User talk:Meters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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!

Arnie Bernstein[edit]

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

  1. It's not his article. It's Wikipedia's article about him.
  2. It does not matter what he wants to see in the article. It's about what reliable sources say about him. We're not going to include unsourced content ort puffery on your say so.
  3. Since he is your uncle you have a conflict of interest in editing the article. Please read WP:COI. Meters (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article in question is Arnie Bernstein Meters (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sockpuppetry block[edit]

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

@Mz7 and RoySmith: Wow. One minute from reporting a positive CU on me to indef'ing an editor with a clean block history... I would have appreciated being asked to explain this seemingly bizarre situation before being blocked.
I think you had better recheck the CU results. I only edit from one particular desktop, on a semi static IP, on a major Canadian ISP, and no-one else in this household has access to this machine. I have no reason to know what IP I am usually on as I never edit logged out, but CU evidence should confirm that I rarely change IPs. I believe the ISP does occasionally rotate IPs (thus semi static rather than static).
So, if the IP in question was used by JudahM2305 (talk · contribs) shortly before or after I had that IP then it is just a coincidence. I'm on Wikipedia every day so it should be obvious to CU when my IP changed in that case.
If JudahM2305's use of the IP overlaps mine during the four days that account was in operation but is from a different machine, then it was someone else. There are other machines running the same OS as my machine on my network, but I never use any of them. I don't know if CU can actually distinguish between different machines with the same OS on the same IP, but no-one else in my family has the slightest interest in Wikipedia so I highly doubt it was them, and we have had no visitors who would have had access to those machines or to our wireless network on those dates.
Someone could be hacking our wifi signal, but that also seems unlikely.
That's all I can say without access to the CU info. If someone wants to email me with details I'll tell them whatever I can.
Please copy this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JudahM2305 since I cannot. Meters (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Meters. I've had a look at the data as well, and here's what it looks like:
  • You have been on exactly one IP for the CU data retention period.
  • Other than this specific instance, nobody else has edited from this IP.
  • On June 11, around 1900 UTC (if I've got my time conversions right), someone on your IP successfully logged in as JudahM2305. This was followed about one minute later by someone with the same useragent logging in to your account (getting the password incorrect once).
I have an educated guess about what happened, but I'd like to hear if you have any thoughts. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On June 11 I was active until 09:00 UTC, and then continuously from 18:18 to 19:41 UTC. JudahM2305 was active that day from 17:04 to 17:12, and from 19:50 to 23:00 (blocked at 20:08).
I don't know what else I can say. Something's wrong. It wasn't me. I don't normally log out of Wikipedia, but no-one else in this household has access to this machine or has ever even made a Wikipedia edit, on any machine, and I see no evidence that my account has been compromised. I've been on the same IP for whatever the duration of CU logs is. Was JudahM2305 on the same IP for all 4 days? Were the other socks all on the same IP as me?
Was my wifi hacked? Possible but unlikely. Has someone hacked my wifi and compromised my Wikipedia account? Even less likely. Was there a CU data corruption? Possible, but unlikely. After 15 blemish-free years with this Wikipedia account did I suddenly start making stupid edits and penis jokes like a 12-year-old? Up to the CUs to decide.
Bit of a Catch 22 here... I'm the oldest account by 15 years but I'm not listed as the sockmaster, so according to the rules I'm not even allowed to request an unblock from my account (and of course I'm claiming that I can't access the sockmaster's account). The SPI is "on hold" (whatever that means) but I'm still blocked. Zero behavioural evidence, one strange data blip, and I'm indef'ed. Meters (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mystery solved thanks to some off-Wiki hints from GeneralNotability (thanks). Some user posted what appeared to be a password. I tried it, was surprised to get in, and immediately logged out. I don't remember the account, but it was likely Judahmart (talk · contribs) since the editor's first edit has been oversighted. I don't remember why I didn't then report the account as compromised, but I'm guessing it was because it was already up for a block or seemed to heading for one and I didn't want to open the Streisand effect can of worms. The post was blanked minutes after being made so I may even have seen that and just left it. Meters (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Meters. Just a couple of comments, as I have also taken a look at the situation. We tend to leave SPIs 'on hold' where a result is significant and probably doesn't make sense, and when it's placed for review among other CUs. You are still entitled to request unblock from this account, though TBH it's probably worth just addressing anything directly with RoySmith or one of the other CUs you've seen recently. I would expect RoySmith to turn up soon anyway, but would also urge him to reverse the block. Judahmart's first edit is still visible,[1] and says "JudahM2305 2nd profile butt my password is [...]". This was approximately 4 minutes before you would have logged into it. I can see how this particular type of disclosure is quite a temptation. This has caught out quite a few people in the past, and in my opinion, especially given the technical data, it's overwhelmingly likely that this is what happened here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will be unblocking this account in a moment. I'll follow up off-wiki. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

