User talk:SummerPhDv2.0

From June 12, 2006 through May 25, 2015 I edited as SummerPhD. I then managed to lose my password and was unable to prove my identity as I had not updated my email address. Oops!

I then briefly edited as "Tefkasp" (for: The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD). No one understood.

Now I'm just SummerPhDv2.0. Same ornery Lesbian Space Pope_TM, new user name.

Incidents, accidents, hints, allegations and things left unsaid

1) Questions you ask here will be answered here.

2) Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things: ~~~~

3) This is no number 3.

4) I did not delete "your" page or block you. I am not an admin. (I may have suggested that the page should be deleted or that you should be blocked.)

4a) You do not have a First Amendment right to edit Wikipedia.

5) I don't care if you did hear it from your best friend that her next-door neighbor's cousin knows this guy who once dated someone who went to high school with a roadie for the band, we still need a reliable, verifiable source.

6) The blog/myspace/youtube/sign on a telephone pole you read is not a reliable, verifiable source.

7) You are free to assume I am stupid, lazy or "out to get you". We probably just disagree.

8) Personal attacks are a blockable offense. Sometimes the block is even enforced.

10) Try not to be a low to moderate level dick. If you must be offensive and/or boorish, please go for the gold.

Berklee Alisa Edit

Thanks for the help...wasn't sure I should add the New York Times Bestseller bit, but decided to put it in anyway. Thanks for tidying it up. :-)

~usmarinesjz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmarinesjz (talk • contribs) 17:00, September 18, 2012‎

Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Binders full of women is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 07:41, June 29, 2013‎

Ancient astronauts

See Talk:Ancient astronauts#Nation of Islam - you may wish to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 13:04, July 5, 2013‎

talkback

Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. You have new messages at Talk:Wonga.com.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybec (talk • contribs) 01:06, October 16, 2013‎

Barbie Cancelled Film

Hey there, my friend! Thanks for editing the "Cancelled Film" in Barbie (film series). Anyway, I made some edits to make the sentences more clear. I hope you will not change it again. Thank you. :)

Here are some other page where you can find the trademark controversy of the Sleeping Beauty:

• The Sleeping Beauty (ballet)#Trademark controversy
• Aurora (Disney)#Trademark.

You can check them out and compare with the Barbie (film series) page. Thank you. :) Bianca Anne Martins (talk) 12:55 PM, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Rip Taylor

Thank you for the heads up about not filling out the edit feature on Rip Taylor's listing when I deleted a paragraph about Patty Duke and him on "Super Password". I just went back, removed the paragraph in question again, and filled out the edit feature as you advised. The reason I removed the paragraph in the first place was because I strongly felt when I read it that the incident described in the paragraph - which seemed to me to be the LONGEST paragraph in his biography - was of a truly minor, trivial incident that added absolutely nothing important or insightful about the individual's life. Genarians (talk)

Sockpuppet discussion invite

You are obviously aware of the frequent bad edits to the Walt Disney World Railroad article, but have you ever considered that the vast majority of those unregistered IP edits are being done by the same person? If you look up the geolocations for the ones that do those huge walls of edits all at once, they are all from the same town: Lexington, South Carolina. I opened up an investigation about it here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.107.173.231. Feel free to comment there when you have a moment. Jackdude101 (Talk) 6:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate your emphasis

…on verifiable sources, and the frankness and humour you bring regarding others' responses to you here. At the risk of "BingGD," I would suggest that no part of anyone's "privates", irrespective of gender/sex, should be seen as an acceptable term of insult or derision—as all such parts evolved/were put there for good reason. (I muster great restraint in not being more descriptive.) "A" words, "B" words, "C" words, "D" words, all should be beneath us. A good natured invitation to use a higher brow variation of your point no. 10. Cheers, Le Prof

Blanking material

Per this, there is no reason to just blank things on account of being unsourced, and in fact, it can be viewed as bitey and pointy. You can tag with {{cn}} or {{refimprove}}, which is more appropriate. The reasons for immediate blanking are BLP violations or legitimate factual controversy. Other material can be removed, but doesn't have to be. Blanking a list that can be verified makes more work for others, as unless we can drop everything right now, intervening edits may make it challenging to resurrect the material, and then you've made more work for everyone else. The article in question is monitored by editors who have been around here a long time, but we are busy people and things get worked on in their own time. You are welcome to initiate an article improvement discussion at the talkpage. Better yet, you are also welcome to add sources yourself. Montanabw^(talk) 22:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I certainly did not bite any newcomers there, nor am I disrupting the project to make a point. These lists tend to sprout up in every article on every tiny town that has an editor connected to it. We get notable residents who someone heard once got gas there, movies and TV shows filmed there (because someone is certain that one scene looked a lot like Tom's Shoe Store on Main St.) and other such unsourced "content". No, I don't have to delete the list as part of policy, but I am certainly allowed to. Additionally, I am not taking on new work assignments from other editors at present. Yes, I could ask for sources, let it sit for a year and, gosh, no one bothered to look up the ones that were there and now there are a few more. I could then remove the old ones and let the new ones sit for a year while the old ones are restored and a few more pop up, all while fighting back the few sources that are added while repeatedly explaining that IMDb, Stripteasepedia and GreatFallsTalks.com's message board are not reliable sources.

No thanks. If you would like to keep them, the article's talk page explains Wikipedia's core policy on this. I'm sure sourcing that 2009 film in post production was next up on someone's to do list.

