevant whether you created it or not. It may have been created by User:Abekeapo (now blocked for copyright violations) but this is the only article you have ever edited, and your user name is the same as the name of one of the company's directors. As I said on your user page, if you are Reynald Vito Grattagliano, you must declare your conflict of interest and you should not edit the article. If you are not, you should not be using this user name. Meters (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I confused the account but I can confirm you that I did not wrote the article about Arkay Beverages as it appears now on Wikipedia. However I am the one who answered to Mr Zackmann08 expling him that I am the inventor of the WARM molecule. Best regards, ReynaldReynald Vito Grattagliano (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I have cleaned up the AFD. It looks to me that with proper sourcing we should be able to justify an article on the WARM molecule. You definitely have a conflict of interest and should propose your changes on the article's talk page rather than making them yourself. Meters (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the deletions on Gary Weber AfD discussion
Hi Meters, I have no idea if you'll see my reply from my own talk page (this is how little I know about how editing works, but I'm trying to learn) so I thought I'd note it here too:

Sorry about missing protocol there. I had felt that I had already overstepped my role there as the person who had posted the original article. I'm still trying to figure out how and to what extent I can advocate for an article that I wrote. Plus some of what I had posted was unnecessarily self-identifying, and, in retrospect I would have handled it differently. As the process of reviewing the article has proceeded, I've learned a lot about this process. I realized that I was unsure of how/if I should be arguing for the article and felt uncomfortable about so much of my personal stuff being placed in a public space. I suppose it's inevitable that we make some mistakes to this effect. I'll be more careful before posting in the future to make sure I later won't want to scratch it from the public record.Etherfire (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You know the subject personally, you discussed his work in your PhD thesis, you were in a professional relationship with his co-author, and you personally know the editors who created the first version of the article. The fact that you still don't recognize these as conflicts of interest is disturbing. Did you even read WP:COI?
 * If any of the material is self-identifying, you do have the right to redact that material from your comments. Having said that, my comment and the majority of your material that you removed does not identify you in any way, and even the small amount that might be questionable does not clearly identify you. We don't know your name, the title of your dissertation, which university granted your degree, or which university you now work for. If you are still concerned about this material please see WP:SUPPRESS for how to ask to have it removed from Wikipedia's records. I doubt the Oversight team will agree to suppress the information, but I'm not an Oversighter. Meters (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Monsignor Farrell High School
Re Monsignor Farrell High School edit: I feel that the four actors are collectively notable, and they do have a collective article about them. CsikosLo (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTINHERITED If you think they are notable then write articles about them before you add them to the alumni list. The notable alumni list only includes individuals, not groups. Meters (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Almost 1 M of the letter "s" is not useful and makes it difficult for anyone ot leave you messages.
There must be some BIG problem in here that I do not understand : I never put almost 1 M of the letter "s" - this is unsane. Do you mean that the letter s was inputed 1 million time in some of the section I contributed ? How come, please try to research who did that because I never did it. This is very weird indeed and so sick !!! Best, Olivier Olcoispeau (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Now I better understand why another user send me the following : "I know anonymity on the internet tends to bring out the worst in people, but can we at least try to show each other a little more dignity and respect? It shouldn't matter whether you're a casual IP editor or well respected veteran; before you send that message with the intent to troll or harm, please consider the human being who will see it. No one deserves harassment, and this includes even blocked or banned users. Who knows how long Wikipedia will be around. We decide whether this experience is a positive or a negative one."