P.S. — The good faith and civility offered by all involved here may have spared Meters a trip to the hot seat of an SPI. (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm glad we cleared up the misunderstanding! I also figured there had to have been some mistake here. For the record, in response to the IP above, checkusers are generally able to distinguish between deliberate use of multiple accounts and the case where two people are using public Wi-Fi and just happen to share the same IP temporarily (e.g. in libraries and coffee shops). In this case, as Meters explained above, they themselves did indeed log into the vandalism-only account mentioned above, because that account had publicly disclosed their own password. This was not a case where "two Wikipedians might have zero awareness of each other's WP or real-word existence". Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, this was a genuine CU hit, and had nothing to do with shared IPs. I didn't initially recall the incident, let alone the specific account or the password, but weeks ago I tested an exposed credential. I expected the user to still be logged in and thus was expecting to be able to test the validity of the password without actually logging in (with an "already logged in" error if it was valid). Unfortunately the user had already logged out and thus I was actually logged into another account for a few seconds. I don't remember why I didn't immediately report the at account as a compromised account for a block. Meters (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sean Young...[edit]

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

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


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

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

Template:Infobox units[edit]

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

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

If there's an inconsistency between the documentation and the examples then it should indeed be cleared up. Since you are the one attempting a blanket change of long-standing usage (of many years) across multiple articles I suggest that you start the discussion. Meters (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen this change made by someone else before, hence my expectation of it recurring. Is it for either of us to start the discussion? I guess that depends on what we are interested in. At least, I'll try to remember this and avoid doing the same again. (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I pointed out, you are attempting to make a blanket change of long-standing usage across multiple articles. It's up to you to get consensus for the change. One uncontested change to one article five months ago is not sufficient justification. Meters (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you did not read properly what I wrote. To be clear: above I expressed my intention of avoiding making any further such change. I even tried to be helpful by pointing out a similar change that you might be inclined to realign with the dominant usage. (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are content to leave the articles the way they are, and don't wish to raise the issue of the supposed discrepancy on the infobox's talk page, then we're done. Please drop this. In fact, what was the point of raising it here? And that's rhetorical question. Please don't continue this thread to answer it. Meters (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please block Zvfibkoj[edit]

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

I'm not an admin so I can't block the user, but I can report him for violating WP:3RR, blanking content, and making personal attacks, as could you. I'll give the user one last chance to stop. Meters (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They did not take that chance so I've blocked them for 24 hours. If they continue after the block expires, then please report them at an appropriate noticeboard. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Continued so indef'ed, socked as User:Susvdhd, page semied one month. Meters (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Thanks for opening it. Unfortunately I think it's the only way we're going to be able to deal with this editor. Let the Mafia robot asteroid mining animal planting discussion begin! Meters (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Canadiansteve indef'ed. That was quick. Meters (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now user:Zellers Canada user:Zellers Inc and user:RobertMMoniz are all CU socks of user:Canadiansteve Meters (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And user:Stevecanadian and user:Robert Manuel Moniz Meters (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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

Incident report[edit]

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

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

Justin Best[edit]

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

I'm not interested in rehashing the consensus on whether Olympic athletes are notable simply for having participated. This is not the place for it. Take your rant somewhere else.
As for the AFD, did you bother to read it? I clearly said that I looked for significant coverage without success. When sources were found I thanked the editors, said that I didn't know how I had missed them, and quickly withdrew the nomination. Please drop this. Meters (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Edits on Central California Coast page[edit]

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

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

9-multiples (just add a simple Count Back to Make10)[edit]

Hi Meters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No other method does that.  

I look forward to your reply.