If you'd like to adopt a list somewhere, add {{cn}} tags to new entries as they are added, allow however much time you feel is appropriate, then accept those that don't get sourced (that would be all of them) as a personal assignment for you to research, feel free. I've found that killing the unsourced, unverified list -- which is fully consistent with policy -- and reverting future additions with consensus talk page warnings eventually brings in sourced, stable additions. While unsourced additions and fake sources still show up at List of Berklee College of Music alumni, the list has grown, with sources, in the two years since I killed half the list for being unsourced.

If you believe this article should somehow be exempt from WP:V, I invite you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, first off, Great Falls was at one time the largest city in Montana, still is the third-largest city in Montana, supports an Air Force base and is a major commercial center for northern Montana and southern Alberta. So it is not "Smallville" and your insulting, snarky condescending tone is uncivil in the extreme (to say nothing of expressing bigotry against places that aren't major metro areas). Second, I've been on WP for 11 years, and your contribs indicate you have only been here for two, so, really, do not quote policy at me. Third, to show good faith, it is far more appropriate to add appropriate tags such as {{dubious}} if you think a statement is wrong, or {{Unreliable source}} where there was an IMDb problem. At the talkpage, I also provided you a simple source, so you can choose to waste bandwidth being snarky or you can fix the problem and add a couple sources; if this means a couple films get tossed, that's fine. But I have 5,000 articles on my watchlist and other priorities at the moment, so it would be appropriate for you to...

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Montanabw^(talk) 00:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Great Falls averages 400 page visits a day. Smallville, which does not exist, gets about 2,600. If I marked a fact there as needing a source, I'd bet it would get a source. A film that apparently was in post-production when it was added to Great Falls 8 years ago I would expect to get zero attention. I realize you are too busy to bother with this, so it is certainly easier to tell me to do it. WP:SOFIXIT? Yeah, "Be bold can be explained in three words: 'Go for it'." I went for it. Apparently you didn't really want that.

I see another editor has WP:SOFIXedIT. Unless you have anything else to accuse me of, I think we're on to the article's talk page now. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

W-e-e-e-lll...! Yes-- I did an initial patch, and then the other editor who curates that article did a more thorough job. So.... An apology from you for doing a driveby blanking of the section and then doubling down with condescension and rudeness would be nice, though I don't anticipate it happening. I still fail to understand why you chose to go after this particular article -- was it a random pick or what? I wish you'd just understand the burden you create -- While there are many ways to contribute to wikipedia, people who seldom create content need to have a bit more consideration for those of us who do. I've only created about 250 articles, but I also maintain a 5000-article watchlist. Have you ever taken an article to GAN or FAC? I ask that sincerely because I don't know if you understand how hard it is to do content work -- WE KNOW there are problems all across WP but only so much time to fix them and SO FEW PEOPLE to fix them -- trust me, everybody complains, but can they be arsed to do any actual content work? No. It's The Little Red Hen stuff like this that makes good editors want to quit. So even if you don't feel inclined to behave with any grace to me, please think about ways you can be part of the solution next time. Montanabw^(talk) 08:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You removed material as unsourced. One month later, I removed material as unsourced.

You'll have to forgive my condescension and rudeness. I'm a "jerk", "lazy", "rude" and a "bigot".

I did not create a burden. I created a WP:BURDEN, one which you chose to ignore. You've created more articles than I have. That's swell.

I am terribly sorry that my work does not meet your standards. Geeze, there I go with my condescension, rudeness, lack of grace, bigotry and all the rest. I'm just part of the problem.

Unlike you, I haven't done a goddamned thing to improve the project in my 11 years here. All I have done is remove information. 99.9% of that material was valuable information. The remaining 0.1% is harmless. I should either buck up and become a mini-you or dig a hole, climb in and pull the dirt on top of myself. That's for sharing.

Incidentally:

===Apollos University===

{{main|Apollos_University}}

Great Falls is also home to [[Apollos University]], a private university founded in 2004 that relocated from California to downtown Great Falls in 2016. Apollos offers online degree offerings ranging from associates and undergraduate programs through to the doctorate in business administration and information technology.

Granted, it's not a non-notable B-movie filmed, in part, near Great Falls... - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, we can discuss this with a bit more rationality. Looking at your comments, I am concerned you are taking my legitimate criticisms (that you were rude to just blank a whole section without attempting to determine if any of the content was legitimate or not) and exaggerating what I said to make it appear that my criticisms are far more extreme than they are. Looking at your public userpage, it is also clear that you have gotten attacked a lot by other people, so perhaps your reaction is at least understandable if you have been besieged by internet trolls, and there are a lot of those. However, I am not one of them. I am an experienced editor who works on content. I am also an editor who gets very tired of people who point out problems but will not contribute solutions other than to tell me that I should do all the work. Montanabw^(talk) 02:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

