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) There 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.

Sorry (Justin Bieber song)

Can you keep an eye of the page as I created Talk:Sorry (Justin Bieber song)#Genre. 115.164.53.70 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Several questions:

1) What singled me out for the honor of your request?

2) What would I be watching for?

3) You've clearly been here before. Would you care to enlighten me as to where we've met before and what user name you were using, or should I dig it up? I'd hate to go to all the trouble of looking only to find you're evading a block. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Request

It seems that the Saiph121 account is still being blocked and yet, how can an unblock be filed when in fact its talk page is still muted? Consider that Saiph121's ability to edit the talk page to be reinstated so that he can file an unblock and return to editing. 180.190.187.164 (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

For openers, you are Saiph121. You've been caught socking again and now want to make another attempt at saying you understand why you were blocked and convince an administrator that you are now ready to follow the rules.

Your talk page access was revoked, but you can still request an unblock through UTRS, as outlined on your talk page. At best, I think someone will suggest the standard offer. I do not think, however, that you do understand why you were blocked, I do not think you are willing to follow the rules and I do not think you will be willing/able to follow through with the standard offer. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For being "the problem" on Reiki. NeilN talk to me 14:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to have my work appreciated. :) - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Delisted_good_articles with your continued effort, maybe it could even go lower! gratz on the barnstar.74.50.214.180 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It is true: the article is not in the 0.5% of Wikipedia's articles that meet those standards.

It was suggested that the article be delisted shortly after I first edited the article (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Reiki/1). I !voted to delist, then got to work. When it was delisted, the concerns were that the article:

- Had "some incomplete citations... cited by author last name and year only". I attempted to find out what those sources were (many were unrecoverable), evaluated the ones I could find and removed the rest.

- Had "many sources are of highly questionable validity including numerous clearly self-published sources." As previously discussed, that was what most of my clean-up was.

- Contained "unnecessary detail, as evidenced by the limited number of reliable sources available on the subject." Again, this was a major part of my work.

- "Given the lack of in-depth coverage from reliable sources, the amount of detail given on reiki beliefs is unsustainable." Again, this is what I was focused on.

You are asking for more detail. I have asked you for reliable sources from which to add that detail. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you aren't receiving information from the text I type: tried to tell you many times that I am a no-nothing on the subject of Reiki--I have no sources. Thanks to your great work, I still am. I came along to the article after seeing an advertisement on Facebook repeatedly about Reiki classes, did you know that you could achieve levels I, II, and Mastery? Later, I had dinner with a friend, who told me that his grandmother was a Reiki wizard of some kind. As he spoke, I went back in my memory then and realized that I hadn't actually come away with any information about what his grandmother might have done (before you ask, no, I collected and published no source material on what she did). I returned to the article and remembered, ah yeah, I had stopped reading because after a brief scroll (including past that line about palm-waiving that you're so dearly proud of) all that was there was some gobbledygook about the origins of the word and then a very belaboring Cancer Warning of an article that I felt was being read to me by the comic shop owner from The Simpsons. I joined the discussion today in earnest because, as other visitors have observed and tried to communicate, the article simply doesn't serve a successful function if a reasonably educated person can't digest it and be able to explain what Reiki purports to be--instead I was left with a mountain of what it isn't. Now, granted, I don't know what great wars you fought against the Reiki hoardes of past, why, surely they must have been fiercely fought! I am sure not a single synonym went un-reverted! I wanted to try to demonstrate in a very small and conservative way how one could change the tone from what it is now--subtle lambasting, sarcasm quotes--it reads like an eye-roll right from the start. After I hit edit, I actually knew the revert was coming, refreshed a few times even! Figured it would be quicker, really. Well, regardless of all that, I participated in good faith, and I really do think it's pretty low of ya'll to rebuff such an innocuous edit on the basis that "alleged" is somehow an inferior synonym to "supposedly"--I'd really love to see your data on that. Entrenched personalities do funny things. Well, hey, I'm glad your club is here to support you with awards. That article is bereft garbage. Sayonara forever.203.81.71.11 (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, gosh. I have no additional reliable sources either. Should we just make up material to add? Would that be helpful?

As for your "innocuous" change: if it is so meaningless that no one could possibly disagree, why did you feel the need to make the change?