Well guys, this is a mistake, because I would never ever do that. I just wonder how come !!! Best, Olivier Olcoispeau (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not leave that message on your account. You read it on another user's page. So, this is incompetence on your part, or trolling. Meters (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

False implications
Listen here,

I am only editing what I have found to be true via internet sources. This is not vandalism and should not be presumed to be such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.249.50 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk page, every edit you have made has had to be undone. Just because you read it somewhere on the internet does not make it true, and even if it is true it does not mean it is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Since you didn't source any of your changes we have no way of evaluating the sources, or even if there actually are sources. If you make an unsourced change to a long-standing, sourced middle name you should expect to be undone and warned. Meters (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ron Dias/Joanne Jansen/Friends With Benefits
These three articles were all created by a user named Ronandaussie, who appears to be the actual subjects of the pages. Is this not a explicit conflict of interest? Users are not allowed to create Wikipedia pages for themselves. I marked them with a speedy deletion tag as well as a for the bio pages. Take note that all three of these pages were created by the same user 'Ronandaussie', who appears to be the actual subjects (Ron and Joanne/Aussie), based on the YouTube links they provided. They also lack any credible citations to prove notability. Please revise. Samseratta (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Concerning:

Ron Dias Joanne Jansen Friends With Benefits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samseratta (talk • contribs) 09:29, October 25, 2016 (UTC)


 * Your speedy requests are malformed since you did not list a reason for the speedies. You mention the COI in the edit summaries but that is not a valid reason for an AFD, let alone a speedy deletion. Similarly lack of reliable sources is not grounds for a speedy (just because good sources are not in the article does not mean that suitable sources cannot be found). Even the apparent lack of notability is not likely enough for a speedy, since that requires a lack of a credible claim of notability. Possibly Joanne Jansen and Friends with Benefits (web series) could be speedied as A7 but definitely not Ron Dias (actor). I was going ot make a group AFD nomination for all three. Meters (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Borcker's foot fetish socks keep stinking away... Meters (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

AR Murugadoss article edit, multiple reference links, yet edit reverted
Hi, my edit on AR Murugadoss page was reverted quoting it to be "poorly referenced" while there were almost 14 verified reference links of popular news channels including The Times of India. Your message quoted that the charges against Murugadoss was frivolous and so the edit was removed. But there were lots of edits involving other accusations by news websites that were also removed. This edit is not considered a vandalism because the accusations were true. I referenced the article on M. Night Shyamalan that had a column named 'Plagiarism accusations' and then started editing AR Murugadoss article. I would like to hear an explanation on my edit removal please. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandusamy (talk • contribs) October 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, please sign your posts, and it's a good idea to link to the edit in question, or at least to the article. Secondly, I didn't undo your edit. A automated bot did on the possibility that your edit was vandalism. I left you an additional warning for the edit for a WP:BLP violation since it was obvious to me that your edit was not vandalism but was an inappropriate BLP edit. We don't discuss serious accusations against people unless they are proven. Vague accusations that the director denied, and one that went to court but was dismissed as a frivolous charge (see WP:BLPCRIME) simply appear as an effort to add negative material to the article. Your new version is better but still not appropriate.


 * The Nolan case is a vague reference to an actor from the film saying the Nolan wasn't pleased. The sources are an unreachable YouTube video, a Bollywood gossip column that uses phrases such as "if we agree that basic plots of both the films have been shamelessly borrowed from Nolan’s Memento and The Prestige, without even giving any credit, we won’t be surprised if the Hollywood filmmaker asks for his share of profit from PK actor as he made millions ripping off his idea", and a blog or podcast that says "Director A.R Murugadoss made GHAJINI 8 years after MEMENTO, and he claims that he had only heard about the story of MEMENTO’s main character, and wrote his screenplay with a similar character, without actually watching original film itself. Just a story to avoid accusations of plagiarism, or fact, is up for debate. But the differences in how the Bollywood version is treated do lend some credibility to his story. It’s also worthy to note that the same Indian director initially made a regional version of this film in South India of the same name in 2005, with a different lead actor, before bringing it to mainstream Bollywood." None of these sources appear to meet WP:RS, and they don't directly accuse the director of plagiarism. This was more than two years ago. Has Nolan make an accusation or taken this to court in the meantime?
 * The case that went to court was not simply won, it was dismissed by the court as a frivolous charge. Your coverage is not as negative this time, but you are still downplaying this. Since it was dismissed as frivolous case with no evidence that the plaintive had even been an assistant to the director as claimed, I don't think this should be mentioned at all.
 * The Anbu accusation is a passing reference to something from two years ago. Successful creative professionals often get such claims made against them. Sometimes the claims are justified, sometimes they are dubious, and other times they are completely false. What's the current status of this. Has it been dropped too? Meters (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:John from Idegon since I see he has undone the latest edit. Meters (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverted based strictly on way too poor sources for negative BLP info. No comment on the actual content. John from Idegon (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I have to spend more time on knowing the protocols. The information, negative or positive, says about the controversies and troubles the celebrity has undergone, there is a lot of sources saying that, definitely not "way too poor," as they are from newspapers circulated throughout the country. The corrected version was not downplayed but that was also reverted. This was why I asked about the plagiarism accusation column in Night Shyamalan article. What and how strong an information must be to add? There were 15 reference links in my edit, not way too poor sources friends. Now that you have verified the sources and know the news, please guide me the proper way to present those informationNandusamy (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * With the exception of Star of India, none of your sources appear to meet the standard of WP:RS. John from Idegon (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As John frem Idegon says, It's about how reliable the sources are. Accusing a creative professional of plagiarism is a serious charge and requires good sources. Blogs and tabloid speculation are not acceptable. Meters (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