So, as I said at Magnolia677s talkpage and the article talkpage, we can mutually acknowledge that the problem has been fixed, and, sadly, the bulk of the work was not completed by either of us. We could settle this spat pretty simply with some mutual ownership of where we each went off the rails followed by mutual apology. How about you examine 1) the parameters of your apparent bias against rural and western America (I interpreted your comments as implying that nothing notable could possibly be filmed there -- and if that was your intent, it was really, really offensive, particularly given the sourced content Tim1965 and I verified) and examine 2) why you felt it was OK to blank what you hadn't reviewed (Your example of me dumping a new edit with a very clear WP:NOADS violation was apples and oranges compared to a review of a laundry list that clearly had degraded over the years, but was about 60%-70% salvagable))? In turn, I will examine why I was so easily triggered by your actions and responded with such intensity. Would that be reasonable? Montanabw^(talk) 02:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You have repeatedly called me a jerk, rude and a lot more for removing unsourced material. You have repeatedly said that I did so without explanation. Now you are asking me to apologize to you while explaining that, gosh, you're just tired of people like me. Oh, and now "Unsourced" means "removed what I think is advertising". As for me supposedly telling you that you should "do all the work", please review the edit history to see which one of us said, "do the work". Yes, in restoring unsourced material that was challenged, the WP:BURDEN is yours. Even though you are busy, busy, busy; the burden is yours. Even though you want me to leave the material there and tag it, the burden is yours. Even though you want me to research a list of non-notable films, the burden is yours. That is not me being rude, a jerk, a bigot or anything else you have repeatedly called me, that is policy. You don't have to like it, but you can't demand that I follow what you might wish were policy and ignore what is policy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content removal guidelines clearly state "If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal." No discussion from anyone occurred on the Talk page until after several back and forth edits. Furthermore, the guidelines assert "When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed." It seems unreasonable to assume that no sources for the unverified content could be found (especially that for the major-studio motion pictures, or films with Wikipedia articles). The information should have been retained, with some for of tagging and a Talk Page discussion. The guidelines specifically ask editors "If you think a source can be found, but you do not wish to supply one yourself, you can add the template {{fact}} ({{cn}} will also work) after the statement, which will add [citation needed]. This will encourage someone, often the editor who initially added the statement, to add a citation for the information." If the information is questionable (but not obviously so) under WP:PROMOTION, then removal would also be inappropriate. The guidelines ask for a Talk Page discussion and tagging in borderline cases. So whether "I or you or anyone else" feels "every rinky-dink town in America has a list like this" (sic) is irrelevant; whether "you or I or anyone else" does not think an editor is paying attention to the Great Falls page is irrelevant. Wikipedia's policy is to encourage discussion and tagging before removal. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content removal is an essay, not a guideline, much less a policy. As it says, "This page is an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." What it says you "can" do is someone's opinion of what you can do. You have changed that opinion of what can be done to a policy of what must be done.

WP:V is a core policy. It states, unequivocally, that any editor may remove unsourced material at any time. It further states that unsourced material should not be restored without an inline citation. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution....Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." (bolding in the original) Any editor may remove unsourced material at any time. Anyone who wishes to restore it must provide an inline source.

The material was unsourced. I removed it because it was unsourced. I made it clear that was why I removed it. Restoring the material without inline sources was against policy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I shall try one last time to get through to you about policy interpretation. The policy does not mandate removal of everything unsourced or require removal solely because something unsourced (in which case, we'd delete 3/4 of the encyclopedia, I fear) WP:V's standard is "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (emphasis added). In other words, you certainly may "challenge" material, if it's an immediate problem, it can be removed immediately but blanking just for being unsourced is not mandated save for limited circumstances (such as BLP violations, hoaxes and other specific reasons). On the rest, there is WP:NODEADLINE. Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not stated that unsourced material must be removed, only that policy allows me to do so. You restored the material without an inline source. That action was in violation of policy: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

Did I have to remove the material? No. Was there anything wrong with me removing unsourced material? Also no. Was there anything wrong with you restoring the unsourced material without an inline cite? Yes.

I could have done something different. You should have done something different. That's policy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

We shall have to agree to disagree. Also, can't hurt to cite the rest of the policy to provide context; cherry-picking doesn't strengthen your argument... " ...In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] ... If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." I do wish you'd take your own advice at #10 at the top of this page and take it to heart. Montanabw^(talk) 02:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not "cherry picking", you are assuming I did not consider (and dismiss) tagging the material. That I am encouraged to (find and) provide a cite is not an imperative. You should not have restored the material without inline cites. That is policy.

The only arguments here are 1) what you wish I had not done 2) what policy says you should not have done. I don't disagree that you wanted me to do something else. Do you disagree that you should not have restored the material without an inline cite and attacked me personally? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't lost control

Hi. Why remove the genre of "She's Lost Control" as being post punk? Check the genre of the album or even "New Dawn Fades". Want a reference there? Regards.

I just don't particularly want to discuss it esp. given the lyrical content, I will if you wish. But I feel the overall album consensus should rise above any canopy otherwise. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Your will need either:

*a reliable source saying the song is post-punk or

*a consensus on the talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll go for it. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Love Light in Flight

So, what's the next move for that article?Mrakd002.302 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said, the only problems I see are a lack of sources and lack of depth.

What are the problems you see? - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thompson Twins discography

Regarding the edit on the Thompson Twins discography (Greatest Hits, 1996): the album was released in 1990 and was the only compilation of their's on the Stylus label. Source: official charts website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.153.127 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your change to the year because you did not provide an edit summary explaining your change.

