User talk:Meters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

If this page has been protected and you cannot edit it you may leave messages here. Meters (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!


Regarding content in the actual book at hand Psychopathia Sexualis[edit]

There are several guidelines present at wikipedia you can look up at not changing over and over even when one think one is right etc, dispute resolution and so on. There should be certainly a more solid source verification system at wikipedia.

To keep adding a false statement, just because you feel so, makes little sense in the world of knowledge, bar increasing the ever present cases of blind leading the blind.

The article is about a book [Psychopathia Sexualis], which contains terms which , correctly or not, we attribute as first time presented in at least European literature. I have clearly stated in the edits, that according to the actual source, there is NO such thing as anilingus whatsoever mentioned in the English translation, readily available for an academic or even a wikipedia editor to check, read and verify this.

I also made it clear that should there be for some reason this latin phrase in the _original_ Austrian version, then by all means, provide the reference to this from the book, else stop attempting to introduce fantasy to history, regardless if it has been erronous for five years already in the wikipedia entry.

On page 55 of the translated version , one will see mentioning of cunnilingus and even of erotic sensation w.r.t. fecal deposition upon one's chest by a woman and other such examples but under no circumstance is there a _single_ mention of a rimjob, or an attraction to the actual anus nor any perturbation of analingus as we see it.

There are about four or five sections mentioning cunnilingus, or fellatio among other such "perversions" etc, yet none of this will make the false claim about 'anilingus' being coined in that book. To then source some other source to actually make a false claim versus the ACTUAL book means the corrected edit you keep unediting is on you to disprove. Wikipedia clearly asks for you to not keep editing in such a manner and since you keep doing it, there should be some other fellow academics or whoever actually who can bother to look at the actual book, verify this fancy claim you keep adding, else you should think about what you are doing.

Again, this is why wikipedia can be relatively strong in the strong sciences, but in history, literature, psychology and such fields, it still lacks in merit.

P.S. A partly broken keyboard might omit some spaces. (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

For the fourth time, take this to the article's talk page. Content disputes are discussed on the article's talk page so that all interested parties may participate. They are not settled with edit summaries, and they are not settled on user talk pages. I've already started the thread on Richard von Krafft-Ebing's talk page, I have already located a copy of the cited source, and I have already verified a version of the claim. The wording in the article needs to clarified, but the claim is largely correct. Thoise words were introduced to English by the English translation of his book, not by him directly (obviously, since he did not write Psychopathia Sexualis in English). The only thing left to discuss is the exact wording to be used. If you had bothered to look at the talk page you would already know that.
If you choose not to participate in the talk page discussion then those who do participate will reach consensus on how to word it without your input. If you remove the material again I will ask to have you blocked. Meters (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
IP did not participate, but extensively discussed on talk page. OED Third confirms first English usage in an English translation (1899 Rebman translation), which was verified by user: Legitimus. Clarified wording added to both articles. Meters (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and your presence scares me![edit]

We all interpret things/have opinions that are different, for instance, I liked season 8 of Spongebob, don't think I deserve to get blocked since all I did was add extra information and I think that a Muslim character in HuniePop 2 is a good thing! 🙄🤔😣😯 Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I warned you for breaking a link I said You cannot arbitrarily change the wording of a Wikipedia link to something you like better. It will not work if there is no article at that name If you don't understand that you probably should not be editing. Many of your edits are not constructive, and the fact that you are using two different accounts is not appropriate. Meters (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Georgia Highlands College edits[edit]

Can you please review the talk section on Georgia Highlands College? You suggested I add the content I thought the page should have to Talk and allow others not affiliated with the institution to edit that content into the main page if appropriate. ProfStv (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I will look at it, but I'll tell you now that dropping a complete rewrite of the entire article onto the talkpage in one block is not the best way to do this. It's very difficult to discuss particular changes that way. Meters (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Northland Pioneer College[edit]

I am the Director of Marketing at NPC. I was asked by the president of the college to update our wiki page. The information on it was out of date and inaccurate. I have looked at other Arizona community college pages and attempted to add items that they have on their pages. The information is accurate. I would like to finish my corrections. I am sorry I marked my changes a minor but I was having trouble saving my changes if I didn't. Am I suppose to check "watch this page?" I also need to update our logos and I can't do that either. How do I finish my edits?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahess74 (talkcontribs) 19:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As you are editing this article as part of your job, you are not only a conflict of interest editor but a WP:PAID editor. You must comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. Once you have done so you should propose any article changes on the article's talk pages so that editors with no conflict of interest can discuss if the material is suitable for inclusion. Please note that the Wikipedia article is not the college's article. It is not there to promote the college, and the college does not have any control over what material is or is not covered in the article. Meters (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
No declaration and continued to edit article. I have tagged article talk page with Connected editor Paid. Meters (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


{{dead link}} Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the tip on the {{dead link}} template in the Bra article. I didn't realize the bot would automatically find the archive version with this template. Note that there was a date formatting issue in that same change you made in the references, so I fixed that just now. § Music Sorter § (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No probs. Thanks for cleaning up after me. I also tweaked the month since we use full spellings in refs rather than 3 letter versions.. Meters (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Familar editing style[edit]

Meters, does the editing style in these contributions seem familiar? I know who it reminds me of. - BilCat (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks a bit like the very latest addition to my memory aid of socks User:Meters/SPIs Meters (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Yep, that's who I had in mind. Very persistent. - BilCat (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm done for tonight, buI 'll keep an eye on him. Meters (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I want to stop making mistakes[edit]

Meters, I will now stop doing things that violate Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. I will also stop making claims without citing its proper sources and end the use of unsourced content and inappropriate discuss on talk pages so I don't get banned from editing. I'm really sorry for making these mistakes. Airbus A350-100BOI (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Airbus A350-100BOI (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There will be no problem if you start sourcing things properly and stop using multiple accounts to make the same unsourced edits. Meters (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I took a look at the article you and he crossed on, and, Oy! I actually feel like I now know less about the subject than before. What a hot mess. John from Idegon (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Product recall is not a very good article, and lately it's just serving as a coatrack to list every penny ante recall. Meters (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I will stay away from bad articles like Product recall and only use one account to make edits that are sourced. Airbus A350-100BOI (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
There's no need to stay away from bad articles. In fact, they are more in need of improvement than other articles. Meters (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

