This user may have left Wikipedia. SummerPhDv2.0 has not edited Wikipediasince 3 November 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

1) You will frequently be wrong. Discuss the issue on the talk page. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Read the policy/guideline someone says you violated. They might be right.

2) The more certain you are that #1 doesn't apply to you, the better off the project will eventually be without you.

3) Everything else is commentary.

Archives

/Archive 1/Archive 2/Archive 3/Archive4/Archive5/Archive6/Archive7/Archive8/Archive 9/Archive 10/Archive 11/Archive 12/Archive 13/Archive 14/Archive 15/Archive 16/Archive 17/Archive 18

This page has archives. Topics inactive for60 days are automatically archived5 or more at a time byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than10.

Hi, thanks for your removal of what you call "blubbering" from the various X-Men films. Just as a matter of interest, what do you mean by the term "blubbering" in this context? Thanks!Captainllama (talk)12:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best edit summary... "Blubbering" is uncontrollable talking. An editor who adds unnecessary info about a favorite star's nude scene in a film likely just burned off a bit of their excitation by "telling the world". Someone over the course of most of a day adding similar info over several films with an imagined story arc with the nudity becoming a defining character trait is likely beyond that. -SummerPhD^v2.018:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was browsing 'magical negro' after reading about the movie 'music' and looked at the Talk page.Anyway- I live in Scotland and here 'blubbering' means crying as in "he's a blubbering wreck".Whereas 'blabbering' is similar to blethering ie someone who is talking too much. Kind regardsAndrew ranfurly (talk)21:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically you say, until criticism was published off-site it can not be referenced in Wikipedia.But, if it was published off-site, then it can be referenced in Wikipedia.Ok, I made an off-site copy:https://the-arioch.livejournal.com/90752.htmlSo, now it can be linked in the main article, right?— Precedingunsigned comment added by85.90.116.114 (talk •contribs) 04:46, May 24, 2019 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the articles' topics. Improvements to articles can be made through reference to independent reliable sources. Your blog entry is not a reliable source. Please seeWP:IRS. -SummerPhD^v2.011:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information you have called "unsourced" that I added toVulgar Display of Power is sourced in the article.dannymusiceditor^oops05:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've even gone so far as to furhter bolster the genre with new sources.dannymusiceditor^oops05:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raptorlino changed genres in an article without providing a source or explanation. I reverted with an edit summary that their edit was "Unsourced/undiscussed genre change". The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

This confused you: "What do you mean 'unsourced'? Power groove = groove metal." Apparently, this was intended to jump start me into searching the article for a source calling it "Power groove" and then find evidence that "power groove" and "groove metal" are the same thing.

Rather than searching the article and researching the genres to supportyour change, I reverted it as "Unsourced/undiscussed genre change". The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. There was no need for additional care on my part. -SummerPhD^v2.002:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion and edit summary atWhat's Up, Doc? (1972 film). "Not a reliable source (fact checking would include proofreading) not a summary statement re film

1John Simon is WP notable. He wrote theater and film criticism for over 40 years and has published at least 3 books on the former. Reverse Angle[1] is one of them. Since what I put in liked to Simon's WP article (which if you read you may have learned that one of What's up Doc's characters was a parody of Simon), your summary is simply unbelievable.

2 The source I cite is his book. Written by him. How does that failWP:RS?

3 Fact checking? And by the way that's a word for word quote. I own a copy of Reverse Angle.

4 It is in the reception section of the article. Reception sections are for among other things, what was written about the film in question. John Simon is a published film critic just likeRoger Ebert who is quoted in countless film articles.

You don't know whatWP:RS means and have made approximately 150,000 edits here? I should expect this from you since you are the same nut who idiotically accused me of sockpuppetry[2]....William, is the complaint department really onthe roof?10:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your new version, had it been made first, would have raised less concern: I would have chopped the bit about Streisand (including the grammatical error) and left the rest. By itself, the statement on her appearance sticks out like a sore thumb. It's about the critic not liking the way she looks and says nothing about the film. -SummerPhD^v2.012:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's how Simon writes, like it or dislike it. His picking on the appearance of actors or actresses (Besides Streisand, try Wallace Shawn, Liza Minelli, Melanie Griffith to name a few) is well known. Your mentions of fact checking, reliable sources and proofreading are way off base....William, is the complaint department really onthe roof?12:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That a mainstream publication let "a aardvark" go is rather surprising. That a review of a film would wander afield into discussing the actress's appearance rather than the film is not surprising. That we would somehow pick this tidbit of nonsense as a summary of the whole review is inexplicable. It's like summarizing theNew York Times coverage of the Camp David Accords by quoting a piece about the size of Carter's forehead. It's off-topic minutia. -SummerPhD^v2.016:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you want to write some libelous claptrap about another editor, do it on your own damn talk page.Galestar (talk)14:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AtTalk:Men Going Their Own Way you disputed the accuracy of my brief mention of your edit history.This edit, which you now feel is "libelous" is an accurate summary of your edits under this user name (I did not bother to look up your sockpuppetry andWP:EVADE edits).

Accusing me of libel is a good way to earn yourself a permanent ban from editing. Additionally, please note thatlibel requires that factual claims about you be 1) clearly false 2) damaging to your reputation and 3) clearly identifiable as being about you as an individual. My statements were 1) accurate 2) reflect the reputation you have built for yourself here and 3) are not reasonably connected to you as a living individual (i.e. John Smith of 123 Main St., Peoria, Illinois).

Finally, the section header here seems to indicate that this account is being used by more than one person. Is that correct? -SummerPhD^v2.017:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "libel" was too harsh a word. I believe you have misrepresented by edit history *by omission*, and therefore did consider your statements false and defamatory. But w/e I'm over it. The section header "no we're not" was in response to the patronizing tail of your comment "Are we clear?".Galestar (talk)03:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Defamation" is, again, incorrect and a personal attack.Personal attacks are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. Please consider this your final warning. -SummerPhD^v2.003:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I consider your comments about me misleading. Call that whatever you like. If you want to bring me to ANI, go ahead.Galestar (talk)04:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't need you to suggest AN/I. Frankly, with your history, I'd just ask an uninvolved admin to apply the discretionary sanctions. -SummerPhD^v2.004:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally and in good faith, their account history would be used as a last resort only and only if yours would be analysed as well. And in yours, statements such as that one does not have a fundamental right to contribute and engage through edits, that you do not care, not to mention the tasteful expression that one should not be a you know what, it may very well hint at things as well.lmaxmai 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me be more succinct: The editor in question's history is one of dancing near and over the line on discretionary sanctions on issues related to gender, then (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) disappearing. I'm not playing that game. -SummerPhD^v2.004:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen The Leftovers? Do you honestly think the character Wayne does not qualify on the list you keep editing? Every reference in this section sites someone's opinion as to whether the trope is being used, so how can you dismiss a reference where there's an active debate as to the use of the trope?— Precedingunsigned comment added by23.240.96.37 (talk)02:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you or I think a character is a "magical Negro" or not is immaterial. Wikipedia is based on independent reliable sources. Yes, many articles have opinions in them. For example, our article on "North" quotes someone as saying, "I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it." That someone is not a random Wikipedia editor or some random person with a blog. (If you would like to read random people's comments, there are sites for that.) It'sRoger Ebert's opinion. -SummerPhD^v2.003:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're using standards of objectivity for an inherently subjective narrative device. There's no such thing as a "Magical Negro" -- it's a pejorative. Screenwriters aren't writing the stories of the grand "Magical Negro"; instead, they're criticized for unwittingly characterizing black people as super-human. When and where this phrase is deployed is subjective, an opinion of a writer. By such standards, every *fictional* character listed on the page enters the discussion as an example of a "Magical Negro" once mentioned in some publication of note as a "Magical Negro". In my addition to the page, I have given another example from the Washington Beacon editorial page to a discussion as to whether the character is a "Magical Negro". This should suffice, as it's a much more reputable source than many of the others listed as references and clearly references a debate as to Wayne being a "Magical Negro". Nevertheless, the way you are curating this page makes it clear that your AND my opinions don't matter -- only yours does.— Precedingunsigned comment added by23.240.96.37 (talk)04:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. -SummerPhD^v2.004:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page, I suggested 3 other references that demonstrate the character represented an example of a MN. Since you removed my changes the last time, would the following references allow me to re-add the character to the list: (1) This is an interview with the executive producer of The Leftovers addressing the commentary that the show used characters like Wayne as a “magical black man” trope:https://screencrush.com/the-leftovers-season-2-finale-tom-perrotta/. (2) Here is a recap of season 1 where they specifically indicate that Wayne has become a "Magical Negro" by the end of the season:https://www.tvbuzer.com/news/the-leftovers-season-1-finale-recap-the-guilty-remnant-s-memorial-day-plot-has-devastating-consequences-50379. (3) This is an academic text that discusses Holy Wayne in Chapter 2 (https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Politics-Colorblind-Routledge-Transformations-ebook/dp/B00YY64066): "Holy Wayne oft-disrobed, muscular, dark body takes the pain...of his predominately white, male clientele. The visual imagery is iconic and hearkens back to past representations of Black men acting as magical negros largely in service of white men."— Precedingunsigned comment added by23.240.96.37 (talk)17:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a disruptive editor by the name of Nostalgicperson03218 who continuously tries to put his own opinion in the X-Men Origins: Wolverine page by saying it got mixed reviews while the sources show it was negatively received. He won’t stop until he is blocked and I was wondering if you could help me out.Zvig47 (talk)15:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit I use to be the same way, but I looked at his previous edits, and he is known for putting his personal input on many movies. I use to be this way, but I changed. He hasn’t.Zvig47 (talk)16:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting Wiki should give him no chance? If you can change, so can he. Less drastic measures needed.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAbracadabra4201 (talk •contribs)14:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier,Abracadabra4201, I had no idea you would be commenting on a topic from a month ago about a random issue.

The editor in question was given multiple chances and warnings. They did not listen or respond in any way. They were blocked from editing for 24 hours, still did not respond and returned with more of the same behavior. They have now been blocked indefinitely and will not be unblocked without responding.

Collaboration and communication are not optional. -SummerPhD^v2.004:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. Thanks for taking the time to reply.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAbracadabra4201 (talk •contribs)19:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Battlefield Earth (film)#Regarding a certain detail in the plot.Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)05:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CASSIOPEIA: You seem to have placed this warning in error. -SummerPhD^v2.018:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SummerPHDv2.0, My apologies, must have click on the wrong line when revert which it was intended for other editor. very sorry and I have removed the message above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)02:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'l stop adding the info again but KNOW THIS, Please stop accusing me and giving me a death threat all because of "unsourced content, as you did onSplash (film). This violatesWikipedia's policy on verifiability."--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk)15:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@AnimeDisneylover95: Death threats ? You better have a link to this, please post it here. -FlightTime(open channel)16:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave youconsensus warnings, not a "death threat". The wording of those warnings isexactly the same as other warnings given to thousands of editors ever day. If you add unsourced material to articles, you will receive a warning.[3] If you blank the warning[4] and restore the unsourced material,[5] as you did atSplash (film), you will be warned again. If you keep at it, you will eventually be blocked from editing. If you then say you had no idea that would happen, the warnings you were given (but ignored) say otherwise.

Incidentally, calling me "a huge hipocritical [sic] person" and claiming (incorrectly) that I am threatening you could easily be seen as a personal attack.Personal attacks are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. As you have been warned about this in the past, please realize that the next time it happens, you will receive a final warning. If you continue after that, you will be blocked from editing. (ETA: Actually, given FlightTime's comment above, you might be moving toward a block a bit faster than I thought.) -SummerPhD^v2.016:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A conditional threat to block can be considered a threat more generally speaking. Perhaps a gentle explanation is in order, that the user will only be blocked in their disruptive conduct continues, rather than the ham-fisted approached you have elected to take? This is clearly a language misunderstanding... admins these days...  «l|Promethean|l»  (talk)18:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. It's no mere threat. It's a "death threat". Those who blank every warning they get and simply restore what they want often benefit from a ham-fisted approach, paying attention to something a lot simpler than the consensus warnings they ignore as "threats". -SummerPhD^v2.018:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I've never been a fan of ham; Much prefer bacon, preferably with eggs.  «l|Promethean|l»  (talk)18:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you prefer for breakfast. The editor ishaving trouble hearing, so I turned up the volume. If they can't understand what they are hearing, that's adifferent problem. -SummerPhD^v2.020:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awfully prejudicial against bacon to assume I was talking about breakfast.  «l|Promethean|l»  (talk)02:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awfully prejudicial against breakfast to assume there's something wring with the most important meal of the day. -SummerPhD^v2.002:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've engaged regarding the "Anti-feminist" remark. Given that this is an ongoing discussion, it would be appreciated if you could continue you input.  «l|Promethean|l»  (talk)18:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of his running traits is his pronunciation of the word "robot", pronouncing it "RO-bət"

Although the playful and affectionate stereotyping of Jewish caricatures may also be applicable here, I would point out that in his pronunciation he echoes that favoured byIsaac Asimov, as shown in the following Youtube video:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AWJJnQybZlkNuttyskin (talk)01:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't revert items on a Talk page! That's for users to discuss thoughts that occur to them concerning the article's subject. I posted my observations regarding Isaac Asimov's pronunciation of "robot" in good faith, because 1.) he was a Science Fiction author who wrote about robots (among other things); 2.) he was very visible (and audible!) in the media and at conventions, where fans would very likely have heard him speak; and 3.) the article's subject concerns a character from a Science Fiction TV show that is very knowing and ironic in its awareness of genre tropes, and also very big on pop-culture references.

I don't know what higher purpose you thought you were serving when you deleted my Talk item, but please resist the urge to indulge in it future.

Nuttyskin (talk)12:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic ("thoughts that occur to (users) concerning the article's subject"). Your observations cannot be included in the article; they are off topic. It is common to simply delete discussion clearly about the article subject itself instead of its treatment in the article. All of this is discussed atWP:TPG which explains Wikipedia's guidelines on the issue. -SummerPhD^v2.014:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree as it would not seem impossible to integrate this observation into the article, for example if this shared pronounciation with what I would assume to be a relevant researcher would provide further insights into this fictional character and or their voice actor. I understand that contributors are responsible for a certain amount of caution but the policy that you quote is a tricky one and one could claim that it is void as it is not seldomly used in overly repressive ways.lmaxmai 26 June 2019 (UTC)

As there are zero reliable sources discussing this in relation to the show, any addition based on this observation would beWP:OR. There is nothing to change/add to an article based on an editor's observation/thoughts on the topic. -SummerPhD^v2.004:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I don't challenge your decision to delete my contribution to the tootsie pop article, but I do challenge your belief that it was poor writing. How exactly was it poor writing?— Precedingunsigned comment added byDimitri Gasgenov (talk •contribs)15:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"However, this result is controversial, as it does not abide by any standard tootsie-pop-licking methodology. Thus, some researchers believe that this result is skewed, making it a potential anomaly."