As it turns out, our article on the album in question, Greatest Hits (Thompson Twins album) and Amazon both say it came out in 1996.[1] - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate all your input

For the record I am not some Harvard yard, ivory-tower braniac. I dropped out of junior college (or rather was kicked out for no reason for breaking a bunch of windows). Anyway, I realize I might seem daft to you, but I assure you I am trying my best. 2602:301:772D:62D0:90B8:3F33:32DF:5308 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you are daft any more than I think breaking a bunch of windows is not a reason. That doesn't mean I think your suggested addition is necessarily an improvement or that breaking windows is a good reason. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

°°^°° Suicide Squad Edit °°^°°

Hi,

The edit was not intentional; it was caused by technical difficulties. I don't intend to edit SQUAT on Wikipedia anymore. BlbAtp (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Walt Disney World Railroad Problems

Greetings. I'd just like to inform you that the unregistered South Carolina poster that has disruptively edited the Walt Disney World Railroad article in the past is back (the one whose edits led to the entire content of the article being deleted last year). He has been sourcing his edits now, which is a welcome change, but he still doesn't know what the difference between important and unimportant information is and his grammar is still worse than a 5th grader. I have allowed him to make edits in the hope that he would eventually start editing correctly, but he does not respond to my suggestions about improving his edits, and I have basically been babysitting him and reviewing all of his countless edits for the past several weeks. Even if the edits are acceptable, I still have to spell check and grammar check every edit, which is very cumbersome and time-consuming. I have nominated the article for semi-protection (for the fourth time) here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Walt Disney World Railroad. The person's current non-mobile IP is here: 98.25.195.28, but he mainly uses mobile IPs now, which makes it an even bigger pain. Just thought I'd keep you in the loop. Jackdude101 (Talk) 05:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: I was unable to convince the Admin who responded to the above request to semi-protect the article, so I just resubmitted it with more details included about the problem (the same link above will take you to it). If you have a moment, briefly commenting on that protection request about your shared experiences with this person will increase the chances of it being implemented, and hopefully permanently this time. Jackdude101 (Talk) 01:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Sleepy Hollow

Some unknown person removed Sleepy Hollow from the List of superhero television series, saying it doesn't call the main character a superhero. However, the source, http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/sleepy-hollow/240688/sleepy-hollow-and-the-abyss-gazes-back-review, refers to the two main characters as "biblical superheroes." What do you think?Sparkles32 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

If the other editor hasn't responded to your comment on the talk page in a couple of days, restore it. If they remove it again without explanation on the talk page, I think you're on the right side of this. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Lyrick Studios

Hello. I'm not sure why my Lyrick Studios edit was reverted, since the original date didn't have a citation either. I want to say Lyrick was established in either 1994 or 1995, but I cannot find anywhere on the Internet that verifies that. The article itself says it was established in 1994. I do know for sure the date of 1992 is incorrect, since it's predecessor (The Lyons Group) was still a division of DLM, Inc (according to the credits of Season 1 Barney episodes). By 1995, Lyons became a division of Lyrick under the name "Lyons Partnership L.P". NBA2030 (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

For whatever reason, we have lots of changes to dates in articles related to kids' media without references to back up the change or explanation of any kind (edit summary or talk page). Maybe the change was right. Maybe the original was right. Maybe they're both wrong.

So what's wrong with changing the unsourced info that you say you think is wrong for other information that you say you think might be right? Well, it didn't improve the situation. Yes, you think it did, but some of the editors making these changes are clearly vandals. Any editor (including the vandals) would (under your theory) be free to make whatever changes they want.

Sourced info would end that. Unsourced changes only perpetuates it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Seriously?

Not reliable? Amazon is reliable. --ACase0000 (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. Credits listed at Amazon are from IMDb (which is not reliable for unreleased/forthcoming productions). The release date given on Amazon has no reasonable connection to the theatrical release date. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that is the case. Additionaly, Thomas films are never released theatrically in the USA (only on DVD), only in Japan, the UK and Australia. --ACase0000 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:Citing IMDb.

I don't care where it is released theatrically, the Amazon cite would only show when Amazon expects to have physical media for sale. As we have reason to believe there will be a token theatrical release first, that is not a release date.

The main issue here is that the article fails WP:NFILM. To remain, we need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources and confirmation from those sources that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process. We do not have that. I should probably take it to AfD and/or redirect it, but unsourced additions to this page are a handy way of finding editors who are adding unsourced material elsewhere. For the moment, I'm content to leave the article up and keep yanking out all of the unsourced additions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I am sorry I bothered you. --ACase0000 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Also I think the List of Thomas & Friends railway engines needs to be protected again. What do you think? --ACase0000 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Rocket Power Episodes

How would I add sources to List of Rocket Power Episodes? Would I get my edits back? It took me over an hour to do! Please write back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandnic (talk • contribs) 20:53, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

If you click the "History" tab at the top of the article's page, you will find all of your changes listed. For help citing a source, please see WP:CITE. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

File:Wonder Woman statue at Athens Metro Mall.jpg	for defending the...
	...Wonder Woman article. Agree with your thoughts on its talkpage. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have any thoughts for the discussion there, Shearonink, they would be helpful. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what that particular editor is actually looking to change or what their exact objection is, but sure - I'll think on it and post some thoughts. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, at this point I give up and am stepping away from the Alamo Drafthouse controversy wording - I think my brain is getting a Wiki-headache. Sorry. Shearonink (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A Guinness for you!

"I guess boys will be boys, except when you don't like the idea that some of the virtual tantrums are from children." LOL! Cheers! DonQuixote (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

LOL,theres isnt any reliable source sorry

Hey dude,here's the guy that edited the Space Invaders page Yeah,i don't have a reliable source for the info that i wrote,and yeah, no one will belive me if I don't justify where i got the information;so I just wanted to ask,Would it stay if I just don't place the name of this presountous record beater acquainted of the creator guy? (I know that still it smells fishy in here) I would categorise it as "urban legend" or "popular belief" just like other pages Im not affirming that its true although i belive so Thank you BLackySensei BlackySensei (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

BlackySensei has been indefinitely blocked.

