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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Ummm he’s my uncle, all of what he did is certified with sources. He told me today exactly how he wants his page. It’s not an unnecessary edit. Stop changing how HE wants his image to be made public. I don’t mean to come off as rude, but come on man. 166.194.132.69 (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's not his article. It's Wikipedia's article about him.
2. It does not matter what he wants to see in the article. It's about what reliable sources say about him. We're not going to include unsourced content ort puffery on your say so.
3. Since he is your uncle you have a conflict of interest in editing the article. Please read WP:COI. Meters (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article in question is Arnie Bernstein Meters (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Meters. It appears that someone who is technically indistinguishable from you from a CheckUser perspective logged into the vandalism-only account JudahM2305 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) on June 11, 2022. The nature of the technical data make it seem extremely likely that you or someone you know performed this particular login (as opposed to, say, accidentally appearing on the same IP as someone in a coffee shop). Based on this information, a checkuser has blocked your account. This is quite a surprising situation to see, especially in light of your long history on this project. We would be interested in hearing whether you have an explanation for the technical evidence. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7 and RoySmith: Wow. One minute from reporting a positive CU on me to indef'ing an editor with a clean block history... I would have appreciated being asked to explain this seemingly bizarre situation before being blocked.

I think you had better recheck the CU results. I only edit from one particular desktop, on a semi static IP, on a major Canadian ISP, and no-one else in this household has access to this machine. I have no reason to know what IP I am usually on as I never edit logged out, but CU evidence should confirm that I rarely change IPs. I believe the ISP does occasionally rotate IPs (thus semi static rather than static).

So, if the IP in question was used by JudahM2305 (talk · contribs) shortly before or after I had that IP then it is just a coincidence. I'm on Wikipedia every day so it should be obvious to CU when my IP changed in that case.

If JudahM2305's use of the IP overlaps mine during the four days that account was in operation but is from a different machine, then it was someone else. There are other machines running the same OS as my machine on my network, but I never use any of them. I don't know if CU can actually distinguish between different machines with the same OS on the same IP, but no-one else in my family has the slightest interest in Wikipedia so I highly doubt it was them, and we have had no visitors who would have had access to those machines or to our wireless network on those dates.

Someone could be hacking our wifi signal, but that also seems unlikely.

That's all I can say without access to the CU info. If someone wants to email me with details I'll tell them whatever I can.

Please copy this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JudahM2305 since I cannot. Meters (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meters. I've had a look at the data as well, and here's what it looks like:

• You have been on exactly one IP for the CU data retention period.
• Other than this specific instance, nobody else has edited from this IP.
• On June 11, around 1900 UTC (if I've got my time conversions right), someone on your IP successfully logged in as JudahM2305. This was followed about one minute later by someone with the same useragent logging in to your account (getting the password incorrect once).

I have an educated guess about what happened, but I'd like to hear if you have any thoughts. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On June 11 I was active until 09:00 UTC, and then continuously from 18:18 to 19:41 UTC. JudahM2305 was active that day from 17:04 to 17:12, and from 19:50 to 23:00 (blocked at 20:08).

I don't know what else I can say. Something's wrong. It wasn't me. I don't normally log out of Wikipedia, but no-one else in this household has access to this machine or has ever even made a Wikipedia edit, on any machine, and I see no evidence that my account has been compromised. I've been on the same IP for whatever the duration of CU logs is. Was JudahM2305 on the same IP for all 4 days? Were the other socks all on the same IP as me?

Was my wifi hacked? Possible but unlikely. Has someone hacked my wifi and compromised my Wikipedia account? Even less likely. Was there a CU data corruption? Possible, but unlikely. After 15 blemish-free years with this Wikipedia account did I suddenly start making stupid edits and penis jokes like a 12-year-old? Up to the CUs to decide.

Bit of a Catch 22 here... I'm the oldest account by 15 years but I'm not listed as the sockmaster, so according to the rules I'm not even allowed to request an unblock from my account (and of course I'm claiming that I can't access the sockmaster's account). The SPI is "on hold" (whatever that means) but I'm still blocked. Zero behavioural evidence, one strange data blip, and I'm indef'ed. Meters (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery solved thanks to some off-Wiki hints from GeneralNotability (thanks). Some user posted what appeared to be a password. I tried it, was surprised to get in, and immediately logged out. I don't remember the account, but it was likely Judahmart (talk · contribs) since the editor's first edit has been oversighted. I don't remember why I didn't then report the account as compromised, but I'm guessing it was because it was already up for a block or seemed to heading for one and I didn't want to open the Streisand effect can of worms. The post was blanked minutes after being made so I may even have seen that and just left it. Meters (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Meters. Just a couple of comments, as I have also taken a look at the situation. We tend to leave SPIs 'on hold' where a result is significant and probably doesn't make sense, and when it's placed for review among other CUs. You are still entitled to request unblock from this account, though TBH it's probably worth just addressing anything directly with RoySmith or one of the other CUs you've seen recently. I would expect RoySmith to turn up soon anyway, but would also urge him to reverse the block. Judahmart's first edit is still visible,[1] and says "JudahM2305 2nd profile butt my password is [...]". This was approximately 4 minutes before you would have logged into it. I can see how this particular type of disclosure is quite a temptation. This has caught out quite a few people in the past, and in my opinion, especially given the technical data, it's overwhelmingly likely that this is what happened here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be unblocking this account in a moment. I'll follow up off-wiki. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad to see you’re back with us. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion brings to light potential discrepancies within the CU system (which may then lead to investigative mistakes and/or incompletenesses), as Meters is a longstanding trusted WP user.

In real-world locations with public Wi-Fi where many people come and go for short durations while using computers (i.e. libraries/Internet cafes/coffehouses) and the IP address stays the same for weeks or months in a row, two different Wikipedians who happen to go to that public place on different days could be editing WP using their own unique accounts, and they may end up being suspected of socking (as Meters has just been) even though the two Wikipedians might have zero awareness of each other's WP or real-world existence until they are "caught" by CU.

The CU system does not seem to distinguish between an IP in a private household, and an IP in a busy public place that has hundreds of random strangers individually using the network for an hour or two in drive-by fashion over multiple weeks/months.

The one-size-fits-all nature by which CU appears to assess IP networks may be allowing occurrences such as this Meters incident to happen; I believe Meters is innocent.

P.S. — The good faith and civility offered by all involved here may have spared Meters a trip to the hot seat of an SPI. 73.189.14.150 (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm glad we cleared up the misunderstanding! I also figured there had to have been some mistake here. For the record, in response to the IP above, checkusers are generally able to distinguish between deliberate use of multiple accounts and the case where two people are using public Wi-Fi and just happen to share the same IP temporarily (e.g. in libraries and coffee shops). In this case, as Meters explained above, they themselves did indeed log into the vandalism-only account mentioned above, because that account had publicly disclosed their own password. This was not a case where "two Wikipedians might have zero awareness of each other's WP or real-word existence". Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this was a genuine CU hit, and had nothing to do with shared IPs. I didn't initially recall the incident, let alone the specific account or the password, but weeks ago I tested an exposed credential. I expected the user to still be logged in and thus was expecting to be able to test the validity of the password without actually logging in (with an "already logged in" error if it was valid). Unfortunately the user had already logged out and thus I was actually logged into another account for a few seconds. I don't remember why I didn't immediately report the at account as a compromised account for a block. Meters (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted that Sean Young attended Lakeside High School in 1972-73. I have her email address if you want to write to her to confirm. 74.105.73.97 (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If she attended the school just provide a reliable source that says so. I'm not emailing someone that you claim is her, and that would not be an acceptable verification even if I did. If you are in contact with her, then you can ask her to publish a mention of her having attended the school, A webpage or social media that is confirmed to belong to her would suffice. If you are the same user who previously attempted to justify her inclusion with a picture of someone in a hat and a personal recollection that "she always wore a hat," please reread what I wrote then. Her bio does not mention this school, or even the state it is in, even though it does mention at least other one school she briefly attended but did not graduate from, so we're going to need definite proof that she attended this school. Meters (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please stop replacing almost all of the anchor stores on Southgate Centre with American Eagle. American Eagle is way too small to be an anchor. And also you deleted all of my hard work. Please stop this now. Rowanlovescars (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pleases top adding unsourced material. I am simply listing the anchor stores as listed by the cited mall web page. Meters (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for messaging me. The template documentation for {{Infobox unit}} seems to be inconsistent with the example that you refer to:

• "standard: The unit system (system of measurement) of which the unit is a part (e.g. SI)"
• The actual label that appears is "Unit system".