"this result" - There is more than one result being discussed. As you have no follow up to any of them, your claims do not apply to just one.

"is controversial" - There is no evidence of any kind of controversy here.

"any standard tootsie-pop-licking methodology" - There is no pre-existing methodology. The sources make clear how they devised their methods.

"tootsie-pop-licking" - Tootsie Pop is a proper noun. Capitalize proper nouns in English.

"tootsie-pop-licking" - There is no reason to hyphenate here.

"some researchers" - Who are these supposed researchers? Had you not made them up, identifying them would be important.

"skewed" - This is vague enough to be meaningless.

"skewed, making it a potential anomaly" - At this point, it was obvious that (in addition to the whole thing being made up) you do no know the meanings of the words "skewed", "potential" and/or "anomaly".

That was actually kinda fun. Thanks. Now don't do it again. -SummerPhD^v2.016:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome— Precedingunsigned comment added byDimitri Gasgenov (talk •contribs)16:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you go on the page ofBattleship Potemkin it reads "Battleship Potemkin is a 1925 Sovietsilent film", while on the page ofCarol it reads "Carol is a 2015drama film". It does not mention LGBT as a genre. --Mazewaxie09:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,Battleship Potemkin is a silent film, a black and white film, a Russian film, a classic film, an influential film, an early film, a well-known film, etc. Some of these are mentioned in the film's article, some are not. They are, nevertheless, true. Are they "genres"?

Incidentally, the article, siting the BFI source, says it is "the bestLGBT film." Is LGBTQ a film genre? Dartmouth says it is.[6] -SummerPhD^v2.016:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your querry:

Hello, Abracadabra4201, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Writersupreme (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. SummerPhDv2.0 17:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply:

I do not know, nor have heard of before, of any user named "Writersupreme". Hence I cannot possibly conduct any joint activity with him / her.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAbracadabra4201 (talk •contribs) 14:33, July 2, 2019 (UTC)

Given the number of unlikely coincidences that would need to have occurred, I am quite certain a quicksockpuppetry case would resolve the issue. Given the resolution of your next issue, however, I don't think I'll need to bother. -SummerPhD^v2.018:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your querry:

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Alcohol and health, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. SummerPhDv2.0 17:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply:

Please describe any offensive action taken by me in this regard. We should discuss it like two gentlemen.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAbracadabra4201 (talk •contribs) 14:33, July 2, 2019 (UTC)

I am not a "gentleman".

The website you have been adding links to is not areliable source. It cannot be used as a source in any Wikipedia article and should not be linked from any article. If you continue to link to the site, I'll take additional steps as necessary.

As your purpose here is to promote your website, you are clearlynot here to build an encyclopedia. -SummerPhD^v2.019:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did I just personally offend you?Anyways, I took down all that I had added, including new ones after that. Hopefully, there aren't any left.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAbracadabra4201 (talk •contribs)14:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A query. If the website's illegit, can't it be simply blacklisted?— Precedingunsigned comment added byAbracadabra4201 (talk •contribs)19:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That said, as there are billions of such sites and each addition adds a tiny fraction of a second to page loads, we usually don't bother; eventually that adds up.

Further, since reliability is based on context, some sites are of limited utility. While we wouldn't cite, for example, an entrepreneur's personal blog for claims their product is going to save the world, we might use it for basic, non-controversial info about them or their company. -SummerPhD^v2.020:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got a message from you alerting me to the removal of an edit I put in the "Binders full of women" page. The message suggested the edit I created did not contribute constructively. I am wondering what about the post should be improved to contribute constructively? For your convenience, here is the post I added:

"In season 3 episode 3 of Hulu's The Handmaid's Tale, titled "Useful", Commander Lawrence says "Binders full of women" in reference to (actual, physical) binders in his hands which are full of profiles of women he can choose from to fill a vacant position in his household. In this show women are objects owned by men. This line occurs at 23:25 into the episode."

Based on the link you sent with your message, I have looked at my contribution for following conventions, being on-topic, citing sources, clarity, efficiency, and organized under the correct sub-heading in the artcle. I would understand your objection to this contribution better with further clarification. Thank you

24.181.229.252 (talk)02:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)10cows[reply]

The talk page discussion I mentioned is atTalk:Binders_full_of_women. -SummerPhD^v2.003:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is regarding the edit I made on thehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_(1997_American_film) page. I forgot to source the film at first but I have since done that. On the official page on Box Office Mojo you can see that the actual numbers the movie has made, somebody has been falsely changing it for some reason.^[1] also you can just look on the actual "Contact" film page at the bottom under "Box Office" it shows you exactly how much money the film made domestic and international for it's worldwide total of $171.1 million dollars. Somebody recently has simply been changing the first number of the box office total to three and not sourcing this information. Which is violating the page and information, I am simply re-editing it to the actual total box office where at the bottom of the article it is sourced already under box office mojo, I suggest you look at the sources that I have put and see for yourself, Thanks.— Precedingunsigned comment added byJayman6273737 (talk •contribs) 11:53, July 10, 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the source you added does resolve that problem. Thank you.

The note I added to your talk page is for thesynthesis you added in saying the film was "well received by critics", as I hoped my edit summary would have made clear.[7]

Film review summaries are a recurring problem. The review aggregators (Rotten Tomatoes, Metacrtic, etc.) assign summaries ("generally positive", "mixed or average", etc.) by way of an algorithm. As a result, we can't cite that piece as a reliable source (which requires editorial oversight). All we can do is quote it with inline attribution. This leads to some editors adding their own interpretations ("mixed to positive", "mostly negative", "well received", etc.). As there is no reliable source to individually back up the statement, it is "synthesis" (as described atWP:SYN) and cannot be used. -SummerPhD^v2.016:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'd like to post the link in the edit summary to the Crush version of the song as it is anotable cover, but do not know how to do this.

I am limited due to the fact I am using JAWS, a screen-reader and can't in-line cite it right now.

For reasons I explain on my talkpage I can't create an account now, though I'd like to.

Anyway, do you know how I can get a link to that cover?

thanks.

38.111.120.74 (talk)21:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also I was about to request an account named Nahom Tesfay, my name, but due to backlog I'd have to wait several months. thanks.

38.111.120.74 (talk)21:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cover in question does not seem to be notable. I do not doubt that itexists, as a link to Apple Music would demonstrate, but the guideline in question,WP:COVERSONG demands substantially more.

I understand you won't be responding to this for several days, as you are currently blocked for disruptive editing. I also note that you currently seem to be pursuing some kind of campaign against U.S. editors on your talk page. You will, of course, receive notes from around the world regarding your edits and are expected to communicate with other users without regard to your prejudices. -SummerPhD^v2.021:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have an oversion to some U.S. editors, not all.

It is true I trust UK admins way way way more tha nU.S. admins, but that is due t omy pro UK bias, give nthat after my family flead Eritrea during the start of the conflict with Ethiopia, it was the UK that game us a home in Southend-On-Sea then later London.

The U.s. states I have problems with happen to include Dermies's state Alabama, due to its anti feminist and anti abortion and right-wing politics.

I feel the same about Georgia, Texas and a few othe rright-wing states. I know it's not all people from the states I named but it's enough that these laws and views are strong there.

As I explain on the talk page of an admin I trust, Amakuru, I may be uninformed to some degree as I've never so much as set a toe on the U.S. soil, and I'venever met a friendly American in my 28 years on this earth.

So I do not hate all of th eU.S. editors and admins, but I just have a minor oversion to those from overly right republican areas. I say overly right to not include all republicans.

About the Apple music thing, I guess it'll take some gifuring out.

I'm waiting on an account, did the request thing but it says 4 month backlog, and I'm not dealing wit hcomplaints about lack on in-line citations, because it's not my fault that the captcha does not have an accessible option. It's Wikipedia's fault fo rbeing so anti 3rd party.

thanks.38.111.120.74 (talk)08:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your prejudice has no weight here. Where someone lives is not an acceptable reason for you to not treat them with the same respect and civility we expect you to treat all editors.

A link to Apple Music will not make the cover noteworthy. The cover failsWP:COVERSONG and should not be included in the article. If you disagree, you will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. -SummerPhD^v2.017:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have

to realize it is how I was raised, Southern U.S. is ebad, England is good.

Unlearning things I've been tought as a kid is far from easy.

38.111.120.74 (talk)20:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care where your prejudice came from. It has no place here. -SummerPhD^v2.022:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So even if the person is a racist Alabaman rightwing trump supporter who thinks Eritrea is a bleep hole, they still get to tell me what to do on Wikipedia?38.111.120.74 (talk)03:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor's race, religion, ancestry, orientation, identity, age, eye color, political affiliation, favorite flavor of ice cream, need for corrective lenses and a million other things has nothing to do with it. Labeling another user a "racist" because of where they were born has me wondering if you aren't simply trolling. -SummerPhD^v2.017:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing more than 30 edits,but i still don't know how to edit correctly,can you help me?,thanks ;-)Kairipines (talk)03:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PILLARS is a good place to start. Everything else is just commentary.

Consideradopt-a-user. -SummerPhD^v2.017:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Weren't you one of those people who was in favor keepingSgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on thelist of music considered the worst?Well about that...Rjrya395 (talk)21:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the lesson here is threefold: 1) Don't make personal attacks. 2) When called on making personal attacks, don't restore them. 3) When called on it a second time, don't restore them again.[8] -SummerPhD^v2.023:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make that fourfold. -SummerPhD^v2.003:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you got anything to say?Rjrya395 (talk)02:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I commented in the discussion. Yes, I see there is a faction that wants to removeSgt. Pepper... and thinks that cooking the criteria with the specific aim of excluding it is a legitimate approach. It's not. It's aNo true Scotsman argument. "This is a list of music considered the worst by professional music critics. By 'professional music critic' we mean any paid music critic who admitsSgt. Pepper... is the greatest recording in history."

You disagree. You went personal. You were called on it. You were blocked. You decided to keep going. That didn't help.

What are you hoping for here? -SummerPhD^v2.003:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now we're done here. -SummerPhD^v2.015:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been six years and counting since the 2013 Ender's Game film is released. I was expecting a TV series, but we've got is none. Why? --183.171.64.225 (talk)19:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way of knowing.

What the lack of a TV series has to do with your "once-in-a-lifetime" claim is beyond me. -SummerPhD^v2.021:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Forgive me if I'm informing you of things you already know but, we now have clear guidance atWP:SONGTRIVIA (summarised from multiple policies and guidelines) to reference when dealing withthis kind of stuff. Gotta love those handy shortcuts; they make potential arguments so much easier to handle :DFred Gandt ·talk ·contribs14:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you undid an edit I did onPattie Boyd's page. I added the category victims of domestic abuse. I didn't think I had to add a citation since it was already mentioned in the article that Eric Clapton was violent towards her. I have since added a citation and I re-added the category.Twixister (talk)05:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are you going to delete the information I added, which is accurate (if you’re from Los Angeles you know), and leave up the false information that they beef with crips as if Crips were one gang and they all beef with the 18 Streets. Don’t correct me on a subject you have no knowledge of. Thank you— Precedingunsigned comment added byAnonymous1028 (talk •contribs)01:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert changes you make to Wikipedia which do not conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

You might be THE recognized expert on all things related to the 18th Street Gang. You might be an outright vandal, adding false and disparaging claims. You might know some things and be mistaken about some other things. I might be the foremost scholar on street gangs or know nothing whatsoever about gangs. Or both of us could be somewhere between those extremes.

Wikipedia does not know who either one of us is and how to weigh what you think the article should say vs. what anyone else thinks it should say. Instead, we cite sources. Long story short: the article should say what independent reliable sources say. If you make changes to an article and you don't cite your sources,anyone can revert your change or remove the information. SeeWP:V for more information. Ask for help here, on your talk page or on the article's talk page if you don't understand something or aren't sure what to do. -SummerPhD^v2.002:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is the talk page from Dancing in the Dark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dancing_in_the_Dark_(Bruce_Springsteen_song)

I described problem first

Release dateWe had a release date of May 26, 1984, this was actually the date this song entered the Billboard charts (at no 36); it was in top 10 two weeks later the other release date we had was May 3, 1984, and several internet sites copied our information, which is something we should always be aware of when posting data I have serious problem with this date; the correct date should be at least 2 weeks later. It would never take 23 days between release and chart for Springsteen I have all the Billboard records, I will compare the two data points for his other singles, and some other artists I am scanning my 48 Bruce Springsteen books for information on this; Unfortunately, much easier to get recording info than release info David Tilson benchwarrant17@yahoo.com Please contact me with any clues or additional points of view PS I changed date to May 1984 for now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillywilly17 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional Information The 12" single was released May 9, 1984 and was the biggest selling 12" single in the U.S.A. that year. Not sure if this is the same release date. Back in these days, we did not yet have CD singles, full-size CDs were coming or just started (have to look it up) so we still had 7" 45rpm singles, right? I will check, all this off top of my head

The first commercially released CD Single was Angeline by John Martyn released on 1 February 1986.[3]

Although 7 inches remained the standard size for vinyl singles, 12-inch singles were introduced for use by DJs in discos in the 1970s. The longer playing time of these singles allowed the inclusion of extended dance mixes of tracks. In addition, the larger surface area of the 12-inch discs allowed for wider grooves (larger amplitude) and greater separation between grooves, the latter of which results in less cross-talk. Consequently, they are less susceptible to wear and scratches. The 12-inch single is still considered a standard format for dance music, though its popularity has declined in recent years.