(The answer would have been no.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Grace j

an article in VIBE magazine says it? but, i don’t see no citations or nothin. Not even in MLA format... I have a screenshot of the article doe... Gheeoe (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

g Jones article in VIBE says it well you need to a citations? maybe MLA or not but WP:CITE... we don't want no article screenshot it no reliability... - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Adeva (grace j)

I know it’s March 1994, page 74, on Vibe Magazine. Gheeoe (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I now sleep at night it adeva g jones on VIBE! - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop It

Stop the edit warring and any other form of disruptive editing. Sort out your differences with Revrant civilly or at ANI. But if there is any more edit warring I will block both of you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a BLP issue, normally exempt from 3RR. The contentious claim was "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I warned the other editor and asked them to discuss the issue at the BLP noticeboard. After a final warning, I reported the other editor at ANV. Rejected there, I have now taken the issue to ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revrant_and_BLP_issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. ANI is where this belongs for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Genre revert

Hi. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Online_and_print and under "AllMusic" it says to not use the genres they provide, "as it is generated from a separate source from the prose.". This is why I removed it from the Bridge Over Trouble Water infobox. Thanks. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 21:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edit, marked as minor and described as "formatting" was not a minor edit, not was it simple formatting. Instead, you had removed a sourced genre without explanation (as Allmusic is a reliable source for genres outside of the sidebar, it was not immediately obvious that the genre was not reliably sourced). - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say that it's reliable outside an infobox for genres? It says on WP:ALBUMAVOID that it should be avoided. I'm not trying to argue. Just getting clarification.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 00:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Biography/reviews are fine, but do not use genre sidebar, as it is generated from a separate source from the prose." The prose -- the main body of the article -- is reliable. The sidebar is automatically generated, most likely from Amazon, and not reliable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Mjj4ever's unsourced additions

Please stop erasing my revisions to Michael Jackson unreleased songs Wiki page, especially the posthumous and unreleased albums section. Thriller 3D has been confirmed for release this year by John Landis! He directed the original Thriller short film. That's about as reputable a source as there is. Also, as for MJ's unreleased albums, they are confirmed by his collaborators and recording engineers. Please put my revisions back. Thank you! -Mjj4ever— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjj4ever (talk • contribs) 14:03, June 27, 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally found your way to the talk pages, Mjj4ever.

Over the past year, I have revert numerous additions you made to List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson because, as the notes on your talk page explain, you did not cite any reliable sources for your changes.

If you wish to restore your additions, you will need to cite your sources. If you need help with how this works, ask. Do not continue to add unsourced material. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The Needle Drop

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding The Needle Drop should be count as an reliable source or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Petticoat Junction edits

Why did you undo my recent edits? I am watching the show every weekday and add info that I notice. I replayed the audio several times and Betty Jo definitely called the dog Higgins. And the Shady Rest dog is not called the Shady Rest Pooch, especially not a capitalized "Pooch."

Respectfully submitted, saps48 Saps48 (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a little too easy to become caught up in a show, notice trivial details and believe they are more important than they are. By watching the show and adding what we see, we could easily have an article dozens of pages long on each episode including all of the dialogue, facts extracted from the dialogue, facts that seem to conflict with facts from other episodes, changing clothing styles, continuity errors, new pieces add to the set, details apparently added about various characters/props/locations, etc.

The best defense we have against such runaway articles is WP:NOR: other than very basic facts (simple plot summaries, for example), the article should only include information that independent reliable sources have discussed. If the episode adds a rocking chair, someone flubs a line or you think you can start to map out the town, it is likely trivia. If independent reliable sources don't discuss it, it is trivia and should not be included. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Walking with Dinosaurs

Regarding my most recent edit to Walking with Dinosaurs, it was an attempt to make the sentence grammatically correct, though I can see how it is a little superfluous. I'm ok with the revert, I just wanted to explain. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel that the sentence is grammatically correct. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

i'm sorry.

Summer, I am sorry I was experimenting and I will now use the sandbox instead of editing other article without a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICANEDITKEWLSTUFF112 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Your awesome!

I love your work with Wikipedia those vandalizing little skunks are bullies and are rude! Your awesome Bro!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by ICANEDITKEWLSTUFF112 (talk • contribs) 09:31, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Ur kewl bro ICANEDITKEWLSTUFF112 (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I was just complementing you and i'm sorry I will read the guidelines and never disappoint you again. ICANEDITKEWLSTUFF112 (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

My Edits on Stacy's Mom

Ca you not revert additions without checking? You said my comment was unsourced as the reason it was reverted. You only had to look it up on YouTube to see if it was true, which it is. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRdyQjSHcJE. Can you put it back? If I needed a source, there you go. Use that link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsigs (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your addition because you did not cite an independent reliable source.[2] I do not doubt that numerous people have created videos/recordings of themselves singing various covers and/or parodies of various songs. That said, the overwhelming majority of those recordings are trivial.

In general, covers are not included in the song's article unless the cover is itself notable independent of the original version. The most common ways to demonstrate this are the cover charting or receiving significant coverage in independent reliable sources.

