User talk:MeasureIT

This edit, in combination with the edit summary "→‎Cultural issues: That information was incorrect, the U.S. officially adopted it already" indicate an intention to remove correct and useful information from the encyclopedia. The US has not adopted SI as it's only, or dominant, system of measurement. Any similar edits in the future are likely to you receiving adverse attention from the Wikipedia community. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the edit summary again. The information I removed was incorrect according to the USMA reference I added. The information I replaced it with was the correct information. The USMA reference contradicts your opinion. I think the Wikipedia community should prefer the correct information more than the incorrect information. MeasureIT (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be referring to a citation to this site, which says the United States is non-metric but the government adopted the metric system as an option in 1866. And that is from the USMA, a metric advocacy group which should not be relied upon for a neutral point of view. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that page I removed content saying the U.S. had not officially adopted the metric system which had no reference for it. You don't need a reference to support the lack of a false claim but it does conflict with this reference from USMA which I had added for the content on the Metrication page. USMA is the US Metric Association so why would they falsely claim "For example, officially, the U.S. has been metric since 1866, 1893, 1975, or 1988, depending on which official declaration you prefer to cite"? MeasureIT (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When a country has official adopted the metric system as a mandatory system for all, or nearly all uses, it's easy to tell. If a shopkeeper sells goods with no metric indication of quantity, the local weighs and measures inspectors come in and seize the offending packages, scales, or other measuring devices. If the shopkeeper resists, the police are called and the shopkeeper is hauled off to jail. That doesn't happen in the US because the US has only partially adopted SI, and the areas where it has been retained as an option are largely the areas concerning everyday life such as sports, clothes, and food.

Another way to tell is if the government never allows or requires persons to deal with the government in non-SI units. Good luck finding a booklet of fishing rules that tells how long your fish must be in SI units; all the ones I've seen use inches. And just try getting a driver's license if you insist on giving your height and weight in centimeters and kilograms respectively.

A flat statement that the US has adopted the metric system is false. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't say "as a mandatory system for all", just that were officially metric. If you have sources offering an alternate opinion add them too, but USMA are a US association concerned with metrication, so their opininion is important. MeasureIT (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MeasureIT Your comments about the UK being totally metric are just incorrect. The USMA source was somebody's PhD thesis which dealt with metrication in the US and Mexico. I doubt that the original editor researched every single line of the appendix fully - if he did he was wrong to state that the UK was toally metric. The UK is not totally metric - today I drove from Frome in Somerset (where I am on vacation) to Dyrham Park and back. The road signs were in miles. I will agree that the wine we had with our evening meal came from a 750 ml bottle and that the coffee came from a 200 g jar. The plain truth is that matrication in the UK started in 1965 and is not yet complete. Now please revert all the changes that you made, otherwise an edit war will erupt. Martinvl (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Martinvl. Is this another warning or did you miss a heading? I'm not going to revert what I put as it has a reference. Are you goiung to revert the unreferenced stuff you replaced it with? MeasureIT (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about John Wilkins. In the case of Lists of British inventions removing all references to him is unneccessary. If you feel strongly about the inclusion of his work, use a "citation needed" template (see Wikipedia:Citation needed}}, but do not delete the text as you are removing the opportunity of somebody else to provide a citation. Martinvl (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see any evidence that he is credited as having invented the metric system, or even that his work is credited as being in any way relevant to the history of the metric system, by any notable and mainstream historians.

Please explain your interest and reason for promoting Wilkins in such a way, despite the total absence of suitably accredited sources. As WP:REDFLAG puts it: " Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:... surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". MeasureIT (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formalWP:3RR warning.

Would you please revert the last change that you made in the article Lists of British inventions and engage in discusssion. Martinvl (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already tried twice to "engage in discusssion" there, but there were no takers, and certainly no attempt to justify the claim that I am challenging. I note too that in the last 24 hours you have equalled my number of reversions there - we are currently at 2 apiece. I have explained mine, attempted to engage in discussion on the talk page, and I believe my changes are justified. The last change I made was to add a flag to point out that the reference does not support the challenged claim. If the necessary support for the claim is subsequently provided, then I will happily revert the last change that I made. MeasureIT (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formalWP:3RR warning.