May 3 might end up being correct, too bad person who entered that did not cite source! Tillywilly17 (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The May 26 date is definitely wrong that was day it entered Billboard chart

this date is not correct either May 9, 1984

the correct date is May 3, 1984 the date Wickipedia had - If you look way back, you will see that was originally there

I am sorry about changing the secondary date on Born In the USA, I got nervous thinking people woukd read May 26

the— Precedingunsigned comment added byTillywilly17 (talk •contribs)02:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he passesWP:SPS under the condition of being aNational Film Award for Best Film Critic winner, the fact that he was written forThe Hindu (as a full-time writer, not guest) and currently works for Film Companion.Kailash29792(talk)11:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I overreacted to a new editor adding links to a blog and using theWP:PEACOCK label "prominent". -SummerPhD^v2.011:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review and comment onthis RfC, please? Many thanks. --Zefr (talk)15:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time to review and comment atTalk:Paul Stamets. I requested your review of this RfC issue due to your fair-minded discussion atTalk:Coconut oil andTalk:Reiki, among others where you and I have participated. AtTalk:Paul Stamets where you said Stamets isverifiably a mycologist, my point in the discussion above the RfC is that there is no academic verification of Stamets as a degree-defined mycologist, an academic title and discipline that would require a PhD. There is noWP:V for him as a mycologist. He is a hobbyist focused on mushrooms the way a gardener (with no botany degree) is focused on flowers. I interpreted theSeattle Times andNY Times as not verifying his credentials, but rather referring to him as a mycologist, ashe does himself on his commercial webpage. Thanks again for the effort. --Zefr (talk)22:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I put me on the list because I was the first women of color mechanic for TWA, there were 3 others after me. If I did it incorrectly please let me know so I can go back on the list. I’m researching to find out if I was first for all major airlines, but I was for TWA— Precedingunsigned comment added byLocalber (talk •contribs)22:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Localber

(FYI: Please add new talk page comments to thebottom of pages, not the top. Depending on your settings, there should be a tab at the top of the page titled "New section which allows you to do this more easily.)

Your edit added your achievement to the article, "First African American Woman Mechanic for Major Commercial Airline: [Carolyn Burton] Trans World Airlines (TWA)."

There are several problems with this entry.

In general, most "List of..." articles are limited tonotable entries. For example,List of people from New York City obvious does not (could not,should not) include every person from New York City. It is limited to notable people; those who have their own article on Wikipedia.Harry Belafonte yes,my aunt Edna no. Without discussing the merits of your claim specifically, this limits the article.Jackie Robinson becoming the first African-American to play Major League Baseball in the modern (post-nadir) era was seen by many as a turning point. This brings up the second point.

Everything in Wikipedia should beverifiable. The information must be published in independent reliable sources. Jackie Robinson's achievement was (and repeatedly still is) reported in such sources. For the most part, they are cited in the subjects' individual articles. Who says Robinson was the first? If you check his article, you will find numerous sources backing up the claim. Those sources arereliable (published by a source with an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: theNew York Times yes,Breitbart News no) and independent of the subject (not written by Robinson, his friends and family, his manager, etc.

Next, it is generally a bad idea to write about yourself in Wikipedia. Please seeWikipedia:Autobiography for more detail.

If you still feel your entry belongs in the article, I wouldstrongly encourage you to follow the guidelines outlined atWikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#COI_editing. As the article now stands, we would need tohave an article about you before you could be added. -SummerPhD^v2.001:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep an eye of the page? Make sure who violatesWP:SYNTH.2402:1980:8240:C6B4:3E0D:2886:BFB4:D3E9 (talk)15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, anonymous-editor-who-is-almost-certainly-a-banned-editor. I see you are here to continue your crusade against another banned editor. That crusade -- and failure to heed warnings -- is what got you banned.

No, I will not do anything for you. You'll need to log on under your original account and ask to be unblocked. (I am going to take one look at the article and decide to undo your edits or not. -SummerPhD^v2.003:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Long time no read! Anyway, there's a problem. Once again, another editor has made a big removal in theList of superhero television series. He/she says the shows are self-evidently non-superhero shows. It appears this editor's removal is due to personal opinions; plus, the editor is ignoring the sources and has left a big mess. The editor's name isUser:Kchishol1970. May I have permission to restore it? God bless!!!Sparkles32 (talk)23:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "permission". (Incidentally, I'm not an admin, not that that is particularly relevant.) I'll take a quick look and see what's what.

BTW, you seem to have been doing a lot of work on the at article. Thanks! -SummerPhD^v2.001:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! And thanks to you as well! God bless!!!Sparkles32 (talk)02:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You left an edit summary on my Talk page that reads "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:Smooth jazz". Would you quote the sections from my posts that you consider to be personal attacks? Second, would you regard the comment "It's a notable topic. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not living in this universe" as a personal attack? I'm still trying to learn what constitutes a personal attack and incivility on Wikipedia, with the intent to correct past mistakes. This is not a request for linked acronyms. I would like you to explain the situation in your words in plain, clear language. Thank you very much for answering my questions.
–Vmavanti (talk)02:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in exploring this with you. Wikipedia's civility guidelines -- which have been linked for you several times and explained -- are sufficiently clear.

Further, I am not particularly moved by your attempt to abandon individual agency. You are responsible for your own actions. -SummerPhD^v2.003:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know know what to make of these comments or how they can be considered acceptable responses on Wikipedia. I didn't ask for "exploration". I asked two simple, direct questions that require little time to answer. Nowhere have I "abandoned agency" if you are suggesting I am trying to avoid responsibility. If I were irresponsible, I would be avoiding the subject, not talking about it. For starters, I have four years of work and 75,000 edits that say I am responsible. My willingness to engage in discussion, debate, to understand and improve are signs of responsibility. I don't see how editors can accuse someone of personal attacks and incivility without being specific. I disagree that it is enough to show someone a link to the documentation. I have discussed with editors over the years that the documentation can be confusing and contradictory. I don't understand how excluding or forbidding sincere, honest talk from Talk pages benefits anyone.
–Vmavanti (talk)12:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

The purpose of an article's talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article. Article talk pages should not be used as platforms for your personal views. -SummerPhD^v2.015:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colleague,
   Your indiscriminate reversion onSilent Running is unacceptable. We need discuss no further for now, if you do a block self-revert, and shape up -- at least as concerns my edits. Alternatively,

1. mentally segregate my edit into segments corresponding to those that are made manifest by the diff display,
2. restore (or at least clearly identify) the hills you don't consider worth defending),
   

and I will, notwithstanding, carefully reconsider even those portions before restoring them, and consider entering further collegial dialogue with you about any remaining unrestored segments that you address promptly on a segment-by-segment basis. Yeah, if you'd like, in good faith, to defendsome of them with exactly the samespecific argument(s), I probably won't need to be hard-nosed about that.
   This could "... be the beginning of a great friendship."
Collegially,
--JerzyA (talk)22:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your unexplained edits were, as nearly as I could tell, not an improvement. The rambling hidden comments were clearly not encyclopedic additions.

If you would like to work on addressing the problems with your additions, we are now up to the "D" inWP:BRD; you boldly made changes, I reverted them, now we discuss them on the article's talk page.

As your changes seem to cover a lot of ground, I encourage you to "partialize": break your changes down into pieces, pick one piece to start with and -- as directly and succinctly as possible -- explain what you feel should be changed and why. -SummerPhD^v2.000:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2601:644:4301:xxx added "mixed reviews" or something in "Critical reception" section which violatesWP:SYNTH. I'd initially reverted but that blindly rollbacker restored it back. Would you like to figure it out?2402:1980:824B:3413:3AC8:A644:A85F:29B2 (talk)11:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of banned users looking for registered users to edit on their behalf, no, I won't. -SummerPhD^v2.017:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me and the rest of the world how exactly Salafism "developed... as a response to Western European imperialism" is a true statement from a reputable source. This is not spoken as an opinion, nor is there a counter-balancing opinion, so this is clearly being spoken as a statement of fact."Western European Imperialism" had nothing to do with Salafism, nor did Salafism develop in the 19th century. Salafism has existed throughout the entire history of Islam. All Islamic Caliphates have been governed by Salafists. A Caliphate is, by nature, an Islamic Empire that wages Jihad against ALL non-Muslims, as commanded by Muhammad in the Koran. Thus, Salafism dates back to Muhammad. Nor was there any discernible departure from Salafism in the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th or 18th centuries. The article as it stands now suggest that Western Civilization did something to cause Salafism in the 19th century. This is an outright lie, which can be proven by the reality of the relationship between Western Civilization, Islam and the rest of the world during this period. Islam was actively invading, conquering, forcibly converting, occupying and enslaving millions of Europeans during the period from the 13th through the 19th century, until the Ottoman Empire was defeated in WW1. All the while, the Islamic invaders' governments and leaders were as Salafist as one can be. They conquered all of Greece, all of Israel, all of Constantinople and the Pontus, all of Ionia, all of Spain, all of Portugal, and much of Italy, Eastern Europe, Asia, North Africa, and India. Salafism was as much or more influenced by the Empires of Egypt, Persia, Parthia, Babylon, Germany (its ally in WW1 and WW2),India, Russia, Africa, China and Mongolia as it was by Western Civilization, so why are those empires not listed as the reason for the emergence of Salafism, at least on par with Western Civilization? Perhaps you are unaware, but there is a reason why Islamic Caliphates have tended to lay the blame for their problems on certain regions. It is because those regions are the Jihadist Salafists' primary targets for terror attacks and invasion, because they consider those regions to be the greatest barriers to their efforts to conquer all of mankind and the entire world, as the Koran commands them to. They are the perpetrators of the crime, not the victims as they like to claim. Is it Wikipedia's position that al-Baghdadi and Bin Laden were heroes and martyrs who died in a just and righteous fight against western imperialists? It certainly sounds that way when I read your articles, which makes me wonder if someone like al-Baghdadi wrote the article, then preserved it in the editorial process and the arbitration committee, in spite of the many efforts prior to my own to remedy the lies, the bias, the deception, the Jihadist propaganda and the injustice spoken in your article. That's certainly what that article sounds like when it is phrased the way it currently is. This needs to stop. The article is not neutral. The article does not contain all sides of the mainstream opinions. The article presents a lie as if it was a fact. The article appears to lay the blame on the Greeks, Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese, Macedonians, and Jews for the Islamic invasion and occupation of their countries for centuries, supposedly because they were western imperialists themselves, and therefore Salafism emerged because of what they did, deservedly so, and that's why all those European nations and peoples lost their land and their liberty for centuries, right Wikipedia? Then in WW1, those lousy Western Imperialists dared to prevent the German-Islamist/Salafist powers from conquering all of the rest of Europe, and that's why Salafism came into being, right Wikipedia? This is outrageous. Correct the article or I will inform those who need to know that Wikipedia is promoting Jihadist propaganda and thus encouraging attacks on Western targets. This ends here.174.126.168.126 (talk)04:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not read your wall of text.

So far, I have said absolutely nothing about he article's content.

I am addressing your disruptive editing. Whether you are right, wrong or somewhere in between is immaterial at this point. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked from editing again.

As you seem to feel very strongly about the article content (as you have with previous articles you have been involved with), you may wish to take a break from editing and return when you feel to can discuss the issues briefly and succinctly.

Rather than a long wall of text, try breaking the issue down into smaller pieces and start with one of those pieces using the following formats:

• The article says "FU is BAR" but we don't have a source stating that. We should remove the claim.
• The source cited, "FUBAR Monthly" is not a reliable source. It is merely a blog. We should remove that source and claims sourced to it.
• The article says "FU is BAR" but the source cited says "FU is not BAR". We should correct that.
• The reliable source cited says "FU is BAR" but another source, "HHGTTG" says "FU is not BAR". We should include that as well.

If, instead, you continue as you have been, you will be blocked from editing again. -SummerPhD^v2.017:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a false statement,SummerPhD^v2.0, and I think you know it. How exactly is removing a demonstrably false, biased, non-neutral, non-consensus statement that is at best an opinion, at worst an outright lie designed to promote global terrorism, disruptive? My removal of that statement was entirely appropriate, and I and many others will continue to demand that you remove the statement until you do so. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON THAT STATEMENT, BY EDITORS OR BY SCHOLARS, therefore Wikipedia policies require that you remove it, and/or include the converse opinion, which is, by the way, the opinion of the majority of humanity and scholars. Remove the comment immediately, or prove that the comment has the consensus of the community and scholars, which is impossible, because there is no such consensus, and if anything, the consensus is just the opposite of what the article says. This fact is evident from both the talk page and all of the articles about Islam, Islamic imperialism, Islamic Salafist behavior that persisted long before the 19th century, and Islamic invasions and aggression toward not only Europe, but every civilization they came in contact with. That is not an opinion. That is factual, well-established history, which can be found in hundreds of Wikipedia articles' sources. Your refusal to read my comment, complaint, justification and request for arbitration is unprofessional and contrary to your duties to the Wikipedia community commensurate with your office.174.126.168.126 (talk)22:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "duties...commensurate with (my) office"? Please tell me what the duties of my office are...I'd be interested to hear.

In the meantime, your edits were disruptive. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked from editing.

If you wish to discuss the content of the article, please use the article's talk page. -SummerPhD^v2.000:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

174.126.168.126 has been blocked for BATTLE. -SummerPhD^v2.004:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! One of my friends insists that mac and cheese is classified as a soup and I, a scholar, could not disagree more. So, of course, I felt the need to edit the wikipedia article to include the fact that mac and cheese is NOT and will NEVER BE a soup, to prove my point. Am I wrong in saying this?

-Kelly CandleKellymccandle (talk)02:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kellymccandle,

You were wrong to add it to Wikipedia. Independent reliable sources do not discuss whether or not mac & cheese is a soup, so Wikipedia has nothing to say on the subject. -SummerPhD^v2.003:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The movie Split was released theatrically in 2017, not 2016. Usually movies are described with their theatrical release date, not the year it premiered.Alexis.rans (talk)02:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with describing it as a 2016 film, please open a discussion of the issue on the article's talk page. In addition to changing the text of the article (as you did), the article would need to be moved. The article is not at "Split (2017 Movie)". It's atSplit (2016 American film).

Why "...2016..."? As the article says, "The film premiered at Fantastic Fest on September 26, 2016...". Per MOS, "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings."WP:FILMRELEASE -SummerPhD^v2.003:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your follow up atThe Dice Man book's article. I take your word for the fact that the Pop culture section should be redacted. But perhaps return the one entry that did have a citation? And perhaps the couple that also appear in the box at article end, or are otherwise wikilinked? Leave it to you. A stub of a section, even with only one entry, but with a citation, might set the momentum in a good direction. Cheers. And sorry to hear about your unexpected break with the past.50.252.127.89 (talk)01:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of citations. Most references to a subject in popular culture are simply trivial.

Imagine the topic were Richard Nixon. There are countless films, TV shows, novels, exposes, songs, album titles, operas, cartoons, etc. that mention or discuss Nixon. However, none of them are meaningful subjects when discussing Nixon. Yes, an article aboutNixon in China would naturally discuss Nixon -- it's hard to say anything meaningful about the opera without discussing Nixon. The reverse is not true: the overwhelming majority of sources about Richard Nixon do not discuss that opera,Madman Across the Water, "Ohio" orhis head living in a jar in the 23rd century.