About Deputies
Any reason not to include deputies on school articles? They are very prominent when introducing new students and also often represent the school. CaptainMecht (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:WPSCH/AG. Principals are about the only staff members mentioned by name. Meters (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

George Washington High School - Speech and Debate
If you would look at the bottom portion of the homepage of the source connected the speech and debate addition, you will see that state titles are in fact mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannerhemmingsen (talk • contribs) 06:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I already looked. There is nothing there that supports your claim of multiple State Championships. You have now broken 3RR. I suggest that you self-revert before you are blocked. Meters (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The page does mention three 2016 individual State Championships, which we would not list in a school article. It certainly does not support your claim of 10 state championships, not does it say anything about the claimed national titles. We also don't list non-notable staff members, and there is no support for the claim that your school's debate group is the 13th best in the country. Meters (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Johnnie Cochran Middle School
You deleted a section that was a direct quote from the Los Angeles Times. I had done that as I had seen it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Park,_Los_Angeles#Sugar_Shack. Is there somehthing different in this case that I am missing?HedgeHogPower (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My edit summary was "rmv material not relating to school". A school principal's comments to tourists about Wyatt Earp's former dwelling have nothing to do with this school. Meters (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to violate 3RR?
Just to undo edits that in all honesty people are making in good faith? Elon Musk said 2.4 second 0-60. If the CEO's mouth isn't a reliable source, then SEC needs to ease up on what constitutes 'forward looking' in public statements. -68.235.53.140 (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He's predicting what the car will do. That's not a reliable source as to what the car will actually do. We don't list predictions. We list what reliable sources show the car has actually been timed at, Meters (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * vii note is manufacturer claimed 0-60 time. Sounds like he's claiming it will do 0-60 in 2.4. -68.235.53.140 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you actually bother to read the sources? If you have then you should read WP:RS. The tweets say "Looks like the Model S P100D Easter egg will allow it to do 0 to 60 mph in 2.4 sec and a 10.6 sec 1/4 mile via software update next month" and "Model X numbers should also improve by 0.1 sec on 0 to 60 and 1/4 mile". The sources are just repeating what the tweets say. It's a prediction, not a measurement. Since the software has not even been released yet, no-one has an actual measurement. Please stop raising this issue on my page. I'm not going to respond to anything else. As I said on the article's talk page, I've asked for protection for the article. I'm letting the edit stand until other editors can look at it. Meters (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit undone by another editor, article protected. Meters (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Jakarta Twilight/Jakarta Maghrib

 * I know you weren't proposing deleting the Jakarta Twilight article; hence why I said that I "Agree that this particular title should redirect to Jakarta Twilight". However, that article is tagged for notability, and so I included sources (awards aren't sourced yet) so that it would be evident to anyone interested that the film itself would pass the notability threshold.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

List of largest peaceful gatherings in history
Thanks now i will try to get reliable source for articles but now plz do not change the privious material of articals bro!👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranhusain (talk • contribs) 06:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't I correct previous edits? Claims that incorrectly count all of the attendees over periods of many days as having attended on one day should not be in the article. Meters (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * An estimated 15 million people visited the shrine of Husayn ibn Ali in Karbala, Iraq during Arba'een in 2012.