GTA 5 Trevor and franklin actors[edit]

I know their birthdays if I was you I would do research that I did and you’ll know that I’m right and you’re wrong. Sameem123 (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

As i said on your talk page You have been warned before about both unsourced edits and nonconstructive edits. Your edit to this article was blatant vandalism. The fact that you undid yourself does not change that. The vandalism edit was [1] If you have reliable sources then provide them. If you don't then stop making these changes. It's not up to me or anyone else to source your additions for you.Meters (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Rancho Bernardo High School Incident[edit]

Search up the school on google and you'll see what my last edit was about. I'll wait for you to give a response before I re-edit the controversy because you seem to know what you are doing more than I do. The High School's name has seem to have been changed twice on Google already since I added the post. The only source I could put was of that picture of a ghost. I could take screen shots of the google results for reference if you would like..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I know what it was about. Some kid's stupid online prank about the school is probably not worth mentioning at all, but as it is nothing in that entire paragraph is sourced at all except for the existence of a extremely poorly photoshopped picture. If the prank was a big enough deal that reliable sources discussed it then it might be worth mentioning, but as it is it is just promotion of a juvenile prank. Meters (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Rancho Bernardo High School[edit]

Would you please take a look at the Controversies section? The first bit seems like it rises to the level we'd cover, but an un-bylined summary at seems to be a pretty weak source and there are close paraphrasing issues. The rest seems just not appropriate, and of course none of it needs subheadings and any we keep should go in history. Your thoughts? John from Idegon (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: was waiting for my previous removal from this section to settle (see previous thread) before looking at the rest. Most (and possibly all) of this section has been removed and restored before.
  • Broomstick: I agree that the broomstick incident can be mentioned and that it needs to be rewritten with a better source. Very definitely overly-close paraphrasing.
It's a bit tough to evaluate if or how overblown some of the other incidents were since most of the sources are dead.
  • Underwear: I'm leaning to including this one. Shocking action by school administrator at a school function. Made national news.
  • Noose: nuke it. "a misunderstanding and no action had been taken"
  • Hacking: Some kid hacked the school system. and the school's memo about it was sent to the local media. So what?
  • Graffiti: 2013 dead link but sounds like nothing but graffiti ; 2018: looked at by police and dismissed as not a credible threat. So, again nothing but rmuch here. Meters (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Catholicism and Homosexuality[edit]

To be aware that I've sought a Third Opinion:

Too bad this happened just before I had to take some downtime. Dug through through the history to find out who left this unsigned notice (Contaldo80 on Sept 3) and why there was no official notice. Turns out the filing was malformed (he neglected to list any editors other than himself) and was immediately turned down on procedural. grounds. Now I have to see what happened in the article. Meters (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Article is Catholic Church and homosexuality. Edit appeared to be an attempted end run on scare quotes by using italics rather than quotes [2]. Made by an IP and then immediately defended by two frequent editors. as "a clarification" Targeted words were "people" in "gay people" and "acts" in "homosexual acts". Third opinion reply withing minutes was to reject italics, and to reword if clarification was required, which was exactly what I had said on the talk page. Meters (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Albert Cassell - Member of Alpha Phi Alpha[edit]

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I'm very new to this but through research I found that Mr. Cassell was a member of the said fraternity and I wanted to add it to his wiki page. I don't know how, perhaps you can help me.

- Mr. Anthony Thompson — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've converted your malformed external link into a properly formatted ref. My apologies for the long delay.. Meters (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and your presence also scares me![edit]

Hey Meters, I was trying to do edits as part of my final project in college. I hope those edits don't severely wreck my reputation in wikipedia because I am new and this is potentially my only account I'll use to work along with my final project to see what would happen if I do edits. Do you think you can help me out? I want to make legit edits so I don't get called out badly in Wikipedia. BetaTemp (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Why would you ask me for help if my presence on Wikipedia scares you?
Your edits were not a big deal. They were slightly less than neutral, they were not minor, and you were attempting to change the wording of reference titles. It was just a level 1 notice to tell you what you were doing wrong. Meters (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence?[edit]

I noticed you warned Snoopy26Z for unsourced content. I think you were involved in the kerfuffle about a year ago involving Rhasta26z and unsourced content on Indiana high school articles. I don't believe in coincidence. Good to see you back, no matter how limited it is. John from Idegon (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

So far so good. If it keeps up I'll pull the user page notice. 04:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, you meant user:Rhatsa26X. Meters (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

xQc page[edit]

hey I was the dude that started the xQc mess with the picture. it got way out of hand and if you look at the history, i tried fixing it. thanks for fixing though after it was locked. i was wondering if you could add the picture back though. it is a bit of a joke, but it is funny and not that bad i dont think. if not here's a different one thumb|xQc at OWWC MrGrillo (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a chance in the world. I found that image on a copyright website, so it appears that you are violating copyright by uploading it as your own work . I will ask to have that image deleted. Meters (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Snow Covered Trees Starry Night (166032201).jpeg Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Many thanks, and too you too. Meters (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Chaz Jankel[edit]

Thanks for your edits at Chaz Jankel and other pages attacked by the Dubai IPs - one SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaisalMusicFan99/Archive.
I have a long list of IPs but once spotted/blocked they rarely use the same IP again. Thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the SPI pointer. I was not aware of this one. Meters (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Randolph Mantooth[edit]

I agree with your edit on his page. I was unable to login on my phone to correct it.

He has been professionally active since the late 1960s. Some sources list 1970 (first television credit). He did plays in NYC while he was in college in the late 60s.

The only thing that comes to mind of the 1963 date is from his high school yearbooks that list him in a play but that is a different beast. He spent a year at Santa Barbara Community College before he went to AADA.

Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NDakotaCelt (talkcontribs) 17:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Good to know I made the right call. It seemed oddly specific Meters (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

René Lévesque[edit]

If Canada has agreed that the Québecois form their own nation within Canada (not disputing if he was Canadian citizen), and he claims to be Québecois. Why can't it be said that he had Québecois nationality. All relevant authorities (e.g. Canada, René himself and Québec) agreed that it was acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZacharyFilion (talkcontribs) 00:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this on the article's talk page, not mine. Meters (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year; Best Wishes and Good Health for 2019[edit]

Happy New Year, Meters![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks. So far so good! Meters (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Meters for guide[edit]

Hi dear Meters I hope have a good holiday. You deleted my first manuscript because their sources. I hope reconsider or publish my manuscript again because my first work had a good source and I use your guideline for choosing them.Thanks a lot Forest90 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Forest90

As I said on your talk page You cannot make a claim such as "world's oldest sauce" without reliable sources to support that claim, and I doubt very much that such sources exist. A newspaper recipe is not a useful ref. Meters (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

--I changed The sauce source-- Hi again Meter,I found the best source which could be find in Internet about my first work "the world oldest sauce" ,please watch my new source and accept that (if it's possible),Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest90 (talkcontribs) 11:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

All you did was change the source for the recipe. I don't care about that. What I care about its the claim that this is the oldest sauce in the world. Meters (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for informing a younger wikipedian on the processes of editing a page and standing up for what is right. I just had to tell you that your work is being appreciated and it doesn't go unnoticed. Jackwalter5000 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Common Core and Rube Goldberg[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Ferroequus (talkcontribs) 05:03, January 18, 2019 (UTC)

And, as I said when I removed the external link from Rube Goldberg, "What does this have to do with Rube Goldberg?" Stop spamming this link. Meters (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Statutory Holidays[edit]

Hi there Meters,

I'm currently doing a coding project where I'm scraping data from the Wikipedia page about Canadian holidays. I noticed that New Brunswick had Family Day checked for both the 2nd week of February and the 3rd, so I googled it and it looks like it's actually the third. Additionally, I noticed that British Columbia has moved its Family Day as well. I made the change earlier today, but it was reverted, so I created an account and added it back but with some citations this time.

Thanks for taking the time! Hope we're on the same page now! 😇 (Feel free to delete this section once you read it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcraig3 (talkcontribs) 01:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. It appears I missed the difference in dates. Meters (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
undid IP waning. Meters (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Your changes to The Norton Knatchbull School[edit]


I write to you in response to a number of changes you undertook to my recent additions to the aforementioned page. Whilst I agree with two of them, the third is questionable. I ask why television coverage of the school shouldn't be considered history. Even if it's not history, why hasn't this been posted under a new section? I await your response.

Sincerely Fantasticbruce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantasticbruce (talkcontribs) 22:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

What part of the summary yes students have opinions, but it's not part of the history of the school and it's not needed in the article is not clear? Some school students were interviewed. Big deal. The article is about the school, not the students. Interviewing students about their opinions on Brexit has nothing to do with the school other than the fact that the students happen to be pupils there. I really don't see how this needs to be covered in this article.. If you disagree then please discuss it on the article's talk page where other editors will see it and can comment.
And please sign your talk page posts (use ~~~~ ) and link to the article or diff. Meters (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits to include information about Charlie Spencer[edit]

To Meters. I am not clear of what you are requesting me to do. Donama asked me to start a discussion page to put content to start a discussion with those people in the know. I am merely stating what has been happening in this ugg boot war. Why are you targeting me. I have read the information and all I am doing is stating facts. I am not about to put information of court proceedings until they are over. Why do you think no one has come to me with law suits against me? Because they know what they have done and the information I have is going to 'open a can of worms' allowing manufacturers all over the world to be able to sell their product. Deckers is a monopoly and they obtained the registration fraudulently from a man who stole the idea. All this will come out in due course and I will demand an apology when it does. Thanks Meters but your constant sabotage of Charlies talk page is affecting lives to the point of some people losing their livelihoods. Businesses have been targeted and people have committed suicide because of this company. You can see why it is so very close to my heart. It has to be exposed. Can I please deal with Donama in the future because she explains things a lot clearer and not like someone who is simply harrassing. Thank you for your time but enough is enough. SA surfer (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Please link the page in question: Ugg boots ‎.
Read the links that have already been provided to you. Provide reliable sources. Don't make non neutral edits. Don't use the talk page as a forum. Don't attack other editors. Disclose your conflict of interest and don't edit articles in which you have a conflict of interest.
If you don't understand, then ask someone, because you will likely be blocked if you keep this up. A certain degree of competence is required to edit Wikipedia. If you have read the links we have provided you and you do not understand what you are doing wrong, then this may be a WP:CIR issue.
No, you cannot choose who to deal with. The article talk page is to discuss changes to the article. It is not a place for general discussions about the subject. It is not social media. It is not a place to communicate with others who have an interest in the subject. It is not a place for you to request that others post their stories. It is not a place for you to rant about frauds and people stealing ideas, and people committing suicide because of this.
I don't know why you think dealing with user:Donama would be better. He or she has also told you not to add that material to the article, that you can be blocked for disruptive behaviour, and to not use the talk page as a forum. I'm done discussing this with you. Your accusations that I am sabotaging the page causing people to lose their jobs, and harassing you are personal attacks. Stay off my talk page, and do not make comments about me on any other pages either. Meters (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Couple things[edit]

Since this was a rather mundane binary conversation between us, I thought I'd use it to try out this nifty little closing script. Obviously, if you object t, feel free to revert...and if you want the script, there's a link in the edit summary John from Idegon (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First I'm going to nick your talkpage header. Second, if you're on the lookout for school articles that need help, this is a good place to look. For an IPv6 editor, you'll note he has many friends in common with us. Glad to see you're doing better, and I'm starting to turn the corner too. Hopefully by Easter I'll be back to full strength. I have to be...I have to arrange and conduct our church's Easter music. First test as assistant choirmaster. John from Idegon (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: So far so good. Has not exploded yet so I can probably pull the header now. Glad to hear that you are doing better too.
Will check out IP's edits and articles.
Wicked cold here.... hit -41.2 C at the airport with a wind chill of -50 (that's -42.2 and -58 F in your terms). For the first time in 30 years in this house we froze a pipe. Two people have frozen to death in the city so far. Meters (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The IP is Bob, and I didn't mean to imply their was anything at all negative in his edits. He finds a lot of problem articles.
I'm glad I'm in Idegon, but they've forecast us some of that for next week. Last week, wind chills back home in SW Michigan were -100°F too. Had to close schools, not for travel dangers, but because they could only get thy he interior temps up to about 40°F. John from Idegon (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: removal of edit from Falls Church page[edit]

Hi Meters- Falls Church, Virginia (the specific independent city which that article is about) is not the same as "Falls Church" the general area in Fairfax County that some businesses have in their address.