A rare instance where a reference in popular culture is meaningful is the skits onSaturday Night Live where Chevy Chase imitated Gerald Ford. Why is that included atGerald Ford? Because it has a meaningful part in the story of Ford, as he discussed in an interview with theNew York Times, cited in the article. -SummerPhD^v2.004:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with you—most of these sections are simply unsourced editor WP:OR relating personal experience. On the oither hand, I do believe we need a "Critical response" section, because articles, everywhere—Wikipedia and in the popular media—say things like "it was critically well received" without providing any source. At the same time, the one academic that had a look at this subject in 2015 found that there was no real research justification for the hyperbole (i.e., content along the lines that it was a life-changing novel for an entire generation). As well, people characterise the work as being a missive that is anti-psychiatry, when the evidence for the time is that, historically, this was not a period with such attitudes, but in fact just the opposite (and at least one ofThe Guardian exposes states this). So, I think the question is begged—what have informed people about that period in history, and about this genre/area ofaleatory had to say about the origins of the ideas, and then the way in which Cockcroft handled them? And this question can be asked twice—what did they think at the time of its original publication, and what are critics and profs now saying, with the perspective of the decades since? My hunch is that, as a publication by a small house, it engendered little response in the U.S., initially, but that as it picked up in Europe, someone stateside had something to say. But this is research on the body of writing, pre-internet, and so it will take a while to flesh out. Meanwhile, I think I will put the critical response section back in, if empty—I only left the librarian statement in, to keep the section in, and not empty—so that there is a place to put in critical response information as it is found (and to encourage people to look for it). Cheers. An old Prof, still in saddle.2601:246:C700:9B0:8940:B5F:88C:155 (talk)04:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have recently oppened a talk section on Beyoncé and Jay-Z's collaborative album "Everything is Love" to clarify if the project should be labeled as a joint album or a debut album by "The Carters". Can you help me to clarify this matter, please?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Everything_Is_Love

186.248.94.205 (talk)17:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Summer. 203.63.75.145 posted inTalk:See You Again#Writers in September, but along with the others are European-located IPs for those years. It looks to me like they have multipleXboxmanwar socks. Same asTalk:Rebel Heart.2402:1980:24E:A9D3:95E7:CFEE:9803:4291 (talk)16:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous banned editors editing anonymously -- often in disputes with other banned editors editing anonymously. Given the frequency with which they show up here asking me to edit on their behalf, I have a longstanding of not getting involved. -SummerPhD^v2.020:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... do you revert uselessly my contribution here[9] ? --ComputerHotline (talk)08:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition, "Some action cams are been used in this film.", has several problems, any one of which would be reason enough to remove it.

1) The grammar is bad enough that I cannot be certain enough what you were trying to say to be able to correct it. Presumably, you meant "Action cameras were used to film some segments." However, you might have meant that a character uses action cameras or something else. Assuming English isn't your primary language, you might be more successful editing Wikipedia in one of the [www.wikipedia.org hundreds of other languages available].

2) It seems to be a random bit of trivia, placed randomly in the article. Assuming you were saying how parts of the film were shot, where you placed it has no relation to anything else being discussed.

3) It is unsourced. One of thepillars of the project isverifiability. When material is not sourced, we have no way of knowing if it is true and significant. Maybe you got it from a documentary on the making of the film that discusses the choice of action cameras as an important aspect of the "feel of the film". Maybe you saw the film, had recently used an action camera yourself and just guessed that they were used for the film. Maybe you made it up andadded the material as a joke. There's no way to tell without fully researching what action cameras have to do withThe Martian. -SummerPhD^v2.012:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, add it yourself. Because what I say it's real. --ComputerHotline (talk)13:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you were trying to say. You will need to improve the grammar.

I do not have a source for your claim. It is your responsibility to provide one.

It may be true, but trivial. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. -SummerPhD^v2.013:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A source ???? Watch the film. And you see that. --ComputerHotline (talk)14:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I raised three issues. You may have addressed one. That leaves two more. -SummerPhD^v2.016:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked this user on 9th Dec, but on 10th Dec it was released. He started overlinking again, referhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/125.238.204.17. I have undid them all but I hope you could extend the ban to longer period. This user is very annoying. -Jay (talk)03:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Graham87 has blocked the account for 3 month -Jay (talk)03:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. I did not -- cannot -- block anyone. I requested their first block. When I saw them editing with a new IP, I reverted all of their edits and asked for them to be blocked again.[10] I expect they'll be back. -SummerPhD^v2.004:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thanks for your explanation. Perhaps you could also update the page for String Band as it doesn't currently mention anything about the possibility of having woodwinds. Cheers.— Precedingunsigned comment added by1.136.111.174 (talk)12:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A string band is an old-time music or jazz ensemble made up mainly or solely of string instrument." If it is "mainly" string instruments, there is something else there.

If you would like to research and add a fuller description toString band, feel free to do so. -SummerPhD^v2.012:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today someone registered an account,User:Privacyshattered and sent me an email. As they have not edited, I have left a note onUser talk:Privacyshattered pointing them to this discussion.

The email reads:

hi, cant do it alone; restore rocky's rec to 9-4 and here is proofhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&diff=905573901&oldid=905572814 here r referenceshttps://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&action=historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rocky_Marciano#Amateur_Record_9-4 make follow up here but dont say i wrote; write me first so we can agree on this and there are many other articles needing correction; wikipedoia is garbage as proven wikipediasucks.co but at least lets have something right!also on rm and rocky 6 page u can do new thead saying that the super fight film with ali was inspiration to rocky 6! encyclopediasupreme.org/Rocky/AliVsRocky2.pdf ali vs rocky 2 comin soon!

I have no idea who wrote this, why they are using a secondary account and why they are contacting me via email asking me to make changes for them. It would seem likely that they are trying to hide something from someone. Given the number of socks around here, that's my first guess.

In any case, I will not edit on behalf of anyone else. If you are not a banned/blocked editor and the edits are legitimate, it's certainly easier to do it yourself than try to explain it to me and have me do it. I will, however, take a look and watch for signs of socking, undeclared multiple accounts, etc. -SummerPhD^v2.001:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rocky_Marciano#Amateur_Record_9-4 claims you are a banned editor. What's the story, Privacyshattered? -SummerPhD^v2.001:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings -- this is an editor banned from all Wikimedia projects (This one, most commonly known as the "George Reeves Person" or "GRP"). He hides behind proxies, and probably has made upwards of a thousand sockpuppets since Wikipedia originally banned him in 2006. I routinely remove his stuff (unreliable original research, mainly).Antandrus(talk)02:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough. Thanks for the clarification. -SummerPhD^v2.003:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit there! I thought it would be important to mention here!UpWithJimmy (talk)20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In articles such as this one, we have very brief episode summaries of perhaps 2 or 3 sentences. Minor elements, such as the brief appearance of a backpack in the background simply does not merit coverage. Your edit seems to imply that the appearance of the backpack is what half of the episode is about. -SummerPhD^v2.023:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen other episode lists of other TV shows like Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi have trivia things like that on their summaries, so I thought it would be worth noting here. True, the Stimpy backpack behind the character's back isn't important to the plot as it is just a background thing, but I thought SOMEWHERE it should be noted. Do you know where we can add trivia stuff like this?UpWithJimmy (talk)00:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are other articles. Some of them are great. Some of them are horrible. That another article has trivia, typos, copyright violations, strange formatting or anything else does not mean that those things are good and should be in other articles.

No, I am not aware of anywhere on Wikipedia that should include that level of detail on a cartoon episode. There are, of course, other projects -- wikis dedicated to specific shows and other topics. I don't know if there is one that applies here or not. -SummerPhD^v2.001:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedMummers Parade, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesCatholic League,Native Americans andVanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say, “Bragging about your PhD is not a good look”, but, after getting a gander of your talk page, I can see that probably the least of your problems.DetroitWheels74 (talk)16:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. -SummerPhD^v2.017:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You started it, lady. And if I'm going to launch a "personal attack" on you, I'll have to take a number.DetroitWheels74 (talk)18:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not attack you. Whether or not others have attacked me,you are responsible for your own actions. -SummerPhD^v2.019:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So areyou...or do you not read the acres of complaints on your own talk page?DetroitWheels74 (talk)21:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a specific complaint, please explain. Otherwise, I think we're done here. -SummerPhD^v2.021:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed your edits is because September by Earth Wind and Fire is in fact considered a meme. I hate to source Know Your Meme but here's a whole article on ithttps://knowyourmeme.com/memes/september-by-earth-wind-fire. Here is a Vox article on aswell regarding how the meme arosehttps://www.vox.com/2018/9/21/17887990/earth-wind-fire-september-21-meme-demi-adejuyigbe. I think it would be helpful to keep the categories "Internet Memes" and "Music Memes" because that's exactly what the song is - you can see it all over the place on Sept. 21— Precedingunsigned comment added byDigiulio8 (talk •contribs)00:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the article says absolutely nothing about a meme. To someone reading the article (or brought there by one of the categories), it makes absolutely no sense. -SummerPhD^v2.000:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the articles in the categories of Internet Meme and Music Meme have no mention of the article subject being a meme. By your standards, the category should be removed from them even if it applies. I don't think it is significant even to add a whole new header regarding the fact that it is a meme - would the addition of a category not suffice? I don't understand.Digiulio8 (talk)01:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if "almost all" do not have sourced content discussing its use in a meme, it should be removed from almost all of them. If, based on the sources, there is virtually nothing to say about its use in a meme, the fact is trivial.

PerWikipedia:Categorization, categories are for essentialdefining characteristics of a topic -- "one that reliable sourcescommonly andconsistently define[1] the subject as having". Check the sources in the article. Do they commonly and consistently discuss the song being used in a meme? -SummerPhD^v2.002:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... lolDigiulio8 (talk)—Precedingundated comment added04:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your revert. Unsourced? I was careful in my edit summary to make sure everyone knew it was sourced, "adding some material from the section on political discourse to the lead, there are sources in the article for all of this". If you look at the section you'll see the sources. I never add unsourced material and I'd hate for people to think I do, would you please self-revert? Thanks.Doug Wellertalk06:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your edit summary said there were sources elsewhere in the article. Two problems:

What you say in an edit summary quickly disappears into the edit history. Wikipedia's goal ofverifiability is for readers to be be able to easily check that the information comes from a reliable source. The only way to find your note would be to dig through the article's history to find the edit and your note.

Saying there are sources elsewhere in the article does not indicate which sources. Additionally, there is the possibility that those sources elsewhere will be removed at some point in the future.

The solution here is tocite those sources with the information you are adding. -SummerPhD^v2.016:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are wrong. SeeWP:Lead. I'm a bit disappointed that you think that a former Arbitrator and current Checkuser and Oversighter might be unaware of policy. Are you really going to edit war if I just revert you in line with [WP:Lead]]? I've always thought that you were a good editor and all of this comes as a bit of a surprise.Doug Wellertalk05:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a former Arbitrator? News to me.

Anywho, checking a bit closer, I now see you were summarizing in the lead. Of course that's appropriate. I was thrown by the statements that you had sources elsewhere in the article and thought you were adding new material. Carry on. -SummerPhD^v2.012:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.Any chance you could self-revert so it doesn't look like an edit war?Doug Wellertalk 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Oops, you did it earlier, thanks again.Doug Wellertalk15:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we call End of the World classic rock, remove folk from Losing My Religion, classify Billie Jean as pop, and find a specific genre for Don't Stop Believing?— Precedingunsigned comment added byREMEndofTheWorld (talk •contribs)15:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REMEndofTheWorld is about to be blocked as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor. -SummerPhD^v2.015:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be blocked so I'm taking it to the talk page as I want to establish consensus on the genres first— Precedingunsigned comment added byREMEndofTheWorld (talk •contribs)15:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You, the person, are already indefinitely blocked. You are not eligible to edit articles or discuss content in any way. Any editor may revert any or all of your editswithout further explanation. Your only option is to log on to your original account and asked to be unblocked. -SummerPhD^v2.015:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should login to PianoManFolkRock and ask to be unblocked?— Precedingunsigned comment added byREMEndofTheWorld (talk •contribs) 10:25, February 4, 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. As you have been edit warring and socking with dozens of accounts and IP addresses, it is very unlikely you will be unblocked right now. You might, however, be given the [[WP:SO|standard offer, offering you a way to become a productive editor.

In the meantime, stop editing. Every edit you make is just another violation of your block and, as you should have realized by now, isn't going to last anyway. -SummerPhD^v2.015:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been reported to an adminSummerPhDv2.0? We need to put an end to these disruptive edits ASAP!Robvanvee15:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a note at ARV and I've added this account to the extensive sock case already underway. -SummerPhD^v2.015:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually sourced the genre for Billie Jean!— Precedingunsigned comment added byREMEndofTheWorld (talk •contribs)15:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to edit in defiance of a standing block. Your edit will be reverted. Stop editing, log on to your original account and follow the directions to request an unblock. -SummerPhD^v2.015:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REMEndofTheWorld has been indefinitely blocked as a sock, perWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PianoManFolkRock. -SummerPhD^v2.015:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPI could take a while. Is it not worth taking it to the last blocking admin or requesting page protection until they are re-indeffed?Robvanvee15:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the note right before your last comment. -SummerPhD^v2.015:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something. I'd just like to put an end to the constant back and forth which is why I'm suggesting temporary page protection.Robvanvee15:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The various accounts and IPs have been blocked (though more will certainly surface). Several of the regular targets have been protected several times over the past couple of months, with the editor adding targets while waiting for the protection to end. At some point, someone will either get lucky and discover a blockable range with limited collateral damage or will file an abuse request with their ISP.

At the moment, it's a game a whack-a-mole, likely withsomeone who just doesn't understand and hasn't figured out all of their efforts have been wasted. So long as Wikipedia allows anonymous editing, there is little else we can do. -SummerPhD^v2.016:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aah! Thanks for the explanation.Robvanvee16:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of evidence of less-than-innocence involved, butnothing to discuss openly.DMacks (talk)20:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the information on the 2Pac Better Dayz site. Someone else did and they spelled a couple of things wrong so I was only fixing the wording.WilliamTFrank (talk)14:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yourestored unsourced information I had removed. In doing so, the addition of the information became yours. Please do not add unsourced information to articles. -SummerPhD^v2.020:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope this is the right way to notify you that I have requested dispute resolution for the Reiki article, specifically regarding using the NIH definition for Reiki.Pamxz (talk)22:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at thenoticeboard regarding NIH definition. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Needs Work".The discussion is about the topicReiki. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Pamxz (talk)22:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one that thinksthese edits are quite similar to the genre-warrior sock?User:DMacks,User:EvergreenFir, you two have also been involved. It seems like a pretty suspicious article overlap.^Talk04:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for showing up on my page and arrogantly telling me what to do. I added something with the intention of noting a link between the credits on Ozark and those of The Wild Wild West in a section on the opening credits where they were already being discussed, but I guess you are some Wikipedia god who will tell other people what to contribute on a TALK page. Gosh, we are SO lucky! ````GTGeek88 (talk)20:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GTGeek88: Please note, I have moved your comment from my user page to my talk page.