For example, thousands (literally) of acts have recorded covers of the Beatles "Yesterday" (expanding this to unofficial recordings (Youtube and such), we would easily be in the tens of thousands). Our article mentions two of them: One by Bob Dylan is mentioned in passing along with his opinion that the song is horrible. The other is one by Paul McCartney at the Grammys. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't want to be rude but...

In the top of the page, where is #9? From to 8 to 10. Just saying. Again, not trying to be rude, but it's bugging me. Donny (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I left it in Florida. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha very funny. Good one. Donny (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Lay off the girl Donny. I did not intend for you to start bashing this girl's work and she might leave now. Great job. Špičky (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Donny (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S.*clap* *clap* *clap* Donny (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hooks

How is someone's death not lead material? Almost all individuals have their deaths in the lead. why would you remove it? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 23:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSBIO, the lede section should include:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility));
2. Dates of birth and death, if known (but for dates of birth see WP:BLPPRIVACY, which takes precedence).
3. Context (location or nationality);
4. The notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played;
5. Why the person is notable.

Basically, the goal is to state who the person is/was and why they are notable. For most people, their cause of death has little or nothing to do with their notability. Suppose we were talking about Helen Keller. If you were telling someone who Helen Keller was, it's very unlikely you would mention her death. Abraham Lincoln's assassination would likely be part of all but the shortest of summaries. Ask 100 people at random who Helen Keller was and I'd wager 0 would mention her death. Of 100 people asked about Lincoln, a good number would mention his assassination.

Hooks was an actress and comedian, known for SNL, Designing Women, and a few other roles. If we asked 100 people about Hooks, the only reason any would mention her death is WP:RECENTISM. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

New MariaJaydHicky sock?

I saw your note at Talk:Rihanna#Socks, after reporting OntheJ.Lothisrebirth (talk · contribs) for edit-warring. Without reviewing the huge SPI report, the account certainly seems like someone with an editing history and an axe to grind [3][4] [5] [6]. The edits, edit summaries, and comments look like another sock. What do you think? --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. That's a WP:DUCK.[7] - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism

I see you blocked this IP user User talk:104.57.183.127 for 3 days. It appears even after his block, he's still vandalizing some pages, examples here and here. There's more but it be best to look at his revision history. Maybe it's time for a permanent block? Armegon (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I cannot block anyone.

If the editor is making unsourced/unexplained changes (which may or may not be "vandalism"), revert the change(s) and place warnings on their talk page. If it looks like they've been warned enough and just aren't getting it (or if it seems to be a continuation of their past problem(s), post a notice at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

(Both placing warnings and requesting blocks is much easier using Wikipedia:Twinkle.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The New Bulk Removal of the List of superhero television series

As you probably already know, DoctorHver (talk) made a bulk removal in the List of superhero television series. He said the list had too much stuff and that it should only consist of American shows. I don't know about length, but the list is supposed to be about all superhero TV shows. He also removed a couple of shows that are America. Plus, it's not just removals; DoctorHver (talk) left a mess. Is it all right if I undo the changes?Sparkles32 (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The bold-revert-discuss cycle is a good way to approach such situations. If someone boldly makes a change to an article and you disagree (especially if it is a major restructuring of the article), revert the change and start a discussion of the issue on the talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I restored the removals. DoctorHver (talk) might have something to say about this, but we'll see. Thanks! God bless!!!Sparkles32 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Home Alone 3

Home Alone 3 really is the only film in the franchise that takes place after Christmas, i'm not making it up. Why do you keep removing it from the page, are you saying it's not true?Dansham (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I keep removing it from the page and saying it is original research, which it is. When you determine that a film is a reunion of two actors who previously worked together in a different film several years earlier, I remove that as original research also.[8]

With some reading and imagination, it is possible to find millions of things that are "true" but trivial: How old Wilma's mother was when Wilma was born in The Flintstones, the number of forks on the table in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?, how long SpongeBob has worked at the Krusty Krab, etc.

The easiest way to sort out the meaningful from the trivial (and, possibly, the just plain wrong) is to cite an independent reliable source which directly states a fact. If no independent reliable sources are discussing which of the films in the series take place at before, near or after Christmas, it is unsourced and trivial.

On a related note, you have been repeatedly warned and blocked for adding information to articles which seems to be deliberately incorrect. At that time, I warned you that you would need to begin citing reliable sources for any additions/changes to information in articles.[9]

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's pillars. You will need to cite reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Difficulty citing sources

I find citing sources extremely hard to do. ChocolateElemental (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to work on that. If you are having specific problems, ask. There are a few tools that might be helpful. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As for my edits being reverted recently, the sources that I've picked are actually correct on Applejack and Twilight being tomboyish characters, even if the site is user edited. Sadly, it's the only sources that I can find that Applejack and Twilight are confirmed on what I've already stated. It makes me quite a little sad really. ChocolateElemental (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That's too bad. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The Cat in the Hat (film) edits

Audrey Geisel's refusal to allow any more live-action Seuss adaptations was due to The Cat in the Hat's largely negative reception. How is that disruptive editing? 24.18.128.102 (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

There has been an unending parade of edits by disposable IPs targeting this article with attempts to add synthesis. The source cited for her refusal to allow further adaptations does not say it was because of this film's reviews.

{https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emoji&diff=prev&oldid=795381093 This edit] added similar synthesis to another article.

Your edit here added an infobox directly over a warning not to add an infobox (p9inting toward the specific consensus).

And, of course, we have your dispute at The Master of Disguise.