The article itself includes an important quote: "The city's corporate boundaries do not include all of the area historically known as Falls Church; these areas include portions of Seven Corners and other portions of the current Falls Church postal districts of Fairfax County"

Because the City of Falls Church is NOT in Fairfax County, the two 'Falls Church'es are distinctly different places and are not interchangeable.

The school whose info I deleted from the article is located in a postal district historically called Falls Church, but is not within the city's legal boundaries (in fact it's ~2 miles south of the southern boundary), meaning that it is really in Fairfax County and belongs on the Wiki page for Fairfax County.

It's a little complicated because the name of the "historical" area and the name of the city are the same, but a very clear distinction for people who live in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:701:9510:7811:8F85:C672:2970 (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Understandable problem.You may well be correct, but you may have to provide reliable sources for that, because right now what we have is a cited source that gives the address of the school as being in Falls Church, Virginia. I won't undo you again, but someone else may if you don't provide sources. It might help to explain the situation of the talk page too..Meters (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

East Carolina University Student Government Association[edit]

If you've got time, could you take a look at this odd article? Not just poorly written, but basically unsourced. The 2nd reference to goes to a Rick Astley YouTube. It names a lot of people who aren't notable, says one was impeached, etc. I especially love the last bit:


   Candidates who have filed have begun their campaigns. There are 2 presidential tickets. Ticket 1 is Presidential Candidate Colin Johnson and Vice Presidential Candidate Taylor Chappell. Ticket 2 is Presidential Candidate Shelby Hudson and Vice Presidential Candidate AJ Modlin.
   Student Body President-elect or runoff election if a tie TBA the evening after voting closes at 5:00 PM UTC-5 on Friday, 22 February 2019."

If you don't have time can you suggest who might or where I should take this? All those names of living people bother me almost as much as the unencylopedic nature of the article. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I redirected it to the school. Clearly WP:NOT. John from Idegon (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: Thanks. Good idea. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. It was redirected after a merge discussion, and this is the second time it has come back. Meters (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of that. If it comes back, it should probably go to AfD so the groundwork is there for salt. This is not now nor can I see how it ever will be a notable topic. I doubt student government at Penn State or University of Texas (the 2 biggest U's in the US) would ever be notable, much less a second level state U. John from Idegon (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


'Why would anyone ever mistake these two?' I dont know, but maybe it could be that they are both mountains/hills? (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you even look at the articles? Mount Griffith is a mountain in Antarctica, and Griffith Park is is a well-known park in Los Angeles. No one is likely to get them mixed up. Meters (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC).

The Signpost: 28 February 2019[edit]

Long list of shops[edit]

Thanks. Iwas also reverted [3] here and there is a related discussion on my talk page. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:I suspect that this is a sock who has a long history of disruptive commerce-relates edits He was pushing a supposed continuation of Consumer's Distributing. Someone obtained the vacant web domain and the early edits were lining to a non-functioning webstore on that domain. Looks like someone has now managed to register something under the same name, but even if correct I would consider this to be a non-notable new entity, and something we don't need to cover i this article. Meters (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, we do discuss the new entity in the article, but it's certainly not correct to say that that is a continuation of the original company. And as you pointed out, we don't need a listing of the hundreds of former stores. Meters (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)



While I appreciate your requirement to source my added comment, I have to wonder why this untrue statement (" However, chelated gadolinium(III) compounds are far less toxic because they carry gadolinium(III) through the kidneys and out of the body before the free ion can be released into the tissues.")is allowed to be published, unchallenged and unsourced. According to the FDA, gadolinium is retained in the body:

"[12-19-2017 ] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requiring a new class warning and other safety measures for all gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) concerning gadolinium remaining in patients’ bodies, including the brain, for months to years after receiving these drugs."

And since it has been proven that gadolinium is retained in the body for months to years, we also know the chelator applied to the gadolinium ion quickly disassociates after being injected into the body, leaving free and toxic gadolinium ions in the body that embeds in the brain, bone and tissue. There is no safe and 100% effective antidote to remove the gadolinium.

"...the dissociation of gadolinium ions from their chelating ligands has been accepted as the primary etiology, which is more likely to occur in patients with renal failure than in those with normal renal function because the excretion rate is reduced in the former, allowing time for the chelates to disassociate in vivo."

It would be appreciated if you would return my comment.Hardmoney1 (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)hardmoney1

I didn't add that content. I don't know anything about gadolinium, and I can't speak to whether the content is correct. The content has been in the article for many years, which suggests that other editors accept is as being accurate, but if you don't think it is correct then please challenge it and attempt to improve the article. My talk page is not the correct venue to discuss the article content. You made one completely unsourced edit with medical claims to the lead of a article. I correctly undid you. If you have legitimate concerns about the article then please discuss them on the article's talk page so that other editors, more knowledgeable than me about gadolinium and WP:MEDRS, can see and participate in the discussion.
I have to say though, when a brand new account (Peterasoto) shows up and makes a single spammy edit to add a "How to remove Gadolinium from the Human body safely" link to the article, and then another new account is immediately created and makes a single edit to the same article with the same "gadolinium is not a as safe as the medical field would have you believe" idea I get suspicious that it is the same editor. And your username (Hardmoney1) doesn't inspire confidence. Meters (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

your recent message[edit]

hi hello, so i think you made a mistake with changing the Glenala State High School wikipedia page. what i said was factual and important for people who want to know about the subject. please change it back.

regards, whynotshitehead Whynotshitehead (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I will not restore it. It was unsourced and the claim that the school was famous in its community for the the number of bullies was inappropriate. Your username is also inappropriate. I would have reported it myself but you were already listed. Meters (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Gender bias on Wikipedia[edit]


The summary as it is right now, puts men and women at a zero-sum game of content percentage: 'This has led to Wikipedia having fewer and less extensive articles about women or topics important to women.'