Thecomment I left on your talk page was not written by me. It is a consensus note used throughout the project to notify editors of common situations. If you feel the text is "arrogant", you may wish to discuss the issue at thevillage pump to perhaps reword the note to sound more welcoming.

Thecomment you made on the Ozark (TV series) talk page was, IMO, entirely focused on your opinion of something related to the show. Wikipedia isnot a forum for general discussion of article's topics. Article talk pages are intended to be used to discuss sourced improvements to their associated articles.

If you have further concerns regarding talk pages, please reviewWikipedia's talk page guidelines.

If you feel my use of a consensus warning notice was out of line and needs further attention, feel free to review some of your options atWP:CONDUCTDISPUTE.

Please also note thatcomment here, along with the associated edit summary, constitutes a personal attack.Such attacks are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. -SummerPhD^v2.023:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new - I don't understand why you keep reverting my change - Im not say she isn't black, I just rearrange the text. For the reason I cited with the change - "while she may have partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa by way of her father, its misleading to lead with she is African American, given her phenotype and birth mother."ADOS MMXX (talk)14:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not "keep reverting (your) change". I reverted it once. You bumped African American to the end and removed a raft of AA categories without explanation of any kind.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimora_Lee_Simmons&type=revision&diff=946420506&oldid=945450390&diffmode=source I explained that I was reverting "Unexplained changes".

Then you returned with a verbose,WP:OR explanation involving your definitions and observations.[11] Another editor,Praxidicae, reverted you, referring you to "discussion" (the talk page, where discussion cites the sources saying she is half African American and trying to figure out weightings for Korean/Japanese, based on the sources.

"In her book Fabulousity she stated that she was 1/2 black and half mixed-Asian..." says the talk page. I personally see the reliable source,People, states "...whose father is African-American and mother is Japanese-American,..."[12]

Phenotype is not an argument, it isWP:OR. Also OR: "...may have partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa..." In any case, to make any change to this section, you will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and establish a consensus to do so. -SummerPhD^v2.015:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit that explicitly calls them a hip hop, pop, R&B and dance-pop group and said it had been discussed on the talk page; there is little to none evidence on the group’s talk page saying as to it, also when you reverted it back to your preferred version, you haven’t even checked any facts:1) Billboard’s review for them being hip hop reverts to a 404 error/dead page, whereas the Wall Street Journal’s article is still active and explicitly calls the group a hip-hop [[[sic]]] group.

2) Have you ever read the source for pop, dance-pop and EDM? I take it you haven’t as you would’ve seen this:MainstreamEDM is a marriage made in heaven with mainstream pop. Calvin Harris reflects back to a moment in pop history in 2011 when a combination of major artists including Lady Gaga, Black Eyed Peas and David Guetta were all hitting the top of the charts with EDM-heavy tracks. Whilst Europe has been partying for decades, the US – a sleeping giant in the EDM world – suddenly woke up. Collaborations with EDM Producers and the biggest names in pop became commonplace. Calvin Harris alone has worked with Rhianna, Ellie Goulding and Florence. Dance music took over the charts Stateside and Pop EDM was born, becoming the mainstream sound listened to on the school run and office commute. Pop EDM’s success is largely a result of fusing the genius of hit song writing with hook-laden electronic soundtracks. And doesn’t call them pop, dance-pop or EDM and only what the music trend was.

So please read before you revert.Iluvdancemusic (talk)17:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a sockpuppet of a banned editor,WP:EVADE applies. -SummerPhD^v2.017:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iluvdancemusic has been indefinitely blocked as a sock. -SummerPhD^v2.017:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this wonderful expression. You caused me a big smile. Love --Steue (talk)13:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The East German judge scored me low on the parallel ports and token rings. -SummerPhD^v2.015:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. More than two years ago I made a ridiculously bad attempt to troll you on a throwaway IP address. First, I would like to apologize for that. I think I was mad about some page reversion that I no longer care about, and my 2018 self thought trolling with an outdated "Zimbabwe scam" would be a good retaliation.

Anyway: for whatever reason, 2018 me also thought it would be a good idea to use my actual email address in my trolling messages. I don't know how, but bots and/or people have somehow located my email from the three edits I made on that IP and my inbox is now flooded with weird spam relating to editing wikis. This is a real surprise because my messages were reverted quickly and never responded to. The email address was only live on Wikipedia for a few minutes before being buried in the page history. These bots or people definitely found my email from the IP's contribution page, which is bizarre.

I was wondering: is there a way that those edits I made could somehow be hidden to prevent people from getting my email address and associating it with spam? On a related note, do you have any idea how bots/people are even finding those old edits? Again, they were only on the page history for a few minutes, yet now my email inbox is flooded because of them. Thanks. And sorry once more for my uncreative trolling way back then. --DontMessageMezze (talk)00:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, all old edits are accessible through page history. For example,here's an edit toWhite House in 2001. Bots can (and obviously do) dig through Wikipedia constantly. Youcan have those edits removed from accessible history through a process explained atWP:OVERSIGHT.

No matter what, bots that have already collected your address so far will still have it. Nothing you can do about that.

Another problem is that there are numerous sites built on information from Wikipedia. Some of them merely copy selected articles to build their own content: Wikipedia article's showing up as blog posts, local history sites, wikis dedicated to narrower topics, etc. Also, there are sitesabout Wikipedia: people analyzing content and who adds it, forums where they complain about various editors, etc. If your info is on any of those sites, we can't control that either.

Additionally, various sites archive various portions of the Internet. We don't control them either.

Nothing on the Internet ever really goes away. I don't really see much success forthcoming... -SummerPhD^v2.001:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've deleted the revisions per request.Sro23 (talk)01:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for the response. It means a ton to me that you responded and took this seriously. If you could remove the link on your userpage to one of the now-hidden revisions it would be great as well.

And thank you Sro23 for hiding the revisions. Don't know how much good it will do (I guess only time will tell), but I'm so grateful that you went through the trouble to do it for me.DontMessageMezze2 (talk)22:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend long-term (semi-)protection?DawgDeputy (talk)02:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need my !vote... -SummerPhD^v2.002:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yay

BulgeUwU (talk)15:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a good source considering the only real sources for internet culture are the items and culture itself? I get that youtube isn't a credible source, but do you know any places where I could find a good source regarding the meme itself?Plutonical (talk)19:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There might not be one. If a company is notable (and this one is), there are in-depth reliable sources about the company. Aspects of the company that are relevant to the story of the company will be in those sources. If sources about the company don't discuss the meme, it's simply not significant to the subject of the company. -SummerPhD^v2.021:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly has this been issued to me at this time? Because of my participation on the talk section of theJared Taylor page (weeks ago)? There are other participants there who have not gotten such a notice. I know the notice itself says "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date"......but the fact I got it and others haven't.....makes me think there is.Rja13ww33 (talk)23:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please seemy response on your talk page. Today I notified all three of the most recent contributors (including you). The three contributors prior have also been notified (or have notified others of the situtation).

This is not about you or your contributions. It is merely a notice of the situation. -SummerPhD^v2.000:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your PROD onȘapte Seri. It's certainly notable enough, though the article is outdated & under-referenced. (Sadly, so is the article in ro-wiki, or I'd just pull in material from there.)

I'm focused mainly on Commons these days, so if you are pursuing this further,please do ping me. If you really want to bring this to a head, I'll work on further researching the article and fleshing it out, but I haven't really been very active on writing in Wikipedia lately. -Jmabel |Talk20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember toassume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do onTwister (1996 film).I was merely correcting a link on the plot summary. Next time, think before falsely accusing someone of making an "unsourced and trivial" edit!Areaseven (talk)05:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no assumption of bad faith. There is a pickup truck in the film. That it is a Dodge Ram is borderline trivial to begin with -- the model of the truck is completely irrelevant to the plot. That you believe it is a 1994-2002, second generation BR/BE model is unsourced: the information is not clearly stated in the film or obvious to all viewers without specialized knowledge. It is unsourced and, IMO, trivial.

An assumption of bad faith would involve me saying something about your reasons for adding the claim. I said nothing whatsoever about your motives. -SummerPhD^v2.007:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I posted on the talk page and would like your input. Thank you very much!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_American_Way--Ihaveadreamagain (talk)18:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain[reply]

Thanks, I've already responded.

BTW, no need to type your used name after using the automated signature. Whether you are hitting the signature button at the top if the edit box or using ~~~~, both add your name, links to your user and talk pages and a timestamp. -SummerPhD^v2.018:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is a newspaper, not a scientific journal, or a horticultural magazine. It may be considered very authoritative in political matters, but it obviously is not in biology. Florence Fabricant very convincingly showed why we should not refer to NYT when writing about botanical or horticultural subjects. Let me give some proof.

Miss Ignorant writes:"A cross between a Chilean berry (also known as a pine strawberry) and a breed from Virginia". That's total nonsense. She most probably found the correct information: 'Pineberry' is a hybrid cross fromFragaria chiloensis andFragaria virginiana: they are both species, not breeds. But her chief editor told her not to use scientific names, because the general public is not familiar with them. What she should have done is find the vernacular names and use them.Fragaria chiloensis is known asbeach strawberry,Chilean strawberry, orcoastal strawberry (and it's certainly not exclusively from Chili);Fragaria virginiana is known aswild strawberry,common strawberry, orscarlet strawberry. In stead of using an existing vernacular name, she "interpreted" the scientific names, an unforgivable error. If this lady ever gets to write aboutScilla peruviana, she would probably call it the Peruvian squill, and blab about its Peruvian origins. That's the kind of ignorance we have to deal with here. She writes:"they are grown in Belgium and imported from the Netherlands". She's the only one to make the statement about Belgium as a production country. This cultivar has been developed in the Netherlands, and at the time Florence Ignorant wrote about it, they were only grown in the Netherlands (by 2020, there is also life stock in the USA and in Australia). Where did she get the idea to mention Belgium as a production location? That's all the factual information she gave about 'Pineberry' and it's all erroneous. It's ridiculous to refer to such a piece of **** in a Wikipedia article.77.164.133.132 (talk)23:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous: I get that you disagree. That said, your invective against an author (who will likely never see it) isn't helpful. Saying she is wrong and telling us what you believe is right isn't much help either.

Wikipedia doesn't decide who is right or wrong, we decide which sources are reliable.

As this is now a question of article content, please take the question to the article's talk page. -SummerPhD^v2.000:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of what I believe. I showed you the errors she made in the "facts" she mentioned. It was you who wanted to believe the NYT is a reliable source.77.164.133.132 (talk)00:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, theNYTis a reliable source. This is a discussion of article content. Please take it to the article's talk page and/or thereliable sources noticeboard for further discussion. -SummerPhD^v2.000:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's evident that you're not a botanist, nor did you make a significant study of this subject. That means that you're not capable to judge the reliability of Miss Fabricant's article. I showed you it's full of errors, yet you want it to be mentioned just because of some stupid notion that the NYT is reliable, no matter what subject they're writing on. That's bullshit. I don't know if there's any subject that you're an expert on, but if there is one, then you will have the experience that newspapers, no matter which one, NEVER succeed in publishing an article on that subject that has got everything right.

I did not even mention the most stupid error Florence Fabricant made, but which shows she has no idea what she's writing about. She statesFragaria chiloensis is"also known as a pine strawberry". That's total nonsense. It's part of the explanation she made up herself for the name 'Pineberry', so that in her mind everything fits. The name "pine strawberry" however, was given in 1766 byAntoine Nicolas Duchesne to the hybrid betweenF. chiloensis andF. virginiana, so in fact to about every strawberry that is sold today. He called itFragaria ×ananassa, because its taste resembled the taste of pineapples, at least in his opinion. "Ananas" is the word forpineapple in many languages (just check the interwiki links). It is the hybrid, the garden strawberry, not the speciesF. chiloensis, occurring in the western parts of both the America's, that bears the name "pine strawberry".

One of the main problems in building Wikipedia is that so many editors get involved in topics they don't know anything about, yet feel free to "correct" knowledgeable contributors, based on ridiculous assumptions. You provided a very convincing example of that problem here.77.164.133.132 (talk)23:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for repeating myself: This discussion is about article content. You will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. -SummerPhD^v2.003:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A friend asked for my help updating their Wikipedia change to reflect their current marriage status (from married to divorced). I searched Wikipedia and Google for how to source a change like this and couldn't find any information. I did provide a source in the change comment and the person in question could submit a statement. I respect the need for Wikipedia to be accurate - but note that in this case there is a living person behind the page and the page is not accurate. Hoping you can help me provide the sourcing needed to fix this inaccuracy. Thanks!— Precedingunsigned comment added byDublinRanch (talk •contribs) 00:04, May 19, 2020 (UTC)

A few wrinkles here.

If you are in contact with the subject of an article you are editing, please seeDisclosing a potential conflict of interest.

Please be aware that Wikipedia user names are to be used by individuals on a one-to-one basis:each user name is to be used by one and only one person. Shared accounts or accounts on behalf of organizations are not acceptable.

The easiest way to add information is to use a reliable source that states exactly what you are trying to add -- if such a source exists. So, you'd be looking for a [[WP:IRS|reliable published source directly stating that the subject is divorced. An interview (a type of primary source) would work,if the subject actually mentions the divorce. We cannot, however, do much in the way of interpreting a primary source. So, the subject saying they are a "single (parent)" would not work (my very-old-school cousin considers herself a "single parent" as she sees the children as her job and her husbands job as being limited to his employment...).

Failing that, the subject can update their (verified) social media accounts (Facebook and such) or the bio section of their personal/professional website.