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_largest_peaceful_gatherings_in_history Is this is a reliable source


 * No, it isn't. Any wiki, including Wikipedia itself,  is not reliable as it is user edited. For an explanation of what makes a source reliable see WP:RS. John from Idegon (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * And worldlibrary.org is a mirror of Wikipedia so it isn't a reliable source either. What is needed is a reliable, independent source that gives attendance for a specific day'. So, a major media source, a reliably sourced book, or something like that (not a blog or user generated site, or anything quoting an unreliable source) giving a reliable estimate for the crowds on a particular day. Anything giving the cumulative attendance over a period of dyas or weeks is useless for the purpose of this article. Meters (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And indeffed on CU. Meters (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Jonalyn Viray move to Jona (singer)
Hi. I greatly appreciate it. Thank you for letting me know. What I did is I just put a section on Jonalyn Viray's talkpage article to move it to Jona (singer) instead. I hope this would help. How long this would take? Thank You. Liking You (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I reformatted your request as a formal move request so more people will see it. Give it at least 7 days for discussion. Meters (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thank you for this. I'm also just concerned since the singer is really using "Jona" and not her real name anymore. Cheers! Liking You (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like a reasonable rename if the sources show that is the name that she is now using professionally and that is being used by the media. Meters (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Omar Sharif
Hello, Please keep in mind that adding information without reliable sources is against the policy of Wikipedia. Any member who adds any information without adding a reliable source will be banned from editing. Thanks! --Tania Jarallah (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll look at this again, but you might want to remember that repeatedly removing sourced material is likely to get you blocked. There is no apparent BLP violation in this material. I will recheck the cited source. Meters (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. All of the material restored was in the cited source or one of the sources in the preceding sentence, and at least two other editors have confirmed. I have restored the material again. Meters (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarkstown South
You mean that I must find an article proving that he attended South? But you don't have that for any of the others!--Valmataro (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes you have to find a reliable source that shows that an alumnus attended before you can claim the person is an alumnus. It does not matter if other entries are improperly sourced. You also need to write an article about he person to show that they are notable. Meters (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, fine, but note what WP says: "A person should be included as a "notable alumna or alumnus" if the person would qualify for an article in his or her own right under Wikipedia: Notability (people)/WP:BIO. By implication, this means that each person listed in a "notable alumni" or "notable alumnae" section should have a wikilink, either red or blue. Thus, people who have their own Wikipedia articles should generally be listed under "notable alumni" (if there is such a section at all), and people who do not have an article should generally not be listed unless the reason they don't have an article is because, although it would qualify under WP:BIO, the article simply hasn't been created yet." --Valmataro (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the person is notable but does not have an article yet then it is up the person adding the alumnus to provide sufficient reliable sources to show that the person is notable. As the school project guideline WP:ALUMNI says, "Individual alumni need a citation to a) verify that they did indeed attend the school, and b) verify the statement of their notability." (If the notability is shown in a separate article then it does not need to be shown in the alumni list.) A single source showing that someone acted in a Broadway play is not sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR. Meters (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are instances where referencing one single fact will show notability. For a Broadway actor, winning a Tony would do that. Unless you can show notability with an exception to GNG such as I have just described, the biography should be written prior to listing the person in any notable list. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Brandon Webb (author)
Regarding the Edit to Brandon Webbs birthplace edit. I contacted Webb personally who stated his Birthplace was Kimberley Canada. I can't imagine a better source than the subject himself.