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

If you are going to ask about an edit please provide a diff to the edit [2], or at least a link to the article in question Multiplication table.
In my opinion, the whole "Patterns in the tables" section is a mess that should be rewritten and trimmed. And the given examples of methods for multiplication (hands or other) don't belong in this section, or in the article at all for that matter since they are not dependent on the multiplication table at all. Your addition was not simply the replacement of one hands method with another that you prefer. You also deleted the very simple and straightforward "Method two", added a lengthy blurb, added multiple WP:MOS violations, and used non-encyclopedic language. Meters (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Methods removed from article. Meters (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Starting with your initial objections Minus 1 / Make10:
not an improvement
You also deleted the very simple and straightforward "Method two"
This is a straight forward issue - Method 2 has easily twice as many steps as Minus1/Make10….and they are more complex.   Please count them. Better yet, try your method on someone learning their 9s. I have worked one-on-one with hundreds of elementary school students. This method is kid tested. It takes seconds to learn for a student that knows Make10...and all K and 1st graders should be experts at Make10 as it is the start of mental math.
The Make10-based method is the only one simple enough to replace memorization - so it will save millions of hours per year otherwise wasted memorizing the 9s.  The cherry on top is that it uses Make10 as its basis - something we WANT students to practice.
Noticed that you subsequently deleted ‘Method2’ as well, so perhaps we will carry on this discussion on the Wiki 9s page.  I will be posting an edit there soon with much of the same info that you erased on the Order of Operations page, so please comment here rather erase my edits based on erroneous information.
Which leads to the second issue you brought up: where is the best place to discuss the individual single-digit multiples?  
After all, the main use of the multiplication tables is to look up multiples.  I agree with you that the section was messy, however having a short section (1 to 3 lines) on each of the single-digit multiples would help a lot of people.  Just a brief explanation with a link to the Wiki page for the number in question.   That would provide Wiki users with two ways to access.
So, for the 9s section, it could be as short as:  
Count the multiplier back 1 and Make-it-10.  Example:
For 9 x 4, the 4 counts back to 3  (for thirty- ); then "Make-a-10" with the multiplier for the 2nd digit.
The 4 becomes a 10 by adding 6.  Answer: 36
Then a link to the Wiki 9s page for further discussions on why 9 is unique, diagrams, etc.
I also have short suggestions for 2,3,5,6,10,11,12 (11s/12s are another use of ‘Make10’).
The Wiki Multiplication Table page seems like a good place to consolidate these. GregWelch8 (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I explained on the article's talk page, none of these methods have anything to do with multiplication tables. They do not belong in the article at all, let alone in a section on patterns in multiplication tables. Please stop posting about this here. Meters (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DB Cooper[edit]

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

Per there are 786 people with that article on their watchlists, and 86 of them have recently visited it. As for myself, I've pretty much given up on it. Meters (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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

Request for blocking an user.[edit]

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

I am not an admin. You will have to report the user at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Meters (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CU-blocked Meters (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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


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

Read the article content. That name is no longer used/ And you are evading a block. Meters (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And blocked again. The user is currently blocked on at least seven different IPs:
Meters (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
user: blocked again on Sept 11. Meters (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google me[edit]

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

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

Jennifer Morisson[edit]

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

So? You didn't add any source to the article when you added that birthdate, and IMDB is a user-generated website and thus is not a reliable source for personal information. Meters (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that several other persons tried to add Jennifer Morrisons’ birthday and you rejected them all. Makes me think about your authority… Edvanandel (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And not one of them provided a reliable source, as I asked on the talk page seven months ago. If personal information cannot be reliably sourced it should not be in the article. If you have a reliable source then feel free to add her birth date with the source. Either way, please drop this. I'm not interested in continuing this here. Meters (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 2022[edit]

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

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


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

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

You have added the material three times, twice after it was contested. If you add it again without consensus I will raise this at the edit warring board. And why was this raised at 3) less than 24 hours after it was raised on the article's talk page? That's hardly "thoroughly discussed on the article talk page". How about leaving it long enough for other editors to actual see and respond? Meters (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added different but related material each time, adding more and better sourcing each time. That isn't a full revert. You have made three full reverts to remove it. You belatedly joined the discussion after I started it. I think we both know what's happening here; there are people who find sources and write articles, and there are bean counters and policy wonks more concerned with playing games with WP:ALPHABET SOUP. I think you're declaring a side by (repeatedly) threatening me (bluffing me) with the dreadful prospect of a centralised discussion, when we both know neither of us have broken 3RR, and both of us have made reversions; improvements in my case, and repeated removals in yours. Surprise me; do something to actually improve the article. Find some sources; they seem to be thin on the ground for this article. Can you? John (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the material should be in the article, regardless of the sourcing. Why would I waste my time looking for sources.
And yes, I think we do both know what is going on. You added material. I contested it and removed it. A sock restored it and an admin removed it. You restored it, taking responsibility for a sock's material that had been removed. I removed it. You started a thread on the talk page, looking for comments, without pinging me. I responded. You restored a version of the material before anyone else had a chance to respond. I restored the status quo. You took it to a premature 3O (14 hours after the initial talk page post). A 3O responded and agreed with me that the material should not be included.
You have attempted to put words in my mouth or misinterpreted what I've said multiple times, and now yuou are verging on personal attacks. Stay off my talk page. Meters (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