The final option can be a bit of a hassle, which is why I saved it for last. The subject of the article, or their personal representative follow the instructions atWikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects. -SummerPhD^v2.005:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(not sure on how to format responses so apologies) - first - really appreciate the detailed response since I couldn't find information on how to address a situation like this (tried really hard to find info!) re: conflict of interest I'm just a friend the individual reached out to - no commercial or business relationship of any kind - since there isn't a "customer service" number to contact Wikipedia what other option would a living person have but to reach out to people they know?; re: the other paths to updating thanks for the guidance - I'll share with the person in question and see how they want to proceed; for a living person included in Wikipedia this is an example of how difficult it can be to ensure Wikipedia is accurate - and I get the tension here and need for being cautious.DublinRanch (talk •contribs) 00:04, May 19, 2020 (UTC)

Hi, we recently had a dispute, and then I noticed you commented in a talk page discussion I was involved in regardingThe Hunt (2020 film). While I welcome your comments in that discussion and hope you will continue to contribute to it, I also noticed that you have never edited that page before, and so it seems like you came across that discussion by following me to that page after we had our dispute. That would seem likeWP:HOUNDING, and I hope you will refrain from following me to any additional pages in the future. Thank you. –wallyfromdilbert (talk)23:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember how I ended up at the talk page forThe Hunt, but it probably was from your editing. That by itself is certainly notWP:HOUNDING.

An editor who, for example, makes unsourced changes in one article often has similar edits in other articles. Checking other articles for the same or similar problem is not only common, it is recommended, so long as the intent/result is neither disruption nor distress.

In both cases, the disputes seemed to be off track, turning away from competing ideas (what sources say and how Wikipedia should handle that information) to competing people (who did what to whom and what that says about them). In both cases I attempted to redirect the conversations to article content. -SummerPhD^v2.023:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid to even tell you what happened since you'll likely revert it. But I made a mistake saying certain details don't belong in good or featured articles. That's what YOU believed. I just said it because maybe it would be harder to get these details accepted. What the community seems to have accepted not only belongs but I am convinced would surely belong if this article WERE good or featured. At this point the barn door is open and the horse got away but if you want to go searching for the horse go right ahead. I believe I am on the right side now even in a good or featured article.—Vchimpanzee • talk •contributions •16:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd need more info to have any idea what you are talking about. I don't see that you've editing that article any time recently and don't specifically recall what interaction we many have had. -SummerPhD^v2.016:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the idea. If you find anything wrong, then I guess you revert and discuss. I have no idea when it was added.

Anyway, I wanted to go on record with my feelings.—Vchimpanzee • talk •contributions •17:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your "feelings" are about and I don't feel like digging through history to figure out what you are talking about. You are on the record as vaguely annoying, at this point. -SummerPhD^v2.017:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can't recall seeing you around the gang articles before, but thanks for watching. 99% of the edits on the gang articles are gangbangerNOTFACEBOOK stuff. My abilities to research are limited geographically so I can't do much to improve them, but they all need good scholarly additions. If you ever get bored...John from Idegon (talk)04:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:A Bug's Life#Plot summary issue.Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)08:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2601:8B:C300:4A70:5C23:24AB:A241:C247 (talk)02:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think this would be a very good idea. I think you should stand for RFA.--Jorm (talk)23:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source already used in the cast section does support the irrelevant claim that the character is based onthe mooch[13] but I'm glad you removed the claim[14] because it is dumb and pointless. --109.76.135.73 (talk)21:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, we had a claim that John Malkovich as Dr. Adrian Mallory was based on Dr. Strangelove. That was enough for me to watch the show. (Malkovich riffing on Dr. Strangelove? What could be better!) Hardly.

I yanked the "Mooch" claim because there was no cite for the claim anywhere near the claim and it included the@fuckjerry guess. -SummerPhD^v2.023:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "Levittown race riots".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simplyedit the submission and remove the{{db-afc}},{{db-draft}}, or{{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions atthis link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia!Jalen Folf(talk)04:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just found you from minutes ago (between 8:30pm/20:30pm to 8:45pm/20:45pm), that you undoing my edit of the clearly unrecognized/unrecognised (the very soon likely short-lived, if more protesters are staying that area they consider 'controlled' (or separated from) the US police system) 'Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone' from theList of active separatist movements in North America page, when the other pages of any separatist movements has including currentde factoautonomous zone(s) likeRebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities a pass?

And plus, what you mean its 'disputed' when the Autonomous Zone' has covered, both from the mainstreamed or alternative press (either biased or not) or even some of the protesters also referring it as a 'occupational protest' as well?Chad The Goatman (talk)00:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on1985 Cops from Hell Bombing. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

heavy handed POV, was redirect but was edited to be standalone - unanimous consensus at RfD for DELETE -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_21#1985_Cops_from_Hell_Bombing.

Under thecriteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact thedeleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a requesthere.Ed6767talk!13:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Summer. You're a longtime colleague and I didn't want to revert anything without speaking with you first. In thatBeaver County Times article, I'm afraid I don't see a single word about John Byrum, let alone a 1993 divorce. Can you point me to where it says that, because I'm not seeing it. Thanks! --Tenebrae (talk)19:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a strange drop-in in the final paragraph: "In May, Fiorentino, who was married to writer director John Byrum ('Razor's Edge') and divorced him in 1993..." I suppose it's easy to miss because it seems so out-of-place. -SummerPhD^v2.019:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page continues to get vandalized a lot, but also, I think the episode list is violatingWP:CRISTAL. We go by the broadcast order for episodes, not mixed. Examples for lists in broadcast order includeThe Loud House,Lego City Adventures andIt's Pony. RBUK though is not like that and also needs to followMOS:TV.

I also believe that the summaries areWP:COPYVIO, even if it is edited or completely original, it is still copyvio. As a result, they need to be replaced with summaries that are about 100 to 200 words in length, perMOS:TVPLOT, and also spoilers asWP:SPOILER applies. When removing the summaries please use this note for them:

Episode summaries must be expressed in your own words and have to go by 100 to 200 words in length, per MOS:TVPLOT. Do NOT submit content you find from another web site as it is WP:COPYVIO, which Wikipedia cannot accept and will be removed or reverted. Superficially modifying copyrighted content or closely paraphrasing it, even if the source is cited, still constitutes a copyvio. Do NOT even write the summaries less then 100 words, even if it is in your own words, it could be an edited version of the copyvio summary, and are most likely to be scrutinized for a possible copyvio. You may also explain spoilers too, as WP:SPOILER applies, even if you don't want spoilers, Wikipedia always would contain spoilers in their articles.

If you agreed with me on this, then thank you for your listening.BaldiBasicsFan (talk)20:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the article currently uses something other than broadcast order, find something in MOS to back using broadcast order and change it citing MOS. Failing that, suggest the change on the article's talk page, wait a week and (assuming no one argues against it) make the change.

If you find that the summaries are copyright violations, remove them citing the source of the text. If you can rewrite them, great. If not, at least remove them. -SummerPhD^v2.021:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then.BaldiBasicsFan (talk)21:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can I ask you a question? AboutLancedSoul, I don't know how to edit constructively with this editor. I've left messages on his talk page about edits, I've left messages on talk pages in which he reverts edits with no explanation, and he hasn't responded to any of them. I don't think it's at the point where they should be blocked (at this point), but it's nearly impossible to communicate with them. So I don't know how to foster a positive editing relationship with them. Do you have any advice?BOVINEBOY200822:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no magic here. I have them on my watchlist and expect that consistent escalating warnings will eventually lead to them either turning a corner or earning a block. After a block, further blocks typically get longer. Editors who refuse to communicate usually find the blocks getting longer much faster.Communication is required carries a lot more weight than it used to. -SummerPhD^v2.000:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've undone your reversion of my lead copyedit on1985 MOVE bombing. The text you disagree with ('retirement home') is present in the version that you had restored to, so I don't think your edit is achieving the purpose you intended. If you disagree with that term, I think it would have been better to amend that individual term, rather than reverting the whole edit? Best,Darren-Mtalk10:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your revert. I don't know where you see "retirement home" in the version I am restoring; I don't see it and searching the page does not find it. None of the sources refer to the house as a "retirement home". The group in the house has a long history of refusing to follow housing codes, file paperwork, etc. There is zero chance that they registered their housing (with no one over age 50) as a retirement home.

I simply do not see where you got "retirement home" from.[15]-SummerPhD^v2.015:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhDv2.0, apologies, you are correct that the original text was actually 'residential home'.

I am not keen to engage in a game ofping pong with you, so will give you the opportunity to undo your edit and amend 'retirement' to 'residential'. Per my previous note to you above, I do not think it is helpful for you to undo a whole edit because of one word.

Best,Darren-Mtalk16:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there are a few more problems. The police did not bomb the house "in order to serve an eviction notice" (yes, that's the reason the cops were there, but there was a lot more between them showing up and the bomb being dropped). I don't think the "militant group" is a fair summary of the group (accurate, but not descriptive -- they were also a Black group, a vegan group, etc. but the reason the group existed is religious/philosophical). The current wording implies -- unfairly, IMO -- that the fire department simply let the fire burn (I'm betting the sources put that decision on either the PPD or other higher-ups). I think you are editing based on the text you found in the article, rather than what the sources say.

I'd suggest partializing. Unless you are truly writing the lead from scratch, you might do better breaking it down into one change at a time. -SummerPhD^v2.019:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhDv2.0, I must admit I am confused - you are reverting to a version of the article which still has the majority of the issues in it that you are describing.Darren-Mtalk19:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I identified several issues. Here's what they were and the two versions:

• "retirement home"

your version: "retirement home"

my revert: "residential home"

issue: It was not a retirement home.

• police bombed the house "in order to serve an eviction notice"

your version: "bombing...in order to serve an eviction notice"

my revert: "bombed...following a standoff...initiated by the Philadelphia police to serve an eviction notice."

issue: Between the attempt to serve the notice and the bombing, there was an armed standoff.

• "militant group"

your version: "the militant group MOVE"

my revert: "the black militant anarcho-primitivist group MOVE"

issue: While accurate, "militant" does not define the group. Random militants would find nothing in common with the group. Black anarcho-primativists might. It's the difference between call the Seventh Day Adventists a "vegetarian group" and a "vegetarian Christian group".

• the fire department simply let the fire burn

your version: "(PFD) let the subsequent fire burn out of control following a standoff"

my revert:same

issue: Somewhere in the sources, blame/responsability is no doubt spelled out. PFD grunts refusing to move into an active shooting zone vs. PFD commanders at the scene vs. PFD leadership safe behind lines vs. PPD commanders/leadership vs. city leadership. I don't recall what the commission found and haven't looked it up recently. Simply saying the fire department "let (it) burn out of control" may not accurately reflect which agency did what and is certainly inexact. -SummerPhD^v2.023:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't template regulars.HalfShadow19:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that is generally frowned on and I generally do not. However, I did not immediately recognize your user name and your talk page has very few topics and no archive. Unless everyone starts carefully investigating who is and who is not a "regular" before notifying them of reverts, my mistake is something you can expect to see. -SummerPhD^v2.019:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you said to me on theCaillou page is a bit confusing, because the credits of Season 5 say "Canada-South Africa co-production", but you won't allow the latter country in unless there's like a network or figures from the country to prove that.

Here's a source from theToon Boom Animation website that explicitly says that Season 5 is a "South African-Canada" co-production.https://www.toonboom.com/community/success-stories/clockwork-zoo

Luigitehplumber (talk)21:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's a different IP address that's long, we aren't the same. I just think the "jumping beans" should be linked because it's not a common term

--2601:647:8480:D300:B1A5:CF9A:81C8:65F6 (talk)00:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some people's IP addresses just change automatically after a few weeks or sometimes every day--2601:647:8480:D300:B1A5:CF9A:81C8:65F6 (talk)00:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff is out of order and there are some duplicates --2601:647:8480:D300:B1A5:CF9A:81C8:65F6 (talk)02:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am leaving you a response to the message you left me on my talk page regarding film runtimes. I have several problems with how you presented yourself on my talk page regarding my edits:

1. “... you didn't provide a reliable source.” Of course I didn’t, it’s the runtime to a film. Time spent looking for the source is the real “time wasted,” NOT the correction. What’s the point of getting in disputes over purists who use the unreliable BBFC for runtime information? One quick search on YouTube or iTunes gives you the exact runtime and what is left on the Wikipedia page is the approximate. It’s that simple, and it’s not a hill worth dying on to cite a YouTube search page.

2. “ Looking through your edit history, you seem to have a bit of a history with increasing the run time of various movies by 1 minute.” All you did was pluck minor edits in fixing incorrect runtimes as early as last October. Some of the films, such as Capone (2020), were corrected because they were newly-released and their pages were still up to date on new edits, like with Rotten Tomatoes percentages.

3. “You never leave an edit summary, add a source or otherwise explain your change. This is a problem.” How and why? Because I’m correctly fixing an incorrect runtime listing that wasn’t even sourced in the first place? Sourcing a runtime is not a mandatory feature in film page billings, in case you haven’t noticed. You’re trying to advocate citation requirements that are better used for more important matters. Additionally, an explanation for my change of a number is just asinine. “I changed a number to a different number. End of story.” Sounds pretty anticlimactic. The biggest offender here is that you go straight to me for not sourcing a runtime change when you don’t even consider the past editors who incorrectly edited the runtime, likely UNSOURCED as well, so you putting your attention on me is not only unjustified, but also hypocritical. You seem as if your goal is to go after editors like who you’re referring to, yet in this case you completely ignore past editors thereby failing to adhere to your goal and standards.

4. “How you could be looking at a source and not know what it says is a mystery.“ - Not only do you come off as rude, but you act so condescending towards me for a harmless mistake I made with that edit you mentioned that I’m baffled that someone like you is a high-profile editor, when I’ve interacted with film page editors who are civil, open, patient, and understanding. Shame on you.

5. “If you are randomly changing the numbers, you simply need to stop. Wikipedia does have a few vandals who randomly change game scores, heights, dates, run times, etc., often by small amounts to avoid detection. Otherwise good editors correcting these figures need to use edit summaries so editors know who the vandals are and who is correting the vandalism.“ I’m already an extended auto confirmed user, and if you actually took the time to look at my history excluding run time edits, you’ll see that I have been responsible for bigger film page edits than you may have assumed, from fully-detailed plot and grammar edits to production and section organization. I feel as though my edits for the film Parasite (2019) reflects this adequately. So let me ask you, what recourse would I possibly have in randomly changing numbers? What on earth are you thinking my intent is? Some ulterior motive? Even editors with more contributions than me don’t always utilize the edit summaries unless we have too. You are just blowing this topic way out of proportion.

I shouldn’t have to explain myself with the edit history that I have. If you had actually taken the time to find more worthy examples of what I’ve done than you’d think twice to treat me like a potential editor-vandal/bottom-of-the-barrel type. Of course, if someone else out there is so stuck-up to defend an incorrect runtime, then so be it, a source will be added, but only because that runtime is being monitored, and not because I’m able to or because you just want me to. But keep in mind, just because of my edits that I mentioned doesn’t mean you are schooling me on any of the editing lingo. You seemed way out of line with how you approached me; hell, bot messages for invitations or concern alerts are simpler and more straight-to-the-point than you.