The examples, on the other hand, use a category/type of unit. The suggests that either the examples or both what is rendered and the documentation parameter description must change. This, I guess, would be a matter for discussion at the template. My changes were completely reasonable given what is displayed and I expect are likely to recur, but if you feel that the information given should be the such as in the examples, perhaps you'd like to canvass the community about the template consistency? 172.82.46.195 (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an inconsistency between the documentation and the examples then it should indeed be cleared up. Since you are the one attempting a blanket change of long-standing usage (of many years) across multiple articles I suggest that you start the discussion. Meters (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this change made by someone else before, hence my expectation of it recurring. Is it for either of us to start the discussion? I guess that depends on what we are interested in. At least, I'll try to remember this and avoid doing the same again. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out, you are attempting to make a blanket change of long-standing usage across multiple articles. It's up to you to get consensus for the change. One uncontested change to one article five months ago is not sufficient justification. Meters (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not read properly what I wrote. To be clear: above I expressed my intention of avoiding making any further such change. I even tried to be helpful by pointing out a similar change that you might be inclined to realign with the dominant usage. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are content to leave the articles the way they are, and don't wish to raise the issue of the supposed discrepancy on the infobox's talk page, then we're done. Please drop this. In fact, what was the point of raising it here? And that's rhetorical question. Please don't continue this thread to answer it. Meters (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please block Zvfibkoj, or at least lock 2022 monkeypox outbreak so they can't edit it? This person has repeatedly been warned, and is hurling abuse at everyone trying to stop them from disrupting that article. I'm sorry if I was supposed to write this somewhere else instead. I'm reaching out to you specifically, because you are the one who warned Zvfibkoj on their talk page. Thank you in advance. - 87.58.119.203 (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin so I can't block the user, but I can report him for violating WP:3RR, blanking content, and making personal attacks, as could you. I'll give the user one last chance to stop. Meters (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They did not take that chance so I've blocked them for 24 hours. If they continue after the block expires, then please report them at an appropriate noticeboard. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continued so indef'ed, socked as User:Susvdhd, page semied one month. Meters (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening it. Unfortunately I think it's the only way we're going to be able to deal with this editor. Let the Mafia robot asteroid mining animal planting discussion begin! Meters (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Canadiansteve indef'ed. That was quick. Meters (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now user:Zellers Canada user:Zellers Inc and user:RobertMMoniz are all CU socks of user:Canadiansteve Meters (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And user:Stevecanadian and user:Robert Manuel Moniz Meters (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for tidying up Longmeadow High School, it really needed the fixes! GuardianH (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Meters (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added diffs to the incident report. Thank you. NetHelper (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments at ANI. You have not provided diffs, and what has the IP done that warrants a trip to ANI without even a userpage warning? Meters (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Best you cited WP:NOLYMPICS. I have a long history with WP:NSPORT, though apparently my last edit to the page was in 2014. Since then I've been in several discussion regarding notability of Olympic athletes in particular. Apparently precedent is as valuable in Wikipedia as it is in the U.S. Supreme Court (useless). If they don't like the decision, go find a less informed set of jurors. Mom says no, lets go ask Dad. We had established that an athlete who PARTICIPATES in the Olympics is notable. No quibbles. We assumed if they had achieved participation in the highest level of their respective sport, there WILL be a history leading up to it establishing WP:GNG. So essentially that was your accusation about Justin Best, that there was no coverage. Did you look? WP:BEFORE. As I proved, you failed to find legitimate coverage of this individual easily available on the first page of Google. You're a good editor, you should know better. Most of the NOMs are, with no better phrasing, incompetent. I have been through numerous AfDs. Nobody seems capable of operating Google, much less other search engines. These incompetent people then USE their inability to find anything as a justification for the removal of legitimate, notable content from Wikipedia. They easily get an echo chamber of incompetent editors with no care for the value of Wikipedia content to support them. They seem happy to censor content from the eyes of the rest of the world. Like its a virtue to them. The few people like me are one armed paperhangers fighting the mass of IDIOTIC deletions. Its impossible. We MUST assume coverage exists. If it doesn't exist, it is most likely the failure of search engines, not the absence of the content. Go ahead, prove a negative. So the point of this is the (to me) new specifications of WP:NOLYMPICS are wrong. We should not open the door for incompetent people to ruin Wikipedia. This specification needs to be changed back. Trackinfo (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in rehashing the consensus on whether Olympic athletes are notable simply for having participated. This is not the place for it. Take your rant somewhere else.

As for the AFD, did you bother to read it? I clearly said that I looked for significant coverage without success. When sources were found I thanked the editors, said that I didn't know how I had missed them, and quickly withdrew the nomination. Please drop this. Meters (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw I was just coming here to thank you for being big enough to withdraw the AfD for this chap once sources were found. Not enough people do that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just messing around because I was tired of someone named fettlemap reverting my minor edits expressing known facts from my experience as a native of the Central California coast region, to wit, that people who live in the four most northerly counties (Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo) of the six listed in the article consider Santa Barbara and Ventura counties to be part of Southern California. I don't have an article or reference to cite – it is based on my personal experience. WillO'theGlen (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your "personal experience" is WP:OR and is not a source we can verify or use. See WP:V and WP:RS. The article does contain a source that mention six counties. It is disruptive for you to make an unsourced change to four. It is not a minor edit, particularly when you have already been undone by user:Fettlemap. Either discuss this on the article's talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meters,

You erased the new method I posted for calculating the 9-multiples, and indicated that it was “not an improvement.”

This is easy to resolve.  A calculation with fewer, simpler steps is an improvement, right?

The method that you erased (Minus 1 / Make10) uses ONE number and two of the simplest operations in math.

Method 2 (that you re-posted) involves juggling multiple numbers and a VERY complex step: “make the sum of the tens digit and ones digit equivalent to nine”  This is way too slow to replace memorization.  Method 2 serves no purpose given there is a much simpler method.

The Hands Method (Method 1) is useful, but should be reserved for students with learning challenges.  It takes more time to learn and execute than adding a simple Count Back to Make10.  Using hands to calculate the 9s is too slow to replace memorization.

Even if the steps/complexity were the same for the methods we are discussing, this new method uses Make10 as its basis. Make10 is something we WANT students to practice - not using their hands.  Make10 is the start of mental math: breaking apart numbers and putting back together.  It takes less than a minute to teach the 9-multiples to a student that knows Make10.  This is one of the first practical applications of Make10 for an early elementary student.

This new method saves students an hour or two otherwise spent memorizing the 9-multiples.

No other method does that.  

I look forward to your reply.

Greg GregWelch8 (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to ask about an edit please provide a diff to the edit [2], or at least a link to the article in question Multiplication table.

In my opinion, the whole "Patterns in the tables" section is a mess that should be rewritten and trimmed. And the given examples of methods for multiplication (hands or other) don't belong in this section, or in the article at all for that matter since they are not dependent on the multiplication table at all. Your addition was not simply the replacement of one hands method with another that you prefer. You also deleted the very simple and straightforward "Method two", added a lengthy blurb, added multiple WP:MOS violations, and used non-encyclopedic language. Meters (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Methods removed from article. Meters (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with your initial objections Minus 1 / Make10:

“not an improvement”

“You also deleted the very simple and straightforward "Method two"

This is a straight forward issue - Method 2 has easily twice as many steps as Minus1/Make10….and they are more complex.   Please count them. Better yet, try your method on someone learning their 9s. I have worked one-on-one with hundreds of elementary school students. This method is kid tested. It takes seconds to learn for a student that knows Make10...and all K and 1st graders should be experts at Make10 as it is the start of mental math.

The Make10-based method is the only one simple enough to replace memorization - so it will save millions of hours per year otherwise wasted memorizing the 9s.  The cherry on top is that it uses Make10 as its basis - something we WANT students to practice.

Noticed that you subsequently deleted ‘Method2’ as well, so perhaps we will carry on this discussion on the Wiki 9s page.  I will be posting an edit there soon with much of the same info that you erased on the Order of Operations page, so please comment here rather erase my edits based on erroneous information.

---

Which leads to the second issue you brought up: where is the best place to discuss the individual single-digit multiples?  

After all, the main use of the multiplication tables is to look up multiples.  I agree with you that the section was messy, however having a short section (1 to 3 lines) on each of the single-digit multiples would help a lot of people.  Just a brief explanation with a link to the Wiki page for the number in question.   That would provide Wiki users with two ways to access.

So, for the 9s section, it could be as short as:  

Count the multiplier back 1 and Make-it-10.  Example:

For 9 x 4, the 4 counts back to 3  (for thirty- ); then "Make-a-10" with the multiplier for the 2nd digit.

The 4 becomes a 10 by adding 6.  Answer: 36

Then a link to the Wiki 9s page for further discussions on why 9 is unique, diagrams, etc.

I also have short suggestions for 2,3,5,6,10,11,12 (11s/12s are another use of ‘Make10’).