Overall, yes, I'd say "disruptive editing" is a fair description. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

One warning

Stay off my fucking talk page. Or my friendly banter will take on a new tone you will not like. At all. Try me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk • contribs) 08:09, August 29, 2017 (UTC)

"Your" talk pages are not yours and exist to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. I will continue to post warnings and notices to those pages as needed. You are correct that we can't make you learn anything: reliable sources, civility, etc. We can and will tell you what you need to learn if you want to stick around. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Missed topic

The information from the articles that are said on the Foodfight! page is not factual information. The writers of the articles were not there and do not know what happened. Production was delayed, yes. But the reasons stated are not true. Ceejsanjosee (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Ceejsanjosee: Sorry I missed your comment originally. You had placed it in the middle of my talk page and I didn't catch it. Usually, it's best to add new topics to the bottom of talk pages to ensure that doesn't happen.

The articles cited at Foodfight! are secondary and/or tertiary sources (as Wikipedia generally prefers).

A primary source would be someone who was actually there. While you might think that would be better, such sources are often biased in one way or another (whether they mean to be or not), taking credit that should go to others and placing blame on others that should go on them.

Secondary sources are those where the author spoke to the people who were there, read what they wrote, watched interviews with them, etc. Tertiary sources are written by those who have reviewed secondary sources. Carefully chosen secondary and tertiary sources provide objectivity, helping to clarify what happened and why.

For further information, please see WP:PSTS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you're cool

	Cool defender of the wiki
	I have just taken a look at your activity, and I think you're super cool, so I award you this "Cool defender of the wiki" badge. Slashme (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Strange userpage

That's very unusual that you list every addresses along with every name of each section. What's that even mean? Just curious. 2607:FEA8:4F20:59F:7196:7667:53C9:A348 (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not understand what you are asking. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting Blade Runner 2049 Edits re Music

Please check the talk page for this film before reverting any more edits re the music composers. It has been quite clear for months that Johann Johannsson was replaced by Hans Zimmer (since when did Zimmer do "additional music" credits?! Please check the references on the talk page which have just been updated. Quelbastro (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Quelbastro: Someone (perhaps you) editing anonymously removed a warning from the article saying NOT to repeatedly add these two. That anonymous editor provided neither a source nor an edit summary explaining their change.[10] They remove the sourced composer and added the two in dispute. At that moment, the talk page had only the August 1 statement from Walter Görlitz, backing up the warning not to repeatedly add them.[11]

Please use edit summaries explaining why you are removing warnings backed up by the talk page and doing exactly what they say not to do. When an edit summary will not sufficiently explain your change, please use an edit summary referring editors to the talk page and explain the change there. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Okays

Sorry if we're stepping on each other's toes. No malice intended. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

King Arthur reverted edits

Hello SummerPhDv2.0! Just saw your reversion of my edits on the King Arthur film. I was going to add a reason on the article's talk page but I decided not to. The real reason for the edit was that it sounded more like (I don't know if this is the right word for it) "propaganda" in order to make people not see the film. Also lead sections are more like snippets (copy-edits) of the actual article itself and the edited portion was not found in any other place than the lead section. The only other reason that I feel like this would be warranted would be if this were added into the reception section and the sentence rewritten as such:

The film was a box-office bomb, grossing $146 million worldwide against its $175 million production budget and received negative reviews from critics who warned audience members to "stay away". --Paleface Jack (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

"Box office bomb" is original research and/or an opinion. The Box office gross and budget are simple facts, without unnecessary interpretation. If you prefer, look at it this way: If "box office bomb" is simply a re-statement of the numbers that is obvious and factual, it is redundant and adds nothing over simply providing the numbers. If it adds something, where did that "something" come from?

Yes, the film received negative reviews. It also received positive reviews and some reviews that were somewhere in between. This is the case with most films. Saying it received negative reviews fails to distinguish films that received a collective "meh" from critics from those that were widely panned. Any attempt to re-write that comment to make that distinction, though, is synthesis (combining material from multiple sources to say something none of the sources say directly). Using a direct quote from an undoubtedly reliable source that summarizes the general opinions of critics completely side-steps the problem. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Tara McDonald's birth place not UK

Tara McDonald was not born south of the 59th parallel, nor was she born on the island of Great Britain. I was in Hammerfest a while back (July), and I found birth records at the hospital showing Tara Jane McDonald being born on September 9, 1988. Much like you, I thought she was born in Dartford, UK, until I looked at all the birth records for the year 1988 in Dartford, as well as England and Wales, in case she was born somewhere else in the UK. She was not born in the UK at all, though she moved there at an early age. Birth records don't lie, the "reliable source" you claim to rely upon for her birth place is wrong, as is the website, as it was not her that put it together, it was Daniel Wiliams, who is a patriate of England. Either way I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt that Tara Jane McDonald was not born anywhere south of the 59th parallel, and Dartford is just north of the 51st parallel, which is 19 degrees south of her birth place. thanks.

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

I never made any corrections to anyone's spelling in the Wonder Woman talk page. How dare you accuse me of that! Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

allie x

I'm discussing it at the talk page rather than editing. If i find you're following me again you are going to an/i! LEAVE ME ALONE ! 199.101.62.55 (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You are repeatedly restoring an unsourced controversial claim about a living person. This is an issue under our policy on the subject. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. That you do not wish to read the policy or discuss the issue at the Reliable sources noticeboard does not exempt you from the policy.