Seriously, next time you have a problem with someone’s edits, better find out what they’re all about in terms of contributions before judging them, plain and simple. But hey, if we’re doing this over a runtime adjustment, then I have nothing more to say to you.

-Theironminer (talk)07:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What every editor reviewing one of your edits encounters is someone changed an article. Why they changed it is not obvious. There is no edit summary, source or explanation of any kind.

"I changed a number to a different number" is not what I am requesting and would not be helpful. Yes, you changed a number. WHY did you change it? Did you pull the number out of the air? Do you have a source? Was the previous number bad rounding? Do you simply want every film to be a minute longer to silence the voices in your head?

Yes, I see you have a bit of history. I've run across other editors with extensive histories of productive edits and occasional bursts of vandalism. Confronted, one basically "explained" that gee, since they made so many good edits, what was the problem with 10% or so vandalism -- we should lighten up. Another was a compromised account, with a roommate occasionally adding in some random changes. Maybe if I dug through your history and spent a lot of time examining your history I would... No. If you used edit summaries I wouldn't have to. Heck, to the best of my knowledge you are using a blog as a source that uses run times from the aircraft versions of films, "rounded" by dropping the seconds and avoiding times ending in 3 because it's "bad luck".

What do I think your intent is? I have no idea. I assume yourintent is to build a better encyclopedia. However, in a world full of incompetence, vandalism, mental illness, ill intent, carelessness, alcohol/drugs, compromised accounts, etc. I do not know. How can I find out? Extensive research? In theory. Or, perhapscommunication on your part. Could I spend a few hours figuring out "what (you are) all about" before asking you to use edit summaries? Sure. Or, I could explain the problem and ask you to use edit summaries. I chose the latter. You want the simple version? Pretend I just said: "I don't know what you are doing. Please use edit summaries." For newbies, we have a consensus warning that says essentially that. We have it because EDIT SUMMARIES ARE HELPFUL.

The onus is on your to show that you are adding verifiable information. It is not on my to figure out who you are, guess whether you are using reliable sources, figure out if you understand...etc. That simply is not possible.

Give this is Wikipedia, anyone can edit and a lot of people who shouldnot editdo edit, there are several possibilities:

1) The information there was wrong. Someone checked it against a reliable source and corrected it with the correct information.

2) It was wrong. Someone checked it against a reliable source and corrected it with the wrong information (typo, bad rounding, etc.)

3) It was right. Someone used a reliable source and wrongly "corrected" it with wrong info.

4) It was right. The person "correcting" it is a vandal.

5) It was wrong. Someone corrected it with an unreliable source and got it wrong again.

6) It was right. Someone used an unreliable source and made it wrong

There are, of course, plenty more. The reviewing editor (me) has several choices:

1) Ignore it and move on. This is apparently the option you are advocating. In all cases, what will remain is the most recent change. Vandalism will continue unabated. People who do not understand rounding will continue to degrade info. People using bad sources or bad judgement will continue to do so. Your favorite blog uses times rounded to the nearest 5 minutes? Fine. You watched it on TV, it was edited and your time includes commercials? Fine. You are an outright vandal, churning through a series of articles to slowly degrade them? Fine.

2) Research every edit. Waste time. Reinvent the wheel. You could be doing other things, had the original editor bothered to explain themselves. But spend your day duplicating effort. If you find a different answer, is the original editor a vandal or did you just find a different answer? Research a few more. Dig in. Maybe there is a problem. Heavy research is the only way to know.

3) Revert the edit. Discuss the problem with the editor. Explain that a brief edit summary like "Pre _______" would solve the problem. If they start providing explanations, check a few. Are they using a reasonably reliable source? How do they round 1:33:58? Do they get 1:34 as they should or 1:35, 1:33 or 1:30 or something else? If they continue to refuse to provide even brief explanations, remind them that communication is required for any cooperative enterprise to continue. Ask them again. Escalate as required.

Yes, this is a "hill you can die on". You can stake your ground, refuse to admit there might be a problem, demand the project change to accept your preferences and see what happens. You are likely to have better results if you simply provide even the briefest of edit summaries.

If it helps, imagine I had simply changed one of your numbers back to what it was before or changed it to a different number -- with no edit summary. How would you determine what had happened? Why should *I* have explained my edit if you don't need to explain yours? -SummerPhD^v2.016:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if you have a Karen problem, please see a therapist. Stop posting "warnings" on my page and stop reverting my response to User:Zezen.Sherwilliam (talk)19:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwilliam has been blocked from editing forpersonal attacks. -SummerPhD^v2.022:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO. Whatever Karen. Fat, useless, unemployed piece of trash with a garbage diploma. Want to police everything to suit your little emotions. Subhumans. Do whatever you want. My time is better spent on work than arguing with a piece of garbage like you. Always seeking problems.2601:647:4580:E4B0:CCFC:4CFD:D36C:3D5E (talk)23:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2601:647:4580:e4b0:ccfc:4cfd:d36c:3d5e has been blocked for blocke evasion/personal attacks. -SummerPhD^v2.000:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, Karen. I could have dealt with the issue politely. The reason I called your Karen bahevior out was that it was worth it. Absolutely obnoxious. 90% of your edits are reverts of others' contributions. The rest 10% are bitting away newcomers. 1 Karen = one project destroyed.Jesus Christ 2nd (talk)04:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessive sock blocked. -SummerPhD^v2.004:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Jason Buchanan from allmovie.com be the decider of the tone of the movie rather than M. Night Shyamalan himself? Is this because Jason's white? M. Night worked for two years on the movie whereas Jason Buchanan decided it in under 2hrs. When will this white privilege end? Also a movie cannot be compared to McDonalds meal. Even Ignatiy Vishnevetsky who is a better reputed critic than Jason Buchanan has written a beautifully detailed article on AV Club regarding the tone. (https://film.avclub.com/was-the-happening-supposed-to-be-taken-seriously-1798243486) Here are also two articles by Chris Evangelista(Slashfilms) and Jeff Spry(Syfy) to further support my claims.(https://www.slashfilm.com/the-happening-anniversary/) ,(https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/rewatch-m-night-shyamalans-the-happening-is-a-better-b-movie-10-years-later) Please look into it. Cheers. Have a nice day. :)--Stillwater1103 (talk)03:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Stillwater1103[reply]

• Why independent sources? Because Wikipedia is based on what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Otherwise, Wikipedia would say that every car is the best car ever, every politician is the savior of the universe and every religion is the One True religion.
• Is it because of race? That is a baselesspersonal attack.
• When will white privilege end? You are off-topic.

If you would like to discuss the content of the article, please discuss the issues on the article's talk page. -SummerPhD^v2.003:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give more of an explanation on why the 2nd paragraph ofPaul Stamets: In Popular Culture does not belong? I don't think there's a difference in triviality between the first paragraph (Star Trek) versus the second paragraph (Hannibal). They both contain "trivial" information relating to popular culture, and in fact both contain information coming from the sourcecbc.ca. If you thinkhannibal.wiki is an unreliable source, I would be fine with removing that source, but I don't think the entire paragraph should be deleted. Thanks in advance for your response.— Precedingunsigned comment added byChharvey (talk •contribs)18:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sold on the section needing to exist. Most "In popular culture" sections eventually devolve into pointless andindiscriminate lists of the subject being mentioned in TV shows/movies/comic books/operas/etc. (note the complete lack of such a section inRichard Nixon.

As the subject of a reliable source all its own, I can certainly see mention of the Star Trek character in the article somewhere.

That he is a substantial part of a documentary, that's worth mentioning, though it's certainly not "in popular culture" material (unless the documentary is far more popular than the average documentary).

TheHannibal mention in the article about the Star Trek character is just that: a bare mention. It strikes me as trivial.

The wiki is not reliable. Someone added something to a wiki. Based on that, we know... nothing, other than the fact that someone added it to a wiki. Icould go to a wiki and add that the character is a composite based on Bella Abzug and Richard Chamberlain. Please seeWP:SPS. -SummerPhD^v2.020:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OnList of one-hit wonders in the United States, it seems Top40Weekly has 2 ref names, "Prism" and "auto3". The first comes from the fact the first artist I added using the source wasPrism. I am not sure where the "auto3" came from, but it is define in "Ship of Fools" by World Party. There is also a 3rd time the source was used but was not listed with a ref name for one of the songs from the 50's. Can you possibly merge these 3 into one ref name? I am not sure how to do that as I have recently returned to Wikipedia.Copyrightpower1337 (talk)23:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref names like "auto#" and "#:" are usually from semi-automated tools for handling ref, like reFill, which I usedhere. They do a decent job of harmonizing differing ref styles, finding and compressing repeat refs, etc.

I made the change for youhere. Now we're down from an eye-popping 431 refs to an ever-so-slightly more manageable 430. :) -SummerPhD^v2.001:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are doing this because you are a social justice warrior scumbag. You removed the fact that Tom Wolf was Charlie Robertson's campaign chairman. You are a partisan hack.— Precedingunsigned comment added by72.94.14.15 (talk)14:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are likelynot here for the right reasons. Please read the final warning on your talk page. -SummerPhD^v2.015:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not threaten editors with unwarranted blocksLordAgincourt (talk)01:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added unsourced material. I reverted your edit and gave you a warning consistent with your edit and your history.

If you have a problem with the wording of the warning, you may wish to bring it up at thecommunity pump as it is a standardized warning used throughout the project on a regular basis and the text represents community consensus.

If you have a reliable source for the material, feel free to restore it along with acitation supporting the material. If you do not have a reliable source for the material, you should not have added it to begin with. -SummerPhD^v2.002:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I editedTop Gun because I've heard that the released date has been pushed to July 2, 2021. You should look it up. --Stephenfisher2001 (talk)15:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephenfisher2001: No. If you have areliable source for the new date, you will need tocite that source. It is not my job to find sources for your edits. Either you have a source, add the information andcite the source or do not add the information. -SummerPhD^v2.016:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was the correct date, wasn't it?— Precedingunsigned comment added byClrichey (talk •contribs)18:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please add a section title so that I know what you are talking about. Without it, it looked like you were asking about Top Gun 2, to topic before this.

Youchanged the date, saying "The date was incorrect." While this tells us you thought the date was wrong, we're left guessing as to why. I still have no idead.

Ireverted your edit, saying "As sourced in the 'Release' section". If you look in the release section, you will see a source for the date you think is wrong. -SummerPhD^v2.019:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two users are having an edit fight with me and I can't stand it.

It is on the pageLittlest Pet Shop: A World of Our Own, I was making the episode list look similar to modernNickelodeon cartoons but they disagree and don't care.

Please take over for me because I don't want to have another warning about edit wars. Please give them edit war warnings too.BaldiBasicsFan (talk)01:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so the case is clear, the page was doing just fine before Baldi came in. We have many sources saying it's a 52-episode show, not a 26 52-segments show, andA World of Our Own isn't a Nickelodeon show, therefore that is irrelevant to theAWOO page. You have not responded to any talk pages on theA World of Our Own page, either.CrypticalFiery (talk)01:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Cryptical, look at the production codes:http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/littlest-pet-shop-a-world-of-our-own/listings/BaldiBasicsFan (talk)01:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not very reliable, Futon Critic always uses the same production codes if two episodes air on the same day??? I promise you that's not how the show was actually produced, check the end credits.CrypticalFiery (talk)01:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Cryptical, your violatingWP:WINARS,WP:CRYSTAL andWP:OTHER. Nickelodeon episode lists are always like this on The Futon Critic. Wikipedia shouldn't be a relatable source.BaldiBasicsFan (talk)02:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like:

A) You have plenty of editors involved already. I don't think adding me to the mix will help.

B) Lots of edits to the article and very little discussion on the article's talk page. It should be the other way around.

C) The discussion here about article content in an article I'm not editing is wasted. Take it to the article's talk page. -SummerPhD^v2.002:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Cryptical, you took the page WAY TOO FAR. Even if incorrect, The Futon Critic is still the most relatable source for TV programs. Cryptical, what your just doing isWP:DE and making me think I could get another edit war warning. As a result, I am now going to take a break from editing Wikipedia until further notice. Thanks a lot Cryptical.BaldiBasicsFan (talk)02:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you respond to the talk page already pleaseJDB555 (talk)02:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will when I'm done with my break.BaldiBasicsFan (talk)02:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will become an administrator, SummerPhDv2.0— Precedingunsigned comment added byAbbygail Miles (talk •contribs)17:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who you are or why you'd think I would care, but an indefinite block for block evasion seems to be a strange way to announce your candidacy. -SummerPhD^v2.019:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.Mkayj14 (talk)20:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on their talk page, I wasn't sure why Mkayj14 sent me an email saying "SummerPhDv2.0 has to become an administrator on the English Wikipedia." and that I'd have to look into what other user name(s) they had used.

Mkayj14 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock ofPcgmrich. -SummerPhD^v2.002:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Summer - you reverted my edit to KA's page that she appeared to have resurrected her support for Trump. The reference I gave and quoted exactly was her own tweet of support - is that not a reliable source? It was seven or eight tweets into a thread started by James Woods. As I am not a Twit there may be a better means, which I am unaware of, of linking directly to her tweet. If you agree that this is a reliable source I would be grateful if you could revert your revert; and if there is a better way to cite the specific tweet (as opposed to the thread) please go ahead. Cheers!Cross Reference (talk)18:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit said, "However by 2020 she appeared to have resumed her support for Trump." That is your interpretation and acontentious claim about a living person.

The rest of your edit is quoting a tweet she (or, presumably, a representative of hers made). It is aprimary source. There is nothing -- other than your interpretation to indicate it is more significant that anything else she has ever said. We cannot select individual statements to include in articles based on our opinions. Imagine the article on your favorite and least favorite politician if editors could select material based on what they found to be important.

If this tweet marks a meaningful event in her life, independent sources will discuss it. At that point we might have something to add. -SummerPhD^v2.018:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph about future changes to the mall is incorrect, so I removed that section. It refers to future changes but when you go to the source it actually is referring to a different project adjacent to Greenspoint Mall. That's why I removed that last part.Mlgtrumpet (talk)09:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I've restored you edit, with an explanation. -SummerPhD^v2.018:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

by 24.12.189.138

Is there a difference between passing away and dying? And also, when I said "abeilt in select episodes." I was talking about how episodes featuringKaitlyn Robrock'sMinnie Mouse were not being aired in production order and that she had taken over forRussi Taylor several episodes before the season completed production.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2601:246:d00:6b00:1114:c471:547b:363b (talk •contribs) 17:51, September 12, 2020 (UTC)

"Passing" is short for "passing away", meant to imply the dead person is not gone but instead has "moved on" to wherever the local religious belief says the dead go. "Died" is unambiguous: The body stopped functioning and was disposed of according to local customs. It's the difference between saying today is "the Sabbath" rather than saying "Saturday".