The Wiki Multiplication Table page seems like a good place to consolidate these. GregWelch8 (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on the article's talk page, none of these methods have anything to do with multiplication tables. They do not belong in the article at all, let alone in a section on patterns in multiplication tables. Please stop posting about this here. Meters (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meters: Is anyone monitoring the DB Cooper page? KatDales (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._B._Cooper&action=info there are 786 people with that article on their watchlists, and 86 of them have recently visited it. As for myself, I've pretty much given up on it. Meters (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Pogi man 122 i was concerned to my edit POGI MAN122 (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think my edit summary (actually, edit summaries) says it all: "Unsourced and not needed". As I said on your talk page: "Your edit is unsourced, and would not be needed even if it were sourced." Meters (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like you to block the guy User:Dismant39 in order to put a stop all the rubbish he is doing out here in Wikipedia. Please do it as soon as you can. Sahajitbro (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. You will have to report the user at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Meters (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CU-blocked Meters (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me with that name being put into the article I was editing. A quick google search will give you all the source a good wiki'er like yourself . I am honestly asking for help to reflect the name . Most provinces have more than one ethnic group as its foundation but pei is unique enough that the local native name should be reflected. Again I'm sorry I don't know how to properly do it Brandon.Lundigan (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You added unsourced material, and worse yet, you changed an existing reference to incorrectly claim that it supported your change. Meters (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COINTELPRO is real! 2601:642:4C0D:5D88:3034:E83F:29A5:F5B5 (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article content. That name is no longer used/ And you are evading a block. Meters (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And blocked again. The user is currently blocked on at least seven different IPs:

• 2601:642:4C0D:5D88:3034:E83F:29A5:F5B5 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) now a 6-month range block 2601:642:4c0d::/49
• 208.82.97.117 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 98.207.68.50 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 130.65.254.11 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 50.197.170.139 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 173.228.6.166 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 156.39.127.23 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Meters (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

user:208.82.97.117 blocked again on Sept 11. Meters (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was born in Taber Alberta in 1988, and I am trained by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Office of Democratic institutions and Human Rights. How about you actually Google me instead of listening to Sandra’s Lies. You will regret this in a week when you have to repost what I said, or face litigation. 70.75.208.40 (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have no idea who "Sandra" is.
2. We don't know who is using that IP. It is not uncommon for users to claim to someone they are not in an attempt to influence article content.
3. If you are the person you claim to be then you should not be adding material about yourself. Read WP:COI.
4. We generally don't add people to lists of notables unless they have a Wikipedia article demonstrating their notability and a reference showing their connection (in this case to Taber, Alberta). This person does not have an article and you did not provide a reference.
5. Please read WP:NLT and retract your legal threat. Meters (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her date of birth can simply be found in IMDb. Edvanandel (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So? You didn't add any source to the article when you added that birthdate, and IMDB is a user-generated website and thus is not a reliable source for personal information. Meters (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that several other persons tried to add Jennifer Morrisons’ birthday and you rejected them all. Makes me think about your authority… Edvanandel (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And not one of them provided a reliable source, as I asked on the talk page seven months ago. If personal information cannot be reliably sourced it should not be in the article. If you have a reliable source then feel free to add her birth date with the source. Either way, please drop this. I'm not interested in continuing this here. Meters (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Evercool1. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Alexandru Rafila have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Evercool1 (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Evercool1: Yeah, I misclicked and you beat me to the undo. Maybe try not templating obvious errors by experienced editors? Meters (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw that you reverted an IP update at Bastrop, Texas. I've found a lot of sources that call Bastrop a "suburb" and place it in the Greater Austin area. But I also found a few that call it an "exurb" where people commute to Austin, etc. How would you advise we recognize the two? I was thinking of just keeping it as is in the lead (no mention of "suburb" or "exurb" and maybe just expanding on this in the sections? Any advise is greatly appreciated. Thank you. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for participating there and for taking the time to give your opinion about the suitability of this material, which I sourced and added, and which you want to keep out of the article. I don't think we are going to agree, and I think your mention of WP:EW, when you have made three reverts and I have made zero, makes it less and not more likely that we could do so. Never mind. I've raised it at WP:3O so we can get some fresh eyes on the situation. Have a lovely evening, and thanks for caring about stuff like this. John (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have added the material three times, twice after it was contested. If you add it again without consensus I will raise this at the edit warring board. And why was this raised at 3) less than 24 hours after it was raised on the article's talk page? That's hardly "thoroughly discussed on the article talk page". How about leaving it long enough for other editors to actual see and respond? Meters (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added different but related material each time, adding more and better sourcing each time. That isn't a full revert. You have made three full reverts to remove it. You belatedly joined the discussion after I started it. I think we both know what's happening here; there are people who find sources and write articles, and there are bean counters and policy wonks more concerned with playing games with WP:ALPHABET SOUP. I think you're declaring a side by (repeatedly) threatening me (bluffing me) with the dreadful prospect of a centralised discussion, when we both know neither of us have broken 3RR, and both of us have made reversions; improvements in my case, and repeated removals in yours. Surprise me; do something to actually improve the article. Find some sources; they seem to be thin on the ground for this article. Can you? John (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the material should be in the article, regardless of the sourcing. Why would I waste my time looking for sources.

And yes, I think we do both know what is going on. You added material. I contested it and removed it. A sock restored it and an admin removed it. You restored it, taking responsibility for a sock's material that had been removed. I removed it. You started a thread on the talk page, looking for comments, without pinging me. I responded. You restored a version of the material before anyone else had a chance to respond. I restored the status quo. You took it to a premature 3O (14 hours after the initial talk page post). A 3O responded and agreed with me that the material should not be included.

You have attempted to put words in my mouth or misinterpreted what I've said multiple times, and now yuou are verging on personal attacks. Stay off my talk page. Meters (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for deleting things on the R.A. Salvator page, I tried to undo, but I couldn't figure it out. Thanks for fixing it. 68.170.250.160 (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Next time just call up the page history and hit "undo". Meters (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on your talk page, but you are free to just remove whole thread. Meters (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heyya Meters. I am not being disruptive or adding incorrect information. I am still learning. The new Mayor IS Stephen McLean. A municipal vote was held Oct 24. The town website is wrong, as usual. 2605:B100:D26:7F7C:1970:F0CC:A52A:7850 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting this here? This issue has already been discussed and settled on the talk page, and another editor has already added the new source which you failed to add As you know, since you have posted to the talk page since hte discussion finished). And yes, some of your edits were definitely disruptive. Don't copy other editors' posts. Don't copy other editors' signatures. Don't post unrelated material on the talk page. And if you are the same user who has previously been blocked on more than one account you are socking again. Meters (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop saying “Your edits aren’t minor stop marking them as minor”. I don’t change that much, so they are indeed minor edits. What you consider a minor edit is different from what I consider to be a minor edit. GenZenny💖 (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:MINOR. Meters (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what you think is a minor edit. Meters (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one year. Meters (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now indef'ed, along with several CU socks. Meters (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

Donner60 (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, And to you too. It's been a while since we've run into each other. Meters (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

MasterMatt12(talk) 23:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You too. Thanks. Meters (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can you revert Shellcom Sendai ‎,The Japan Times and Japan Today ‎ 2803:2D60:110C:E2D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC) i am fed up[reply]

I'm assuming you meant your recent edits to Shellcom Sendai, The Japan Times, and Japan Today. Done (one by user:Prolog) but next time please just do it yourself. At least link the articles, or better yet, provide diffs to the edits in question. See WP:SDG. Meters (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd u erase everything I added to the Cartesian coordinate system Wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.93.145 (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was an improvement. Please stop restoring it. Take it to talk and try to get consensus for your change or leave it alone. And don't blank my talk page again. Meters (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to start by saying that I am not the kid making unsourced edits. I am just here to say that you shouldn't edit the paragraph on the movie unless the kid changes it. In that case, though, please revert his changes. Regards, MightyWinz MightyWinz (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say or imply that you were also the the IP. And please leave my change alone. There is nothing at all "official" about it. When and if they actually announce a release date then we can report that. A drawing poster of two cartoon characters looking a at screen is not an official announcement of anything. Meters (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn’t say that in any way, just wanted to make sure you knew. And since it’s on the website, that does completely make it official. MightyWinz (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not sure why, but I can’t edit the Toopy and Binoo article as I’m a new account and haven’t made enough edits, and someone set the article to “protected”. Anyways, “As of February 2023 the official Toopy and Binoo website incuded a poster for the Toopy and Binoo movie. This poster includes French text reading "Summer 2023" as the release date of the movie”, which is the paragraph you wrote has some spelling and grammar errors that you should fix. Please do so as soon as possible.

These include:

“Incuded”

There should be a comma at “As of February 2023,”

Included shouldn’t even be in past tense as the rest of the article is in present.

And then it just abruptly ends….?

Here is a rewritten version. This follows your demands of not having the “official” part of it. Please replace your old one with this as soon as possible.