No problem. Next time just call up the page history and hit "undo". Meters (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I left a comment on your talk page, but you are free to just remove whole thread. Meters (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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

Minor edits[edit]

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

Read WP:MINOR. Meters (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does not matter what you think is a minor edit. Meters (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blocked for one year. Meters (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now indef'ed, along with several CU socks. Meters (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seasons Greetings[edit]

500px-Xmas tree animated.gif Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} Reply[reply] Candy stick icon.png

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

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

Happy New Year, Meters![edit]

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

MasterMatt12(talk)718smiley.svg 23:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Flags in infoboxes[edit]

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

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

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

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

Toopy and Binoo[edit]

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

I didn't say or imply that you were also the the IP. And please leave my change alone. There is nothing at all "official" about it. When and if they actually announce a release date then we can report that. A drawing poster of two cartoon characters looking a at screen is not an official announcement of anything. Meters (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know you didn’t say that in any way, just wanted to make sure you knew. And since it’s on the website, that does completely make it official. MightyWinz (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, not sure why, but I can’t edit the Toopy and Binoo article as I’m a new account and haven’t made enough edits, and someone set the article to “protected”. Anyways, “As of February 2023 the official Toopy and Binoo website incuded a poster for the Toopy and Binoo movie. This poster includes French text reading "Summer 2023" as the release date of the movie”, which is the paragraph you wrote has some spelling and grammar errors that you should fix. Please do so as soon as possible.
These include:
There should be a comma at “As of February 2023,”
Included shouldn’t even be in past tense as the rest of the article is in present.
And then it just abruptly ends….?
Here is a rewritten version. This follows your demands of not having the “official” part of it. Please replace your old one with this as soon as possible.
During February 2023, a poster for the Toopy and Binoo movie was added to the Toopy and Binoo website. This poster has French text reading “Summer 2023” indicating the release date. This confirms the existence of the Toopy and Binoo movie.
You can remove the last sentence if you don’t like it. Please make these changes.
Regards, MightyWinz MightyWinz (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I'm not making these changes. Your supposed grammar error is just your particular style. It's fine either way. I wrote the sentence in the past tense because otherwise it will need to be rewritten at the end of the month. The sentence ends where it does because that's the main point of that sentence. It's just a poster of two characters. It's not anything official, and it does not confirm anything. If you have a proper reliable source then we can say more. Otherwise please drop this. I don't want to waste any more time in this, Meters (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
God, what do you not understand? I literally removed the official part because of your demands. And there SHOULD be a comma after February, and that is NOT how to spell included. And "As of", and "included" do not go together. They are in different tenses. What do you not understand? I would seriously like to know. MightyWinz (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already asked you to drop this. If you want to argue about the edit then discuss it on the article's talk page. I've fixed the typo. Meters (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OEG, Inc. Retail Cannabis[edit]

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

William Hurt[edit]

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

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

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

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


Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Meters, I have seen you work tirelessly and enthusiastically to improve this wiki and answer people's questions. I'm rather surprised that you don't have much barnstars on your page despite this. Keep up the amazing work, you make the Wiki proud!! Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. As for the number of barnstars, I just archive them with the rest of the threads. Meters (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aarist Fire[edit]

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

You are free to delete the thread, but I believe you are socking, and the admin who blocked the original account will still see the ping to my post. Your WP:LITTLESISTER argument is not likely to carry much weight. Meters (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meters, I know Aarist Fire and I know he is not Yums and. I heard Yums and is not here to build an encyclopedia, but Aarist Fire has added really useful images to articles. Please don't unnecessarily block him. 2806:10AE:F:23F7:8C56:EE4D:BFA3:5DA0 (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right... an IP with zero previous edits shows up to claim they know an editor with all of two days of history. Meters (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, bye bye to this user. Wow! Please unblock her so I can be happy!@Yums andand.User:Yums and (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Aarist Fire (talkcontribs) 18:04, February 18, 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stay off my talk page Meters (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And blocked as a sock. Meters (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

China Beach music replacements[edit]