The new voice actress was not used in episodes chosen ("selected") for her to voice the role in. She voiced the role in those episodes of the season that hadn't been recorded before the other actress died. Imagine there are 10 apples on a table. You take 6 of them. You selected those 6. The other 4 were not selected. -SummerPhD^v2.022:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Here is a link that proves that The Croods: A New Age has been pushed up a month.

https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/1148874-the-croods-a-new-age-moves-up

To make that change to the article, you will need tocite the source. -SummerPhD^v2.019:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You templated me on my talk page about "post-1932 politics of the United States" but I have no idea what this would pertain to. I haven't edited any articles on this topic and have only been doing recent changes patrols today.Helper202 (talk)22:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying anything positive or negative about your editing by posting the template. I post them when I see newer editors at "hotbed" articles, templating both those actively involved in disputes and those merely editing on one or more of the pages. (Sometimes an editor in a heated discussion will see the template and think they are being targeted. I template anyone I see editing the article anew just to avoid that.) I probably hit you for an edit toProud Boys, reverting SurgeonRT whom I also templated. -SummerPhD^v2.023:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thanks.Helper202 (talk)23:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction: I did not template SurgeonRT. They were already templated. -SummerPhD^v2.023:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would reverting someone blanking content count as action that could be sanctioned? To be honest theWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions page isn't the easiest thing to read.Helper202 (talk)23:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there would need to be a lot more involved. DSs are meant to put a quick stop to disruption in articles that are prone to it. I've only seen DS applied where there is editing based on a clear POV. -SummerPhD^v2.023:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message you've left on my talk page. I should indeed have added an edit summary on my modification to the martian (film) page. I've edited the martian page again but this time added an edit summary. Can you check and see if it is adequate? Thanks. Wikieditor1377— Precedingunsigned comment added byWikieditor1377 (talk •contribs)22:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to serve notice that you are officially being warned for violating Wikipedia policies on civility and personal attacks. You appear to not understand what a personal attack is, and have interpreted legitimate and reasonable criticism as "personal attacks." Then, when you were told that your response was inappropriate and a violation of Wikipedia policy, you decided to engage in further personal attacks by issuing an inappropriate formal "warning" concerning "vandalism", which you alse appear not to understand, since talking is what talk pages are FOR, and threatened to involve my ISP. You are abusing your position within Wikipedia, and using your platform to violate multiple Wikipedia policies.

I am more than happy to take this up with someone higher than you.— Precedingunsigned comment added by47.150.190.198 (talk)04:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

47.150.190.198 has been blocked from trolling and disruption. -SummerPhD^v2.017:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you just warned0m9Ep for OR. You might want to be aware of thisdiscussion, suggesting that account might be a sock of17u9e and Irish Loughmoe castle. I don't know enough of the ins and outs of SPI to match them, but it seemed that 0m9Ep and 17u9e were a good match. What I saw wasn't enough to trigger complaints directly, but the editor is blatantly an old hand (see their user page, they advertise it) and seemed rather obnoxious. Regards,Tarl N. (discuss)04:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be afraid of SPI. File the case. Explain what makes you think they're the same person. Give links showing similar edits/comments/edit summaries or whatever. Check the edit histories of both for conflicting edits (two accounts for one person editing at the same time is unlikely) and gaps in one user's history that match times when the other user name was editing (if one name edited for an hour then stopped and a few minutes later the other editor started editing, for example). Maybe the new user name was registered right after the first name was blocked or warned. Maybe when one editor was challenged (on a talk page or by having an edit reversed) the other showed up to defend them (arguing for them on the talk page or restoring their edit). -SummerPhD^v2.017:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An FYI on these two editors- yes, with both making strikingly similar edits in regards to unsourced/trivial reruns of shows, definitely seems to be the same person. Also seem to be a possible block evasion of2603:6000:970b:643d::/64. Both accounts (Packman + Kingkobra) both use the word 'evan' instead of 'even', so at this point its pretty obvious... Already reported both atWP:AIV, but I'm sensing this may need to be brought toWP:ANI soon.Magitroopa (talk)04:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Packman2445 andKingkobra775 have both been indefinitely blocked for unsourced contributions. -SummerPhD^v2.020:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for contacting. I do believe this is an error, since I did cited billboard's official site showing each artist's history on the charts, showing that in fact, the respective songs were their only Top 40 Hits. In my view, everything seemed right. Could you please point out what was exactly the mistake made there? Thanks.

--BayronKaien (talk)07:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You provided links showing the artists' chart histories.

I reverted, asking you to see the article's talk page for the article's inclusion criteria. Those criteria call for two independent reliable sourcesdirectly saying it is a "one-hit wonder". -SummerPhD^v2.020:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article,Canadian Tour (Motley Crue Tour), you previously proposed for deletion, is up for discussion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Tour (Motley Crue Tour). Your opinion would be appreciated.Aspects (talk)22:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from DTTR, you don't need to hand out DS notices to anyone who's placed them in a given topic area in the past twelve months. I think I've placed a couple dozen AP2 notices in the past twelve months, mostly to people who turned out to be sockpuppets.Acroterion(talk)01:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and please forgive the notice. With the exception of a few admins whose blocks of a few trolls stick in my head -- and lacking a reasonable way to check who has notified others -- I don't have much of an option.

The goal is to head off those on one side who are notified coming to me claiming to be "targeted" by a notice. "Hey, yeah, I notified you, but the editor you were arguing with was also notified." -SummerPhD^v2.002:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the problem - it's something we run into at AN3, where we get dedicated edit-warriors demanding that the other guy(s) get the same treatment.Acroterion(talk)02:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've been working on the article I started aboutTerry English, and wonder if it can have the notability and sources tags removed?

He's been an odd one to make a page about, as he seems to have flown under the radar publicity-wise, despite working on many high-profile films. From what I can gather he has only recently started giving in-depth interviews. He has been described as 'widely acknowledged as the best armourer in the world' in an article about him in the UK weekly magazineCountry Life, and his work is held in the UK royal collection of armour, as well as in other museums.Adam Savage dedicated a seven-part filmed series to his work. Many of the online references to him refer to him as 'legendary', 'the great', etc (obviously these haven't been put into the article as the sources are not newspapers, magazines etc) so he is clearly held in high esteem. He seems to be one of those craftsmen that has been overlooked for some reason. I hope I have found enough sources/reasons to prove his notability and why he deserves a Wikipedia page. (I watched the Adam Savage videos and came to Wikipedia to look him up and was astounded he didn't have a page, given all his accomplishments).

Cheers,Stronach (talk)16:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you shrink theFile:KajagoogooHangonNow.jpg to something smaller?Copyrightpower1337 (talk)19:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, check out this video by CrudeNood:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXVNeLx_18And there is even an other video as well from somebody else, too:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNLuWORfle0 --DSZ (talk)23:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not reliable sources.

If you have questions related to article content (like this), you will need to discuss the issues on the article's talk page. -SummerPhD^v2.000:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In September 2020, the redirect fromMoana (Disney character) to the film was expanded into an article. You then reverted it back to a redirect.Draft:Moana (Disney character) has now been submitted for review. I want to be sure that you do not disagree with acceptance of the draft. It appears to me that there were two problems with the article that you cut back down to a redirect. First, it appears to have been a copy-paste from the draft that would have lost the history. Second, the editor who created the article (by the improper copy) seems to have been a sockpuppet. Either of those was reason to undo it. Is that correct? Do you know of any reason why the draft should not be accepted now?Robert McClenon (talk)00:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The majority incl government, think tanks and law enforcement use the language specific domain expert SLPC and ADL descriptions.Any source that cannot be corroborated and/or conflicts with the ADL and/or SLPC on the topic of right wing hate groups is not credible and unreliable. We don't cite Math Weekly on the Theory of Relativity page over Einstein. This is intellectual destitution at it's finest.2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk)18:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged this almost ten years ago as NN, but it's widely sold in the Northeastern United States.Bearian (talk)21:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting page. I just discovered that my adult autistic daughter has been editing Wikipedia articles. She makes lists from IMDb of animated series and movies with their release dates and memorizes them. When she sees a discrepancy of release dates between IMDb and Wikipedia, she tries to change the date in Wikipedia; or if Wikipedia only has the month and year of release, she tries to add the day. I'm glad she's not the only one, but I'm sorry that it has become a problem. Dates are the one thing she really excels at, and for all I know, the changes she made are correct. She has promised me that she won't try to edit anymore, but I will share your KIDSTVDATES page with her.Sparkmadley (talk)05:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen you around lately. I know life can suddenly get hectic but it seemed unlike you to just drop off editing completely and without warning. Hope things are going well for you.Sro23 (talk)20:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering how you are, too, Summer. You're editing just stopped and I hope you are okay and are just busy with life.Liz^Read!Talk!20:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I haveadded you to theWikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. You were slightly before my time, so I missed you by a few months, but I appreciate your work onWP:KIDSTVDATES.wizzito |say hello!23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit delayed, but I see that you leftthis comment onUser:Mradice's talk page in April ("You were a member of Aerosmith and no one acknowledges it? I understand your suffering. I've won five Pulitzers, named a living saint and for 3 years in the late 1980s I single handedly ran UNICEF. Unfortunately, until independent reliable sources recognize our immeasurable contributions to the world, Wikipedia has nothing to say about us"). This is funny and all, butMark Radice really did tour withAerosmith (for which a RS was later found and added to his article); it might be condign to ask whether messages like this are a little mean.jp×g07:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HelloUser:SummerPhDv2.0. I am writing to you, and to others, as I noticed you were one leading editors working on theList of Christmas Carols article in the past. The article has since gone into disrepair and I and others have been trying to bring it back to the status you had achieved, however, there is one particular editor who has continually reverted any edits made and who is currently serving out a block due to this type of behaviour on another article and who insists popular Christmas songs such asThe Christmas Song,Silver Bells and others are Christmas Carols (you will get a better understanding by observing thetalk page in recent years), which contradicts the consensus you and others reached on defining which songs would be present on the list. I would be grateful if you could collaborate and return the article to its pristine state that you and others had achieved in the past. Also, I would be grateful if you could giveChristmas carol andCarol a look over too. I would like to see the articles achieveWikipedia:Featured articles status in advance of the holiday. Thank you37.18.134.184 (talk)16:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how's it going? It's been awhile. I hope you're doing well. Hey, I don't know if you've been reading the talk page of theList of superhero television series, but I just noticed that for the past couple of years, there have been updates. One of the editors challenged some sources in the Fake Sources section. I already fixed the citation forJonny Quest- for some reason, it doesn't say it's a superhero show anymore. I don't know about the other sources, though; they seemed pretty legit to me but I could be wrong. Plus, a couple of editors are complaining on the talk page about what they think doesn't belong on the list. I know- I can't believe these arguements are happening again. They're either not reading the section about the clarifications of what does and what does not belong on the list, or read it and didn't care and insist that their personal opinions are material. But thankfully, no bulk removals! I didn't know if you'd be interested in looking at these updates. Anyway, stay safe and God bless!!!Sparkles32 (talk)14:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SummerPhDv2.0:

greetings and salutations,

i was clicking around the site and i got myself lost, somehow i ended up reading your user page about:rounding..

i noticed a sentence in the fourth paragraph that reads:"Rounding is a bit more difficult, but more accurate: $148.95 is, after all, much closer to $150 than $149. $140 is getting further away."

and i thought to myself:"how is $148.95 much closer to $150 than $149??"

then i thought about context and what you might haveactually meant..

did you mean:"$148.95 is much closer to $150 than it is to $149??"

or

did you mean:"$148.95 is much closer to $150 than $149 is??"

hopefully, you understand the difference between the two, and the fact that neither of those statements is correct.

also, the final two sentences of the last paragraph on the page read:""$5 million" means the real figure was somewhere between $5,499,999 and $4,500,000, a difference of almost $1 million. "$5.0 million" indicates the real figure is $5,049,999 and $4,050,00, a difference of about $100,000."

now, in that last sentence, im prettysure you meant to say:"$4,050,000" instead of:"$4,050,00,"

if"$4,050,000" is in fact what you meant, i would just like to point out that: ($5,049,000 - $4,050,000) isnot a difference of about $100,000.. it isactually a difference of: $999,000 or almost $1 million (about the same difference as the example that makes up the first sentence of the last paragraph, just $999 less)

i figured i should probably let you know what i found, it seems like you may or may notreally be into accuracy.

personally, im big on accuracy and grammar, and i think i would probably want somebody to point these things out if they found them in something i wrote. even though i refuse to capitalize or use apostrophes in "casual" settings, if im editing something "important" like a wikipedia article, i follow the rules much more closely.

i also figured it wasnt my place to attempt editing anything to try to correct it for you, mainly because it doesnt belong to me, but also because im just not 100% sure what you were trying to say.

hopefully this message finds you happy and healthy, and you understand that i am only trying to be helpful.

if i misunderstood something, or if the way it sits right now says exactly what you wanted it to say from the start, i dont think it is, but if it is, then i apologize and feel a bit silly.

if it isnt too much trouble, could you possibly reply and let me know what corrections you end up making, if any?

i also realize that this is probably like the least important thing ever, and i probably didnt even need to message you. but i did anyway, most likely out of boredom.

take it easy

p.s. i cant figure out why this message keeps getting appended to your existing talk topic, if you can tell me what im doing wrong, or what is making it happen, id really appreciate it. thanks.

Snarevox (talk)14:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I came across your username on a talk page archive and thought 'haven't seen them around for a while'. Turns out I haven't seen you around for two years! I hope you're well, and enjoying whatever you're doing now. BestGirth Summit _(blether)19:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this person may be ... deceased. Proof of life is needed.76.143.148.157 (talk)07:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Summer may have left or probably retired since the end of 2020.2001:D08:2900:177E:BCBE:9913:DF8C:9D2E (talk)07:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happened -- just got bored I guess?Herostratus (talk)22:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectWikipedia:IBP has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 19 § Wikipedia:IBP until a consensus is reached.Remsense ‥ 论11:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean how can you just haveleft? I am hoping that you are OK.Herostratus (talk)04:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleLakeside Singers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakeside Singers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

—Bkell (talk)16:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery
• Wikipedians who opt out of template messages