Webb also stated to me that he had a Combat Deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. The source is the author's own biography page on SOFREP.com. Again. Biographic information from the subject of the Wikipedia article is and ought not be treated automatically as suspect absent any prove to the contrary. That source was added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Spoonts (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your change to his birthplace was unsourced, and since the original claim was also unsourced I simply removed it completely. We don't know who you are or if you actually spoke to the author, so we cannot accept your statement as reliably sourced. You claim he told you the correct information, Well, at some point someone else added the other data thinking it was correct. Editors insert all sorts of material into biographies while claiming to be the person in question, or their spouse/child/parent/friend/lawyer/agent/whatever, or to have personal knowledge of the correct information. We don't accept anything but a reliable source (see WP:RS, or the person in question contacting Wikipedia in person via the WP:OTRS system, proving their identity and requesting a change. It seems a bit hypocritical of you to complain about me removing material as unsourced when you used exactly the same justification when you removed material from the same article.
 * As for the service in Iraq, you didn't add that. You changed "one combat deployment to Afghanistan." to "one combat deployment to Afghanistan and one combat deployment to Afghanistan." I'm not a mind reader and you didn't give us a source so I didn't know what you meant to do. I undid it as redundant. For that matter, your later addition of Iraq is still unsourced. Meters (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Cayenne Pepper

 * User:Robschmidt I saw it, but I'm certainly not giving my personal email address to someone I don't know. If you want to discuss your edit use the article's talkpage or my talkpage like any other editor. Meters (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Meters Hey man, no need to be anything but friendly, I'm trying to acclimate myself and just started as an editor. Would you mind responding to my questions on here?rds (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not being unfriendly. I'm just letting you know that I will not respond to your email, and why. And I'm not copying anything from a personal email onto Wikipedia, so if you want to ask your question here, then ask it again. Meters (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Meters Understood.
 * 1. What URL should I use for a book that does not have an online preview available? I could link to the page where you can purchase the book, but that doesn't seem right to me. The reason I selected the link that I did is because that page has a downloadable preview with all of the references used in the book.
 * 2. Would it be better to try and find a blog post? rds (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS. A blog is almost never a reliable source (the limited exceptions don't apply here). Sources don't have to be online to be verifiable, but they do have to be reliable. I question the reliability of the source you are attempting to use. Basically, it's a New Age cookbook. Mention of cleansings, liver health, and fuzzy statements such as "Cayenne pepper is also known to be mixed with..." don't belong in the article unless there are solid sources to back them up. Meters (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Just to clarify, it's actually not a cook book, there are scattered drink recipes but the book doesn't dedicate much time toward them.
 * Inside the book there are references to scientific journals and studies (not necessarily for the Cayenne pepper), would I need to cite them instead of the book? What if I want to cite the book, is there a work-around for that?
 * There's an entire article dedicated to the Master Cleanse, would versions of my additions be welcome there? rds (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the book you are attempting to use is not a reliable source. A natural emotional care educator does not sound like a reliable source. She may list scientific studies in her list of references, but how competent is she to analyse them? Don't use her as a source, and don't use her references unless you have read them yourself and understand how to use them properly. Another editor is already discussing WP:MEDRES with you on your talk page so I'm not going into it. Adding this material to Master Cleanse without reliable sources is not acceptable either. I would suggest that you first gain experience with less contentious subjects and easier sources that this material. Meters (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood regarding the references. My question regarding Master Cleanse is whether or not the material I added (assuming it's credible) would be more appropriate for that page than Cayenne.
 * Can you give me some syntax advice for writing non-"fuzzy" statements? rds (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the material is not reliably sourced it cannot be used anywhere. For "fuzzy" see WP:WEASEL. Meters (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

December 9, 2016 reverted edit to window
Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit to window about floor windows. and gave me a warning for vandalism