I highly doubt this is "forever". This clearly isn't your first rodeo and I doubt it will be your last. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Error

No reverted good faith edits or unexplained date changes for singles allowed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.107.14 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

All of your edits under various IPs and user names will be reverted per WP:EVADE so long as your ban remains in effect. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about VeggieTales

I'm sorry. But VeggieTales is not ending of 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.96.102 (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources cited in the article disagree with you. You will need to provide a reliable source supporting your claim, discuss the issue on the article's talk page or leave the information in the article as it stands. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like you've been through this several times. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. If necessary, we will edit protect the article and contact your Internet service provider to report your disruptive use of their service. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Not block

I don't want to be block! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.96.102 (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

If you continue to make unsourced changed, you will be blocked. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I don't wanna be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.96.102 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't make unsourced changed anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.96.102 (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding reverts and genres

Please actually take a look at the genres on the infoboxes and note when compared to other album/song articles that "East Coast hip hop" and "hardcore hip hop" are the generally used and accepted terms rather than "East Coast rap" and "hardcore rap". You've gotten me on the removal of "Native American rap" (hip hop culture, not a genre according to its article. If this were the case then it would probably have to be added to every Melle Mel song and album) and "Old School Rap" (a term for early hip hop music made from the 1970s to early 1980s) but that's simply because none of it is present in the Melle Mel albums I've edited, nor does their article descriptions justify them being there. For the Jump on It! album, you don't even have to take a long look at some of the songs on the track list to simply add educational music on there, sourced or not. Lastly, if you really didn't like the genres on any of these articles being on there, you could've just removed them and not the vital and corrected information in the process. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 22:00, June 25 2018 (UTC)

Before we go any further with this, it seems you may have been editing while logged out a few times: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Was that all you? - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Only the first and fourth edits are by me. I always edit logged in. It is nice to see some agree with me though. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 17:23, June 26 2018 (UTC)

Citing [User_talk:177.130.2.218 this editor] as someone to emulate is aiming pretty low. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I never said anything about emulating that user? I would still like a response regarding the Melle Mel and Jump on It album edits you've reverted. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 20:23, June 26 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting an admin involved in this due to your lack of proper response. There is absolutely no good reason why these should've been reverted and I won't take the risk of getting blocked for an obvious mistake on your part. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 15:15, June 29 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars

Good advice ^ Dan56 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You're semi-retired but a regular? Neat trick. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"When dealing with experienced users..." Guess you didn't read it after all... Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I saw a relatively small number of talk page entries spread out over four years, with no archive on your talk page. "How were they to know you are a regular?" - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Have it your way; play dumb. Dan56 (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not know you are a "regular". Sometimes I check, but that's not universally the case. :) I don't "play dumb". People who are intimidated or confused by intelligent women don't need me to encourage them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Kate Luard

Why have you removed the mention of the birth place of Kate Luard? AFAIK, notability is not required to be mentioned in an article and in any case as the recipient of a royal red cross 1st class and bar, she is notable. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Lacking sourced, objective inclusion criteria, a list like that is kinda up in the air. I know of lots of articles that use blue-link notability as a limiting factor. While I know this article would have a limited number of people in any case, as a thought experiment, imagine a List of people from New York City were it not limited to notable people.

If Luard is notable, consider writing the article first. A brief stub with reliable sources would not only resolve the issue, but also begin some growth. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello, first of all I want to apologize about my edits, if they aren't accurate I'm sorry, I only wanted to update informations, I did not intend to include any false informations, feel free to revert what you like, and as for my future editings I will be careful and use only reliable sources, have a good day! Alaa.wehbi (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

AllMusic

Would you like to weigh in this discussion regarding AllMusic should be in infoboxes over other publications. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Fourteen Words

Hi! Perhaps you should make a sockpuppet report on 219.88.161.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the other IP now that you have tagged the talk page with a suspected sockpuppet tag? The IP has found their way to the sockpuppet investigation page linked in the template and asked a question there. Sjö (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Source of my claim to 1939 Wizard of Oz movie

@SummerPhDv2.0: Hi, I see that you removed my edit to the 1939 wizard of oz movie, well here are two sources behind what I claimed:

Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Christine McVie

Hi,Summer I wanna know what you revert everytime my organize genres.I put the same that you put just that my edit is in different order Power G, Monday,July 16, 7:04 pm Power G (original) (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is a consensus to the contrary, shuffling genres to a preferred version should only be done after a demonstrated consensus on the talk page. This edit formats the material for proper display regardless of a user's browser settings and screen size. Additionally, I have alphabetized the listed genres (as explained) and applied the appropriate capitalization to conform with Wikipedia's current Manual of Style.