During February 2023, a poster for the Toopy and Binoo movie was added to the Toopy and Binoo website. This poster has French text reading “Summer 2023” indicating the release date. This confirms the existence of the Toopy and Binoo movie.

You can remove the last sentence if you don’t like it. Please make these changes.

Regards, MightyWinz MightyWinz (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not making these changes. Your supposed grammar error is just your particular style. It's fine either way. I wrote the sentence in the past tense because otherwise it will need to be rewritten at the end of the month. The sentence ends where it does because that's the main point of that sentence. It's just a poster of two characters. It's not anything official, and it does not confirm anything. If you have a proper reliable source then we can say more. Otherwise please drop this. I don't want to waste any more time in this, Meters (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

God, what do you not understand? I literally removed the official part because of your demands. And there SHOULD be a comma after February, and that is NOT how to spell included. And "As of", and "included" do not go together. They are in different tenses. What do you not understand? I would seriously like to know. MightyWinz (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked you to drop this. If you want to argue about the edit then discuss it on the article's talk page. I've fixed the typo. Meters (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meters, I'm reaching out as the COI editor for Daryl Katz, and his Canadian company, OEG Inc.. As you seem to be interested in Canada-related content, I am hoping that you will review and implement the edit request that I posted, which includes OEG Inc.'s entering the retail cannabis market. Thank you very much! DJ for Katz (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Not needed" you say, ok, so when is it needed and when it's not? Because I have seen several pages where it's noted when the passing comes close to the subjects birthday, sometimes with even more time in between, for example Wilson Pickett. Is there a policy about this? DrKilleMoff (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD you should discuss contested edits on the talk page rather than continuing to restore them. Meters (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do not answer my question. In what way is it "not needed" when it's standard on many other pages? Your link talks about something optional. And the first edit was from an anonymous IP user without any motivations. Those edits can be disregarded as vandalism in 99% of the cases. DrKilleMoff (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the IP's edit was not vandalism. It's verging on a personal attack for you to suggest that it was simply because an IP undid you without an edit summary. And it's useless to argue that other pages contain similar information. There are many more such pages that do not contain pointless trivia about how many days before of after someone's birthday something happened. Again, I suggest that you read WP:BRDm and I'll add WP:EW to that. As I have already written: discuss contested edits on the talk page. That's the article's talk page, not mine. Other editors with an interest in the article are not going to see a discussion here. Please don't post about this here again. Meters (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Meters, I have seen you work tirelessly and enthusiastically to improve this wiki and answer people's questions. I'm rather surprised that you don't have much barnstars on your page despite this. Keep up the amazing work, you make the Wiki proud!! Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As for the number of barnstars, I just archive them with the rest of the threads. Meters (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the comment I posted, because the block expired, okay? Aarist Fire (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to delete the thread, but I believe you are socking, and the admin who blocked the original account will still see the ping to my post. Your WP:LITTLESISTER argument is not likely to carry much weight. Meters (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, I know Aarist Fire and I know he is not Yums and. I heard Yums and is not here to build an encyclopedia, but Aarist Fire has added really useful images to articles. Please don't unnecessarily block him. 2806:10AE:F:23F7:8C56:EE4D:BFA3:5DA0 (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right... an IP with zero previous edits shows up to claim they know an editor with all of two days of history. Meters (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, bye bye to this user. Wow! Please unblock her so I can be happy!@Yums andand.User:Yums and fire.green@gmail.com (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Aarist Fire (talk • contribs) 18:04, February 18, 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my talk page Meters (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And blocked as a sock. Meters (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the source about the music replacements in that deleted edit.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130621011434/http://www.ohio.com/blogs/heldenfiles/the-heldenfiles-online-1.258385/more-about-china-beach-dvd-1.371034 2600:6C50:23F:406E:1D44:364D:68B7:919C (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not. Here's what I removed [3] There is no source in that material. Meters (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about if I put that back, and then include that source? 2600:6C50:23F:406E:1D44:364D:68B7:919C (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about you find a better source than someone's blog, don't use overly-close paraphrasing of the source, and don't make hyperbolic statements such as "that Time-Life was unable to license for at any price"? Meters (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, the image on the ‘White South Africans” page is a illegally used photo of one of my family members. Used without his knowledge or permission. This is harmful to his image and I will remove it again. NOT in error. 2C0F:ED28:D5B:CC00:49E5:200C:21F4:A395 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove it. The image has a valid license. Calling it an "illegal" image in your summary is clearly not correct. Meters (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image is File:Handre Jacobs, Sutherland farmer, Sutherland, Northern Cape, South Africa (20531143712).jpg and the edit in question is [4] by user:Nofakenews123 Meters (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of the image does not want it used he may be able to have it removed by contacting WP:VRT, but calling it an "illegal" image or usage is simply not correct. Meters (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a guess, the edits you reverted were enforcing the [IMO, obvs] silly 40 character rule. See Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 9#Length – 40 or 90 characters??. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. It makes no sense to me to create incorrect short descriptions to meet an arbitrary (and excessively short) target. Meters (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just looked and saw that you had reverted my edit on Wikipedia:DUMB, saying that it was "not helpful" (or useful, or something with -ful at the end lol). I was just trying to see how my edit would be unhelpful, but #97 ("Wasting number slots like this, just to entertain MORE READERS") would be considered helpful. It can stay off, just wanted to see your reasoning.

Th3KingC@rtii (hit me up) 19:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense. It's not even a suggestion for an article. Meters (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah, okay, I gotcha. Just wanted to see where you were coming from. Th3KingC@rtii (hit me up) 00:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I mentioned you here, as you'll probably have seen (notifying you anyway per the letter of the law). There's a good deal more reverting of that editor to be done if you have the taste for it. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My first check of Victor's latest edits turned up a case of almost verbatim copying of copyrighted material, so the problem is not just MOS. I'll check the rest too. Meters (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: Checked all April edits. I'm afraid there is not much left of his contributions. Meters (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I've just been looking at some of them. His first edit to American Hairless Terrier was a direct copy-paste copyvio from the AKC. If you find any others that are bad enough to need revdeletion please let me know/ping me or whatever. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit that said Mike O' hearn was also known as Mike O' tren. this nickname is commonly used in the lifting community to refer to him because it is well known that he takes steroids (of which "tren" is one) although he claims to be natural. thus people call him Mike O' Tren to make fun of him. How would I cite this info so that it stays on the page? 12.132.70.196 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are reliable sources, you don't. Adding a derogatory nickname used by the in crowd is a WP:BLP violation. Meters (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike O'Hearn protected until September 2024 over this issue. Meters (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have warned me to not change Henry Ruggs' height from 6'0 to 5'11, I did so because I noticed he was measured at 5 feet 11 inches(1.80m) at the official nfl draft combine. You might have not noticed it or his former team just kept his college height(6'0) as his listed height, nfl draft combine is the most reliable source to look up a player's physicals. Henry ruggs is 100% 5'11 and I think you've made a mistake 73.157.111.143 (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if you have a reliable source that contradicts the cited source then add the source when you make the change. You have repeatedly changed players' heights so as to contradict the cited sources without sourcing your changes. That is why you have been given a final warning by an admin. Meters (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The removal came from undue weight to recent events. Please see comment and consider removing the edit of mine that you have undone.

“My own opinion is that his several months long stint as interim coach at a high school and a brouhaha about reasons for his resignation are not article-worthy content. i.e., undue weight.  David notMD (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

[reply Elitebasketball23 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You and the other two SPAs on this have been indefinitely page blocked over this. After your TeaHouse thread on this you were told to discuss the material on the article's talkpage by two editors. Instead, you want me to remove the material, based on one editor's opinion at the TeaHouse. No, discuss it on the article's talk page and let editors reach a consensus. Meters (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Meters, 

One of my friends mentioned his name came up in a comment on the Blue Origin edit page and they would like it to be removed. It is at 20:16, 7 March 2023. Is this something you can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.19.118 (talk)

They also mentioned their name came up again when they left a comment as of 20:27, 7 March 2023. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.19.118 (talk)

You have got to be kidding. A series of now-blocked WP:SPA and WP:COI WP:SOCKS have been editing Blue Origin, and you want me to mess with the edit history for one of them? Even if I could do that, I wouldn't. Considering that the only previous edit your IP has made was exactly the same contentious edit made by some of the socks I'm going to assume that you are the same editor. You have already stated that you work for the company. Leave the article alone. As you have already been told, propose any edits you think should be made, on the article's talk page after properly disclosing your conflict of interest. Meters (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe link to the edit in question next time. I make many edits and I certainly don't remember my summaries from 10 days ago. In this case, it appears that you simply should not have made the edit. You don't know if he ever used the "Sr." as part of his name, so why would you think his article should be changed to use it? Meters (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I’ve check the rules and it says nothing about multiple or too many categories for a page, maybe I didn’t read it properly or something but I couldn’t see it.