Please see the following citation [] Thank You Not Morgan (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. I thought that you had replaced the link to roof with one to floor but I see that you actually added the link without removing the other. I'll remove the warning, but I don't think the link is useful. Very few people would ever put a window in a floor, and it's pretty doubtful that such a thing could be considered a window rather than a trapdoor. Meters (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Cailou
Someone has edited the Caillou page while it was semi-protected, and it now states the child has terminal skin cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.198.40 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * reverted it. Meters (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Links in Franco dossier
You undid the edition of a new link and sent a message telling that external links has not to be placed in the body of the article. It is right, but the link was placed in the "External links" pharagraph. So, I'm afraid that's a contradiction from your side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.39.66 (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the link itself, to comment that it goes to a restricted wiki (only approved users can write) that belongs to the digital media Vilaweb. So, it has no danger of spam, etc. Of course, you can agree or not with the historical descriptions, but it would mean that you only place links that you agree (please notice that there is the link of the Francisco Franco Foundation, that is similar to have a link to an hypotetic Adolf Hitler fundation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.39.66 (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Already discussed on the IP's talk page. Removed at least times now by different editors. See WP:ELNO. Not much more I can add. Meters (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I assume that the link to the fascist Dictatorship Foundadion fills all the WP:ELNO. Bravo for Wikipedia! Why do you not add a link to a neo-nazi webpage also? So sad about the criteria, but not much more it can be add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.119.199 (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no point in continuing this on my talk page. You've been asked to discuss the edit on they article's talk page where other editors can see it and participate. If you choose not to do so then we're done. Meters (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Alumni lists: notability due to events
Hi! In noticed edit removing Ashley Benton since she didn't have a Wikilink. She's known for her involvement in an event (Death of Gabriel Granillo) so in that case the event link is her wikilink.

When checking if somebody should be on a notability list it may be good to see if the person was involved in a single event (victim of crime, perpetrator of a crime, etc) and if so have the event link count as their wikilink WhisperToMe (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, ! has raised this same issue on another article at WT:WPSCH. Might just as well respond there.  John from Idegon (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. It's a bit surprising that someone would comment on an edit I made almost 12 months ago but not bother to mention the thread raising the issue on the schools project. I'll leave my opinion on the project thread. Meters (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Meters: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

