User talk:Meters/Archive 11

Sorry...

I was too trigger happy when spotting the CJ clone, and reverted the wrong edit. Sorry! Self reverted. --bonadea contributions talk 18:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I saw your immediate self-undo. Meters (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring Comments

Hi Meters, just letting you know I'm not edit warring I'm just addressing the particular criticisms that come my way when editing. Unfortunately other editors keep reverting my contributions instead of correcting the parts they have issues with, so It only gives off the impression I'm warring when I'm not. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecked1 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What part of edit warring do you not understand? As I said on your page Recently back from your second edit warring block and you seem to be heading down the same road. One of your edits has been undone by three different editors, and part of another edit had been undone Either discuss it on the talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

In Response

@Meters, How was that vandalism in any way! All I did was make a mistake and link the wrong thing.User:ANDREWs13 talk

No need to post this in multiple places. I'll answer on your page. Meters (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Aaron Judge Early life and amateur career

Hey Meters,

I saw your message and want to clarified. Similar to the edit summary I posted the sources did not confirm with Judge regarding his ethnicity. They did not quote him nor did they provide the necessary sources stating supporting the listed statement you've restore. The first source states clearly that his biracial, the second source didn't even discuss him in length, and third source (which I deleted but didn't give a reason, that was on me, sorry about that) makes an assumption by stating "He has not spoken publicly regarding his race, but he apparently identifies himself as African-American for the annual Society of American Baseball Research (SABR) compilation of black players." I believed using the word "apparently" without consulting the player is not an accurate reason to outright say that he "identifies as African-American." The source (SABR) the article provide was not link and despite me directly visiting the site the information was nowhere to be found. I hope I clarifies what I did. I'll wait to have your response before making the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidKidInfo (talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD don't restore it without first discussing it on the talk page. I know very well what the source says, but why did you remove that long-standing source? If you think that the source is inadequate then challenge it, but removing it from the article at the same time as claiming there is no source supporting the claim is disruptive. And please sign your talk page posts .Meters (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

1) Sorry, but I don’t know proper etiquette when editing a Wikipedia page. This all new to me and plenty of other users. I don’t approach this as I would approach a professional or academic undertaking. 2) As I have claim, it is a bad source and I decided in my best judgement to remove it. I didn’t provide a reason and have apologize, once again, this is new to me. 3) I did challenge the source, this moment as you have read. 4) I never claimed that there was zero source supporting the claim, I make the point that as there was zero confirmation from the player himself, it is not appropriate to make any implication. 5) If you’re upset, I can’t tell because this is the internet and the tone of your post is a bit condescending, you don’t need to be. I’m not accusing or attacking you of anything, I’m simply doing what I think is accurate or not. 6) Dont know how, but SquidKidInfo is me. SquidKidInfo (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not being condescending. You made a bold, but inappropriate edit as your first edit ever. I undid it and explained that removing the source with an edit summary saying that there was no source had the appearance of a bad faith edit. Wwhen you showed up on my talk page to suggest that you might make the edit again I pointed you to BRD. Again, take it to the talk page. My talk page is not the place to discuss this. On the article's talk page any other interested editors will see it and be able to comment. Meters (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Please keep this off my page. Meters (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Anadiane9971

RESPONSE TO YOUR MESSAGES ON MY TALK PAGE Hello, I apologize for not adding a source. I was just fulfilling a homework assignment.Thank you for informing me about the rules. For further assignments, I will follow the protocol. Have a great day! :) Anadiane9971 (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)anadiane9971

Welcome to Wikipedia. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Training/For students to get started. Meters (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Alien abduction insurance

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How is it not inconsistent for the first half of a sentence to say that something is usually purchased as a gift, but for the second half to say that it is usually purchased for oneself? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Do you understand how insurance works? The beneficiary is the one who gets the payout, not the person who is insured. For life insurance the beneficiary is not going to be the owner of the policy (well, unless it's payable to the estate). A gag gift such as alien abduction insurance could very well be purchased by person A for person B, but payable to person A. There is nothing inconsistent in that. If person B is abducted Person A receives the payout (after all, who knows if person B will be in any state to use the payout, or even be returned to Earth). Meters (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC) I would like to formally apply for the concession license for the sale of tinfoil hats on Wikipedia. Who do I talk to? John from Idegon (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Is there a correlation between thinking aliens are reading your mind and thinking they will abduct you? If so you should adjust your business model. The upsale from one product to the other could be profitable. Meters (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC) And do you understand how a gift works? If insurance is given as a gift then the person receiving it must be the beneficiary. Otherwise it is not a gift. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC) IP,the article in question no longer exists. Please don't waste Meters' time with pointless arguments. John from Idegon (talk) 15 54, 12 April 2018 (UTC) An insurance policy is a legal contract. The meaning of "beneficiary" in an insurance policy is the specific legal term as used in the contract, and is not the same as the general term. Either the IP is trolling, or simply does not understand the difference (in which case he or she had no business making that edit). Meters (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC) John, the article does still exist, and the content is slated to be merged elsewhere, so is still important, not pointless. Meters, you still seem to misunderstand my point. If I take out and pay for insurance (of any sort) on you, but I am the beneficiary, then that is not a gift to you because you don't benefit anything from it. This very simply requires an understanding of the word "gift". I would also point out that this sentence was not reliably sourced. Can't you just accept that you made a mistake by your knee-jerk reversion of my edit? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC) No. You made a bad change to content based on your incorrect understanding. WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop raising this on my page. Meters (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Your omission to explain why you consider my understanding to be incorrect speaks volumes about your attitude to collaboration. I shall stop posting here, but delete the unsourced, illogical, content from the article because it has not been explained why it should be kept. If you choose to revert then I'll see you on the article talk page. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Per WP:BRD it is up to you to take it to the talk page and attempt to get consensus before restoring your edit.. Meters (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Stockbridge Junior / Senior High School

What can I put on the Stockbridge Junior / Senior High School Wikipedia page? I put the courses on there because I ran out of ideas of what to put on it. I would like some ideas and help. Thanks! Eibln (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Eibln (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I already pointed you to WP:WPSCH/AG when you posted this question on User talk:John from Idegon. Did you read it? As I said, that page will tell you what should and should not be put on high school pages. Please don't waste our time by asking the same question in multiple places. Meters (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This was eventually draftified and I finished it off and put it back in mainspace the other day. Your question about grade range remains unresolved. I'll dig during the week. John from Idegon (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not vandalize the production speed article

I was only trying to make it better. Stop accusing me of this. 2605:A000:1133:80DF:0:BD10:78FD:ADCD (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Your behavior is completely inappropriate, you should be more considerate. 2605:A000:1133:80DF:0:BD10:78FD:ADCD (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't call your edit vandalism. I called it disruptive and pointed you to WP:BRD. Continuing to restore a redundant sentence after if has been removed with an explanation is disruptive. , Meters (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Miccoli (band)

This article has been the subject of persistent sockpuppetry – see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miccoliband and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qbucrs. I notice you've reverted some edits recently on Miccoli (band); do you think there's recurring socking? (I haven't actually seen the edits, but I'll take a look within a few days.) Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@L235: I warned the most recent account for using multiple accounts. It beggars belief that there's no connection when a brand new user is created and makes the same contentious removal of maintenance templates as his or her first (and only) edit.This certainly appears to be a sock or meat of the user who was recently given the level 3 warning for removing the templates. I was not familiar with the earlier history for the article, but looking at it this appears to be user:Miccoliband again. I'll add the new accounts to the SPI. Meters (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Done [1] Meters (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

University Bible Fellowship edits - thank you

Various people have tried at least 34 times to erase the "negative" statement on the University Bible Fellowship page. Can this page please be protected? Here is a list of dates: 4/30/2018 4/7/2018 x2 3/29/2018 2/9/2018 10/27/2017 10/17/2017 8/8/2016 6/15/2016 x2 6/8/2016 x3 6/7/2016 x2 5/24/2016 x2 5/23/2016 4/26/2016 x3 3/3/2016 12/3/2015 11/5/2015 2/24/2015 2/20/2015 5/25/2013 3/17/2013 7/4/2012 5/28/2012 5/17/2012 3/24/2012 x2 9/28/2011 Bkarcher (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like that removal is totally unfounded. Are those reliable sources? They sure don't appear reliable enough to support negative info to me. John from Idegon (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of what is known about this obscure group is from non-reliable sources, positive or negative. What is there in the article is a compromise left over from the "wiki wars" between current and former members of the group (I have a publicly declared COI as a former member). Bkarcher (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll be looking at this more closely later. Bkarcher, you have stated that you are a former member with a declared COI, and you have a 10 year history as an SPA on this topic. Your article talk page edits are far from neutral and acceptable. "Trying to purge the internet of critical material about your group is surely the sign of a cult" for example, and promoting off-wikipedia discussion groups. Meters (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

List of unicorn startup companies

Made a mistake accidentally added a row to startup unicorns and then deleted it. Jsimbot2298 (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please use headers, and add your signature after your post.

And no, what you did in that article was delete an entire section. Meters (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"Fair Use" images

Hi, and thanks for your work on the Presbyterian Church in Canada page recently. It's been my first attempts at doing any wikipedia editing, and so far, colour me impressed! I'm sorry for creating more work for you as I tried to update the logo, but I was trying my best to learn something new. The concern for appropriate use of copyright and conflicts of interest on your part has been stellar. Since I've really no idea what I'm doing, I was just wondering if there are any helpful resources explaining how to get started, and what exactly "fair use" images are (and why what I uploaded wasn't one). Thanks again for your diligent work, I love how reliable Wikipedia is.

Is this the right way to sign? Davesturtevant (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, Davesturtevant. Maybe I can help a bit here. One important thing to read on fair use is WP:NFCC. To be usable under fair use, an image must meet all ten NFCC criteria. The image itself is not fair use, the way the image is licensed is. Fair use is an exception to copyright laws that allow images, short sound clips, etc, to be used in specific limited ways to illustrate articles about the owner of the copyright. There are a couple things you must do differently to upload an image for fair use:

1. It must be uploaded to English Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons.
2. If you use the upload wizzard, it will pretty much walk you right through the steps. The only tricky part is the rationale, and I simply copy the rationale from another fair use image (click on a logo in any article and it will take you to the logo's page and you can see the license rationale.)
3. You can pretty much only use the fair use image on the article it is intended for and nowhere else.
4. You can only use it once in that article, and it must be near the top, generally in the infobox.

If you'd like help, let me know. John from Idegon (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup, that's how to sign. John's covered the basics well. You can see WP:IUI for a tutorial on uploading images, and, as I said on your talk page, user:StAnselm has uploaded a copy of the Presbyterian Church logo image to Wikipedia for Fair Use to replace the unlicensed and copyrighted image you uploaded to Commons. You still need to address the possible COI issue I raised on your talk page. If you are the person in question it doesn't prevent you from editing Presbyterian Church articles completely, but you should declare your conflict of interest and propose any edits on the articles' talk pages so that non-connected editors can vett them.

So as for the CoI, how do I go about "declaring" it? Do I just mention the possible CoI in one of the fields when uploading something? I'm coming to understand that leaving an edit request on the talk tab of the page seems like the way to go. Davesturtevant (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the WP:COI link I left on your talk page? The section Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI tells you how to disclose a COI. And yes, if you want ot make edits to an article in which you have a conflict of interest the best thing to do is to request the edit on the talk page. If it's likely to be controversial please discuss the edit first so that other editors can decide if it's appropriate and modify it if needed. Meters (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Loyola High School (Montreal)

Hi Meters, I would just like to ask you why you removed the Option and Mandatory courses on the Loyola High School Page. I myself am a student there and would like to ask you why.

Thank You For Your Help TVMexeno TVMexeno (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

My edit summary already answered your question. "nothing encyclopedic about the courses offered. This isn't the school's calendar" We don't need a listing of all the courses the school offers. There is nothing out of the ordinary in the course listing, and general readers have no interest in it. The only readers who would be interested are those attending the school, or thinking of attending the school. This isn't the school's web page or calendar. Anyone interested in seeing what courses the school offers should go to the school's web page, which we we do link. to. Please read WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG to see what should and should not go in a school article. Meters (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

on that one guy

I sincerely apologize about the Graham Norton Show page banter, but that previous guy who kept removing Emilia Clarke from the line-up was being a bit of a silly person, since he couldn't back up anything he was claiming about her not being on the couch for that week, and also if you'd look at his page, you'll see he's most likely been blocked from the Solo page, so this isn't the first time he's thrown a tantrum about it

again, apologies if I used any strong language, but seriously that guy should be taken care of

74.99.173.56 (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't care what the editor had been doing. Don't call editors' names in edit summaries. And for that matter, don't use edit summaries to give us your breathless opinions about how excited you are over upcoming guests. Hmm, why are you even adding entries for events that have not happened yet? Shouldn't you be waiting until the shows have aired and we know who actually appeared rather than relying on TV schedules for who is expected to appear?

-

apologies guv'nor I'll tone down my emotions for this site - it's not like I went full-on overboard and called him a name I'd probably regret on this site anyway

I add the guests early just as a preemptive measure, so it saves a bit of time for when the guests are properly announced - anyway, that doesn't stop anyone else who edits that page from doing the exact same thing, so why go after me for doing it? we're a community, m8, we're dedicated

and I share my eagerness because what's wrong with bringing a bit of light and POV? the general public mostly doesn't read the edit history, so what harm is it doing? I agree that I was a bit too brash, but going after me for being eager about, like, John Krasinski being on the couch? c'mon now

74.99.173.56 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't use the edit summaries a as a forum. We don't care how excited you. Read WP:CRYSTALBALL. And if you think "prat", "vandalizing", "absolute arse" "temper tantrums", "dick" "mentality of a playground bully", "what the hell is your problem", and 'get a grip" are acceptable you won't be here long. Meters (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits Marked as Not Constructive and Reverted

Recently you sent me a message stating that my edits to the page List of wars involving the United States were not constructive and had been reverted. I find this interesting, because the edits I originally made expanded upon the article and had foundation to them, and they were reverted within a day without explanation. I understand this comes off as edit warring, but I undid that person's edit and gave explanation for my revisions. Still, you've now reversed my changes. Why? Shockabra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

What part of "take it to the talkpage" [2] and "Per WP:BRD when your edit has been undone you should discuss it on the talk page rather than restoring it" [3] did you not understand? You made a controversial and POV edit that changed the supposed outcome of a conflict, and were undone. You restored it without discussing the edit. Meters (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

And now you have restored it yet again, still without discussing it. It was undone by user:ScrapIronIV this time. Meters (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

I'm sorry if I'm bothering you, but I wasn't sure if you had seen my response or not. I would like to clarify that my statement about false information was not in reference to User:Tenebrae whatsoever. I was referring to previous edits that I had removed, the ones stating that the second album was called "Highschool". Apologies for the misunderstanding. --Redandsymmetry (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

replied on user's page where this was already being discussed. Not a misunderstanding... the user restored his or her previous edit with a fake edit summary claiming it had been removed by someone adding fake information. Meters (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits on PMDD page

As the Wiki guidelines state: Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. Avoid platitudes and generalities.

I was doing just this in editing “women” with “people.” I am a person with PMDD. I am not a woman. The use of the term “women” to describe a medical diagnosis caused by specific organs of the human body is wholly inaccurate & a sweeping generalization. In altering the term “women” for either “AFAB people” or just “people,” a much more accurate, non-exclusatory description is made. I don’t appreciate the reverting of these edits. Reading on a disorder I have is alienating when it completely ignores the fact that I exist. Please allow me to have this more concise, specific edit. Isajolie (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, please discuss your edits on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a controversial edit in that it has previously been made and undone (by other users). It needs to be discussed on the article's talk page so that editors can reach a consensus. And if it does go in, we won't use "AFAB" without first explaining what that means. Meters (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

re Beverly Hills Supper Club Fire

Hey, sorry, you and I are actually in agreement. I was addressing the ludicrous unsourced comment that said exit doors were locked, but were “not public exits and did not cause any deaths”. Rather than editing that fragment I should have deleted it wholesale, as you did. Gregly (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

OK Meters (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Harrogate edit

I will admit I removed the section out of anger and for that I apologise. I have lived here my entire life and have contributed to the society in many ways. Thousands of local residents are aware of my business and my musical contributions to Harrogate and surrounding areas. This in my eyes deemed the removal of myself as a notable person unjustified. I will openly admit my reaction was childish and for that I apologise. I feel you don't know me. So unless you do know me or my contributions, you have no right to edit, add or remove anything about myself without prior research and justification of your editorial actions.

Thank you Greg1988 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lists of notable residents only include people who have wikipedia articles about them to show their notability, and reliable sources to show their connection to the place. Your entry had neither. As the person in question any article about you should not be written by you for conflict of interest reasons. See WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. And as for whether anyone but you should edit an entry about you, see WP:OWN. Meters (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't remove your entry (user:Issan Sumisu did) and I didn't revert your subsequent removal of the entire section (user:The joy of all things did) but I fully agree with their edits and I would have made the same edits. I simply left a warning and an explanation for you since no-one else had. Meters (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Charles J. Chaput

This is a response to your post on my talk page. First, I'm not sure "reverted" was the best term to use to describe the changes made to my post on the page of Archbishop Chaput. "Reversed" would have been a better choice, for example. Second, you recommended I look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines without indicating what policy or guideline I'm supposed to have violated. If anything, it seems to me I was upholding one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, namely, the pillar of neutrality. Simply pointing me in that particular direction was therefore unhelpful. Third, you asserted my changes to Archbishop Chaput's page were "arbitrary," yet I included a message with my edit explaining why I made the change. That hardly constitutes an "arbitrary" decision. I would suggest you were the one who acted arbitrarily in this situation.

ThomasCalvin (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)ThomasCalvin

There was a talk page discussion on this. You know that because you started it and participated in it. The header is what that discussion resulted in. If you disagree then reopen the discussion. Don't come back the article months later and change the header from what resulted from the discussion.

That's a canned template for a low level disruptive edit. If you don't like the wording of then fell free to suggest changes to it. I expanded on it by explaining why I considered your edit disruptive, so I don't understand your concern. Meters (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I never denied I participated in the discussion. You act as if I had some pre-meditated plan to go back to the article behind someone's back and change it. I'm not even going to refute such a ridiculous scenario. I changed the article under the reasonable assumption that if someone actually objected to it (i.e., didn't simply say "You didn't reach a consensus six months ago"), then it would be worth discussing. ThomasCalvin (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly my point. You knew of the talk page discussion. You came back months later and changed it back to your preferred version without reopening the discussion. That's a contentious edit right from the start. I undid you. Per WP:BRD you should then have discussed it. Once an edit had been undone there is absolutely no question that it is contentious. You restored it. And now you have restored it yet again and someone else has undone you and warned you for edit warring. As I said on your talk page Your explanation in your first summary does not supersede the apparent consensus reached the first time this was discussed, and your comment on the talk page that you had left a summary explanation is not a talk page discussion and consensus. The header should stay as is until (and if) a new consensus is reached to change it. Meters (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Edmonton

I do not understand the deletion of my edit, Edmontontinion is a commonly used demonym of someone who lives in Edmonton — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhillipQ10 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It certainly is not, and the rest of your edit was even more obvious vandalism. Meters (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is, I have lived in Edmonton my entire life and have heard people say Edmontinion for decades — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhillipQ10 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't care what you believe. Provide a reliable source WP:RS that that it is actually a demonym (rather than a mistake, or what you think you are hearing, or what lazy speakers say) and it can go in. And if you add more garbage such as replacing "Great Depression" with "Clutch Plague" again you will be templated again. Meters (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me Meters?

Hello, you removed all of me edits to the Xavier High School page. All of these were sourced with the exception of the NCES reference 2015-16 thing. I understand the message you left concerning that, fine. However, I would like an explanation otherwise for each and every portion that you removed from the page (including citations from The New York Times, MSNBC, NBC and The Wall Street Journal.) Absolutely ridiculous. And if you could please refrain from a snark-filled response (as you are prone to do) and simply address the issues in my edits, I would appreciate it. Coffeeshop79 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Coffeeshop79

(talk page stalker) Meters didn't remove your edits. If you have any non promotional changes you wish to make to the article, that are sourced to reliable secondary sources and fall within WP:SCH/AG, feel free to make them. If you are reverted start a discussion on the article talk page. The image from 1947 you uploaded illegally to Commons has been deleted. Let's not do that again, ok Coffeeshop79? John from Idegon (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Give me a chance to edit

Hi

I cannot make the correct citations if you instantly edit/delete what I am doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brycpark (talk • contribs) 18:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot host copyright violations, even for a short time while you rework the material. If that is what you want to do then do it outside of Wikipedia and then upload the result. Meters (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Bradford Parkinson

Hey, I think that the note that Ian Parkinson is Bradford's son is the second most relevant piece of information on that page. There is otherwise a bunch of what could be considered 'fluff' on that page. I stated I believe Aquafunk is editing under multiple names because he reverted my edit the day after I mentioned Ian being Bradford's son and there are not many people in the edit history of that page doing that. The page has also included all kinds of random information about Bradford over the years and it seems someone close to him has created and managed the page. Potentially not sockpuppetry but it does seem to be maintained/edited by someone with a relationship with Bradford and I wouldn't be surprised if it is done under multiple aliases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.252.124.176 (talk • contribs) 00:13, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the message I left on your talk page with the links to WP:EW and WP:BRD? Making the identical, contested and improperly sourced edit again without participating in the talk page discussion is not a good idea. I have reinstated your edit warring warning.

And read my warning about personal attacks again. You cannot accuse someone of socking unless you take them to WP:SPI and provide real evidence. Your vague "I wouldn't be surprised if it is done under multiple aliases" is not evidence of socking.

As for the content of the page, discuss it on the article's talk page, as I have already told you. Meters (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Meters/SPIs

Just had a read of User:Meters/SPIs. That seems valuable. The one-sentence descriptions of what a case was about. Something like that should exist for arbitration cases. In fact, what makes ANI so painful is often that the people involved aren't up to the challenge of tersely summarizing what the issue is. (Even when it's a legitimate grievance). EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks. I found too often that while I might recognize the signature style of sock, if I had not touched the case recently I often couldn't remember the master's name to make a report, so I started keeping brief notes as an aide-mémoire. The SPI system often seems to fail or succeed based on the collective memories of the reporters and the admins. Meters (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

How did you end up on my user page? Meters (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Frequency in the RSI

I attempted to do my best in writing out the frequency of Repetitive strain injury, but I couldn't write out anything useful due to my poor wording. Can you please help me fill out this section with much better wording? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your entire edit consisted of "frequency = Common in adults who work in workplaces"

I don't think there is anything we can do to make that a useful edit.

1. That's not really a frequency. A frequency would be something like "X% of people" or Y% of workers in a certain list of jobs"
2. It does not just affect adults.
3. It does not just affect people in workplaces.
4. It is not common in all adult workers.
5. The article already discusses the occupational risk factors.

Unless you have reliable sources that discuss the actual frequency of occurrence I don't think there is anything we can put in that field. Meters (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. On the other hand, I would like help with adding further to the Frequency section. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources then I can help you add the information. Meters (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

When I search "repetitive strain injury frequency" on Google, I see a number of different sources, but I do not know which of the searches there are reliable sources. What constitutes "reliable sources", in your own words? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not my words that matter, it's what WP:RS says. Meters (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I find it very hard to believe that an editor who has been on the project for four years, with thousands of edits (some of them quite technical), does not understand reliable sources. Please troll somewhere else. Meters (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I honestly don't know much about reliable sources. I make a lot of edits with hatnotes, minor corrections, minor content additions, and among other minor additions. But rarely do I make major content additions or content cleanups to articles. That was very rude of you to presume me as a troll. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Response to your reversion of my gallery of images

Dear Meters, - I really appreciated your two earlier reverts of my work on the S. H. Rider High School article. I immediately understood them and heartily agreed with them. However, I do not agree with your reversion of my little gallery of images in the Notable-alumni section – even after reading, carefully, the discussion that you sent me to. Rather than reverting your reversion (I dislike that way of operating on WP), I have just posted what I think is a constructive and useful response to that discussion just under it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. I hope that it persuades you to restore my gallery. All best, - Babel41 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) One small point: Meters isn't an administrator. Administrators don't decide content, WP:CONSENSUS does. Joining the discussion you listed above is exactly the right thing to do. Thanks, Babel41. John from Idegon (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Babel41, you might want to read WP:TLDR and cut that 12k response down to something more manageable.

I raised the issue at schools project (the appropriate location) for a general discussion. I waited for three weeks after the last comment on the thread, and I implemented the apparent consensus. Sorry you don't like what was agreed on. We'll see what the others say, but I doubt you will get an agreement to reverse this decision.

And you completely misconstrued my comments by saying that I thought the issue was extensive. I said I agree that it is not very common [4]. Meters (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Questions about Your changes on the Notre Dame Preparatory High School (Scottsdale, Arizona) Page

Hello Meteres, I am confused why you removed information about the school that I had listed on wikipedia, your wrote "promotional content" but this is merely facts about the school; which I had taken the time to reference each paragraph. It is unkind to undo peoples hard work, I am very new to wikipedia and I was trying to add more information to this great online encyclopedia. Also I had added the offical school crest onto the wikipedia page that was also removed. I would greatly apprecaite it if you could justify your reasoning for making these changes to this page. Please get back to me.

Thanks, NDP11731 (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) NDP11731, Meters isn't around right now, and we sometimes handle enquiries on each other's talk pages. First, Meters explained every edit he made in the edit summaries. You can view them by looking at the article's history. But I'll be happy to explain them in detail. First, the logo. Virtually all images are copyrighted, unless they are very old (generally in the 1920s or before). The school logo is no exception. It has to be uploaded in the proper manner with an appropriate license or it is a violation of copyright laws, not just Wikipedia policy. When he saw it, he was required to remove it. If handled correctly, the same logo can be added. Second, an article in Wikipedia is not for the subject of it to use for communication. With some exceptions, all copy in a Wikipedia article must be sourcable to a reliable secondary source. A Wikipedia article is for facts. Mission statements and the school's philosophy are not facts, and it is very doubtful any secondary sources would discuss them. They are much more promotional than informative and we simply do not use them. We are simply not interested in what the school has to say about itself. That's why Meters added enrollment statistics from NCES. Articles on similar subjects, like schools, frequently have style and content guidelines. School article guidelines can be found here. One thing they prohibit is the use of staff and student names. The only person we name (excepting notable individuals) is the principal. As far as your suggestion that Meters actions were somehow mean or improper, sorry, but you are mistaken. Anything you add to Wikipedia can and will be modified or even removed. If you do object to a change to copy you added, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page and make arguments based on reliable sources and policy to keep it. Content is decided by CONSENSUS. Although anyone can edit Wikipedia, it isn't easy, and most new editors like yourself have varying degrees of misconception about what Wikipedia is and generally very little clue as to how it actually works. No worries, we were all new once too. I'll leave you some information on your talk page to help you. Just remember do not take revisions or reverts personally. It's just how it works. Also, ask questions. Most editors are quite willing to help. John from Idegon (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this, John. You covered this very thoroughly, but NDP11731 if you still have any questions about it please ask. Meters (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I really appreciate the indepth and thorough explanation, I now have a better understanding about why the changes were made. I will work on trying to figure out how to appropriately upload the schools crest. NDP11731 (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Learned a couple shortcuts

Figured out some cool timesavers. I use ReFill to fill in references frequently. NCES url's frequently choke it. They can be truncated. Everything between the "?" and the last instance of "ID=xxxxxx" can be removed with no effect on the link functionality. And ReFill won't choke on it. Also, we have a nifty little template that helps list the NCES teaching staff figure in an infobox. Adding {{FTE}} after the number automatically generates (on a [[Full time equivalent|FTE]] basis). Big time saver. FYI John from Idegon (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed your use of {{FTE}} but didn't realize that it also automatically added the staff data. Thanks. Meters (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't clear on that. It doesn't. Just saves typing. Four symbols and three letters take much less time than a sentence fragment with a piped link, especially when it includes a frequently misspelled word like "equivalent". Spelling is my week soot. Lol. John from Idegon (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The reverting of edits on the page Amir mohammad khan

Well mr meter Concerning the fact that you said i added unsourced content.Well i am new to wikipedia but i have researched the late nawab of kalabaghs family and history extensively.So I do know that my edits are true facts but as for sources. well kindly guide me as to what sources do you need?I have added three factual books about the nawabs history.As for what you said about the murder report being unsourced.Well I have been to kalabagh and district mianwali and even the children of the area know the history as the nawab family is very famous there.As for his descendants and his eldest son malik muzzafar khans childrens names.Well you may remember that a false page once existed on wikipedia titled nawab of kalabagh and it was removed because an edit war started when an actual descendant( user name mmtpmjp) of the nawab amir mohammad khan read and tried to correct the page.But he did not know wikipedia's policy but he being family to the nawab wrote and so he made legal threats and so he was banned.But the page was also later removed.Because even after his banning he did not stop writing and was in the end proven right and his posts on his page also contain the names of malik muzzafar khans sons.I have also independantly confirmed this as the three sons malik idrees khan,malik farid khan and the youngest malik waheed khan are all alive and well and are prominent personalities of the area.Malik waheed is also into politics and even ran for MNA elections in the 2013 general elections and a local tv channel waqt news even made a documentary about him which is available on youtube.And If you are from pakistan you can confirm all this yourself as this is one of the most prominent families of pakistan and nothing about their past or present is or can be hidden from the public.So my question is that please guide me so that i can add this factual information about this topic without voilating wikipedias rules thankyou.Yoohooyoo (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yoohooyoo, how is anyone supposed to make sense out of a nearly 2,000 character post with no capitalization or punctuation? If you lack sufficient skills in written English, perhaps you should be contributing to the Wikipedia in your native language. (Note to Meters, feel free to revert if you view this as overly harsh or wish to remove the entire section). John from Idegon (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Well i just gave my sources and asked to be guided as per wikipedias rules.Is that too much to ask?And by the way anyone can read a post however long it is and however crudely it is written if they have the intrest to do so and i find this comment by jhon from idegon very rude and unjust indeed.And by the way i have corrected my previous post as much as i can thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by oohooyoo (talk • contribs) 21:21, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

Please sign and indent your talk page posts.

I thought I was very clear on your talk page when I said There is no way an unsourced claim of murder belongs in an article. Provide reliable sources or leave it alone. with my first warning and You made a change that directly contradicted a cited source. If the source is wrong then provide a new source. Changing the content but leaving the original source is not acceptable, and appears to be vandalism. with my second warning. You accused someone of murder with no sources in the first edit, and you accused someone else of a different murder (directly contradicting the cited source) in the second edit. These are both egregious examples of improperly or completely unsourced material. The rest of your material was similarly improperly sourced, it just did not involve such serious claims..Please read WP:RS and WP:POV. Statements such as "they treacherously did not give him back the parts of his state that he had lost in the wars" are not appropriate. That appears to be your opinion since you have not sourced it to anything. Meters (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Well Mr meters as I said i am new here and my editing is totally neutral.I have read WP:POV and WP:RS and although some of my facts like they did not give him back his lands etc. Are not in my sources like the mianwali gazetter 1915.Well of course do you excpect the british to say a bad thing about themselves.This i will Give you.So i will try to give another source from within the country of Pakistan.But till then we will let that matter rest.Same is the Issue about WP:RS.Yes i will try to correct my Grammar.Now for your reverting my edit of the courtesey titles From Khan bahadur back to Nawab.Well now that is unfair as the source that you claim to true i.e The Mianwali district gazetter 1915 does state thatand due to his meritious service to us {{Nawab}} Malik Muzzafar khan was given the honrary title of {{Khan Bahadur}} and the powers of Magistrate 1st class bestowed upon him.Now there you have it.I can clearly see that you have at the best read only the material from the aforementioned gazetter that is available on the internet and is as of yet incomplete.I strongly recommend that you read the printed version of the Mianwali district gazetter 1915 as present in the British Indian Archives.Especially the Chapter's On the Awans and Kalabagh and its history and my other three sources.Same is the case with you deleting the word Khan from the end of his name.Now this i see as a personal attack as the tile Of {Khan} is even older than {Nawab} and appears with Nawab Malik Amir Mohammad Khan and His Ancestors name everywhere in the cited sources and allover the internet.So I can't make any head or tale of why you did that?kindly elaborate and increase our knowledge.And by the way you did not answer my previous question regarding his descendant's names which i gave you some sources about but on that you are strangely quiet?So now kindly tell me what other things you consider biased so that we can make this into a factual page.And also elaborate on the murder allegation that you say I supposedly put in my second edit.So that it can also be corrected without edit warring.And please dont delete all of my edits even the small ones like removing the word {khan} and adding the word supposedly to the history of kalabagh state to make it sound dubious while that is clearly stated in all three of my sources that that The Awan maliks ruled the quasi independant state of kalabagh since mahmud of Ghazni' time the mianwali gazetter 1915 and even before that as mentioned in the Tuzk-i-Baburi by the first Mughal emperor Zaheeruddin Babur(chapter about the Mountain of the jud and the two clans who ruled it namely the janjuas and the jodhas(Modern day awans) who ruled from Din Kot or Dhan Kot fort on the river indus).And the later Ain-i-Akbari of Mir Abu-al-Fazl(chapter on the Awan's of Dhankot fort).I hope i have made the situation clear on my side.And also tell what do you want me put on the talk page.And please correct my edits rather than outright removing them totally as at the very least 75percent of my research is correct.Yoohooyoo

Your recent editing history at Amir Mohammad Khan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Yoohooyoo (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

He reported you at WP:ANEW. FYI. John from Idegon (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice. Copy a pile of incomprehensible material to the talk page, give me a bogus 3RR warning, open a 3RR report minutes later, and don't inform me. Closed as no violation minutes later. Some of his unsourced material may be accurate, but after he started with not one but two unsourced murder accusations (and one that contradicted the cited source) he's not getting the benefit of the doubt for his huge unsourced changes. Meters (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

well, mr meter i Think a Concern that is real is called of cir, but if only because For writing in English is our problem, not his. John from Idegon (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

English from India (and presumably the former Indian area now Pakistan) tends to be rather flowery by Canadian and American standards, but it's not a problem to understand. It's more an issue of TLDR, with some CIR issues. I'd be happy to look at this material if he breaks it down and sources it properly. A wall of text with a few offline refs tacked on at the end does not let me verify anything, or even tall me what is supposedly sourced and what isn't. And as I said, the benefit of the doubt is gone. Meters (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Meters reported by User:Yoohooyoo (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the bogus one mentioned above. Closed within minutes. Meters (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you Accusing me of vandalizing Wikipedia for updating statistics?

I was just trying to figure out why you left a message telling me to stop vandalizing wikipedia for changing the enrollment statistics of Cooper City High School. According to the edit history it looks like you gave that warning to the wrong person, you reverted their changes back to what I did, I would appreciate it if you took that warning off my page. I don't use these talk pages so I hope I did this right on the signature. Frugal.rhombus (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I left that on the wrong user's talk page. My apologies. I will remove it, and thanks for pointing out my mistake so politely. Meters (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning joseph digenova, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

As I expected, quickly rejected. Failed prereq #4 (with cmt that it would also have failed prereq #9) . Edit in question was undone by multiple named editors, the mediation requester stated that he was going to edit war over this, the article was protected, made a complaint on the talk page, was blocked (edit warring on a DS page), and then attempted to start mediation without any attempt to discuss the material on the talk page. Meters (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I Wish to Remove My Page

This page (Steve Marshall, Writer) was put up years ago when I was attempting to promote my career. It is a compendium of my professional accomplishments. I was since notified that Wikipedia frowned on autobiographical pages but I didn't know what to do about it. Anyway, the page is devoted solely to my career but in the wake of a highly embarrassing event in my life, someone saw fit to add it to the page. When I discovered this, I edited the material out and it stayed gone for nearly two years before mysteriously re-appearing. I have made several attempts to remove that information that have been labeled "vandalism." I am now retired and have no reason to have this page exist any longer, certainly not at the cost of having embarrassing information as a part of it. How do I go about having the page removed altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.248.62 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

{Cross-posted at User talk:MelanieN.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The highly embarrassing incident he's referring to is a conviction for distribution of child pornography. The article is Steve Marshall (writer). It's been nominated for deletion, and if no one steps up to pull a Heyman on it, it likely will be. I cannot tell you how bad a taste that leaves in my mouth. Please, if anyone has access to old issues of Variety or any other publication that might verify the PR claims he made in the autobiography, please please add them. The above request is frankly disgusting. We carried a PR puff piece for years on this dude, and now that the rest of the story is in it, he wants it gone? I remember the conviction. It got considerable press, so better verification shouldn't be a problem. Quotes from the children that were in the cast and have grown up should be available. Unfortunately, it will still probably fail PERP unless we can establish some level of notability for his career. John from Idegon (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking "hoist with his own petard" until I realized that my understanding of the idiom was slightly incorrect, so I have to thank the poster for that, if for nothing else.

As for as I can tell, aside from the criminal proceedings, this BLP has never had even a single reliable source. The only other source I see that was ever used is an external link to his IMDb entry, which states "IMDb Mini Biography By: Steve Marshall". So, a BLP written by the subject, which for four years was sourced only to an external link to a user-generated site (which was also written by the subject). Wikipedia really fell down on this one. Meters (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

AFD closed as delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Marshall (writer) Meters (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Accused me of spamming a sales site and removed a valid modification without giving a chance to simply let me fix a few broken links.

Not sure why you start of welcoming me to this website to try and bring honest information and instantly that welcome is you assuming incompetence or spamming. There is tons that could be debating on the major fallacies and black and whiteness of you thinking you can place my mistakes on some source links as either but you are incorrect. I am just new to this and learning the ways to properly link things and thought I had it fixed after the first attempt went sour for me. I have checked some of these links as you questioned the validity. two were from CBC news and I feel they offer pretty reliable information to support my short edit/additions. I will admit I am rusty with wording and grammar so sure if you wish to attack that I accept it and just push me the right direction and I will work on perfecting that. I offered 5 links supporting my statements and one I admit did happen to be an article that was tucked into redflag that was in good faith and I simply offered it not to spam as I certainly gain nothing or even support spam, I simply felt it offered information that fully backed up some of my claims. The information was valid though for people researching this subject in Canada and I personally know members of multiple gangs mentioned(I get that's not a source method I'm simply showing this was in good faith not just some garbage). If you felt I did things poorly just offer me some help to get my links working as two were valid news ones so I am not sure if I simply didn't link them properly or the term dead link means something different to you than myself. Sorry if I sound a bit rude I just don't like being attacked when I am only on here because I now have lots of spare time and much info to contribute on many sections on this website that I have wanted to update andhelp with but simply never got the chance before. With Sincere Regards, SmallDeets (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)SmallDeets

I didn't leave the first message welcoming you. If you look at the signature on your talk page it was left by Cluebot, an automated program that removes likely vandalism. I left he second warning. As for why, as I said in my summary undo, sources are mostly dead, and the two that are not do not support this material, and as I said on your talk page Most of your refs are useless. Two of them are dead links, one of them is actually an online sales site rather than a news site, and the other two don't support the claims. I don't know if this is a good faith but incompetent edit or an attempt to spam the sales site. Here's the final version of the article as you edited it: [5] The refs you added were

1. is a dead link. It does not work.
2. is a forum on redflagdeals.com I see nothing about Saint John gangs there, and even if it were there, a user-generated forum would not be a reliable source.
3. is a dead link. You are trying to reference something from CBC but the link does not work.
4. is working CBC link about gangs in New Brunswick, but it does not mention Saint John, and it does not support any of the claims you made.
5. is a working CTV link about the Bacchus Motorcycle Club in Saint John, but it does not support any of the claims you made so it is useless.

So, lets's look at your three claims:

1. "The city of Saint John contains one of the original biker gangs of Canada." Unsourced. You have a source (5) that puts the Bacchus Motorcycle Club in Saint John, and stating that its president plead guilty to drug charges, but it does not call the club a gang, let alone call it "one of the original biker gangs of Canada."
2. "There are many small street gangs usually split based on which side of the city you live in." You have nothing to support this poorly written claim, and it reads like WP:OR.
3. "There was also a skinhead gang that made numerous attacks targeting chinese students mostly." Again, completely unsourced.

Read WP:RS and WP:OR Meters (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And I didn't attack you. I left a canned warning for an edit you made that had zero valid sourcing. And when one of the supposed sources is a forum for an online deals site with no apparent relevance to the article, you should understand why I wondered if you were trying to spam that site. Meters (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ref 1 should be formatted as http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/book/export/html/3054 It is about attitudes towards Asian anglers in Ontario. How does that support any of your claims about gangs in Saint John, NB? Nothing about gangs, nothing about New Brunswick, and nothing about Saint John. As said, I don't know if this is a good faith but incompetent edit or an attempt to spam the sales site, but it's looking more and more like the bad faith latter. I'm done wasting time on this. If you have reliable sources that actually support what you are are claiming then please add them. Meters (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Citations from Nick Fuentes article

Hello, Meters.

I received a message from you on additions I made to Mr. Fuentes' page. I believe there may have been a misunderstanding--I cited the link to the Boston University newspaper, which covered the story I referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackdogblues (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I have never posted to your page, and you have never made any edits to Wikipedia before this one to my page. I had an interaction with an IP on that page. If you want to out yourself as that IP that's up to you. I'm not going to assume that is your IP. Meters (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

That was indeed me (although I fail to see my editing history is relevant). Once again, I am not certain that you reviewed the listed sources before summarily deleting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackdogblues (talk • contribs) 19:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK and learn to indent and sign your talk page posts.

Please read WP:MINOR

Your editing history is germane because a brand new named account showed up on my page to discuss an edit I undid and a warning I left. Since your account had never made an edit before showing up on my account it is obvious that I had never interacted with your account before. Again, it's not up to me to out you by connecting your account to a static IP.

As for the edits, since you claim to be the IP in question, what part of what I said on User talk:193.55.52.1 is unclear?. The first time you added an unsourced claim that some anonymous person made an antisemitism accusation against the subject. You restored it with non reliable source (Twitter) that apparently supported an aside about the accuser rather than the original claim. In the same edit you also added another nasty accusation, again sourced to Twitter, and which the subject claims in fabricated. Read WP:RS and WP:BLP. Meters (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

1) The claim in question was cited to a newspaper article from the event. I recommend reading a section's full bibliography before making changes/deleting it. 2) Twitter was used because the audio clip cited was posted there, and there only. Referring to Twitter as the source is facetious at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackdogblues (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

And I recommend actually reading the comments and links I left. Read WP:TALK Sign your talk page posts. Indent your talk page posts. Read WP:MINOR Don't use the minor edit check box for non-minor edits. Read WP:RS Use reliable sources. Read WP:BLP. "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Reed WP:BRD It's up to you to start discussions of contested material on the article talk page rather than restoring it. Please take this to the article's talk page where other editors can see it and respond. Meters (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Attacks

Close thread. Have removed latest personal attack by this editor and asked him or her to stay off my page.

An attack is a personal attack about who a person is. Such as race, religion or religious affiliation. Stating that someone lied, if that is in fact the case, is not an attack. Stating that a person is engaged in religious bigotry, when that is in fact the case, is not an attack. I suggest that you are taking sides without investigating what Binki did. Nor are you seeing the years of abusive and bullying behavior by him towards many. You are on the wrong side. Montestruc (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC) REad WP:NPA.Comment on the edits, not the editor. As i said at the Teahouse, After seeing "bigotry", "religious bigot", "mendaciously claimed", "malicious politically motivated vandal", "nothing but disrespect for the Wikipedia organization", "misrepresented facts", "engaging in politically motivated vandalism", "deliberatly and maliciously misrepresenting facts", "you lied", and "should be banned" I've warned the OP for personal attacks. Those were indeed personal attacks. If you continue to make them you will eventually be blocked. Meters (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC) I'd strongly suggest this needs to go to AE sooner rather than later. Knowing the history of the others involved, I'd say a neutral party will need to initiate it. John from Idegon (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC) I have no previous interaction with this user that I am aware of. It was an outrageous Teahouse post tor someone who has been on Wikipedia for 9 years. Let's see if the warning settles things down (not saying I expect it to , but one can always hope). Several people commented on the Teahouse thread so at least others are aware now. Meters (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Bringing abusive user to attention of Admin

Greetings. I noticed that you had issued a warning to 71.246.153.238 for abusive language in editorial summaries. I have done so, as well, and have received further abuse in response from this user. I do not know how to bring this behavior to the attention of Administrators, but it needs to be done. If you know what is involved in getting Administrative involvement in this user's chronic and persistent abuse, would you please do so? Thank you for any assistance. —Dilidor (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dilidor: You're looking for WP:ANI, but IMHO, I'd wait to see further editing behavior before notifying admins. Daask (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd gladly do so if this were the first offense, but it appears to be a consistent pattern in that person's interactions with other editors. —Dilidor (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

They're not going to be able to do much, I'm afraid. That IP is a dynamic IP assigned to a cell phone network. John from Idegon (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup, a dynamic IP that is hopping around is hardly worth the trouble to block. The fact that the user returned to the same IP after a month, and is now at the very similar 71.246.151.78 suggests the possibility of a range block., but it would depend on how big a block the user is using and what other traffic there is on the block. If you want to try that you should start recording IPs and diffs for evidence.

I'm not familiar with the user's content edits using other IPs, but his or her recent removals of Hamitic were likely justified. That does not excuse the personal attacks and offensive edit summaries of course,, but you need to discuss those edits on the talk page per WP:BRD even if the IP is leaving inappropriate edit summaries when undoing you. Meters (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me

Thanks for warning me. Sometimes I do things I am not aware of, that a downside of me having a bipolar disorder, sometimes making mistakes.--NeoBatfreak 05:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I just dropped you a note the firs time, but you kept making those same type of OR comments that you have been warned about before. We don't put our own interpretations or beliefs into articles. We simply report what reliable sources say. Meters (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, okay. I got it, and again, sometimes I do things I am not aware of that may be offensive. so again, thanks for warning me.--NeoBatfreak 05:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Kevin O'Leary

Thanks. Didn't want to get wrist-slapped about edit-warring again :)  Natty10000 | Natter  18:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

No probs. I fully agree with that edit, and IPs from the same range have been making similar or even worse claims all over the place. I added a note to the RPP. Meters (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

benny191

What's the point in Wikipedia being open to the public to edit when immediately you get on your high horse and undo the edit, then have the audacity to threaten to block me. You informed me to cite my sources, which I then did and provided two separate sources and you still undo the edit. This is a complete waste of my time. It's clear you only want your own thoughts and edits published and no one else's. I suspect that this edit will be reversed too!?

It's quite clear from reading comments above that you enjoy removing edit's for no reason whatsoever.

And as for blocking me, please go ahead, I will simply manually change my IP address.

Have a nice day.

@Benny191: The point of Wikipedia being freely editable is to to produce an encyclopedia. That is the only reason. It is not a place for you to indulge your own personal interests or for you to attempt to game the editing process. If you aren't here to help us to write the encyclopedia, you will lose your editing privileges. Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I added in useful information about an area of foot fetishism, how is this me attempting to "game" the editing process and can you explain what exactly you mean by "game". Whilst I am sorry for not being on the same elite level as you when it comes to editing, I was genuinely trying to add value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benny191 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You are expected to listen to other editors. Any editor who asserts that they will ignore others and "change their IP" (which won't work) warrants significant scrutiny. This is a collaborative effort, and your edits and everybody else's are subject to acceptance y the wider community. Please reconsider you approach to editing Wikipedia and to your interactions with others. Personal attacks will warrant a block. Acroterion (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Benny191 , the source you added is not a reliable source. It is just a blog posting, and it does not source your claim about the video. You state that you have no assumption of good faith on my part? Well, that goes both ways. After your personal attack, your threat to sock, and your final edit before being blocked, where you removed a large chunk of text with an edit summary falsely claiming that you were adding an external source [6], I no longer assume that you are editing in good faith. Please stay off my talk page. Meters (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)