Your edits were mostly understandable but the Harry Shearer one really perplexed me because I wouldn’t consider those redundant.

I’m not looking for a fight just curious about your position. Bob3458 (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my edit summary: Yes they are redundant. Look at the categories. "Jewish American male comedians‎" is a subcategory of "American male comedians", "Jewish American film directors‎" is a subcategory of "American film directors" and "Jewish American film producers‎ " is a subcategory of "American film producers" was not clear? The subcategories are members of the parent categories. Everyone in a subcategory is already a member of the parent category. You are listing them twice. And it appears that you have now switched back to using your IP to restore the edit yet again. You have previously been warned about adding redundant categories on that IP. Meters (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And worse yet, the IP deleted the talk page thread about this issue [5]. Meters (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"retired", changed name, socked, indef'ed Meters (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you removed a listing of some of zingmagazine's contributors due to lack of citation. Would the magazine's website be a valid source to cite for this purpose? I noticed in entries for other comparable magazines (Cabinet and Esopus) that similar information was either unsourced or citing their official websites. I know that generally sources should be established newspapers, institutional, or academic. But there are no sources of this nature that list this type of information while it is objectively verifiable on the magazine's website. I am of the opinion that this information is valuable yet may not be something that is found with support of a preferred source. Any suggestions on how best to include this information? Monkeywrench3 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that content would be promotional, even if sourced. This article (and at least one now deleted related article) has a long history of promotional editing and COI editors. Meters (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind sharing your reasoning behind your belief that information is promotional? Seems like including a few of the contributors would help to contextualize the magazine culturally and historically. Many wikipedia articles I am finding for other notable visual art magazines such as those mentioned above along with Artforum, Art In America, Juxtapoz, Index Magazine, Bidoun and more include this information. I understand the sensitivity around the past history of promotional editing, but it seems like uniformity across articles would be desirable in this instance? The article for zingmagazine is quite short and lacking information in comparison. Monkeywrench3 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to push back too much here, but am planning to add a new article for another historical visual art magazine (Avalanche) so trying to determine what content can be included in preparing that one. Monkeywrench3 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable independent sources showing the other magazine's notability then go ahead, but articles don't exist to promote the subjects. Content that is considered promotional is likely to be removed by other editors, and if the article does not show notability of the subject it is likely to be flagged or even deleted. Meters (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I should be able to find acceptable independent sources to verify Avalanche's notability. Articles already exist for each of its co-founders, but it seems that there should also be an article for the magazine itself due to its historical significance and influence. On that note, should I not include information about its contributors since it seems that you as an editor consider that to be promotional (despite the same information being included in other articles on similar magazines)? Just wanted to get a final ruling on that before working on the article. Monkeywrench3 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please Can you edit the date and venue? they are playing at liverpool 23rd August not Oxford. And I can’t change it. 77.86.63.135 (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting here? You edited Life's So Fun Tour [6] just a few minutes ago.

It seems the user you discuss in this archived incident board discussion on 22 June 2023, that appears to be an open discussion still, is up to its disruptive editing again only recently the user changed its username from Bob3458 to Potter45. Not sure if this was to obfuscate its previous editing to avoid a block or what. It's a real problem. Edits are here. I've never replied or taken part of an incident board discussion after it has been archived. Can you advise if it is permitted? Thanks. P37307 (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@P37307:The user posted a "retired" banner, but then removed it and had his user page deleted. The subsequent rename is fine since it is a true rename, with the user's previous edits and talk page now associated with the new user name, so there's no disconnect with the previous discussions and warnings. The user has not added any cats since writing that he was stopping, and the only edit post-rename is to clean up some of his previous over categorization, so that's fine.

I said I would reinstate a request for a block if the user comes back and exhibits the same problematic categorizations, which he did, but I'm giving him one more chance. If he does stop over categorizing I'm content to let it be. As for the archived ANI thread, if it becomes necessary to reopen this I believe the best thing to do would be to just link to the archived thread.

Thanks for letting me know. about the rename. Meters (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@P37307:Potter45 has now been indef'ed by user:Bbb23 for having multiple accounts, so I assume there was at least one other account involved. Meters (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I don't understand its obsession with adding categories unless it's a side hustle where it is making money adding categories to pages. Seems to be celebrities the account(s) are making edits to. P37307 (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything nefarious going on (other than the apparent socking), just a user who is overly-focused on adding adding cats and is having trouble backing off. While discussing their editing issues the user has written (twice) that they have autism. Meters (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Meters,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Elise Finch for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Elise Finch to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the article. I just moved it to draft. No concerns with removing the redirect. Meters (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Birdsflyinghigh123, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Zagorskaya. Хоббит (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Meters (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Хоббит: I don't think I was aware that there was a Meta cross-wiki abuse filter for him. That may explain why I have not seen any Frank Mortenson garbage recently. Thanks again. Meters (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://pdc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Lisovskiy https://pdc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polina_Malashenok https://pdc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raisa_Vasilyeva . Хоббит (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Ashleywa . Хоббит (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdourahamane_Tchiani&action=history . Хоббит (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before reverting the edit, please simply care to read the source. 90.135.33.239 (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious fake, as usual. Хоббит (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz:. Хоббит (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. If you, Mr Хоббит, continue to claim that all Russian state news' medias are 'obvious fake', then your place is obviously at Administrators' noticeboard, because Wikipedia policies say otherwise. (I actually have nothing to do with this investigation and I don't even know who that Frank M... is, but since you've mentioned my edit there (for some unclear reason), I am addressing you here too.) I wrote that new head of Niger reportedly converted into Orthodoxy and used this source: https://glavny.tv/interesnoe/markov-svergnuvshiy-prezidenta-nigera-myatezhnyy-general-tchiani-davno-nash-chelovek/. It is reliable and if you think it is not relevant in Wikipedia you must explain why. Your "this is all fake" cannot pass when there are federal news' medias of Russia. 90.140.195.43 (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the general sources on Russian state media is that they are unreliable and the only exception is quoting from the horse’s mouth. Furthermore the edit you made is similar to a misrepresentation made a few days earlier using a purported book published in 2017, way before anyone ever heard of Tchiani. Finally I have serious doubts on the reliability of your obscure source as it does not appear on top of my search bars even though I live in a country with no Russian ban. Borgenland (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was the edit made a few days ago by misrepresenting a book on Niger history published in 2017, way before the author could have known that Tchiani would become anything other than a guard. The recent edit appears to be a subtle attempt to reinsert this claim using an obscure website that doesn’t even appear on the search bar when you type it

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdourahamane_Tchiani&diff=prev&oldid=1167637710

Borgenland (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pwn. If I've missed any, I'm always interested in being thorough. Speaking of which, Udzielnik (talk · contribs · block log) was another. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What about u:Ashleywa ? Хоббит (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've had Frank in a LTA filter for a while now, speaking of which, the filter tells me Special:Contributions/Rachun123 needs a block. Let me know if I should expand the filter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Meters,

I edited Conveyor Systems and included vendor supplied images. The images were not correctly licensed even though permission was given. The whole edit was reverted. (Completely understandable.) Is it possible to resubmit the text only? I've asked for a speedy delete of the images. The last thing I want to do is violate terms or be a bad actor on Wikipedia. I'll let the vendor submit their own images and obtain/grant the correct license. Thanks, in advance, for your help. Globalcopywrite (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, how is it that you got permission to use copyrighted engineering drawings from Floveyor? If you work for them or have been requested to make this edit you likely have a conflict of interest. Please read and follow WP:COI. Meters (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link. I consult to Floveyor but this editing is something I'm doing on my own time, i.e., not paid. I asked them if they had CC images I could use and they provided them to me.

However, I now understand why this is a COI situation. I am very happy to declare that and put my edits in the Talk section for that page so someone else can determine whether the information is useful and meets the criteria for Wikipedia content. It's not my intent to break the rules, only to provide missing information where I have knowledge to contribute.

I'm trying to be as transparent as possible so I appreciate your guidance. Globalcopywrite (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a clever idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I often found that I recognized behaviour but could not remember the name of the case. Meters (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling well.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By mistake I remove content so I apologise for it. Ak47 vSAS (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal. It happens. Meters (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

user CU blocked. Meters (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Keep doing what you're doing. T3h 1337 b0y 22:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a student at that school and the website has yet to be updated. TheCoolestKidHere (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the website is out of date is there some other reliable reference you can use? If there isn't you'll have to wait until the school's web page is updated. No insult intended, but it's not uncommon for people to claim personal knowledge when vandalizing articles. We can't accept changes that contradict existing sources based solely on what editors claim to know. Meters (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Would you have a moment to look at the "notable people" at Vines High School? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Removed 2, trimmed and tagged the third, commented on talk page. Meters (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I did a really thorough search for some notables to add to this school, on Google, and in "what links here" on Wikipedia, but could not find one notable to add to the list. Kinda sad. A few years back I looked for schools attended by Nobel Prize recipients and found a few high school articles that hadn't listed them. That was nice. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content breaches Wikipedia's policy regarding Neutral Point of View.

Referring to it as "The Sarah Lawrence Sex Cult" suggests the involvement of either students or staff members in the alleged as the sex cult ring leader.

Larry Ray resided on campus for an entire academic year. The exact commencement of the sex trafficking remains unclear; however, it persisted for numerous years after their departure from the institution.

The section also notes that Sarah Lawrence was uninformed about Larry Ray's presence on campus, presumably due to an illicit subletting arrangement. A quote from the section states, "Sarah Lawrence College later informed New York magazine that it had no knowledge of his on-campus residence." 1keyhole (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is a POV issue, and that's not what you claimed either time you removed the content. It clearly involves the school and its students. It's irrelevant whether he was on staff or a student there, or that he he was illegally living on campus. And we don't refer to the incident as "The Sarah Lawrence Sex Cult", one of the sources does. You have been undone twice, by user:ElKevbo and now by me. Take it to the talk page (as you should have done after the first undo) or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey on the Trey lance article he won’t let anyone update his team even though multiple sources have confirmed it and only because the teams haven’t confirmed it Eddie1666666 (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting this here? I have nothing to do with that article. Meters (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering do you know someone who does Eddie1666666 (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't have anything to do with that article. Post to the article's talk page or contact someone who is active on that page. Meters (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You recently revised my updates under the "Awards" subtitle which involved removing the other major sports' awards under the school's awards, which mostly consisted of district championships, but according to Madison Southern, District champion was the highest record you could receive in KHSAA, so technically, that was the highest they could possibly receive. Have a good evening, Cookie dough dingus (talk) 2:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Kentucky has state championships in high school athletics, so no, district champion is not the highest level. Meters (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any sports that don't have state championships then division titles should be listed, but all of the sports I checked at https://khsaa.org/sports-activities-events/ have state titles. Meters (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know you edit a lot of school articles. Would you have a moment to look at Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?? I've posted this on two discussion boards, but no comments. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I had already noticed the recent addition of the royal eponyms link to multiple articles, and I believe I have already undone at least one. Meters (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Meters. It wasn't initially obvious that people weren't "getting it" until I saw enough similar responses that didn't make sense. Thanks for making the correction on the DM talk page. I can definitely see how the use of this RfC has (relatively) "calmed down" the ardent POV assertions. Once this RfC is over, I'm going to archive that old thread (thread #1, and a few others) to get it out of the way and stop encouraging more 'passionate' prattle. Grorp (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think trying to clarify things after so many have commented is going to be a problem. We'll never know meant the term vs the concept unless they revisit their response. Meters (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I notice about half of those who say 'support' for the middle item go on to explain they mean sentences, not labels. So in the end it will probably be fine. Grorp (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am currently attempting to clean up some of the Transformers related pages and noticed File:Ultra Magnus Concept Art.webp as part of a larger segment and noticed that you had sent a message on the original uploaders talk page. I deleted the section about "Cinematic Universe Ultra Magnus" due to a few reasons, namely it's inability to be sourced as he is a character that doesn't necessarily exist and I found much of the segment to be original research/blatantly false information. This file was included in that section and I am looking for advice on what to do with it as I have two primary concerns:

A. The image appears to have been used with zero permission and
B. After having searched intensely, I have found no actual connection between this concept art and a "Cinematic Universe Ultra Magnus".

Now, I am very knowledgeable when it comes to the Transformers franchise, and know where to look for better sourcing, but I have simply found nothing that connects this to the section I deleted outside of it looking vaguely like the movie aesthetic. If you could provide advice on how to move forward with deleting this image I would greatly appreciate it. I am still a novice editor so I apologize in advance if I have done this improperly. PaladinDenn (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why that image has not been deleted yet. It appeared to be a copyvio, and it was uploaded as a fair use image but is not in use anywhere, so it should have been automatically deleted. I'll look into it. Meters (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bot didn't catch it until September 17, 2023‎, so it has until September 24. Meters (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied on Sept 25 Meters (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my comment. There was not nothing wrong with it. I gave an explanation why the original wording is incompetent. It does not matter how old it is. Gradatmit (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors incompetent is indeed a personal attack. Don't do that. Meters (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Business magnet" is indeed a recurring thing. See here fyi. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'll delete on sight in the future. Meters (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP opened an ANI on you. Doing the notifying on their behalf. Sorry, it's effectively trolling by them, but just ensuring you're notified. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

range blocked 6 months on latest IP. Meters (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They blocked the other range following that most recent disruption. Since the IP accused us of coordinating or something, I figured we might as well work together to keep an eye out for further DE. I've requested a brief autoconfirm requirement to the graves talk page and will have my watchlist set to catch anything else. I don't think an SPI is necessary per DENY but if it broadens in scope we could look into a userpage to retain relevant ranges and diffs. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked that range. All this is not a big deal. Meters, I considered undoing your strike-outs, cause it makes the talk page look so ugly, and striking out half of a thread, what purpose does that serve? Drmies (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's yet another sock of someone who is on a long block, bludgeoning the page with their campaign, as they threatened to do. Other people have responded to the posts so it's not appropriate to delete the sock's posts. The other option is to collapse the thread, but we should not leave the blocked user's comments up. Meters (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you have deleted the entire thread. I have no objection to my initial good faith response in that thread being deleted. Meters (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your edits to the extent there's no source in the article, so I support your removal of the rivals......however, I know, via the WP:OR of a lifetime of association with the subject, that those rivalries are real. I'll look for sources, but in the meantime consider being a little kind to the newb. They know they're right, they just don't know how to go about resolving it in a productive fashion. Thanks! — Jacona (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have politely explained why I made the edit. Sorry, but being kind to newbs does not include leaving improper material in articles. You are welcome to restore the material if you can find proper references to show that these rivalries have been discussed by independent sources. Meters (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's exactly what I said. — Jacona (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. Why are yo on my page? You wrote "in the meantime consider being a little kind to the newb", which seems to imply that I was doing something wrong. The user has now provided an acceptable source so I will restore the claim that is now sourced. Meters (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your conversation with the newb on your unprotected talk page. Confusing. — Jacona (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I'll move that thread once I'm sure it's done. I don't know how I can make it any clearer about the unprotected talk page, but users still miss the various explanations and post there when they don't need to. Meters (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

moved from my unprotected talk page

I know I did not add a source. I am from Starkville, however. While I have never attended said school, I did attend West Point High School, which I listed as a rival. Tupelo High School has Starkville listed as a rival on their Wikipedia page. Seeing as West Point has Starkville listed and Tupelo does as well, what reason is there that Starkville should not list them as rivals? I would assume that I don’t need to link myself to be the source. Autoparts2 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't list school rivals simply because they play against each other. We list significant rivalries, which means that independent sources have written about the rivalries. I will remove the rivalry claims from the other school also if there are no independent sources, or copy the sources over if there are. Meters (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://cdispatch.com/sports/starkville-high-welcomes-rival-west-point-friday-night/

Here’s your proof for West Point. I don’t understand why there has to be online proof for this. I have seen firsthand the tension between Starkville High School and WPHS and Tupelo. Again, I live in Starkville, and know many students and graduates of SHS. Autoparts2 (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starkville and Tupelo are in the same region and division of Mississippi 7A Football. They have played each other every year. West Point and Starkville are not in the same region or division, but continue to play each other. Autoparts2 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://cdispatch.com/sports/starkville-weathers-the-storm-in-high-scoring-win-over-west-point/#:~:text=West%20Point%2C%20a%20ground%2Dand,back%2C%20winning%2039%2D28.

Further evidence for West Point. Autoparts2 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are acceptable sources for West Point/Starkville. I'll restore that part of the claim, with the source. Sorry, but we don't make edits based on editor's personal knowledge. That's not something that can be verified. See WP:V. Meters (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for Starkville and Tupelo, simply being in the same division and playing each other every year does not mean they have a significant rivalry. Meters (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the sourced rivalry with ref. Thanks for providing it. Do you have one for the other supposed rivalry too? Meters (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of this time, I do not have another source. I will try and find one by this time tomorrow. Autoparts2 (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://cdispatch.com/sports/starkville-columbus-renew-rivalry-in-class-6a-region-2/?lp_txn_id=242390

This mentions Tupelo and Louisville (which I would not have guessed, although they play each other every year) as rivals of Starkville. It is about Columbus High School’s rivalry with Starkville, but they do not have an active series with each other, at least not in football. Autoparts2 (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a subscription site that I cannot verify, but again, simply playing each other every year does not mean two teams have a significant rivalry. An article that just happens to mention two teams as as being rivals is not sufficient. Any teams playing against each other are "rivals" in that sense. What we need are sources that discuss a long-term, significant rivalry between the schools. Meters (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re. [7] You undid an edit with the comment "NPA". [8] That doesn't seem to constitute a personal attack, but perhaps I'm missing some context? I truly hope that you don't mind my asking, Cheers, Figbiscuits (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? That diff is to a post user:ILoveSport2006 made to the Help desk asking how to report a user who had made a verbally abusive comment on my [ILoveSport2006's] talk page. I didn't revert it, I answered it. It seemed clear that the post in question was this one [9] by user:Pindrice. Telling an editor that they are a very bad editor and should do other things than edit Wikipedia is indeed a personal attack. I didn't revert that edit either. I replied to the Help desk post with Don't report someone for a single inappropriate comment. I've left a low-level WP:NPA warning on the user in question's talk page for you and I went on to point ILoveSport2006 to WP:OWNTALK so they would know that they were free to remove the comment. Meters (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User partially blocked from draft space, and then fully indef'ed for disruptive edits. Multiple editors suggested that this new account was actually an experienced editor returning with a sock account. Meters (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your revert of my edits to add the controversy around Kim family use of online maps. Back in 2006 it was by far the biggest attack on online maps & the first one that still comes to mind to anyone who followed the news back then when encountering "Google Maps" and "misdirection" in the same sentence--I was shocked not to see it anywhere in the article when I stumbled upon it yesterday (looking for info on why gas prices have are no longer displayed in the latest mobile version--at least on iOS--but that's a different topic...). I then spent some time trying to remember names, locations, dates, ... and in the process learned that the speculations were unfounded & debunked. I marked that very clearly in my edits. I feel that story needs to be added here, but I can take a stab at restructuring the text to say it was debunked first, then briefly describe the circumstances (as opposed to a flow mimicking the Alice Springs paragraph, with misdirection circumstances described first). MStruzak (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the talk page. It was just erroneous speculation, not misdirection by Google Maps, so I don't think it belongs at all. Meters (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. My last few talk page experiences were not very fruitful (requests & suggestions just hanged there for days, with noone acting or commenting on, or even as much as acknowledging them) hence my direct edit. Will reference this conversation to avoid too much duplication. MStruzak (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know you undid my edit, but when I checked environment canada's quesnel data for average frost free period (which is what I assume you meant) , it's 119 days.

I found this in the link below by going to the "normals data" tag and scrolling to the bottom.

https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_1991_2020_e.html?searchType=stnProv&lstProvince=BC&txtCentralLatMin=0&txtCentralLatSec=0&txtCentralLongMin=0&txtCentralLongSec=0&stnID=348000000&dispBack=0 Donkeybread (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the ref is and I looked at it before I undid your edit. The table in our article does not specify "average frost free period". It simply says "Frost free days". You assumed that it meant average frost free period rather than "days with a minimum temperature above 0" and took it upon yourself to change the long-standing value of 179 to 119. You didn't leave an edit summary, and you labelled it as a minor edit, which it certainly wasn't. That value has been in the article for more than a decade, and it appears that the intent was to mention the total, rather than consecutive, number of frost free days days. The cited Environment Canada data puts that at 188 days for 1991 to 2020. When the 179 figure was added that data would have been for 1981 to 2010. I'll update the data value and clarify the description. Meters (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just listed both values. Meters (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

removing my info off soviet union ? i am mingailas and my medal of honor is to go UNNOTICED 86.42.2.5 (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [10] is completely unsourced, and appears to be complete garbage. Meters (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completed thread moved from my unprotected talk page 18:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why it showed on my page or sth. or why I had a new message stating that I had disrupted the page of Paris Jackson or something [11], since I do not have any interests in her, - I mean, who cares - as you can see from my edits. Regards, ShockedSkater (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A user has a long history of vandalizing the Paris Jackson article with a very specific edit. More than 3 months ago they were using the IP that you are now on. At the time it was a mobile IP so it would have changed users very frequently. You have an account. If you are bothered by IP warnings then use your named account. Meters (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why, did I ever use my unnamed account? Or do I have one? Maybe some "no problem, it's just some technicality" would be nice. ShockedSkater (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a technicality. You apparently don't understand how IPs work. There is no such thing as an "unnamed account". There are IP addresses, and every computer connected to the internet is assigned an IP address. The IP address assigned to a particular connection can be stable over long time periods, or it can change very rapidly. If you have a named Wikipedia account then the IP address you are using is hidden, and your edits and talk page communications are recorded with your username rather then your IP. See WP:ACCOUNT. You are asking about a warning message that was posted three months ago, to an IP account rather than to your user account. You are still using an IP even when logged into a named account, but since you ended up on the IP's talk page you must have been on Wikipedia without logging in, even if you didn't make any edits. With this connection you just happened to be using the same IP that was warned 3 months ago. Don't worry about it. Meters (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I performed a rev-del on one of your reverts at this article. It wasn't really aimed at you, it was just that a little of the vandalism was left behind and visible after you rolled it back, and it was really foul and horrible. Just letting you know that you weren't the issue. Cheers! Joyous! Noise! 03:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Thanks. I accidentally undid myself and restored that garbage, and had to go back. Bad time for a misclick. Meters (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've certainly never ever made any mistakes like that. Joyous! Noise! 03:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey champ i firsthand witnessed the "2022 Bomb threat incident" at the school last year. I understand why you would remove the edit but i added it back could you add a source to that section because idk how to lol, thanks pal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluewater12 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. My username is "Meters", not "champ" or "pal".
2. Please don't add new threads at random places on talk pages. New threads go at the bottom. I have moved it.
3. Don't add new threads as subthreads of unrelated existing threads, You added this as a subthread of the unrelated 2020 thread User talk:Meters/unprotected#Kaitlin Bennett
4. Please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ to generate a timestamp and signature.
5. Please link to either the article or edit in question. I have added a link in the header.
6. My talk page is not protected so there is no need for you to be posting this here. I clearly state (more than once) that editors should not post here unless they cannot post to my regular talk page.
7. As for your article edit, as I said on your talk page Stop adding this. It's still not a WP:MINOR edit, it's still a violation of MOS:HEADINGS, it's still not sourced, and it's still just a fake threat that likely does not warrant being mentioned. Per WP:BRD discuss this material on the article's talk page or leave it alone. You ignored the previous warning on your talk page and restored the edit with all of its problems. I am not going to look for a source for you for something that I don't think needs to be mentioned. Meters (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   calm down buddy, no need to be butthurt Bluewater12 (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my talk page. Meters (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'ed Meters (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

completed thread moved from my unprotected talk page 07:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Meters, you left a message on my talk page saying that I changed something on the London Wikipedia article and that it was incorrect but all I did was add extra detail that was included on The Cave of the Golden Calf wikipedia page, also the way the original sentence ended wasn't grammatically correct. I change the sentence from "...in 1912 and became a haunt for the wealthy and aristocratic classes, as well as bohemian." to "...in 1912 and became a haunt for the wealthy and aristocratic classes, as well as bohemian artists in search of a European-style cabaret. Its creator Frida Strindberg set it up as an avant-garde and artistic venture." I think if this extra detail isn't allowed on the London wikipedia article then why should it be allowed on The Cave of the Golden Calf wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Ulster (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what another Wikipedia page says, and that's not what our source says. I changed the claim to exactly what our cited source says, I provided a direct quote, and I added the page number in the source. Meters (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Meters, I can give you multiple sources it is not just a pov. If you can just stay out of my business I will add more sources to it 121.220.198.46 (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources to show that he is "widely considered to be one of the best batsmen in the world" then go ahead, but it will be removed again, and you will be warned again, if the sources are not sufficient again. And a POV edit is not your business. Meters (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok duly noted. I’ll rally up some more sources and add them in. And there is no need to get so angry about it. Let’s just talk it out civilly. 2001:8003:4287:9B01:F8E1:139C:59C7:22A2 (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I wrote if the sources are not sufficient again. If you have sufficient sources to show that he is "widely considered to be one of the best batsmen in the world" then go ahead and add it. That's not one source saying he's great. and it's not a few sources saying he's great. You are making a specific claim that he is "widely considered to be one of the best batsmen in the world" You need a reliable source saying exactly that otherwise this is WP:SYNTH.