I cited the source about the music replacements in that deleted edit. 2600:6C50:23F:406E:1D44:364D:68B7:919C (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No you did not. Here's what I removed [3] There is no source in that material. Meters (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about if I put that back, and then include that source? 2600:6C50:23F:406E:1D44:364D:68B7:919C (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about you find a better source than someone's blog, don't use overly-close paraphrasing of the source, and don't make hyperbolic statements such as "that Time-Life was unable to license for at any price"? Meters (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masterman school[edit]

and with that I'm done

Good afternoon, I'm confused as to why you deleted me from my high school's Notable Alumni section. Please advise. (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea who you are, and your IP has never edited that article. I have removed more than one unsourced and/or apparently non-notable alumnus from this article. The most recent such edit was to remove someone called John Foley. The person has no article to show his notability, and no source to show his attendance. Meters (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am John Foley. After you removed me the first time for lack of a citation, I added a citation to show notability. You're saying the issue here is that you need proof that I went to my high school? (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's really not a good idea to attempt to add your self to lists of notable people.
You do need reliable proof that you attended the school, but more importantly, you need an English Wikipedia article to show your notability. We almost never include alumni who do not have articles. Your twitter page is not evidence of notability, and I doubt that the media mention of your page is sufficient to make you notable. You made some funny pictures and it was picked up. That is not lasting, long term coverage. And you should not attempt to write an article about yourself. See WP:COI. Meters (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who is the arbiter of notable/not notable? You? Did you even go to the school? A quick google search would show lasting, long term coverage. Picked a recent article because one citation seemed consistent with your format. (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether I went to the school is irrelevant. And as for who is the arbiter of notability is, that, as with virtually everything on Wikipedia, is the consensus of editors. The consensus on notability of people is given in the notability guideline WP:NBIO, which starts off with "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Additional criteria are given in WP:ANYBIO. School alumni lists are generally restricted to entries for which we have articles per WP:CSC and the schools project.
So, you do not have a Wikipedia article. You may be notable, but what you gave us certainly is not sufficient to show that. And, again, you have a conflict of interest in writing about yourself, so you should not attempt to write an article about yourself or add yourself to the school article. Meters (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it. I meet the guidelines but I don't have a page. And I won't make my own page. Can you do it? You seem to know a lot about Wikipedia. 2600:4040:25F9:AE00:C12B:CE1D:256B:1383 (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I won't make a page for you. I'm far from convinced that you would qualify for one. Meters (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it ok if my mom makes it 2600:4040:25F9:AE00:C12B:CE1D:256B:1383 (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Read WP:COI. "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Meters (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok how about *your* mom makes it 2600:4040:25F9:AE00:C12B:CE1D:256B:1383 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enough. Meters (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image removed[edit]

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

Please don't remove it. The image has a valid license. Calling it an "illegal" image in your summary is clearly not correct. Meters (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Image is File:Handre Jacobs, Sutherland farmer, Sutherland, Northern Cape, South Africa (20531143712).jpg and the edit in question is [4] by user:Nofakenews123 Meters (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the subject of the image does not want it used he may be able to have it removed by contacting WP:VRT, but calling it an "illegal" image or usage is simply not correct. Meters (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short descriptions on dating articles[edit]

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

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

Edit on the humor article thing[edit]

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

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

It makes no sense. It's not even a suggestion for an article. Meters (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aaah, okay, I gotcha. Just wanted to see where you were coming from. Th3KingC@rtii (hit me up) 00:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mentioned you[edit]

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

My first check of Victor's latest edits turned up a case of almost verbatim copying of copyrighted material, so the problem is not just MOS. I'll check the rest too. Meters (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers: Checked all April edits. I'm afraid there is not much left of his contributions. Meters (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much! I've just been looking at some of them. His first edit to American Hairless Terrier was a direct copy-paste copyvio from the AKC. If you find any others that are bad enough to need revdeletion please let me know/ping me or whatever. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit to the "Mike O hearn" wikipedia page[edit]

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

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

Henry Ruggs[edit]

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

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

Tech News: 2023-18[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cedric Henderson[edit]

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

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

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

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


Hello Mr. Meters, 

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

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

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

Your unanswered question about Dr. Dre:[edit]

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

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

Horatio Sanz Lawsuit Sections[edit]

Take this to the articles' talk pages, not here

If you had read the lawsuit listed on the article you would see the people mentioned in the sections you deleted. MisfitBlitz (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] MisfitBlitz (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did read the source you added to your talk page posts. It did not name the people, and in one case you didn't even bother to add a source. Meters (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pages 6, 8, 16, 22 and 27 of the lawsuit mention the people in the deleted sections. MisfitBlitz (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not interested in your shotgunning improperly sourced BLP violating accusations onto talk pages. You did not use a reference that supported the accusations in the posts that I first removed. If you want to justify these edits then discuss them on the articles' talk pages with some justification for why we should have sections in all of these articles to discuss peripheral accusations that never saw court. Meters (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enabling and being added as a defendant is not "peripheral" and seeing court is not an accurate measurement of truth as guilty cases are settled out of court, especially when the guilty party has a reputation to uphold. MisfitBlitz (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enough. Take this to the articles' talk pages, not here Meters (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]