Is it as if men writing mostly about things they like somehow prohibits women from doing the same, or is it that men do not write about things that are mostly in women's area of interest? Or some other subtlety that is not even hinted in the article summary?

What - in your opinion - is wrong with stating that 'This has led to Wikipedia having more content devoted to white men's interests and - at least partially described from male perspective.'?

Maybe I am not qualified to read and comprehend WP articles, since I do not get what the article tries to accomplish, as the problem statement is nowhere to be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TadzioPazur (talkcontribs) 10:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  1. Please sign your talk page posts with 4 tildes ~~~~
  2. I've had no interaction with you under your account name. It's not a good idea to out yourself by connecting your IP to your username (see WP:PRIVACY). Do you really want me to connect your username to your IP by discussing edits you made as an IP and the warnings I left on the IP's talk page?
  3. When asking about edits please link to the article in question (by enclosing the article name in doubled square brackets) or provide a diff to the edit in question (see WP:SDG), particularly if you are going to ask questions from a different IP or account. I edit hundreds of pages every week and I don't want to have to search through my history to try and guess what someone is referring to. Meters (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Racial Bias on Wikipedia[edit]

Responding to: :Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Racial bias on Wikipedia that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Meters (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC) [struck copy of warning I left that was copied here complete with my signature]

My comment: <redact personal attack> has been deemed by you as 'not very civil' and removed.

What does that mean (what, exactly is either impolite or disrespectful) in the edit I made?

How (if at all) could I add to the conversation?

Are there any written applicable standards of communication among WP contributors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TadzioPazur (talkcontribs) 10:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  1. Don't quote warnings. It makes it took like a warning was placed where it was not. I have struck it.
  2. Don't copy signatures. It makes it look like someone has posted where they did not. I have struck it.
  3. Don't copy material that has already been deleted as a personal attack. I have redacted it.
  4. See my comments in your previous thread. They all apply here too. Meters (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Cathedral Catholic High School[edit]

Hello, I added Scott Peterson as a notable alumni. He was removed and the reasoning being that he is an alumni of the "University of San Diego High School" the predecessor to CCHS. If this is to be the standard than I believe we should remove the following as well:

Phil Mickelson, Stephen Gonsalves, Luke Walton, as they are all alumni of USDHS and not CCHS. During my time as a student there the faculty and administration referred to alumni of USDHS as alumni of CCHS, even though they are two seperate entities. Would you consider adding Scott Peterson back in light of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:D641:AE00:90A1:FAB8:3D07:3ADB (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. My apologies for missing that.. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Meters (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Speaking as a San Diegan myself, I understand the dilemma and I think this is a question complicated enough to be decided on the talk pages of the articles. I will start a discussion there about how to handle USDHS alumni: should they be listed at both articles, or just the USDHS article, or at the CCHS article with a link from USDHS? I will post at Talk:Cathedral Catholic High School and see if we can get a consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought that this was the same school and it had changed its name, otherwise the "other name" field in the infobox makes no sense. I'll keep an eye on the discussion. Meters (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC).


So your Wikipedia username is Meters. I’m pretty sure you like the metric system. I like the metric system too, hence the “Metric” in my name. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the metric system, but my username comes from the measuring instruments version of "meters". I also have the account user:Metres as a doppelgänger account to prevent impersonation. Meters (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Does not work[edit]

Hi Meters, I've put a new image and I cannot see the caption, even though there is one. (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Pleas provide links to the article or diffs to the edit next time. Another editor has already removed your edit so there's nothing to do. Meters (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
And a third editor has restored it. I believe the problem was that you had it formatted as a simple picture, which uses the text for a mouse over rather than a caption. I've fixed it, and corrected the caption ("women in a Mexican club" not "Mexican women in a club". Meters (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do not revert edit concerning topics you are not informed on[edit]

HI you have left an inappropriate comment on my page and proceeded to revert my minor edit due to a bogus reason. I would suggest you inform yourself on this topic before engaging in an edit war.Xexor (talk)

I assume this is Prince Edward Island? Farsi is listed in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary and is used on the Canadian Census we are referencing. It is not correct to say that we cannot use that word because it is not English. I simply restored the article to the original version. If you think it should be changed then take the issue to the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Meters (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not correct to say that I was edit warring. I undid you and an IP who both incorrectly claimed that "Farsi" is not an English word and so shouldn't be used, even though I noted that it appears in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary and in the Canadian Census we are sourcing. I assume that you also made the IP edit. I asked you to discuss it on the talk page. And now another editor, user:Bonadea, has undone you also. If there is some valid reason we should prefer "Persian" over "Farsi" please discuss it on the talk page, but simply claiming that "Farsi" cannot be used because it is not an English word is not a valid argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talkcontribs) 06:42, March 12, 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Meters,

Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


With regards to the Milkshake article, I'm an author (Fix the Pumps: The History of the American Soda Fountain) and yes the reference is to my website where I write about drinks and document these things. But, the fact is the wikipedia history section is wrong, period, and that piece of misinformation has spread to dozens of sites. Those dozen websites are directly quoting or duplicating that piece of misinformation.

The book reference in the old article is from 1984 and it is wrong, plus they don't cite the newspaper they got the information from in 1984, though I've looked I can't find it the piece of information they are quoting. I have cited the newspaper article where my source comes from [1], but because it comes from a paid research service (Newsbank) you can't access it unless you pay (or work at University). Googling stuff is not real research. I also have a copy of the article/milk shake ad on my website, so people can view it, hence the link. I can't however post that image to Wikipedia because of the strict copyright policy Wikipedia has, nor am I going to duplicate the whole post.