Would you please revert the last change that you made in the article History of the metric system. We cannot discuss if you keep on reverting. Martinvl (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are asking me to do it because you have run out of reverts yourself. I have already started a discussion on the talk page there, if you want to participate fine - but if you don't, then you can hardly complain if your view isn't taken into account there. MeasureIT (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Why did you not let me know that you were discussing this matter at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard? There is a great big notice in red on that noticeboard requiring you to do so - refering to me as "another editor" rather than by name is not an excuse. For the record, I have added a note about this action on the 3RR noticeboard. Martinvl (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why were you interested in discussing it there when you hadn't shown any interest here or here? And why did you add it to your false accusation on the 3RR noticeboard? MeasureIT (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fringe Theory noticeboard has the following statement in red:

"If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:FTN-notice}} to do so."

Which part of that statement do you not understand? Martinvl (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it all. Why were you interested in discussing it there when you hadn't shown any interest in it in the other places I mentioned and why did you add it to your false accusation on the 3RR noticeboard? MeasureIT (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MeasureIT,

Many thanks for the information you left for me. No I wasn't made aware of that development.

My reading of that is that the user of an account called NebY has claimed that we all are sock puppets of the user of an account called DeFacto. That is, they claim that our accounts are all being used by the same real person as the DeFacto account! If that were true the effect would be that I am actually you, and you are actually me! Clearly that is nonsensical. However, if that claim goes unchallenged, it would probably be a bad thing, leading to a certain barring from Wikipedia. I think that we should try to defend ourselves against that claim (assuming that you are not he either!). I don't know how to do that yet though, so will try to investigate that further. I will let you know what I find. Have you tried digging deeper yourself?

I haven't crossed the path of NebY before, so I don't know where whoever it is came from, or what their motivation is. I am very interested to see that Martinvl appears on your talkpage too though, and seems to have reacted against you, as he did against me, in my case, in retaliation for making various modifications that he didn't approve of. Interestingly too, he has added a comment on the sock puppet report page. He hadn't created the report though, unless he also uses the NebY account of course, which is a possibility worth pursuing I think. How did he coincidentally come across us both otherwise?

Ciao, Curatrice (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add a note to User talk:DeFacto too, but it is locked, and the form to request an edit to it is locked too, so I couldn't. Curatrice (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have made good progress in understanding what's going on. I see you subsequently got through to DeFacto's talk page too. I'll try and put together a "defence" of myself later, but I'm so busy with other commitments at the moment. MeasureIT (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned the guidance at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims that someone left for me. Read it if you are going to comment, it explains what's expected. I made a "statement" based on its guidance. And it's hotting up there a bit now, there is a trigger-happy crowd gathering. I can't imagine what De Facto, or whoever, did in the past, but there are some serious revenge-seekers showing up who seem to be so blinded by their hatred, that they will see random strangers punished for the actions of others. They will apparently "convict" based on the mere opinions of other bigots - their "friends" in this conflict, rather than on a rational consideration of verifiable evidence. I honestly don't know how to handle or counter that - let us hope that the final judgement is made through a fair, unbiased process. Curatrice (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. That could be helpful. There's a lot going on there now. MeasureIT (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's quietened down a bit now! They don't seem keen to support the claims with any evidence. I don't understand how that culture of throwing wild accusations about is tolerated. Curatrice (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

[1] is unacceptable. Familiarise yourself with WP:AGF before jumping to ridiculous conclusions like that. Furthermore, you are not permitted to move other people's comments around, per WP:REFACTOR. Moving comments is generally frowned upon and Martinvl should not really have moved those comments, but to accuse someone of doing it for nefarious reasons is not on. Incidentally, I do not give permission for you (or anyone else) to move my comments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked for permission to move your comments and I have no intention of moving them, and I don't expect anyone else to jumble them about either. The summary honestly, accurately and succinctly summarized the reason, as I saw it, for my edit. Do you think he was moving it all about to make his contributions less prominent? MeasureIT (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on why he was moving the comments, but why assume he had an ulterior motive? Failing to assume good faith will get you blocked as sure as edit-warring has got you blocked. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a checkuser. As such, I retain ultimate discretion over the form of the SPI process. I advise you do not revert me again. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you bury the statement I made under that derogatory heading? Aren't I entitled to put my case with the same weight and visibility as the one making the allegation, and without such a blight being put on it? And what do you mean by "I am a checkuser"? MeasureIT (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no entitlements on Wikipedia. Regarding checkusers, read WP:CHECKUSER. Sorry, I have no time for these questions. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at History of the metric system. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

MeasureIT (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I realise now that I should have tried harder to reach agreement with the other editor through discussion rather than by continually re-editing the article. I have, in the meantime, began to find my way around the talk pages and various noticeboards (fringe theories and no original research). I do completely understand what I was blocked for and, when allowed, will concentrate on making productive contributions and will not again engage in these pointless edit battles. MeasureIT (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per request, discussion below, and my explicit conditions. Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In some ways, this is almost a textbook example of a good unblock request. However, your history is troubling. You've been warned of edit-warring before this latest problem, although you've never been blocked before. Your history since first creating an account at Wikipedia has been unusually troubling. Putting aside the pending sock report, you seem to have ongoing disputes and an excessive amount of non-collaborative interaction with User:Martinvl (see this report). For those reasons, even assuming good faith, please explain more specifically what you will do differently to avoid future disruptive editing. Perhaps, for example, you could edit articles other than measurement-related articles?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment - yes, I am trying to work within the spirit of the guidance and the rules, and realise now that constant do/undo cycles are non-productive. I do seem to have been unfortunate though, in that I struck a raw nerve with that one editor you mentioned, in amongst the SI units articles though.

When I came back to Wikipedia at the end of December, after a period away on duty, I came across what I though was a major inconsistency in the verifiability of certain claims, in a series of articles, being made about the role of John Wilkins in the history of the present day metric system. I tried to change the wording in the articles to reflect what I saw in the sources. After I had unravelled all the relevant links to John Wilkins, I edited these articles: "International System of Units", "Metric system" and "Talk:Metric system", "Metre", "History of the metric system", "England" and "Kilogram". Then I stopped and went away.

By the time I came back, about 20 hours later, Martinvl had reacted by reverting most of what I had done to the "Metric system", "List of British inventions", "International system of units", "Metre" and "History of the metric system" articles - and with minimal explanation. I tried to again reform some of those articles, with more explicit edit summaries and with more talk page comments, but again he reacted unfavorably. To boot, he added this[2] rather brusque comment to my talk page. I replied[3] with a more comprehensive explanation of my reasons. I got no reply and no further talk page discussion.

Perhaps at that point I should have abandoned hope and left it at that, but I wasn't happy to leave the articles with such flaws and in such a misleading condition, so I chose to try to correct some of the articles again. The reaction this time, after I had made just the 2 attempts to change the articles, both of which he had reverted, was that he issued these warnings: [4], [5]. To which I replied [6] and [7]. Perhaps because I didn't defer to him, he then made a false report about me to the edit warring noticeboard (1 of his 4 diffs was of an edit of his own and another was of me adding a flag): [8]. I responded thus: [9]. That report did not receive any attention, and has since disappeared from that board.

So I hope you'd agree that, although it looks bad at first glance to see two 3rr warnings and an edit war action against me, in reality they do not represent the whole truth.

It was after that that events took a bizarre change of course, some other editor (User:NebY) who I had never come across before, and who doesn't seem to appear in the recent history of any of the articles involved, raised the "SPI" against me (and against 3 others of whom I have no prior knowledge either). Martinvl was quick to jump in there to support the action with his unique interpretation of my actions and history.

I hope I don't sound arrogant or to be whining or bitter, but, to be frank, I can't quite comprehend how I have got into so much apparent trouble, after doing what I honestly thought was the right thing for Wikipedia in those few articles. I had tried to engage Martinvl in discussion, but he rarely responded, but nevertheless blanket reverted much of what I'd changed.

I also took the precaution of raising discussions on the fringe and OR noticeboards to double-check that I wasn't misleading myself, and on those boards my thoughts were supported, which gave me the confidence and motivation to continue (to no avail though) to attempt to fix things. One editor (User:Ergative) who had clearly spotted my actions has now made some quite significant changes and discussion contributions to three of the articles that I had flagged (History of the metric system, Metric system and Lists of British inventions).

I feel obliged to follow my gut feel on this, and I suspect that the John Wilkins content isn't the only faulty content that has been added to Wikipedia articles by this particular editor.

Please advise what course of action you think I should take now.

MeasureIT (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the history. A bit long, so I only skimmed. But you didn't really address my question. If I unblock you (and at this rate your block may expire first), or even if I don't, what do you intend to do at Wikipedia to avoid more problems? If you want to continue to focus on the same articles, then you'd have to stay on the talk pages and use dispute resolution mechanisms to obtain consensus-driven changes to the articles. If you believe there are editor conduct issues (and I'm not expressing an opinion on that one way or the other), as opposed to content disputes, you can bring those to the appropriate administrative noticeboard. The one thing you can't do is battle in the articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you could read my account in detail, and gave me your honest thoughts about it, and whether you think I have a point, or am being paranoid. This SPI thing has hit my confidence badly, and leaves me wondering whether it is worth the stress to continue here in Wikipedia.

To your question; I fully appreciate that squabbling in the article is wrong, and have, through the noticeboards mentioned, and via the "third opinion" service ([10]) which I forgot to mention above, tried to find a way to resolve the issues by discussion. I was seriously hampered though by being unable to get Martinvl to engage, but having to find a way to deal with his constant reversions. In the future though (if I still have one!) I will certainly concentrate more on the discussion approach and try to engage outside support, rather than futilely attempt to press any point within the articles themselves.

You suggest "appropriate administrative noticeboard", can you be more specific please, or point me to a link with more details about this side of things.

And thanks for your attention here. MeasureIT (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not going to take the time to read your account and express an opinion on the merits of your points. As for stress, that's of course up to you, but Wikipedia can be stressful. Some of it depends on whether you're here to generally improve articles or whether, as apparently is true in your case, you have a particular focus.

The two most likely noticeboards to complain about editor conduct are WP:ANI and WP:AN. ANI is generally for a specific incident or at least a series of recent incidents. AN is more amorphous. In your case, you might use AN if you wanted to propose a topic ban as opposed to a block or some other kind of sanction. Bear in mind that anyone who comes to these boards may be subjected to intense scrutiny about their own behavior. They aren't boards for the thin-skinned.

All that said, I'm going to unblock you based on your representations here. A couple of warnings, though. First, just because you've tried a particular dispute resolution mechanism and it hasn't worked doesn't entitle you to battle in an article. Second, if I notice that your conduct doesn't conform to your promises here, you risk being blocked without any further warning or notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million Bbb23! I'll try my utmost not to disappoint you, and thanks for the other pointers too. MeasureIT (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feel was right then. Now I wasn't expecting a hearing that would be cited in years to come as a shining example of how to conduct such affairs. But wow - I wasn't expecting that! And so shamelessly one-sided! And just before I got the chance to post my evidence, funny that. No wonder the "clerk" was so quick to parcel it all away into the archive. Heaven forbid that anyone should check it over, or that the hapless victims would be given a chance to ask any awkward questions! And I see there is no information given here, or anywhere else as far as I can tell, to explain what it all means for the "guilty". MeasureIT (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means what it meant last time – you'll just set up again with another name, and we'll spot it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]