In general, if you are unsure why a change was made, please take a look at the edit summary, if there is one. In this case, I had reverted your edit as you had applied non-standard capitalization to several genres. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Invasion of Privacy (album)

You have removed this off the article by saying, WP:SYN; let the sources speak for themselves. Metacritic's "universal acclaim" is assigned by an algorthm, lacking editorial oversight. How about this source, do this count as reliable then Metacritic since this website says, Invasion of Privacy, on Friday (April 6) to rave reviews. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO, yes. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That's good. I did add "rave reviews" in the article last month but with another website [5]. I gonna replace that website with Yahoo! since Hypebeast isn't considered a reliable source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Colors

I thought you might be interested:Talk:List_of_colors#Color_issues--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Source

Hi, reliable source for the genre added. By the way, you don't need to talk to me as a wiki beginner, I'm here for awhile and know how things work :) Best regards. Dvanaesti Igrač (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I am in no way connected with Trekkie1979 (a.k.a. VintageVHSTreasures), VHSVideos2006, and VHSVideos2007

@SummerPhDv2.0:,

I'll have you know that I am in NO obvious way connected with User:Trekkie1979 (a.k.a. VintageVHSTreasures), User:VHSVideos2006, and User:VHSVideos2007. Why would you assume that I'd have a connection between these four? --IanDBeacon (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Fyre edit

Actually now that federal charges are filed, it definitely is a scam and not a festival.

Dmitrygr (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

After charges comes either a settlement, plea bargain, dropped charges or a trial. If filing charges were all that were needed, none of those would make sense. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Star Wars Holiday Special edit reversal?

It was tagged as a good faith edit reversal, but my main question is *why*? See the history here (hopefully linked correctly): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Holiday_Special&oldid=846821691 . The same exact typo I fixed was later fixed by someone else, so overall it just really confused me. Also, I didn't get back on here to ask this until now, since I don't edit much. :V - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 20:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I was trying to revert some original research that had been added and reverted your edit instead of the one immediately before it. Soory about that. This is the edit I intended to make. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Stop editing

Why do you keep reverting my edits all the time such as Keep On Pushing and (You Don't Know) How Glad I Am? Why?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.107.14 (talk • contribs) 10:10, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

WP:EVADE. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(67.253.107.14 has been blocked as a sock of a banned editor. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC))

One (Metallica song)

[6] [7] You're kidding, right – was that some sort of mistake? An IP changed the genre from the long-standing thrash metal to progressive metal without sources/discussion, so I reverted them – why was I reverted, and why for the same reason? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I missed that your unexplained change was reverting another unexplained change. Sorry, my bad. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

IP sock

Hi SummerPHD2.0, I reverted an ip 93.146.126.243 (genre changing on an article) and I saw that you tagged his/her talk page as a possible sock of a registered user. Just making you aware. Thanks JC7V-constructive zone 22:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sara Smile

Earlier you removed what you called a change to an article, Sara Smile, that I made just because I didn't provide a reliable source, and then you removed and archived it in the page history. The full date made the sentence more proper. There was no need for you to remove anything. If the date really bothered you, then the sentence should not have started with the year it was released since the date it was released is mentioned under the picture of the album. Otherwise, what is the purpose of helping out when you are busy correcting other people. DYN0M1T3 Dynomite22 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Your edit did not include an edit summary. Without combing through the article, there was no way for me to know where that data came from. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Summary statements in film articles

Thought we could hash this out here if needed, but if you prefer, we can take this straight to WT:FILM. I usually avoid summary statements as well, except on two occasions:

1) The scores on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are in agreement and come to the same conclusion.

2) The summary statement provides a value in making a transition from one paragraph to another

In this situation, both exceptions apply, which is why I chose to use one. I'm open to hearing your thoughts on this, but I wanted to first let you know where I was coming from.

Thanks, GoneIn60 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

In the article in question, Pan (2015 film), we have already quoted RT's scores and critical consensus and Metacritic's scores and summary statement. After that, how is it helpful to combine the two statements into one new one?

If, in fact it simply says what RT and Metacritic have already said, it is pointless repetition:

Bob did not like the film.<ref>Bob, New York Times</ref>

Tom did not like the film.<ref>Tom, Dubuque Penny Shopper</ref>

Bob and Tom did not like the film.<ref>Department of Repetitive Redundancies Department</ref>

If it creates a new statement that differs from the two it is based upon, it is clearly WP:SYN.

Bob said the film earned a 4.6/10.<ref>Bob, New York Times</ref>

Tom's automated program said it received 'generally unfavorable reviews'.<ref>Tom, Dubuque Penny Shopper</ref>

The movie received mostly negative reviews.<ref>( 4.6 / 10 ) + "generally unfavorable" ) / 2 = "generally negative"</ref>

I have seen many of the discussions, often ending in encouraging caution and not putting Metacritic's automated summary in Wikipedia's voice (cf. Talk:Everything_Is_Love#RfC:_Metacritic's_indication_of_"universal_acclaim"). IMO, RT says what it says. Metacritic says what it says. Having quoted them directly, there is no need for us to interpret, repeat or combine them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

First, you may have noticed from my comments above that I generally avoid using these statements; I encourage caution as well. I have participated in several of the most recent discussions at WT:FILM, and they all typically end in a stalemate. Some believe they are generally acceptable, while others prefer to avoid them. Most urge caution and advise that at the very least, make sure RT and MC are in full agreement. When there is doubt, attribute the statement directly to a source. There isn't any real doubt here that the two aggregators agree, so a direct attribution is unnecessary.

Furthermore, the RfC you link to, with all due respect, is not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. It doesn't involve film, where we have more than one widely-accepted review aggregator (RT in addition to MC). That changes things. Also, the main issue there was an editor trying to change from "universal acclaim" to "widespread critical acclaim". Without even reading the arguments, I would be against that as well, as I don't see those two phrases as synonymous with one another, and it's no surprise to see all the no responses. Here, we are talking about "generally negative" representing what RT and MC conclude, and I think it's on point with the identifier "generally", which implies that this is a trend and not an absolute. Reviews trend negative, but obviously there will be some mixed and positive in there. In fact, if you look at the reviews I added to the critical reception section, two are negative, one is mixed, and one is positive. IMO, this is not the same issue discussed in that RfC you linked to (and the participation there was relatively low anyway).

As for your concern the statement isn't needed as a transition, that's the part I figured we'd be debating, not whether a summary statement is permissible. In the examples you gave, there's something missing. We need to break it down by sentence:

1. RT approval rating

2. RT summary statement

3. MC rating and summary statement

4. PostTrak and Cinemascore audience reaction

--> New paragraph <--

5. Transition back to professional critics with summary statement <--

6. Professional critic review #1

7. Professional critic review #2

etc...

Now it is definitely a subjective issue, but I think transitioning back to the professional critics, #5, is helpful, since we strayed away from that over to audience reaction with the CinemaScore and PostTrak statements. It's not required, and we can certainly solicit outside opinions on this if needed, but I disagree that it should be removed on the basis of WP:SYN. I'm willing to debate that further if needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no way to be sure that RT and Metacritic are "in full agreement" as they score reviews entirely differently and do not use synonymous phrases.

The problem is that "summary statement" in #5. Where did that come from? It seems to be a new statement created by combining information from several sources where none of the statements directly say that. If your argument is that RT says that, it does not. It says something different, which we've already quoted. Ditto Metacritic. If #4 takes us away from the response of critics (and it does) I don't know why it is in the middle of the "Critical response" section between the responses of critics. It seems you're trying to say "Here's what critic aggregators said. Here's what audiences said. Oh, here's a summary of most of the first paragraph, minus that last bit. Here's what some individual critics said." The audience response is not a legitimate part of that section, let alone a sensible part of a paragraph about a different topic.

I'd say move the out-of-place audience scores (the reason for the need to summarize/synthesize the aggregators summaries). Drop the summary. Leave the aggregators saying what they say. Leave the individual critics saying what they say. Have the audience reactions somewhere else. One paragraph on aggregators. One paragraph on individual critics. One paragraph on audience scores. No synthesis, no wandering off to a different topic, no need to bring it back to that topic. Thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent solution, actually, for this particular article. I'll implement that shortly, and feel free to further tweak anything I might have missed or that you feel still isn't right. We should be able to move past this one occurrence. However, I would suggest perhaps rehashing this again at some point at WT:FILM. There are quite a few editors who use summary statements in the opening line of the opening paragraph (which this suggested solution would not solve). A significant number of editors feel the combination of RT's approval rating and average rating, along with MC's weighted average score is enough to say "negative", "unfavorable", "mixed", or "positive" in some situations. Since there isn't a clear consensus on whether or not they're permissible, I have a feeling it will continue to rear its ugly head from time to time. If you decide to initiate that discussion, please feel free to ping me. Thanks, --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Astroworld (album)

Should I add this source in the article? It says Travis dropped his album Astroworld on Aug. 3, and it debuted to rave reviews. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest idea what "Hollywood Life" is, but it seems to be mostly about celebrities. I don't know that it's the best source for a summary statement on album reviews. I'd prefer something from either a reliable music source (e.g., if Spin says an album got "rave reviews", I can't see any reason to doubt it) or a very reliable more general source (e.g., EW, a major newspaper, etc.). IMO, someone writing to say something specific about a celebrity's career path is writing to that end and we're essentially taking a detail out of context.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

What about this source? It also says the album got "rave reviews". Travis' third studio album has already received rave reviews. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I* would say XXL is a reliable source for the statement. (Standard disclaimer applies.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

I am not trying to start an edit war but you can't undo my edit please. It says on 911's album There It Is album that their single More than a Woman was released on 12 October 1998, so can you please stop removing content that I add, do you understand. If you have any questions, please leave me a message on my talk page as I don't wanna have an edit war. 82.19.95.171 18:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You've now made the disputed change four times and have been reverted by two editors. You will need to provide a reliable source, per WP:V. If you are having difficulties, do not understand or disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. (Another editor has indicated that you may be an LTD editor.66.66.23.27 If so, they are free to have you blocked and/or revet your edits as vandalism.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's you. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sod!

Re: Martin Luther in Bowling. Thanks for checking for sources; but it resulted in what-I-hoped-wouldn’t-happen. I emailed that blog (when I 1st posted to the Talk); not expecting an answer now. I almost paid to get an eBook on Martin Luther but I didn’t think it was worth $3 just for this. I’m new at this; but I’m surprised at how many things can’t be confirmed or refuted with the all-knowing Google.

So, how ornery are you? MBG02 (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

PS. I’m still perplexed. I’m guessing there’s no answer but I’d like to hear your thoughts;

The statement was added on 14 Oct 2015 by someone who (almost) doubled the article over 11 days. The article (now) has 174 pagewatchers, and gets almost 1,000 views a day. The author of the reference you removed is quite clearly stating that he thinks the statement is crap. (And it’s the same reference as the one added in 2015.)

So; 1. Why would someone cite it, and 2. Why does something so (obviously) spurious stay for so long? I’m guessing 1. He only read the 12 words he wanted - and didn’t look at the pre and post words, and 2. “Once it’s written it must be fact” syndrome.

MBG02 (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget 3. This is a backwater article that isn't read much.

All things considered, I'm inclined to believe this is either simply not true or is an exaggeration.

The encyclopedia we have cited gives a lot of info about the history of bowling, including most of the section on Luther. One possibility is that Luther's lane was nine pins and someone saw a source to the effect that he had ordered it be 9 pins. Through enough repetitions, it morphs into him somehow permanently establishing 9 as the official number. Note that the blog source I removed cites three other blogs as its sources: one is a dead link, the second cites a source that doesn't have this claim and a third cites another blog. That blog cites a source that I cannot locate without a hike to the library. It is possible, though unlikely, that I'll make a stop there at the beginning of the semester, but it's a bit of a hike. More likely, I'll check for e-access or forget it. (I might be referring to the blogs out of order as I looked at this earlier today, then got sidetracked by some writing I needed to finish.)

My searching online has come up empty. I find plenty of blogs, trivia lists and such, but nothing even remotely reliable. Google Scholar chokes on a landslide of false positives involving various combinations of MLK Day at bowling alleys, scholarship on MLK or Martin Luther at Bowling Green State and such.

In general, it's always easier to find sources about a general topic and write based on them than it is to take something someone else wrote and try to find sources. I also tried a backdoor approach, looking for sources on the number of pins. I can add as many sources as anyone would like on the 9 pin gambling ban and 10 pins as a work around, but nothing about Luther and 9 pins. Interesting that the encyclopedia cited mentions both Luther's bowling lane and the 9 to 10 pin switch back-to-back, almost inviting something similar to what we are trying to prove here.

(Usually, my orneriness here peaks when someone requests indifference to get their way. An example would be someone making an unsourced change, me reverting it and them restoring the change with the expressed or silent explanation of "It doesn't matter, so let it go." Everything else is just me being who I am.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought 1000 views a day (for 3 years) wouldn’t be “backwater” but I do expect only 1% of those would have read that particular sentence. I also suspect a lot of the Google finds for post2015 have sourced this line from the Wiki article. I wish I knew how to get hold of a real person (by email) who “really” knows... and not just for this factoid. There must be lots of Martin Luther experts in colleges and universities.

You’re a student? Do you (or anybody) get taught how to use Wiki (and Google) at school/ college/ university? PS If there’s a better forum for nattering, tell me that too. MBG02 (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a student. I'm on a postdoctoral at the moment.

There certainly are any number of researchers whose work covers Luther, though his bowling is likely not on their radar. More to the point, if the world's recognized expert were to respond to you by email, phone or letter and confirm our factoid, we still wouldn't have the source we need. One of Wikipedia's core policies is verifiability: readers must be able to check the sources for statements and be able to verify that the information comes from a reliable source. An email to you is not a reliable source. We need something published in a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In the present case, we'd most likely mean a peer-reviewed academic journal, a text from an academic publisher or a mainstream source with a solid reputation re history (think more Time magazine or the New York Times, rather than Mental Floss or the Sheboygon Penny Shopper).

I doubt there are may such sources focused specifically on Luther's bowling (if any at all). So, we're really looking for a source on Luther or on bowling that happens to cover Luther's bowling. As a result, we need full text searches, not just titles. My first instinct was Google Scholar, but all the searches I tried were either swamped with false positives (someone from Bowling Green State writing about MLK, for example) or quickly petered out. A halfway decent reference librarian could probably make reasonably short work of this, but I can't very well use my credentials to ask by phone/email, I'd need to be there in person for an informal request.

Like I said, I'm out of options at the moment. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Pooh

I'm pretty sure that "videocassette" on the copyright pages for the Book of Pooh episodes refers to the fact that Disney stored the episodes on videocassettes for broadcast. It specifically says "Betacam SP", which was the industry standard for most TV stations and high-end production houses until the late 1990s but also remained a common standard for standard definition video post-production into the 2000s. https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=52&ti=51,52&Search_Arg=the%20book%20of%20pooh&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=fDwAFUJci-jaZBIs9uERGy9PCOL&SEQ=20180809214939&SID=20

Many of the episodes of The Book of Pooh had no home video release, including the final episode, so it could only refer to the date that episode was broadcast by Disney (using a Betacam SP tape). Further proof of this lies in the dates for the other episodes, for example the first episode, which aired on January 22, 2001; the copyright page's description for it also says "Videocassette (Betacam SP)": https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search_Arg=the%20book%20of%20pooh&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=06RvfquAlW0nVzDLB7_QpfModKh&SEQ=20180809213650&SID=7

Therefore the series end date needs to be changed to November 29, 2004. The date of October 1, 2003 is an incorrect date with no reputable source. The only episode that premiered on October 1 was episode 40 (or season 2 episode 14), "The Book of Boo", but that was in 2001. Besides, the episode guide has already been changed to reflect the correct airdates (as well as adding episodes that were completely missing), including the final episode's airdate of November 29, 2004. So if the summary and infobox still say it ended on October 1, 2003, the article will be both incorrect and inconsistent.

--MrLeap (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"Description: Videocassette (Betacam SP)" refers to how the work was submitted to the copyright office.

As for the "Date of publication", it has nothing to do with when portions were broadcast. Please see Section 1902.

Finally, a filing with the United States Copyright Office would be a primary source and should not be used for any information requiring interpretation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well then, how come the first episode and others have the same date of filing as the date they aired on TV? And where did the date October 1, 2003 come from? It appears to be entirely unsourced. It's not from those external links to IMDb or TV.com (in fact TV.com claims the last episode "The Great Honey Pot"/"Paging Piglet" aired on November 5, 2002, and that the last episode aired was "The Case of the Disappeared Donkey"/"The Littlest Dinosnore" on July 8, 2003 which is also almost certainly wrong). How do we know that October 1, 2003 is correct, and if it is, which episode aired on that date? The last one? I can't find any proof for it and most sites seem to have incomplete or incorrect info for the airdates.

--MrLeap (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

1) Your speculation based on a source that does not say what you thought it said is not a reliable source for something it does not say.

2) If there are other dates that match your speculation based on that source, someone may have done exactly what you are trying to do and been wrong for the same reason.

3) If you wish to challenge the date you are attempting to replace, feel free to remove it explaining that you are doing so because it is unsourced. While you are at it, intellectual honesty would require you to remove ALL of the similarly unsourced dates. If you're really just sore about that one date, realize that it isn't specifically that you doubt that date, it's that you believe your misunderstanding of the Copyright Office's database is somehow correct. The link I've provided directly states that airing something does not establish a publication date. As such, the "publication date" and the air date might be the same, but will not always be the same.

TL;DR version: You do not have a reliable source for the air date you are attempting to add. I have challenged it. Please see WP:V. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I need someone wise and enthusiastic

I’m waiting to see if Ruby2010 repairs a page Victoire Conroy that looks (to me) to be vandalised. The (possible) vandal changed Victoire to Victoria, making it very confusing - but did change 1 occurrence of Victoria to princess Victoria. So there might a valid reason for the edit?

I’m guessing Ruby2010 doesn’t log-on often. I was wondering if I should (try to) “ping” her?

But that’s only half my query: the vandal also added 1 character to an item on a Talk page, creating a typo. (The same item already has a typo, which I’d love to correct; is that ok - in general? I’m still “unnerved” about someone else typing “site” for “cite”.) The same IP was vandalous when last used for edits in April. What happens? Is it something I should know how to report, or how to fix?

I might as well ask you this too (I was going to wait see if I was bothering you); The Talk:Tarantula has the most current item (2018) at number1; the rest aren’t in proper date order either (from 2005). Problem?

I was going to add the same comment as (the current) #1. MBG02 (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

AtVictoire Conroy, 103.24.208.250 changed the name a few places and added the wild, unsourced claim that Victoire and Victoria switched places before the coronation. 78.150.233.208 removed the unsourced identity swap. I'd say it is highly unlikely that the name changes are in any way beneficial, especially without an edit summary giving a reason for the changes. I would suggest completing the revert by restoring the last version by Ruby2010 and warn the IP for unsourced additions.

If you look at User_talk:103.24.208.250 you'll see it's a school with a lengthy list of warnings, which is kinda typical: kids messing around. It also means the warning is unlikely to help any.

The IP's change to someone else's talk page comment should be reverted. Per WP:TALK, there are very few acceptable reasons to edit another user's talk comments. The only reasons I can think of off-hand are reverting someone else's change (such as this one), biographies of living persons violations and completely off-topic chat ("Follow me on Instagram!", "Visit _______ to learn how to make $20 million overnight with your computer!", etc.).

One thing I'd recommend is adding [[WP:TWINKLE|Twinkle] to your account. Using it, if you spot an obvious problem edit, one click reverts the edit and allows you to leave an edit summary, then takes you to the user's talk page. Clicking "Warn" there brings up a box that allows you to select from several dozen pre-written warnings. Twinkle fills in the article name, adds your signature and posts the warning. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)