I doubt you even looked at the page that I linked too, but if you did you would realize it was real, decent research. If you don't want properly researched info on Wikipedia please feel free to leave that old misinformation up and remove my paragraph.

And yes I have two minor issues in 13 years. Dsoneil (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course I looked a the source. I don't undo an edit for using a non-WP:RS source without actually looking at the source, and I wouldn't have suspected that it was sourced to your personal webpage if I hadn't looked at it and realized that the webpage was by "Darcy O'Neil", almost certainly the same person as the editor making the edit. I also wouldn't have pointed out that you have been warned for this before if I hadn't noticed that your COI edit linking to the same website got you warned for spamming in 2010.
I wouldn't be too proud of the fact that you have had only two warnings in 13 years. You do know that we can see every edit you've ever made, don't you? You have made only made 39 edits in that time, and almost every one of your edits was either to link to your website or to source to your book. You may not have been warned every time, but there's a reason all of your edits have been undone. I pointed you on your talk page to WP:RS, WP:BRD, and WP:OR. And now that you're restored your edit again I've pointed you to WP:EW. Please also read WP:COI. Again, if there is material that should be changed, discuss it on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Your understanding of Wikipedia copyright and sourcing is sadly lacking if you think that you have to point to a copy of a 133-year-old newspaper article hosted on your page to allow Wikipedia to source it. Meters (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Atlanta Constitution with the title “Milk Shake” published on May 17, 1886
It is not worth the effort trying to contribute to Wikipedia. My information is valid and if your concern is link=bad then so be it. You are not "editing" you are managing territory. Dsoneil (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If you consider what you are doing as contributing here rather than the blatant self promotion it is, well, please feel free to stop. No one will mind, and we will lose nothing. There are plenty of self anointed experts over in political articles if anyone gets really desperate to interact with one. John from Idegon (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dsoneil: And how am I "managing territory"? That appears to be an unfounded accusation of WP:OWNERSHIP of Milkshake, Aside from undoing your contested edit and asking you to discuss it on the talk page my only other edits to this article were to undo an edit describing milkshakes as "food" rather than "beverages" and to undo some inappropriate switching between American and British English.
Again, if you have concerns with the material in the article then please discuss those concerns on the talk page. I'm am not an expert on the subject, but Wikipedia has procedures for determining which sources may be considered reliable and which contributors may be considered experts in their fields. Maybe you qualify as an expert. Maybe your book and your webpage qualify as reliable sources. Maybe the existing sources are not. I don't know. But if you are not willing to attempt to engage than it is moot. Meters (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
No, you do loose something, which is historical accuracy and since Wikipedia ranks high in Google searches people trust what is on that page. Unfortunately, lots of websites are directly quoting or using the copy directly for the history the milkshake, which is not accurate at all. It's old research, that wasn't accurate to begin with. I do research on drinks for a living, I've written a book on it, I've been nominated for Cocktail Writer of the Year and for Best New Cocktail Book, by my peers, in 2011 for my research on soda fountain history. And I try to contribute to the open idea of Wikipedia (information should be free, but only if it is accurate at the time of publication), I am not a spammer, though yes I have attempted to improve the world of drinks by pointing to historically proper research on my site, consider it more ignorance on my part in the early days. For the milkshake article, I changed one paragraph but referenced in the paragraph the source newspaper, year and date (it doesn't require a reference in the footnotes at that point) and provided a summation of the complete research that I referenced on my site because there is more to the history. And anyone who has worked in an academic or publishing world knows 100% that to not credit the author in another publication (even if it is yourself) is plagiarism. I shouldn't have to get NPR or CBC to do a story about my research to prove to Wikipedia that I know what I'm talking about, it's all referenced in my 1500 word post, images and patent references included. And yes I would contribute more of this information, but at this point I've written a dozen paragraphs trying to explain why I changed a single paragraph. That is a lot of effort. Also, my updates to Cream Soda and the Coffee Cabinet have been removed and I've been label a spammer by MrOllie because I linked to to my research. In my defence for that, the Rhode Island Coffee Cabinet, the states official drink, is a euphemism for toilet and to state that requires significant research, but I can prove it, but it needs a reference to my research otherwise I look like a jerk, or no one will believe it. Last fact, Wikipedia drives almost zero traffic to a site on pages like the milkshake or the Coffee Cabinet (most people don't even know that was a thing), the links are no-follow so there is not gain there, and I don't run ads on my site, other than my own internal ones. But if someone posted that your states official drink was a euphemism for a toilet, wouldn't you want to know who was making that claim and to see their research? I'm trying to engage, but this is way too much work for a few paragraphs of edits. Give people a chance, don't label them a spammer so quickly. If the research looks reasonable, you as an editor should consider it, that's what editors who publish books do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsoneil (talkcontribs) 02:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
You were told in two edit summaries to take this to the article's talk page. You were told on your talk page to discuss it on the article's talk page. You've been told twice on this page to discuss it on the article's talk page. For the sixth time, if there is material that should be changed in Milkshake, discuss it on the article's talk page. Not here. Article content discussions belong on the articles' talk pages, not on user pages.
If consensus on the talk page is that your book or your webpage are not acceptable as reliable sources and you wish to get a wider audience then WP:RSN is the correct venue. As I said before Maybe you qualify as an expert. Maybe your book and your webpage qualify as reliable sources. Maybe the existing sources are not. I don't know. But if you are not willing to attempt to engage than it is moot. And by "engage", I mean engage on the article's talk page. If you had put the time and effort you spent on my talk page into a discussion on the article's talk page this would likely have been dealt with by now.
And please don't take me to task for what other editors have done. I have never edited Cream soda or Coffee cabinet. I didn't call you a spammer (actually the term was ref spammer) for your edits to those articles, or any other articles, but I can understand why user:MrOllie undid your edits to both of those articles. You sourced material to your personal website, and you made an unsourced reference to yourself as an expert in the field ("according to author Darcy S. O'Neil"). Meters (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The reason I am taking you to task is because you could be a better "editor". Instead of being a technocrat and justifying your position on edit removals as spam, dig a little deeper, put some effort into it, stop pointing at policy documents and actually help someone. As you said, when you reviewed my edits, you went to my website and effectively looked for guilt, then you claim to know nothing about the topic and can't determine whether I'm an expert of not. If you don't know something, don't just point people to different documents and label their entry as spam, do some research or be helpful! Wikipedia is loosing people who contribute, or could improve the information, but your approach is exactly why people don't want to contribute (I could point to many documents, but that's not helpful). It's just a painful experience and amongst my peers, in the drink world, it is no way isolated. The circular argument gets bothersome: no-one can determined if I'm an expert, but I can't create/edit my own Wikipedia entry, so we have to wait patiently until someone does, but that means I can't reference myself or my own research, so flasehood must remain on Wikipedia polluting the world with poorly verified info. This is all over a paragraph on a milkshake, no wonder people don't want to contribute, could you image if this was something important? And yes I will take it to Talk, but editors like you and user:MrOllie aren't the friendliest ambassadors to the Wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsoneil (talkcontribs) 16:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Again, I didn't call you a spammer. Someone else did.
First you accuse me of not even bothering to look at the source you added, and now you accuse me of looking at the source in an attempt to find guilt. No, as I already explained, I look at new sources to determine if they are reliable. When I did so it seemed very likely that you were sourcing your material to your own personal website.
I don't have to be an expert on milkshakes to know that an editor sourcing material to his own personal website (and more than once) is not normally acceptable. I've pointed you to Wikipedia's information on what you are doing wrong (WP:RS, WP:BRD, WP:COI, WP:OR and WP:EW) I've pointed you to where to raise the issue of whether you can be considered an expert in your field and whether you book is a reliable source (WP:RSN). And that's not a circular argument. Having a Wikipedia article merely means the subject is notable. That's not the same as being a subject expert. Having a Wikipedia article is not a requirement for being considered a subject expert, and being a subject expert is certainly not a requirement for people to have Wikipedia articles. I've asked you repeatedly to discuss the material on the article's talk page..You might want to read WP:IDHT.
I'm done wasting my time repeating myself here. I will not respond here about this again. Please do not post here again about this. If you want to improve the article, then discuss it on the article's talk page, not here. Meters (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
More than two weeks later, and the user has still not discussed this on the article's talk page, as he said he would. Meters (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not my homework![edit]

It arises in a discussion at a forum. --Roland (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It may not be your homework, but it certainly is WP:NOTAFORUM, as I said. Did you read the link? Stop asking talk page questions that have nothing to do with the articles. The talk pages are for discussing the content of the articles, not for general discussions. Meters (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has an article titled Gravity train, talking about a train traveling purely by gravity in a hypothetical tunnel that goes through the center of the Earth. So the atmospheric pressure at the center of the Earth is not entirely irrelevant, in my opinion. --Roland (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Roland Longbow, that is where the problem arises. Your opinion is completely irrelevant, as is mine, and Meters. All that matters is what reliable sources say. So if you do not wish to continue having problems in that regard, keep your opinions to yourself and base all your talk page postings on arguments from reliable sources or Wikipedia policies and guidelines. To do otherwise is to invite a block for repeated WP:NOTFORUM violations. John from Idegon (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
If you wish to consider the issue of air pressure at the middle of a tunnel through the earth for inclusion in Gravity train, then discuss it ton that article's talk page. Many of your talk page posts appear to me to be WP:NOTAFORUM violations.
The talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles. Don't have general discussions about the topic, Don't tell us about what kind of modelling you do, or what words should be retired from the English language and what new words should be invented to replace them, or ask us if there is a name for a particular function, etc. Meters (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Great job keeping a cool tone and trying to help this user even when they where being disruptive Face-smile.svg A 10 fireplane Imform me 18:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


As that IP editor is probably the same one from before he/she/other pronoun is highly unlikely to listen to you or anyone else.Said editor cannot seem to comprehend that "also known as" carries no hint of officialdom, only of fairly common usage. --Khajidha (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha and Meters, I trust you both are aware of a WP:LTA sock commonly referred to as the "also known as" sock? I have no idea what name the LTA case is under. You may wish to enquire of a CU if you wish to take it further. John from Idegon (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't ring a bell, and I don't have a listing for that case in my index, so I've likely never participated in it. Meters (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppets or colluders?[edit]

With this irrelevant Colorado Democrat Party debacle, I noticed that the IP address that most recently posted at the Edit warring page that talks about my minuet revert is the same IP Address that sided with the guy who is currently griping at the California Republican Party page. The IP address is Thoughts? Aviartm (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

So? IPs have opinions. Some of those IPs' opinions may agree with those of a particular named user and some may not.. Unless there's an extended pattern of a particular IP showing up to support a particular named user all you have is a coincidence. If all you have is one occasion, it's not even a coincidence, it's just happenstance. If you want to make accusations of socking, then do it at WP:SPI, but don't go there unless you have a real case. Meters (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Understandable. Since 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F0AD:723C:E915:D034 is so new, starting today, this is the first in a possible notice of coordinated efforts to manipulate consensus. Even looking at 108.252's contributions, they have consistently contested the 'Ideologies' section of States' political party wikis. Aviartm (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Trouted (but only with a little trout)[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you maybe did something silly.

I'm in a good mood today and about to take a wikibreak, and I'm pretty sure I've done stuff like that myself in the past, so you get away with a little trout Face-smile.svg. Linguist111my talk page 09:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Slow screen updates sometimes lead to completely unexpected misclicks.. Meters (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content from Lauren Phillips[edit]

Please do not change edits on Lauren Phillips. I have discussed why I am changing the article in the talk page. Kiara Cole (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure of what you mean by Hijacking. Why is this wrong? Kiara Cole (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You hijacked an article about a Welsh actress and replaced it with one about an American porn actress. They are not the same person. They were born in different countries, and in different years.Meters (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
It was also a WP:COPYVIO from a non-reliable source, and a WP:BLP violation. Meters (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Content on Greendale, Wis Page[edit]

Hi Meters - you are obviously an experience editor. I am not. In regards to Sarah Pfisterer, do I need to create a separate article for her in order to list her as a notable person? Is starring in five Broadway Musicals enough to make one notable (assuming I can find good references for all those)?