Please drop this. Since you are trying to put words in my mouth and accusing me of being angry I am not interested in continuing this on my page. Meters (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "trying to put words in my mouth" is in reference to the poster's original wording "So you would remove sources even if they were reliable. Makes no sense." [12] Meters (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you win. 2001:8003:4287:9B01:F8E1:139C:59C7:22A2 (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about winning. It's about ensuring that material on Wikipedia is neutral and reliably sourced. Meters (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me toward who the blocked user (or prior IP) is in the talk page history? It's enough of a mess that the obvious connection isn't jumping out at me. Although, at the rate the IP is going, they'll get an outright block for personal attacks whether I find the evasion or not. —C.Fred (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the /64 has been blocked and had TPA revoked. Feel free to escalate to ANI or SPI of they come back, since I'll be slow to respond for a bit. —C.Fred (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Thanks. For future reference see 206.45.2.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for one that is still blocked. Meters (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and a pretty obvious sock situation. Block extended on last night's IP, with a breadcrumb so I can piece the pieces together in future. Thank you for helping to keep that article's talk page on track, even if it made you the target of some pretty serious abuse from the IP. —C.Fred (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've long since learned to shrug off trolling taunts. Meters (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meters. :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done Meters (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Poopposting has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 6 § Poopposting until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the move of Shitposting to Poopposting, and warned the editor who made the move. Deletion of resulting redirect supported. Meters (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the edit dispute on the John de Lancie article. Since you may be busy and this minor editing dispute may not be a priority for you, I fully understand if you do not participate in this. The thread is "John de Lancie" .

Please join us to help form a consensus if you are interested. Thank you!

-- EpicTiger87 (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors named, but none except the OP are interested in pursuing it Will be closed shortly if no-one does. Meters (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

closed. Meters (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I made an edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auto_clicker Could you please explain why you marked it as spam and undo it? This auto clicker page needs some good editing as information provided is very trivial. If you are concerned about the external link then let me assure you that it is linked to a genuine freeware which I have developed. Don't you believe that Wiki readers need to know about the new auto clicker tools that are providing some very innovative features from this page only? Especially, when such tools are free? I hope you will undo your edit or if you have any queries let me know. Thanks and regards! 49.43.100.87 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to your own freeware software is textbook spam. Meters (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have to get familiar with the definition of spam then. Spam is something that is unrelated or unwanted sent to people who do not wish to know about it or do not want it. Sorry but you are just making Wiki deficit of information that it should be having. Can you explain how would you want people to know about new things going on in auto clickers space without telling about products with new abilities?

and since when being truthful about being developer of the software to which the link is provided makes it a textbook spam?

Hope you will give it a second thought! I do not want to undo your "undo" as its not a healthy practice but please dont leave it as last option for me. Thanks

PS: How op auto clicker gets a space in this page? are you related to it? 49.43.100.55 (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I invite you to use this software and decide for yourself if it deserves to be mentioned here or not. Just use it to know how much easier can it make users life at no cost at all! 49.43.100.55 (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SPAM (particularly WP:LINKSPAM) and WP:COI. Meters (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing towards the wiki policies. Since my external link qualifies all genuine link list except that me being the developer has posted it. It is mentioned there that some other editor should look at such external link and decide.

I hereby request you to go through the external link I provided, use the software and decide with all fairness if it needs to be included in auto clicker page to make it better or not. Thanks for all the efforts you are putting here and sorry for the inconvenience caused. Best Regards! 49.43.100.41 (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not going to try your software. Meters (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abishe (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and the same to you. Meters (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for what you told me about the changes I made, however I did find a fault with something that you did say. On the Namibia U-19 cricket team, the World Cup is being held in South Africa, as the original hosts,Sri-Lanka, received a ban by the occ Stormy796 (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Icc not occ Stormy796 (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CIR indef'ed Meters (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working towards a better Wikipedia.

On Talk:Wikipedia#merging_this_article_with_the_wikipedia:about_page, it looks like you put "don't" twice in a row. i assume that was by accident (instead of for emphasis or humor) but i have been advised not to edit other people's comments on Talk pages. Don't know if you just want to quietly delete a "don't" or strikethrough it or if you're the kind of person who believes in setting posts in stone and updating them with "Wait, I actually meant to say..." comments, or what.

Wishing you happy editing,

173.67.42.107 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Thanks. Meters (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... in this edit summary? 🤨 JBW (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. ! There certainly is. I blame all typos on my big fingers and my very poor eyesight. Meters (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize as I am new to editing and do not know how to properly cite on the infobox but the information I did post on there was true Central did name a President to the school [13] Dsv2099 (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the edit dispute on the John de Lancie article. Since you may be busy and this minor editing dispute may not be a priority for you, I fully understand if you do not participate in this. The thread is "John de Lancie" .

Please join us to help form a consensus if you are interested. Thank you!

EpicTiger87 (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And another attempt to open this, with only cosmetic changes from the original DRN. If this is the same issue, then it should nor be back at DRN, and if it is a different issue, as claimed by the OP, it should be discussed on the article's talk page. Closed Meters (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your undoing of my edit on Recursion as "not needed". How is it not needed, when the definition of recursion which you've reinstated defines recursion in terms of ... recursion? Will you reconsider? WillNess (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article's talk page. Your replacing of "recursion" with a synonym does not improve the article in my opinion. Meters (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did. WillNess (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

=

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Troubled teen industry, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 1keyhole (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave bogus warnings. I explained that I removed that part of your edit since the charges were dismissed. Meters (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree then follow WP:BRD and discuss your contested addition on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder and the IPs. JimRenge (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a new SPI to me. I'll add it to my list and will definitely recognize the behavior next time. Meters (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't fully understand the line of reasoning for your revert, and I would appreciate your further elaboration on the statement "Don't list non-notable staf for students." Charlie Kinnue and Drew Warford are still validated as state-awarded, and state awards are relevant to be added to Wikipedia. Newusernamenewusernamenewusername000000 (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of adding non-notables to a list that normally includes only notable entries had already been explained to Newusername. User had also been pointed to WP:WTAF (in edit summary and on their talk page). User now indef'ed as Not Here. Meters (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

=

Stop reverting my edits on Chrisland Schools. I gave a reason for the deleting of the template. The cases are still in court so it is false news to be sharing a case that is in court and hasn't been concluded. It is fake news. Great Iyke (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked three times now to discuss this on the article's talk page. You are removing sourced content. In one case we have a source that says a staff member was convicted of raping a young student and sentenced to 60 years, and in the other case we have sources saying all of the Chrisland schools were closed by the Lagos government for a week while accusations of an incident were investigated. That does not appear to be "fake news" news. Meters (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User has previously claimed to be an employee. Meters (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the notice due to bad faith as I have seen other users do and they do not get in trouble. Davidnorco86 (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is at AFD, whether you like it or not. You are not allowed to remove the notice. Make your case for keeping the article at the AFD, and do not accuse the other editor of bad faith. That is a personal attack. Meters (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was accolades of bad faith first so how about you look at every detail instead of coming to someone’s side when you don’t even know the half of it:) Davidnorco86 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You brought this to my talk page. I responded to your post here. I'm not interested in what ever you have going on with the other editor. Again, don't remove the AFD notice. Make your case at the AFD instead, and don't accuse the other editor of bad faith. Now please drop this from my page. Meters (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've toned down the header at TAlk:Marek Laczynski ‎ if that's what you were concerned about, but I can understand why the other editor might think that you had made a retaliatory PROD when you followed them to an article they had created (and you had never edited) and PRODded it. Meters (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s just jumping to conclusions. I can edit whatever I want, whenever I want right? How about you go look at the references and tell me it looks fine. 3 of them all have the same info, which is against guidelines and another is from a university that he attended which is also against guidelines. If you believe that should be kept up, then you keep on keepin on. Davidnorco86 (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the guidelines that says that sources cannot have the same information, and there's nothing in the guidelines that says we cannot use a university source if the subject of an article attended. This is basic bio information. We would expect it to be the same. For the sixth time, Take it to AFD. And I've already asked you to drop this form my page. Stop posting here. Meters (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

indef'ed for disruption, promotion, socking, etc. Meters (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could try to revert things and let you move it or you could explain to me how to movie the article and its requisite talk page. Emphasis01 (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never move a page by copying it. We lose the contribution history that way. And you did it without attribution, so in effect you were claiming that you wrote the entire article. This had to be cleaned up by having admin delete your copied pages before the moves could be made properly. Meters (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor keeps blanking the redirect on the page they created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in Emphasis01's thread on Liz's talk. Meters (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you’re aware, Jeff in CA continues to edit war in the 1945 College Football Season page, attempting to push unsourced information from opinion articles over quotes from the AFCA itself. 72.214.239.30 (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page was protected because of your dispute, but you have not participated in the talk page discussion. You claim Jeff is edit warring, and Jeff thinks there is socking. It looks like socking to me too Meters (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don’t have enough time for “socking”, but I’ve responded in the talk page, and I invite you to look at the sources Jeff cites and see that mine are much more relevant and reliable than his. 72.214.239.30 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested. Please keep this off my page. I've already said that I agree with the suggestion that you are socking. Meters (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating how you pick and choose which rules you feel like agreeing with. 2600:8804:586:3D00:DCFD:7E33:7508:D7EE (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my page. Meters (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2600:8804:586:3D00:0:0:0:0/64 pblock has been converted to 3 month full block Meters (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]