If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Allah help you v2.0, because you need it. You Americans always think your interpretation of these policies are the way to go. If the BLP desk would answer me at all then maybe I would go there. However with me anyway, they have a not so good track record in getting back to me. I have an easier time getting in touch with GOogle interms of those annoying "you have logged in to a new IP address " messages after I moved here from Aberdeen. I could have done what I did at Tara McDonald, but no! I brought it up at the talk page, where I got an answer, and I was about to respond with a "fair point, but don't throw it off the table" message. here's a thought how about y'all shrink shrink shrink yuor policy pages to be more readable and less wordy and maybe we'll be more willing to read them again and again and again. Allah have mercy on you Americans.

yours truely, Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As explained, topics at the Reliable sources noticeboard are consistently and substantially addressed.

Your assumptions regarding my nationality are neither relevant nor accurate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My assumptions abuot your nationality are relivent because it's always Americans thinking because I'm scotish that I can't understand policies, or that my interpretation is wrong. As for the BLP noticebord, in 2020 I brought up an issue regarding the singer Inah. I had to push to get her hane of Elena Apostolinu put in the article. I added sources for Thaio Cruse's name being Jacob Thaio Cruse and it got considered because I pushed pushed pushed. Guess where all my opposition came from. The god damn united states. So that's why I bring it up. SO here's a thought, shrink your policies, be open to me criticizing Americans for trying to push the status quo, and stop dogging my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me make it clear clear clear to you.

• I don't think Americans are bad people, it's just I will not allow Americans, including American wikipedia administrators to tell me what to do because it's always Americans opposing me.
• I said that by my experience with the BLP ref desc has proven unhelpful because of a lack of answers, though my last try was in 2013 while I was still in Aberdeen, so you won't find it at this IP.
• 3. Any edits made before August 31 from this address are not mine. I use a VPN because my wife put one on the network I use. her credit card number got stolen by someone so it's a precaution she is taking to prevent that, so I can't turn it off. she'd kill me if i tried lol.

Clear?

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Prior to this point, I did not know you are Scottish and did not care. I still don't care. Your assumptions about my nationality are still neither relevant nor correct.

I'm assuming 2020 is a typo. In any case Inna's last name, "Apostoleanu", was added without discussion in 2009, shortly after the article was created.[12] It seems to have been there ever since, without challenge. I find no discussion of "Inna" or "Apostoleanu" at any of the noticeboards. Whatever. The BLP noticeboard seems to be running quite nicely now. If you take your question there and it is not discussed, you've at least tried to follow procedure. Refusing to discuss the issue and continuing any way is a sure way to get blocked.

You do not get to decide the nationality, race, religion, gender, sex, orientation, age, disability status, native language, hair color, handedness or any other irrelevant characteristic of the admins and other editors you will deal with on Wikipedia. You are not entitled to choose who you will interact with and which policies you will abide by. You will need to follow Wikipedia's policies, not discriminate based on irrelevant characteristics and remain civil. It's really that simple.

On Wikipedia, a notable actress is not an entirely unrelated singer and various women are not lying about where they were born UNLESS published independent reliable sources say so. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I can decide not to interact with United States based users on Wikipedia. Why? I do not like the US all that much. However, I said i will not allow American users to tryeto inforce policies on me. Non-Americans, absolutely can do so. Americans though, no way. And stop acting like a pro feminist SJW type person. I am not deciding gender, sexual orientation or what not (even though only two genders exist). I am saying I am tired of Americans opposing me. maybe you're not American, but unles ssomeone says where they're from, I have to guess, and I will guess. deal with it. If someone chooses not to interact with me because I'm from Aberdeen, i'm okay with that. thakns.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

And it's not just women. You sound like a feminst. I said that I have been pushing for the name Jacob Thaio Cruse on Thaio Cruse for years. As for Allie X, I hear a Scandinavian accent, a pretty strong one, not the Canadian accent, either stereotypical or general North American one. I brought it up at BLP and I would appreciate it if you didn't contaminiate the discussion with your possible feminism. Note I said possible because I don't know if you are or are not feminist, and it doesn't matter anyway. Andrew Nichols

Americans, people who won't tell you their nationality and even (gasp!) feminists will enforce Wikipedia's policies, revert your edits, post to your talk page, challenge information you add that various young women are lying about being from Canada/UK to (for some unknown reason) hide that they are from Norway/Sweden/Greenland, etc.

I'm afraid I will have to contaminate. contribute to the discussion, whatever my nationality, philosophical leanings, hair color, etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah you're probibly a wee lass with blue hair, sarkeesian supporting cuck loving... (icelandic wife taps me) Oh what? Anyway, I did get my first ever answer at that BLP desk. Don't bother bringing up feminism there because it's toxic. I won't bring up how it's toxic because my hospital visit and cat scans from an incident are anecdotal.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I detect a hint of a Russian accent. You aren't really Scottish. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Wendy Mesley

Are you Wendy Mesley? Right now Hekla's on the phone with someone named Wendy mesley who is calling about my biography investigations that I have been doing since 2003. She has brought up my Wikipedia edits, I'm not sure if this is you. If it is not you at all then please disregard this. If it is you, please keep this on Wiki. I should not be getting this call. thanks.

Andrew Nichols

That would be confusing as she claims to be Canadian, but has a slight hint of a Tasmanian accent. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

well guess what lassy. I know that's you ringin' me, and my wife. yeah stop it! And yuo ain't no Tazzie! lol Andrew.