BBC Genome
You wrote: "The .bbc part of the domain simply does not exist. Teh closest you can get is http://genome.ch/ which does not look like anything useful. Note that the .co in the URL is typical of hoax sites put up by Jestin Coler. See List of fake news websites. It could be a coincidence, but it sure does not look as if it was ever an official BBC page. [copied sig removed]" Unfortunately, the BBC Genome site has crashed and is not going to be restored until Monday, December 19, 2016 according to their twitter feed @BBCGenome. It is very unhelpful for you to assert that it is a hoax site and that it is not part of an official BBC page. Why would you post something so aggressive and unhelpful without investigation? All you had to do was google it. I hope when the site is rescued you will have the courtesy to apologize. All your comments have done is fuel a sock puppet troll who edits under multiple guises belittle and humiliate a valid entry. genome.ch.bbc.co.uk 72.245.246.219 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I know what I wrote. After all, I wrote it, but here not on my talk page. It's not appropriate for you to copy my contribution to a thread onto a different page and include my signature. Don't do that. I've removed my sig.
 * I did not say it was a hoax site, in fact I said "It could be a coincidence", and in my followup post I said "I have no knowledge of the article content, but I'm highly suspicious of these so-far unverifiable claims." This supposed source has been the cause of an edit war and is currently unverifiable. Accusing many of teh editors discussing the issue of socking without any evidence is not helpful. Meters (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You did write that it is typical of hoax sites. You may not have meant that to be read as it WAS a hoax site, but your inference was clear. genome.ch.bbc.co.uk is not a hoax site. You will find it appears in possibly thousands but certainly hundreds of citations all over wikipedia. It is temporarily down. I have plenty of evidence that the user who started this edit war is a sock puppet. It is very helpful to point that out as it normally would lead to the sock puppetry ending. But not in this case. I don't know why I bothered with you now. Your contribution was not helpful in any way shape or form. 72.245.246.219 (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently you don't understand what an inference it. Perhaps you should look up the definition before you attempt to use the word again. I didn't infer anything. I pointed out that the URL resembled a known hoaxer's sites, and I stated that it might just be a coincidence but I was suspicious. You took what I wrote, and incorrectly made an inference. It does appear that the URL is valid, even though it is not currently working, and I have said so on the article's talk page.
 * Enough of this. I won't respond to any further postings on this.Meters (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Belleville West Motto
As you had stated in your message to me regarding the Belleville West motto, it has come under vandalism lately. A Google Search of Belleville West showed an incorrect motto on the right hand side of the page with that data being scraped from the wikipedia page. Somebody had removed the motto already, I added in the slogan currently used within the school so there would be something for Google to scrape/replace. If your experience says that a missing field can be reflected on a Google search just as easily as an updated one great, but the Google right hand side data is what I was trying to address as several employees at Belleville West have brought the anomaly to my attention. Cmckay80 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)cmckay80
 * Just provide us with a source for the motto you are attempting to add to the article. I looked when I removed the original vandalism and I couldn't find an official motto. Meters (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If I might add some things here, ? A slogan does not equate with a motto. Generally a motto has endured the test of time. Frequently it will actually appear on official media such as the school's letterhead or incorporated into a logo. This indicates a serious use. Slogans on the other hand are frequently used to drive "school spirit" and are temporary in nature.  Well sourced information on mottos is encouraged; slogans are not.  Second, what Google does with information from Wikipedia is not of any relevance here. At all. Third, the concerns of the school, its staff or students and alumni are of very little relevance.  This is an independent encyclopedia article about the school, not another social media outlet for the school. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. The proposed addition does sound more like a slogan than a motto. Meters (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, I asked for temporary semi protection due to vandalism on the article under discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Pedro E. Diaz High School
Saw this "school" at WP:RPP.Noticed it had been deleted speedy A7. Saw that you had reverted vandalism on the page. Can you tell me anything about it? It's not on NCES, but i don't know if it's a US school. Just wanted your opinion prior to approaching the deleting admin. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that A7 too. It looks like the deletion has already been undone. Completely unsourced and the target of a student insistent on mentioning himself as student council president, but not an A7. Meters (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's definitely real (see http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/695393/mmda-launches-website-to-ready-metro-residents-for-the-big-one for example) but since it'sin the Philippines maybe it does not show up in NCES. Meters (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops. Of course it's not in NCES. I was thinking of Puerto Rico, which, as a US territory, is included in NCES. Meters (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sargon of Akkad
Um, how was the edit I made unconstructive? Regards, Khoor, iljxuh rxw pb qdph xvlqj Fdhvdu Flskhu (Fdoo ph) 12:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not going to bother discussing this. Already explained on the article's talk page and another editor has concurred that your edit was vandalism. Talk:Sargon_of_Akkad Meters (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Upsl discussion
Hi, you sent me a warning about being in an edit war. I posted why I am making this change on the UPSL article in the talk page. He replied, I replied, and he has since not replied, and I think my point was very clear. The other user, who continues to remove the level 5 designation for this league, previously was trying to keep the league listed at level 4, while all other USASA elite leagues are listed as level 5, and after a source referred to the league as level 5, he began insisting that no league below level 3 should list a level because only level 1-3 are official. So the dispute is between whether de facto information should be listed or not. If not, then the pyramid level for all US amateur leagues including level 4 PDL and NPSL should be removed, otherwise, this league should be listed at level 5. Are you a moderator? Could you weigh in?Loftybunch1 (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You think your reason is correct. The other editor thinks his or her reason is correct. You are both edit warring. You are both so far past 4RR that you would almost certainly both be blocked if this goes to the edit warring board. See WP:3RR. Don't touch the article again until consensus is reached on the talk page. Wait for other editors to contribute to the talk page thread. If you cannot reach consensus then follow the dispute resolution procedures. Meters (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Shitposting
I fail to see how accepted facts about shitposting are nonconstructive. Please enlighten me. ShieldOfVigilant (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Try reading WP:RS, WP:MINOR, WP:EDIT SUMMARY and MOS:SEEALSO to start. Meters (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edit to Shitposting seemed to be a pretty good example of exactly what the article is about. Meters (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but lol. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, I thought it was pretty funny too. Meters (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Umm.
Okay, I'm sorry but I think the reserves were just outdated. Sorry for that, I haven't noticed that. Anyways, thanks for correcting! Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas