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

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

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

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

Thank you!

Kadasa12Edit

I have reported them to ANI for a quick block. Not notifying them per WP:RBI. Thanks for cleaning up. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I dumped a report at AIV before I saw the full extent. Meters (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

W!LD RICEEdit

Hi! Just for your information, infopedia is more like an encyclopedia written by staff writers from the Singapore's National Library Board, hence not user generated. It is usually used as a major source of information for Singapore related articles. Thank you for your vigilance! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that and restored the content. Meters (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Hey, I saw your response to my PVHS page edit. I appreciate your feed back and will take it into account in the future, I still have a lot to learn with Wikipedia. My goals are to just add more data to my local community places. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Str8nger dangr (talkcontribs) 03:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

moved from user talk:Meters/unprotected July 31

St Clement Danes SchoolEdit

Hi Meters, I noticed your removal of the uncited claim on this page, after the IP address edit that removed the maintenance template I'd added. I've subsequently found that a search for the name here: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1950-01-01/1999-12-31?basicsearch=nicholas%20st%20clair&somesearch=nicholas%20st%20clair&retrievecountrycounts=false yielded a couple of results which seem to back up the claim, but I don't have access to the full sources. I was wondering if you had any advice on whether these sources would be suitable for reinstating the removed claim, and if so how best to cite? Many thanks in advance WikiJN10 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@WikiJN10: Nice. Two solid refs. No idea why the IP decided it should be listed as having happened in 1975 rather then 1973. We prefer sources that are not behind paywalls, but sources do not have to be free, online, or easily accessible. As long as it can be verified in a published source we are good. See WP:PAYSITE. If you open a trial account and verify one of the articles' content (the Birmingham Daily Post is probably the better choice as it mentions the inquest) you are free to cite the newspaper article just like any other news article. You may be able to find someone with access at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Meters (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I ended up using the free trial account and accessed both articles myself, but thank you for pointing out the Resource Exchange/Request page, I wasn't aware of that, but could definitely be useful in future. WikiJN10 (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

RevertsEdit

Hi Meters.

Why remove my edits on Education in England? As you can see by my edit information I trimmed down the article. I live in England and know my schooling system. Can you tell me what's wrong with my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincolnreviewer (talkcontribs) 04:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

See your talk page and discuss the content on the article's talk page. I don't want to discuss it here too. Meters (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
user was CU blocked as sock of user:Lam312321321 Meters (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

International BaccalaureateEdit

You reverted the edits. The article is a mess, and does not conform at all or in any way to Wikipedia tradition or style. It's one big advertisement, a pamphlet with quotations taken directly from IB material. I don't think you want that. It's biggest fault is that it uses the jargon of IB, so no normal person can understand the real sense of anything it says. IN addition, it doesn't say anything about the company's income, surplus, business structure - those are things people care about. I added that. I added material with citations, and removed material that was either an ad for the IB or a uncited. There is more work to do on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterlinggranger (talkcontribs) 18:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I rewrote parts of one section that was full of unsourced or improperly sourced claims and POV material. The other sections have nothing to do with me. If you are going to drop the identical message on more than one person's talk page it would behoove you to first actually check that you have the correct editors. And the improperly sourced POV material in that section has now been removed four times, by three different editors. You might want read WP:EW . Meters (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Meters. A pleasure to meet you. You are doing a great job. I have not posted anything that is unsourced. I was meticulous, which comes from being in newspapers for 40 years.

The 23,000 was sourced. Now the 17,000 you've added is old and inaccurate. And the source is secondhand. Why not just use the petition itself, the most reliable source and the original source? 23,000 has been sourced since day 1. It's also been in the FT, Guardian, Wired, etc, etc. It's not a secret. I'm sorry - I don't understand why this becomes an argument, with threats. The goal is an accurate, readable article, If it's about something else let's discuss it. The article is now not well written, lacks clarity, has some grammatical weaknesses and reads like an ad for the IB. Most of all, it's not useful and it's not fair to readers seeking to learn about the IB. It's a waste of time for readers, which is the biggest sin. It's not a wikipedia article - it's a press release. And now the section on grades is not accurate.

Also, why are you even editing it? I mean why does this section "have to do with you", and not the others? I wrote the original article, not you. You could better spend your energy cleaning up the PR hogwash the makes up 90% of the page, instead of editing the only readable thing on the page. There was no reason to touch it - it was all sourced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterlinggranger (talkcontribs) 22:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you certainly did add an inaccurate unsourced statement. You said that the petition had received more than 23,000 signatures by July 7. That was unsourced, and it is not correct. The original source said 1,500 signatures by that date, and the newer, more reliable source I added said 17,000 signatures by July 13. If you want a more recent value then add a newer source. to that claim.
As for why I am editing it, it does not matter. The IB grade issue has absolutely nothing to do with me. In fact, if it does have something to do with you you might want to read WP:COI. And who wrote the material is irrelevant (II am assuming that you meant that section rather than the entire article). Please read WP:OWN. You do not own the content. Anyone is allowed to edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talkcontribs) 02:03, August 2, 2020 (UTC)

Leap YearEdit

It’s very difficult to reach you; I began on Wikipedia 16 years ago, but have not edited in several years. You left a msg concerning some changes regarding a Leap Year page coming from the IP of a member of my household. This person is Autistic. I have left messages before (much easier), about this situation as it’s very emotional. You do not need to assume that someone is going to “argue” with you, and press-on about having “final say.” My autistic household member will use anyone’s device or whatever as he/she is very upset about July 4, 2000 (grandfather’s birthday) having to fall in a certain week-day. It’s an emotional topic: He/She knew the mathematics of the calendrical (sp?) by age 10. Don’t assume that others have ill intent. Don’t make it so difficult to contact you, along with such complicated rules. I chastise you for being supercilious and impolite. If you harass my neurodivergent family member, I will move this issue up the channel and cite the ADA. ALL that you need to do is to be KIND in your notifications regarding edits. Dyslexix (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)dyslexix

@Dyslexix:
  1. It's not difficult to reach me, let alone very difficult. All you had to do was post to my talk page. It's not currently protected. That's why it says "If this page has been protected and you cannot edit it you may leave messages" on this page. And why this page starts off with "Do not post here unless you have first unsuccessfully attempted to post to my main talk page." and continues with "Really. If my main talk page is unprotected I probably will not see or reply to any posts here." and then "This page is for the use of unconfirmed users in the event that my regular talk page has been temporarily protected and they are unable to post to it." I really don't know how I can make it any more obvious. For that matter, even if my talk page were protected, as an established editor you would still have been able to post to it. Or you could have pinged me to a different talk page, or even emailed me. There is absolutely nothing I can do to make it any easier for other editors to contact me.
  2. I didn't assume ill intent and I wasn't unkind. I simply undid the edit with a summary explaining why. I left a canned, polite level 1 disruptive (not vandalism) editing message after the IP made the same edit a second time, pointing them to WP:BRD. If you don't like the term "argue the point" then please read it as "discuss the point". And I said nothing about having a final say. Calling me "supercilious and impolite" and accusing me of harassing the IP is a personal attack by you. See WP:NPA.
  3. I, and any other editors who have been involved in this (I see from you edit history that this has been going on since at least 2017), have no way of knowing that an anonymous dynamic IP is being used by someone with autism. We don't assume anything about IPs other than that the editors using them are acting in good faith and that they are competent to edit Wikipedia, which is exactly what I did.
  4. What is "ADA"? I'm going to assume that you mean Americans with Disabilities Act. Good luck with trying to "move this issue up the channel". You might want to read WP:NOTTHERAPY and WP:CIR. Meters (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The user was acting in good faith. I have addressEd to other wiki editors about the autistic issue in the past. I am giving you advice as to your behavior. Thank-you for wishing me good luck, as Wikipedia is a Charitable Org., it might be best that you not speak for the entire entity. Dyslexix (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)dyslexix

You seem to be having trouble understanding me. Again, I did not say the IP was acting in bad faith. In fact, I explicitly stated that I had assumed the IP was acting in good faith, and was competent to edit Wikipedia. If your family member does not understand what is going on, or is not capable of discussing this, they may not be competent to edit Wikipedia.. That's why I pointed you to the above links. And the "Good luck" was irony because I think you will have zero success in trying to "move this issue up the channel". I think it would be a bad idea, but if you insist on doing so, the correct venue to do so would be at WP:ANI, where a report will result in other users looking at my behaviour, as well as yours, and likely the IP's too. Meters (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
And please indent your talk page posts with one colon per indent level. This line is indented with one colon,
and this one with two. Meters (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Moved from unprotected talk page on Aug 4

FYIEdit

I blocked the range. This has been going on for weeks...-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Assassination of John F. KennedyEdit

Hi Meters

Regarding your comments from my recent enquiry re Oswald and the assassination of Kennedy.

"I mean the reliable sources do not entertain any uncertainty here. Per the sources, Oswald shot Kennedy."

Reliable sources to not suffice for saying that Oswald assassinated Kennedy as they are unproven facts.

Oswald did not stand trial in a criminal court of law for said offence, therefore as the accused he is innocent.

Oswald was the "alleged" assassin.

"The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered "innocent until proven guilty"."

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Arkons1947 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this. See if you can get consensus for your proposed change. I doubt very much that you will get it, but certainly simply requesting such a contentious change without discussing it first is inappropriate. Meters (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Family RadioEdit

Oakland, California is where their broadcast operations center is and where they receive listener mail, their headquarters is in Nashville which officially opened in January 2020. But you should know that the two IP addresses that have been changing the information should be dealt with because they are being aggressive and making threats. YborCityJohn (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page and the article's talk page, please provide a reliable source that the move actually happened, rather than just being planned.. The company's own web page still lists Oakland. Meters (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Vibes and Ron HowardEdit

Hey! You messaged me saying that my reference for Ron Howard producing Vibes was wrong (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096378/fullcredits), that it doesn't mention him. Please check again, it very clearly mentions Ron Howard as an executive producer. His name is the fourth in the list in the section "Produced By". If you could please verify that I am telling the truth, and re-instate my edit, that would be greatly appreciated.

Never mind, I went ahead and re-edited it, but now with four references supporting the fact that Ron Howard of Imagine Entertainment was executive producer of Vibes. I hope four is enough? If not, his name is literally on the poster for the movie, which is the one image in the article. Surely the poster qualifies as a credible source, right?

Anyway, although in this case you were maybe a little to quick to assume that an edit was bad, I appreciate your efforts to make wikipedia rigorous. Thank you!

Already answered on your page. We don't list executive producers in the "Producers" field. And why would we add just one of the additional names even if we did? Meters (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I see, I did not know this about the info box. But surely it's worth including the fact that Ron Howard (executive) produced the film later in the article, right?

Please indent and sign your talk page posts.
Again, why would we mention just him and not any of the others? Meters (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, like most people, I'm not an expert at editing Wikipedia. I hope you can cut me some slack. I'm not trying to make "disruptive edits", I'm just trying to include legit, sourced information that is pertinent to an article. Surely putting someone's name in the wrong spot shouldn't warrant a the threat of a ban, should it? Anyway, as to your question (why mention *just* Ron Howard and not any of the others?), my answer is: the other producers can be included, I'm not in anyway trying to prevent their names from being mentioned, though he is the only "executive" producer, so he is clearly distinct from the others, in some way; however, out of all the producers, he is extremely noteworthy (I assume you know who Ron Howard is), so I figure if any of the executive/co-/associate producers are to be mentioned in an article for a movie they made, at the very least Ron Howard's name should be one of them. Because he's really really famous. If the only way to let the world know the truth about Ron Howard's association with Vibes is to also include the other people's names, then I will happily add them in. I just figured somebody would take care of that if they felt it was necessary (please excuse me for being a little lazy). Thank you! 98.240.205.119 (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
You added him incorrectly to the infobox, you restored it, and now you have added him prominently to the article body. And you previously made a rather disruptive restore of a six-year-old deletion from another article that I undid.
I've asked about mentioning executive producers a the Film Project [[1]] Meters (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Insisting on labelling my edits disruptive is a little hurtful, though. "Disruptive" is what my grade school teachers would call me when I was bored with their lackluster lessons that I had already learned (of course, you wouldn't know this, so I forgive you). I just made some mistakes; I'm not as experienced at this as you are. You've made mistakes, too, right? A little empathy is all I'm asking for here. 98.240.205.119 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

thread moved from unprotected talk page on Aug 29

"Because he's really really famous. If the only way to let the world know the truth about Ron Howard's association with Vibes is to also include the other people's names, then I will happily add them in" pretty much sums up this IP's interest. Project talk page only reply: "They shouldn't be added unless it's particularly notable for some reason. They can be mentioned for actions or things they said, as part of the production section for example. But mentioning it for the sake of doing it doesn't seem right." Meters (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Time series database § RfC on inclusion criteriaEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Time series database § RfC on inclusion criteria. I've started a formal RfC to try to resolve the dispute on what time series databases should be included in the article on them. As someone who's participated in this dispute in the past I'm notifying you as a courtesy. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

MicronationsEdit

Hi Meters, I mentioned an edit of yours at Talk:List of micronations#Removing micronations that have no article. ◅ Sebastian 06:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


thanks for the editEdit

Hi friends thanks for the edit man im quite new at this and really appreciate your incite(no im not being passive aggressive i really thank you) cheers Parker P.S If you have any other suggestions feel free to put it on my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmegrue (talkcontribs) 04:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

No probs. That's a very common issue with school articles and new editors. Meters (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandy HudsonEdit

Hi there. I am new to wikipedia and the subject of the page Sandy Hudson. You recently reverted a deletion. I sent a request for repression and I was told by Kevin Li that the page violates the biographies of living persons rule, but it did not rise to a level requiring suppression and to monitor it.

The edit violates your rules about neutrality, verifiability, primary sources, circular reporting, victimization, gossip, and people who are relatively unknown.

The information contained there is both incorrect and part of a campaign by individuals who have been stalking and harassing me for years with racist motivations. The nuisance suit was filed in an attempt to stop me from my anti-racism activism work. The allegations were not proven in court, and the University of Toronto Students' Union eventually put out a statement saying that they regretted the proceedings and inflammatory public comments made. It does not rise to the level of "scandal".

I am not permitted to discuss specifics of the suit as a condition of a negotiated settlement. Regardless, I can say the following about the information contained in that section of the page about me:

(1) it references "embezzlement," which never came up in the case and is factually incorrect (2) it states that it was alleged that I destroyed relevant information including the total number of hours I worked during my employment. This is untrue and not provided for in the source. All documentation regarding my hours worked were provided in discovery, and I still have copies of them. (3) it cites a secondary source that is tabloid in nature (a student paper; which I understand is typically trustworthy, but this particular paper at this particular time in the students' union history had personal relationships with the people it would write negative stories about). The original writer of the student source did not disclose that she was in a romantic relationship with one of the students who filed the suit. (4) The tabloid source incorrectly references only one primary source (the complaint-side pleading documents; it does not at all use the response-side pleading documents) (5) the other sources referenced amount to circular reporting (they all reference the one initial student paper source). (6) The section states that I "corrected [my]self and noted that the case was not racially motivated and UTSU had reasonable basis to sue [me]." This is false. The UTSU put out a statement saying that, but I do not engender such feelings. The source is the student press, and they never spoke to me about this case at all. This is an example of a tabloid source (the student press) using a self-published source (the UTSU's statement) as fact.

I am relatively unknown by Wikipedia's standards and it seems strange that there is a section of this page titled "Scandal" for an issue that is no more a part of my life or what I am known for than the several other harassment legal documents filed against me as a result of my anti-racist activism.

This one-sided and incorrect information appears as the largest section on the page, and not, for example, that I was the first Black woman to serve as the President of Canada's oldest students' union, that I was the first Black person to serve as Chair of the Canadian Federation of Students - Ontario, that I was intimately involved with the removal of police from the largest school board in North America, and other such items, seems like the work of someone trying to defame me. I am not arguing that those things should be added, but this section being the largest thing written about me on wikipedia appears to be the work of a long, ongoing libel/defamation campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151D:87F:C854:6313:8D22:BC54 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is this on my page? You didn't deal with the issues in the section, instead you completely blanked the entire section, including very reliable sources such as the National Post, CTV and Global. You were undone by two different editors, both of whom asked you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. I started the discussion on the article's talk page to discuss the supposed BLP issues, but you chose instead to raise the issue directly on the BLP board. That's fine, and the issues have been dealt with. Much of the content you removed is still in the article, so your complete blanking was not correct. This is one of the reasons that editors with a WP:COI should not normally edit article about themselves. And please read WP:NLT. It's not a good idea to throw terms such as libel and defamation around on Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Changes to South High Denver pageEdit

Hi, You emailed the following: "Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, South High School (Denver), but you didn't provide a reliable source....

First, I will review the guidelines on providing sources. My reliable source was the Vice President of the South High Alumni association (SHAFI). He dictated the changes to me as I typed them. I don't know if he wants his name in the source comment. I will check.

Also, about your other comment asking me to not change the template. I'm sorry. I didn't know I was doing that.

Jackie Jdoffice1 (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

What someone told you is not a reliable source that can be verified by other editors. And since you appear to have a conflict of interest please read WP:COI. Meters (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

KamloopsEdit

I've a hunch that the anomalous 47.4C humidex reading will turn out to be obviously false once we look at the temperature recorded that day. But I'll look into it. I won't revert without a good examplanation. Thanks, Soap 01:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea if it is real either. I tried but could not verify it. Meters (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, that was much easier than I thought. here it is. The dew point they recorded was 28.3°C. I refuse to believe that is accurate. Bad measurements happen. I can show you more. I would consider this to be a clear example of corrupt data. But I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Regards, Soap 01:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a weather guy (as evidenced by the fact that I did not know where to look for that data you found so quickly), but that does look odd even to me. 85% relative humidity at over 31 degrees in Kamloops? How would we go about verifying this? I have seen errors in online Environment Canada data before. Meters (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The data is retrievable from the link at the bottom of the weatherbox, though I had trouble with it the first time too and had to have someone show me. I can walk you through it tomorrow if you want but the data will be the same no matter how you get there. As for verifying is, this is as deep as we can go .... there is no reference for this reference, so to say. We simply have to deal with the fact that even our final authorities are sometimes wrong. A similar humidex error appeared on the Eureka, Nunavut data, but in that case it was far more obvious, so we decided to simply record a blank value there. Compare the old version. Im going to sleep now, but I plan to get back on this tomorrow. To be honest, though, this is very frustrating for me and I threw a tantrum just a month or so ago over this very topic, so if it stirs up an edit war I will just excuse myself and leave the 47.4 value there. Soap 02:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Soap My apologies. I misread the diff. I thought that user:CambridgeBayWeather removed the value in May as unsourced and you restored it. I had it completely backwards. I've restored your removal and pointed to the talk page discussion. I hate data that is verified, but likely/possibly wrong. I'll leave it to the two of you and any other interested knowledgeable weather people to decide what to do. Meters (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Immigration to CanadaEdit

Typically people are not required leave a talk page message for every edit they make. But if someone has an opposition, they can start it on the talk page. It's not considered WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV to post links to pages that necessarily favor immigration. Wikipedia's job is not to encourage either one but to give an insight into different arguments on the issue. That being mentioned, see also requires that the topic be related and not a continuity. So even fit here was no mention to Canada, opposition to immigration still stands as a fairly related topic. I've explained it to you int he edit summary and explained it again. No further explanation should be required, unless you have some other concern.--Buzles (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Also please be wary of WP:EDITWAR as a means to contest others edits. Please use to talk page to bring up your concerns. I've already explained to you the edit is according to guidelines and policies.--Buzles (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Your edit was challenged. Discussions of contested material do no happen in edit summaries. Its up to you to get consensus on the article's talk page to keep the edit. I've explained that to you, pointed you to WP:BRD, and reminded you to read WP:EW. Agin, take it to the talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Brando CrawfordEdit

Hi, apologies for the mistakes. How is the page looking? Previously, there was no proof the director was notable. But now his primary work has a wikipedia page. There are significant sources from BBC World News, Chicago Tribune, and Variety. Is it ready to publish? (Lilywilliams1212 (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC))

Draft:Brando Crawford does not even come close to demonstrating his notability, in my opinion. For one thing, there are almost no sources about him. Sources about something he is involved with have very little to do with his notability. Notability is not inherited. Your only sources about him appear to be IMDB (not a reliable source) and a google search on his name (completely useless as a source). Some of the sources about Acting for a Cause do contain information about him that can be used in the article, but to show his notability you really need in depth coverage of him, not mentions in passing. Meters (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Brando Crawford I see... He is the creator of the Acting for a Cause series. The Chicago Tribune article is almost completely split between him and the series, as is the BBC World News interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilywilliams1212 (talkcontribs) 04:15, September 18, 2020 (UTC)
Please sign and indent your posts.
I know. I looked a the article and the refs. I'm not spending any more time on this. He does not appear to be notable. You submitted your draft a third time and it was immediately declined. Unless there are significant sources about him that you can add to the article I think you are wasting your time. Acting for a Cause may be notable, but that does not make him notable. Meters (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

PalindromeEdit

Hi, Meters. You've removed my input on Indian poet Magha in 'Notable palindromists' section of article on Palindrome. Actually, Magha is praised for one of the most elaborate palindromes in human history. 27th stanza of his "Shisupala Vadha" is 'perfect from all directions' 64 syllables magic square palindrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shishupala_Vadha (section 'Linguistic ingenuity' and reference 20). So, I think, if Su Hui is mentioned it would be fair to include Magha also, as his work dates back to 7 century A.D. and is an important milestone in the history of palindrome making. Regards, Yurrray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yurrray (talkcontribs) 12:38, September 22, 2020 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary "no mention of palindromes in article". You added an unsourced entry whose article does not mention palindromes. If he's such a notable palindromist why does his article not discuss it? Meters (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

copyrighted image removed

Martin Gardner in his book "The Colossal Book of Mathematics" (W.W. Norton & Company, 2001) quotes letter of George L. Hart III in "Scientific American" (November, 1970), where he refers to Magha's sarvotobhadra from Sisupalavadha as 'the most exquisite and complex type of palindrome ever invented' (page 30). https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-265/page/n45/mode/2up But you are right, Wiki article on Magha does not present his contribution in the field of word play and palindrome making. I can edit this article based on the aforementioned information, if that will solve the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yurrray (talkcontribs) 09:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yurrray:
  1. Please sign and indent your talkpage posts.
  2. Don't upload copyrighted images. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Magha.jpg is clearly not your own work. This is a scan of a page from Martin Gardiner's 2001 book "The Colossal Book of Mathematics". It is "Copyright by Martin Gardiner 2001 All rights reserved" as can be seen here https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-265/page/n9/mode/2up I have requested a speedy deletion of the image as a blatant copyright violation.
  3. Don't add copyrighted images to my talkpage. You linked to the source, there was no need to add a copy to my page, even if it were not a copyright violation. I have removed it.
  4. If you have reliable sources that state that the person in question is a noted palindromist then you can add the claim with the source, but the source you have provided does not say that. It states that that palindrome is notable. It does not state that the person in question wrote it, or give any authorship. Yes, Magha may have included it in his work, but was he the original author of the palindrome? Meters (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Meters:

I'm new to Wikipedia editing and the screenshot was presented as a proof only, no violation intended. Magha's authorship of the palindrome is clearly stated in article on Shishupala vadha (section 'Linguistic engenuity'). Apart from sarvatobhadra 2 more palindromes from 19th canto are mentioned there (stanzas 44, 88). It should be noted that Shishupala vadha is a coherent story, not a collection of poems, so stanza 27 is part of the plot. Shishupala Vadha

Authorship is also confirmed in this article (part 14.1), while Magha is praised as 'manipulator of Sanskrit language; and, there is no equal to him'. The palindrome in focus is said to belong to 'the most complex poetic device ever created'. Chitrakavya-chitrabandha Yurrray (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You removed the updates on the Monsignor Farrell page.Edit

There has been a lot of updates to Monsignor Farrell and we want the right information up there. NuggetYT (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Who is we? Meters (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


Lou has recently been appointed president of Monsignor Farrell High School, and his personal info was on his page. There is also wrong info on people he ran against in office. Please change back or get back to me. NuggetYT (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't start multiple threads.
Please learn to add reliable sources. None of your edits were sourced or minor. I've already restored one of your edits, but in neutral language and with a source. And please answer my question. Who is "we"? Meters (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

We as in the staff of the school. I am the director of communications of Monsignor Farrell. I updated everything, but you changed it back, please put back everything I updated. NuggetYT (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

What sources are looking for because a lot of your information is either incorrect, our outdated NuggetYT (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read and follow WP:COI. You are a WP:PAID editor and should not make any edits directly. Propose your changes on the articles' tlakpages and provide reliable sources. See WP:RS for what qualifies as reliable sources. Meters (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I was also trying to update our new president Lou Tobacco,s Wikipedia page due to multiple inaccuracies. So please change it back. NuggetYT (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you even reading my responses and what's on your talk page? Meters (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

What reliable sources did you use to put all of this inaccurate info on both pages then? LoL. Also why do I need to link all of this to a random site? Why can’t you just look it up? It’s the correct info anyways! NuggetYT (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm done spending time on this here. Declare your conflict of interest. Propose your changes on the articles' talkpages. Point out any problems, and provide reliable sources for your changes. Meters (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Our lawyers want to speak to your supervisor for posting incorrect information, and a personal signature that has allowed corrupt individuals to steal Mr. Tobacco’s personal information. I’m not going to do all of that random stuff when I can just change it now. Everything I have shared this evening can be googled and shown as fact. Please share your supervisors contact information for our legal counsel to follow up with. NuggetYT (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

And this is why we teach our students to not use Wikipedia, due to a lack of correct info, and trash support from moderators. NuggetYT (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You are already at WP:ANI for the legal threat. I suggest that you remove it before you are blocked. Meters (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @NuggetYT: When you should be teaching them the difference between volunteer-driven and professional sources, as well as primary, secondary, and tertiary sources instead? Gosh, your petty power struggle is surely a more academic reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please show me any inaccuracies that I have presented to you in order to make your site truthful, accurate and factually correct ? I do not understand why you are taking such an aggressive and rude tact against the truth? NuggetYT (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@NuggetYT: Final warning, withdraw your rude and aggressive legal threat above or you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. NuggetYT (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please take Mr. Tobacco’s and Monsignor Farrell’s info down as it is inaccurate. We will be most certainly following up as we stand behind our truthful and accurate updates to you. NuggetYT (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

User blocked. I have updated and referenced what I can in spite of this user's approach to communication. Meters (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I wonder what their lawyers will think when I say that it looks bad for the school that their "director of communications" can't read and follow directions. Also, I don't really believe there's someone named Mr. Tobacco. Sounds like a public service announcement: "Hey kids! Take it from me, Mr.Tobacco! Vaping's bad for you! Smoke the real thing!" EEng 07:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @EEng: Actually Mr. Tobacco is real. One of those unfortunate surnames. See Louis Tobacco. I have to admit that I thought the same originally. The odd name combined with the claim that he was the first president of a school that opened years before he was born seemed like vandalism, but I quickly discovered my mistake. I had already started sourcing and restoring info when this blew up. And just to clarify, despite NuggetYT's accusation, I neither added Tobacco's signature to his article originally (that file was uploaded and added to the article by user: Rockhead126 in 2014 [2]) nor restored it when NuggetYT removed it. I am surprised that Wikipedia allows the inclusion of images of signatures for living people. Meters (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Found WP:BLPSIGN which addresses the issue of reproducing signatures of living people. Meters (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

John Gunn removal from Yanceyville notable person and his high schoolEdit

Hi, I posted the German link which clearly says the person was born in Yanceyville and attend the high school in question. Why did you remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peabodyb (talkcontribs) 02:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you need me to post a reference in English as well? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peabodyb (talkcontribs) 02:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page posts.
As I said in my summaries: no article (on this Wikipedia), and no reference to show connection/attendance. The fact that he has an article on another Wikipedia does not establish his notability. Other Wikipedias have different rules for what they will allow as an article. As for his attendance at the school and connection to the town, yes, that's in the German article, but it is not sourced there either. If you think he is notable then WP:WTAF, Meters (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I question your premise that notability must in the English language on this Wikipedia. I haven't heard that. Can you reference that rule please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peabodyb (talkcontribs) 03:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please indent your talk page posts.
Can you provide a reference to show that we accept articles on other Wikipedias as evidence of notability? As i said, other Wikipedias have different rules for what is an acceptable article. Meters (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to prove a negative i.e. that Wikipedia allows this - because of the concept of "good faith." Clearly, my intentions are to inform the public at large about something true: that John Gunn existed - that he was born in Yanceyville, attended Bartlett Yancey High School and was a race car driver as is evident if you did the research yourself. Why not allow something that is true? He was a notable person. Can't you see that? Peabodyb (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It is clear that all of Germany, a nation of many many millions and an EU member state, which is composed of over a half-billion people, that its Wikipedia finds John Gunn to be a notable person. So, it boggles the mind why that is not good enough for you. I wish to protest this further if you will not be flexible. What is the process to get others involved? Thanks. Peabodyb (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, indent your talk page posts.
So, you wan to include him because an article about him on a different language Wikipedia makes an unsourced claim that he is from the town and attended the school. Good faith has nothing to do with this. We don't allow stuff simply because an editor is acting good faith. I undid you because we don't know that he is notable by English Wikipedia standards, and we have no sources to show that he is from the town or attended the school. Read WP:RS. Read WP:V. Read WP:N. Read WP:NLIST. Read WP:SOURCELIST.
If you want to see recent discussions about this look through the archives of Wikipedia talk:Notability. For example, Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_60#How_much_weight_do_we_assign_to_the_fact_that_a_subject_page_has_a_wikipage_in_other_languages makes the point that we cannot accept another Wikipedia's article as evidence of notability, and Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_62#Lists_of_notable_Alumni_different_for_different_languages,_combine? discusses alumni and foreign Wikipedia listings. WP:WTAF is the conclusion. Meters (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
You can raise the issue of the content in the specific articles on those article's' talkpages to see if other editors agree with my removal. I don't know where the best place to raise the general issue would be, but probably Wikipedia talk:Notability since it has already been discussed there. I would suggest that you search the archives first and read all of the previous threads on this though. Meters (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
And I see after your 2019 additions to Yanceyville, North Carolina you were already told by user:331dot about list entries requiring articles, and that issues should be discussed on the article talkpage. iMeters (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with car racing notability, or what Formula A is, but Gunn may be notable under WP:NMOTORSPORT Meters (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The claim is not unsourced. I said it was sourced and it is if you look. Wikipedia allows for additions in other languages. Anything done in the past is not relevant and was addressed. I'm all for learning from mistakes, but this is not one of them. You are wrong about this and you don't know everything. I assume you have no degree from the University of Wikipedia are not an expert. Good faith is the basis of Wikipedia while also citing evidence. In any case, I have a life and will ignore this bullsh-. Peabodyb (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
You are the one who keeps bringing it up. And no, there were no sources for this attendance at the school in your addition, or in the German Wikipedia article. You might want to read WP:IDHT. And after your last post, I'm not interested at all in continuing this. Don't post here about this again. Meters (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Watts family murdersEdit

Hi! You removed my "In American Murder, the footage from the confession of Chris Watts reveals his father stating "I'm not going to tell anyone", possibly indicating complicity on his part." on the grounds that the netflix documentary is not a reliable source. However, the documentary is not making this claim, it is showing actual audio and footage of Ronnie Watts saying this in the interview room. It appears at 00.53.08 in the documentary. Best, Tove — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.95.121 (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It's WP:Original research. EEng 21:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
My edit summary said "that's a BLP violation. The boilerplate BLP1 template uses the phrase "you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source" but the issue is that you were claiming more that we can get from the source. You cannot a take phrase such as ""I'm not going to tell anyone" and make claims about someone's complicity in covering up a crime. We do not know what he was referring to. Meters (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
You even said in your edit summary that this was conjecture. Meters (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. Thanks for your time! Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.95.121 (talkcontribs) 10:42, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

Barry's BayEdit

Hey, thanks for the ping and the note: the more information y'all provide the easier it is for us. I found a bunch more sleepers and blocked them, as well as the range they came from. Maybe that will bring some order to the chaos. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning house. Meters (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Family Radio Discussion (The sequel)Edit

Ok just so you don't freak out at my edit on Family Radio, at the bottom of their website www.familyradio.org they now list their address as 4057 Rural Plains Circie Suite 300, Franklin, Tennessee 37064. Also, as far as I am aware their network operations still operates out of Alameda, California. Have a nice day and stay safe. YborCityJohn (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you really need to make this snarky comment? Two weeks ago I undid your unsourced change that contradicted the company's website and asked you for a source. The company has now updated their webpage and you've restored your change. Congratulations. How about assuming that I'd see the change and your explanation? Meters (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I apologize if my post sounded snarky, I don't know why I wrote it that way. YborCityJohn (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
OK. Meters (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Belmont Community SchoolEdit

I thought you might like to know that as a result of the notification of your mentioning me in this edit I investigated the editing history, and decided to semi-protect Belmont Community School. Vandalism has been going on for a very long time, no doubt from different vandals. JBW (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Typical school garbage. Thanks. Meters (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

St. Mary's Notable AlumniEdit

Your criteria is arbitrary. If you look at all the other high schools in Calgary on wikipedia they have many notable alumni that do not include people with *any* wikipedia pages. Having a wikipedia page does not make you notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpatz (talkcontribs) 14:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that other articles may have the same problem with alumni entries without articles. The rule is not arbitrary at all. It's the consensus of Wikipedia editors that we do not list alumni unless they have Wikipedia articles to show their notability and reliable sources to show their attendance. Your entries have no articles, the provided sources are not independent reliable sources, and they do not show attendance. There are exceptions for people who would clearly qualify for articles if articles were written, but none of these people qualify. Again, WP:WTAF. And I suggest that you also read WP:EW and WP:BRD Meters (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

InverkeithnyEdit

Why did you revert my edit to Inverkeithny? Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

because I didn't understand why you you were spamming Ancestry.com into a FindaGrave reference. Meters (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Find A Grave is owned by Ancestry.com. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
If so it's not obvious from the FindaGrave website. Meters (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
It says it here[3] and here[4]. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
As I said, not obvious. I don't believe that the actual page that you used as a reference in the article makes any mention of the connection. The Ancestry.com page is not one that anyone on FindaGrave is going to see, and the FindaGrave page mention is buried at the bottom of a About Find a Grave page. I don't see why we need to include the information about who now owns the Find a Grave site in the reference. The reference is to Find a Grave, which is published by Find a Grave. You can take this up on the article's talk page if you want to get more input, but I would suggest that your time would be better spent looking for a better source for the actual claim rather than worrying about the details of who published it. I considered removing the claim entirely since Find a Grave is user-generated site and thus is not WP:RS. Meters (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see you've already done that. Thank you. Meters (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

This kitten finds your response to be amazingly kind and to the point.

AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

NotificationEdit

The reverts were done to get your attention to my point about your laziness. Thankyou for nothing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affiliatiob45 (talkcontribs) 01:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of being a sock of user:Fylindfotberserk now? I put you on a level 4 warning because you were following that user around, randomly reverting their edits, and vandalizing their talk page. I have nothing to do with that user's account, but if you start that again I will report you for a block. Meters (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
High five! (Teahouse incident) Also,


Firestar464 (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Francisca JamesEdit

@Meters: I'm just helping this page and reverting back to the latest version that was made/checked and fixed by Materialscientist >>the right admin of Wikipedia who's concern about anti-vandalism. I didn't do any changes, im just reverting to the last version that was checked by the admins. This is gonna be my last revert on that page to prevent the edits without reliable sources supporting it, and my only question is how come you're seems like supporting all of those who are just editing without sources, that's totally wrong and against the Wikipedia terms. its so funny to see Materialscientist lend her hand to delete unreliable information but yet the other users kept on editing without reference correct me if I'm wrong, and as I said above, I'm just gonna stop contributing to the irrelevant page like this one, and I'm done with this Page, I'm just gonna let them vandalize the page since the information that was stated there wasn't co-relate with the current reference.

At first I was really concern about this page getting vandalize (editing without sources), I'm even requesting Francisca James to get an anti-vandalism protection using my IP Address HERE. Thanks to the LuK3 for that, but starting from now I'm just gonna let it go and doesn't want to take care of this page anymore since I was feeling attacked after doing goods on Francisca James page. I Nyoman Gede Anila 22:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You were reverting to your desired version, including edits that were in no way vandalism or hoaxes, and you did so again after I warned you. What part of WP:EW do you not understand? Meters (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
CU blocked. Meters (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Nina Dobrev againEdit

While I don't think there was ever proof that User:Quenreerer and User:Sumatro were the same editor, I have concerns that User:Belevalo is a sockpuppet of User:Quenreerer – to wit: [5]

I'm just keeping you in the loop here... --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Not enough to worry about yet. See what happens. Meters (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Balmain NSW Notable personsEdit

Thanks for your messages. I am sorry that you agree with the deleting editor regarding my 2 entries in the Notable person list as not being notable.

The fact they were local Balmain residents who founded and owned one of Australia's largest industrial conglomerates, are included in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, one received a Knighthood for services to Australian shipping, in 1971 built the largest ship made in Australia up to that time etc. etc.

If editors don't believe the above residents qualify as notable, but unknown activists and little known journalists do, then this is more damaging to Wikipedia than someone calling out an editor for their political ideology.

The fact that sources of notability are disregarded, and the subject is deleted solely because it is a red link goes against Wikipedia's own advice.

"In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Red_link

Theirishslave (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Theirishslave: It's a good idea to link to the article in question (Balmain, New South Wales) or provide a link to the edit in question [6].
Well thanks for the message. I usually get a laugh when an editor (or better yet an SPA) with almost zero Wikipedia edits thinks they should explain something to me.
There is a big difference between a person being mentioned in general prose in an article versus a notables list (even if that list happens to be formatted as prose rather than as a bulleted list). The first is someone who is already being mentioned in the article (because they have something to do with the topic of the article), while the latter is someone who is being mentioned specifically because they are notable, and they happen to have some connection (sometimes minor) to the subject in common with the other list members. We are generally fairly concerned about not letting lists of notable people degenerate into lists of red links for which articles may not be justified or which may never be written. You linked to WP:REDLINK (and [[WP:REDLINK]] is how to format that link properly). Did you actually read it? If so you must have missed the portion that discusses this issue:

Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should often be removed, depending on the list-selection criteria chosen for that list.

My approach to this is to not accept red links in lists of notable people unless the person would clearly qualify for an article if one were written, and there are reliable sources to show that the person meets whatever other list inclusion criteria exist. Consensus has established criteria for when a person's notability can be presumed. See WP:BIO and the various linked essays. I'm not aware of any consensus that mere inclusion in the "Australian Dictionary of Biography" is sufficient to presume notability. Please point me to the discussion if you know of one.
Here's my take on this. You have been edit warring to include these red-linked entries for more than three years. You have been making personal attacks on the other edit for more than three years. You have never taken this to the article's talk page to discuss the potential notability of the people in question. You have not discussed this with the other editor for more than three years, at which time your arguments consisted of such less than compelling statements, based on your personal knowledge, as: "they were held in high esteem by Balmain locals". "Sir Rod was a regular down at the sailing club", and "Good people". user:Doctorhawkes responded with "Unfortunately, they don't appear to be notable. ..." You then attacked him and the next response was "I have no ideology. If you believe that they are notable, trying writing an article for them and they will be judged against Wikipedia's notability guidelines." And yet you show up on my page to discuss it and make a further attack on the editor after I make one edit? If you had simply attempted to write the articles or discuss this on the article's talk page this would have long since been settled.
As for the actual content, one of them is likely notable, and one of them does not even have a source showing his connection the town. There was a third entry in earlier edits (before my involvement) but I don't remember what I though of him,and I've spent more than enough timer on this. Meters (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Danny RanesEdit

Could you please submit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Danny_Ranes into a Wikipedia article? There are a lot of pages for serial killers that are less filled out and less significant and more poorly sourced than Danny Ranes yet they were accepted.

Examples: Jerry Walter McFadden and Robert Eugene Brashers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B14F:6642:81C0:4E1C:320:9F98 (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I will not proxy for you. It's a draft. Follow the appropriate procedures for submitting a draft. user:AngusWOOF declined the draft, and I agree. It is not ready for article space. It may be possible to turn it into an article, but it is poorly written and most of the sources are actually not about the supposed subject.
Furthermore, I strongly suspect that you and all of the other accounts and IPs that have touched that draft are socks of a blocked editor.
AngusWOOF, should we bite the bullet and start an SPI? Meters (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Eng Wikipedia draft is at Draft:Danny Ranes Meters (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, all the IPs and named accounts appear to be socks of User:Darren Cross, but I strongly suspect that Darren Cross is also a sock of a previously blocked master, which would make this draft eligible for speedy deletion WP:G5 Meters (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Regular deletion of green color for ClimateEdit

I noticed you reverted this edit. I keep seeing these type of edits where someone deletes the green and I am not sure if I should revert it as I don't know much about climate boxes. Since it seems so common for this one type of edit, I wanted to make sure I understood whether this is just a common vandalism prank or is there some debate about the colors. Thanks, Fettlemap (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a long-standing WP:LTA, usually out of southern BC. We are pretty much following WP:RBI, and as you can see, today's IP user:2604:3D08:2C82:F400:4918:DE4F:4A4F:2003 has already been rangeblocked. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/24.68.2.110 and User:CrazyBoy826/Target pages of recent IPs for some of the history. Meters (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho HoEdit

Many thanks, and the same to you too (as we all continue to hunker down to hide from COVID-19). Meters (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The Abrams at La Salle and Queen's UniversityEdit

Hello Meters, I noticed that my cited changes to these two pages, "La Salle Secondary School" and "List of Queen's University People" were reverted. They were cited and I can provide proof of the veracity of the changes. Could you please let me know a) why the changes were reverted, and b) how to properly make the changes so that they will not be further reverted?

Thanks, JohnAbrams23 (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)JohnAbrams23

As I said in my edit summaries: "Not individually notable". The group is notable, but notability is not inherited. We do not have Wikipedia articles on the individuals to show their individual notability. By the way, since your username is the same as one of the brothers you are attempting to add, it appears that you are attempting to add yourself to lists of notable alumni. Not a good idea. Meters (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

a) yes I am, admittedly, one of the brothers. But the notability of the group speaks for itself and as you said, the notability of the group is verifiable. b) Both James Abrams and John Abrams (myself) graduated from Queen's University and La Salle Secondary School, and the truth of this is verifiable through various sources. The band's success is collective. Each of the individual's notability in this case is inextricably intertwined with the other's. Could you kindly let me know how then to add the group "The Abrams" to the list, without the need for individual pages on each member of the group? Would it, for instance, be best to list them each individually, i.e. "John Abrams, member of The Abrams..." and "James Abrams, member of The Abrams..." in two separate lines? JohnAbrams23 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)JohnAbrams23

No, making individual entries for each brother with both entries simply linking or redirecting to the group does not change anything. Alumni lists are for notable alumni. The group is notable, but the group is not an alumnus, and the members are not notable simply because the group is notable. See WP:WTAF, but you should not be the person to write the articles. See WP:COI. You have a conflict of interest in writing about you or your brother or your group. Even adding mention of your group to your hometown as you did at Kingston is somewhat questionable. If you have no interest in Wikipedia other than to mention your group, your brother, and yourself you probably should not be here. Meters (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
In some cases a case can be made for mentioning groups that have a particularly close connection to an institution, but I don't see that here. The group was not formed a the university or even at the high school, and there is no mention of either school in the group's article, so there seems to be no connection other than that you both attended. Meters (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

AFD participation requestEdit

As you are one of the active participants in AFDs, i request you to please have a look at this case. As there are so many pending AFDs to be resolved and so less volunteers, your assistance will help us reduce the workload drop by drop. Thank You, Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 08:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pesticide: I was getting ready to respond to this when the AFD was closed. I would suggest opening an RFC to determine if being awarded the Padma Bhushan is sufficient to presume notability for any future cases. Meters (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

St. Pius X Catholic High SchoolEdit

Received your comments about our edits to St. Pius X page. Thank you for the heads up that we have not changed our president since the second semester has begun. Once we change that, I will re-change on the wiki page. As far as Violet, we prefer not to have them listed as notable alumni, as we don't find that to be notable. However, if it must, I guess if it's at the bottom of the page, that is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMS1313 (talkcontribs) 19:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@KMS1313:Who is we? Please read WP:COI. And whether you think the drag queen is notable is not relevant. She is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and her attendance at the school is sourced. That is all that is needed for an alunnus to be listed. The entries should be in alphabetical order. Meters (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Page in question is St. Pius X Catholic High School (Chamblee, Georgia) Meters (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Lynbrook High SchoolEdit

Re: The Lynbrook High School notable alumni section and citation needed tag, I was curious your thought process for which alums need a citation and which don't, since documentation of graduation is not typically publicly available to cite as reference. In this particular case, I know firsthand that Tony Xu attended Lynbrook High school, but don't have access to a photo of his diploma or anything like that. From a quick Google search, one option would be to cite Tony's cross country records, would this suffice? [Link here] It'd be a shame to take the entry down because there isn't a citation since the information is factual and there are plenty of instances of correct alumni information that aren't easy to reference. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjloury (talkcontribs) 01:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

All alumni need reliable sources to show their attendance (either in the school article or in the subject's article). I happened to check that one since I noticed a new alumnus being added. You didn't provide a source for his attendance, and his article does not mention the school, so I tagged the entry as needing a source. That you claim to know that he attended doesn't help. No offense, but people sometimes mistakenly or falsely claim that notable people attended their high schools. The broken link you provided above does not help either. Even if the link had worked I would not consider it to be a very good source. Same comment for a hypothetical picture of his diploma. All that would show is that someone of that name attended, not that the subject of this article attended. Since I can put the subject in San Jose as a teenager I would likely leave such an entry in but tag it with "Better source needed". Other editors might not leave it in at all, and I would not restore it myself if someone did choose to take it out. You need to find a source that shows that the Tony Xu who is the subject of Tony Xu attended the school. Meters (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Tom BradyEdit

Isn't calling Tom Brady the "Greatest Quarterback of all time" an opinion? It is, so I will again, erase this again, please explain to me why, you reverted my edit.

Thanks, QL102944 QL102944 (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

See your talk page. I already explained why I undid you, and why you need to discuss this edit on the articles talk page. It is a long-standing well sourced part of the lead. Yes it's opinion. Multiple writers and others have expressed that opinion, and that's how we present it. We're not putting it in Wikipedia's voice by saying he is the best, we're simply saying that many people have said so. Again, take it to the talk page per WP:BRD and make your case for removing it. MAybe you will get consensus to remove it, maybe you won't, but continuing to make a contested removal without discussion will eventually end in a block. Meters (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating, having me understand this is not the wiki's opinion. I will try my best to use this information in my edits in the future.

Thanks, QL102944 QL102944 (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Bibite PolaraEdit

Hi, I removed the template because the page has been corrected and enlarged as requested days ago. Check it out--87.0.170.158 (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

No, what you said in your summary was that you were removing it because it was a PROD request that had previously been removed [7]. Meters (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

re:Edit

because the page has been corrected and the template no more reason to be there, on prod I got confused--87.0.170.158 (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Again, that's not what you claimed in your edit summary. You clearly stated that you were removing it because it was a PROD and that anyone who wanted to delete it would have to take it to AFD. You appear to know the difference, so i can only assume that you were misstating things in an attempt to intimidate the IP who restored the notability tag.
Please drop this. I don't want multiple threads about this, let alone multiple threads on my talk page. Respond to the thread on your own page if you must. Meters (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
user:MrsSnoozyTurtle believes this IP is the globally blocked user user:Pasionpalau, and now the new account User:Kanoawi has restored the same material to Economy of Italy . Meters (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

message you leftEdit

You recently left a message on the user talk page of User talk:204.78.14.10

This IP address is for a university and is shared by over 3,000 people. The intended recipient of the message will likely never see it

--204.78.14.10 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You tagged the page as a shared IP. There's no need to tell me, I know what a shared IP is. I left the message 2 or 3 minutes after the IP made his edit, and the IP is listed as a static IP, so there is a good chance teh editor saw the message. Meters (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

sourceEdit

I am confused I will look for sources--Kanoawi (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Page locked Economy of ItalyEdit

Hello, in the section of companies you have to put (fashion) after YOOX (then food & beverage starts) the category (transport) has been left out, where at least Grimaldi Group and New Passenger Transport must be added Third thing to add some southern companies (such as Grimaldi Group) because there is not even one on the list while in the source there are many. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanoawi (talkcontribs) 09:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, creating a new account and restoring the unsourced content with a fake edit summary isn't going to work. You are restoring an edit made by a now globally blocked editor, and the page is now protected. It's not about adding companies simply because they are from a particular area of Italy. Meters (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Just read your messages. Thank you for helping me. Documentartists (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)documentartists

OK Good luck. Sorry for the tone of my last message. It appeared that you had already read the messages but were ignoring some of them. Meters (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)