Also, the editor "Party City" has been adding information to the page that seems to be designed to depict Greendale as a racist community. For instance the references to covenants for racial exclusion. I do not see similar notations for other surrounding communities, which also had such covenants. Is this a subject I should raise for review by more experienced editors?

Sleeve Honest (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We're cross posting. See your talk page for the issue of Sarah Pfisterer. She may well be notable, but the cited sources are insufficient to allow her to be added to a notable persons list without an article. I would suggest an article be written first.
I'm already watching Party City's edits and have raised the issue with another experienced editor. Meters (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
And he's at it again. John from Idegon (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Warned Party City for EW. I think this is the sixth they have added this, and as you pointed out, it's actually a district issue, not a school issue. Meters (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Reported at ANEW. Did a pretty piss poor job. You may want to add your $0.02. John from Idegon (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

JH Putman school[edit]

Hey, I found this out about the school closing. Also I was personally told about this by staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingzwest (talkcontribs) 21:53, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

It would be better to find media coverage, but that will do for now.I'll add it to the article when I get back online if you have not already done so. What you were told by staff is not useful as it is unverifiable and considered original research. Meters (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Downers Grove South High School[edit]

Hey, buddy. If you've got a small perch handy, you might want to smack yourself with it. Illinois (and a few other states) sanction competition fishing. South has a team. See this. And now, back to Twin Peaks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Live and learn. Meters (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Infobox[edit]

Hi meters, sorry for adding that note to the infobox, saw it on some other Wikipedia articles and transferred it over - was obviously not suitable so, sorry about that. I understand that I’m not an owner of the article, nor the school just a rookie editor. Thanks for showing me the way!!! Did not intend to issue any authority with that comment either, but I do understand it’s not appropriate. Thank you for clarifying what is acceptable and what is a minor edit on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePolitix (talkcontribs) 22:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Lengthy answer with intro and links on your talkpage, where you posted similar response. Meters (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Christian Educational Consortium Page[edit]

Hello Meters. I was the one who left the edits about the Christian Educational Consortium page about the car fire. the fire really did happen, and the email is real as well. the reason why the citations were bogus is because I really dont know how to cite an email and there hasn't been any news coverage on it. I believe that this information is important and should be shared. I can send screenshots of the email and prove that it happened. I kinda wrote the edit out of spite because of how "advertisey" the article sounded. I wanted to prove that my school isn't all gumballs and rainbows. But you fixed that and I wanted to say thank you for that. if there is anything you can do to help me to add this section and make it legit, I would greatly appreciate it. thanks, eclark420 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclark420 (talkcontribs) 01:18, May 4, 2019 (UTC)

FYI. Prodd'd. John from Idegon (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going to do something with it but you beat me to it.
@Eclark420:The material does not belong in the article. A car fire in the parking lot is of no interest to general readers, and neither is the letter the car owner supposedly wrote. And, as I said on your talk page, the fact hat you used completely bogus references made it clear that this was not a good faith edit. If you want to be taken seriously then don't source unrelated things to Garfield the Cat and the Bible.Meters (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
If you restore the prod you removed, would that count as a second prod? You've pretty clearly shown this isn't a school but a home school facilitator and I haven't found even one reliable secondary source. John from Idegon (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I think so. We'll have to speedy or AFD it rather than prodding. Sorry, guess I should have left the PROD while I looked into it. Meters (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
And I don't think there are any speedy categories this falls under. Just the fact that it claims to be a school is sufficient to rule out an A7, for example. Meters (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Asked for help finding sources to show notability on talk page. If nothing then will take to AFD. Meters (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Padmé Amidala[edit]

Hello, Meters, thanks for reaching out to me about my edit. The information that I added is based on what is presented in the movie, as was the writing that my edit replaced. I wonder, when a movie synopsis is written on Wikipedia, what citations are required? Why is it that this point in the character's article would require a citation whereas there are none for the majority of other points? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerfectDebate (talkcontribs) 05:45, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Please sign talk page posts with 4 tildes.
I wasn't looking at the rest of the article, I was looking at your edit, where you claimed that it was "a logical interpretation" and that you were undoing a previous revert, which I can't see. The film itself is s source for plot events, but interpretations, such as the one you added, require sources. Meters (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Meters,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


How on earth are Middle East Eye and the New Arab (two of the foremost sources on Middle Eastern affairs), plus the Independent, non-reliable sources? You really need to be clear how you came to that conclusion. Also, another admin reviewed the content there and passed no comment on it, merely noting that we need to take care over the issue of Israel-Palestine. So this is very bizarre from you. Innovative Username (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and you have already been undone. Take this to the 'article's talkpage. As I said, It's POV, some of the sources are not reliable, and it does not belong in that section at all. Per WP:BRD you should have taken this to the talk page the first time you were undone. Other editors have already told you about edit warring and the discretionary sanctions on the Arab–Israeli conflict .The original news [clarification by Meters after subsequent posts] article simply says that it is an iconic food. Arguing that this is cultural appropriation is arguably putting this edit into discretionary sanctions territory. And your claim that you r addition was approved by an admin appears to be nothing but an attempt to bully the IP. Meters (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
You cannot take it to the talk page of a non-user. Their IP has probably already changed. Thanks, but very useless information to be honest. Have a great day. Innovative Username (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Read what I wrote. I even bolded it for you. "Take this to the 'article's talkpage." Meters (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Innovative Username, I think you're talking about me? I placed a notice about WP:ARBPIA on your talk page, because it's something you should be aware of. Neither Meters nor I are admins. No-one has approved your edits, and two other editors have explicitly said they disapprove, which means the edits don't have consensus. Please take any further discussion of the article's content to the article's talk page as Meters has advised, thanks. And please, comment on the content, not the contributor. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. --IamNotU (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)