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.

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (film) -- Rebuttal to criticism of historical accuracy

Hi! I'm posting this here, as well as in the talk page for the article, because I'm not sure if you'll get a notification about the talk page being updated.

I added a paragraph to the article, to rebut the contention by Rabbi Blech that the film is inaccurate because "There were no 9-year-old Jewish boys in Auschwitz – the Nazis immediately gassed those not old enough to work." I wrote:

Blech's contention that all children were killed on arrival, while generally true, is not entirely accurate. Some children were kept alive within Auschwitz, though few survived to the end of the war. In addition, the Nazis maintained a section of Auschwitz-Birkenau known as the "family camp," beginning in September 1943, in which 17,500 people were temporarily kept alive, mostly whole families, including thousands of children. Historians believe this may have been done in case the Red Cross decided to visit the camp. In June 1944, the Red Cross did visit Theresienstadt concentration camp, from which all the prisoners in the "family camp" had been drawn. The following month, the "family camp" was liquidated and all the prisoners gassed.

You removed the paragraph, on the grounds that "Sources do not discuss the film." However Rabbi Blech also does not discuss the film specifically, he's challenging its overall authenticity by making a general historical contention about the nature of Auschwitz and the Holocaust, and I'm providing historical evidence to rebut his claim. A condemnation of a film that is based on historically inaccurate information shouldn't stand without a proper rebuttal. jamesluckard (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Correction of “synthesizer” on Tears for Fears page

Hello there.

Recently I made an edit to the Tears for Fears page where it said “synthesiser”. I thought this was a misspelling so I corrected it to “synthesizer”. You changed it back and messaged me saying that Wikipedia has to show respect for multiple forms of English from various nationalities. So that means that you would have to spell “synthesizer” both ways, right?

Well, there are two mentions of that word on the Tears for Fears page. First is on the main section at the top, where you corrected it back to “synthesiser”. Second is under the “The Hurting and first international successes (1982–1983)” in the “History” tab, where it ALSO says “synthesiser”. Why is there only one spelling of the word when there are two separate mentions of it? That makes no sense, because isn’t Wikipedia supposed to respect multiple forms of English spelling?

You deliberately changed by correction of the word even though I was following the rule stated above (which I wasn’t aware of at the time, I thought it was just a typo). You just broke your own rule that you used to justify your change to my correction. With that argument MY change is justified.

I have not corrected it back to “synthesizer” just yet, because I want to hear your response to this crap that you’re putting out. I seriously wonder what kind of nonsensical bullshit you’re going to tell me this time.

Sincerely, Skorpion877 (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Skorpion877. Skorpion877 (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia respects differing national varieties of English. That does not mean that we try to use equal amounts of various varieties throughout articles. Instead, we aim to consistently use one variety per article. You seem to have misunderstood the guideline. That is the "crap (I) am putting out".

Per WP:ENGVAR, if there is a nationality strongly associated with a subject, we use that nation's preferred variety. If there is no such nationality, we use the variety originally used in the article.

"Tears for Fears are an English pop rock band..." so we use UK English in articles about the band, their albums, etc. Were Tears for Fears an American band, we would say it is an American band, use UK spellings, etc.

If that is "nonsensical bullshit", you will hate Wikipedia and might want to consider another site. Otherwise, note that you will make mistakes and other editors will -- mostly -- offer a civil explanation. If you do not understand or simply disagree, a civil request for clarification or discussion is the way to go. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:EVADE?

Hi SummerPhDv2.0. You may want to check this edit? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Or you may want to ignore it, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's another IP sock of Franz310k97. Our options are:

1) Have it blocked. They'll come back on a new IP and it will take a while before we find them again.

2) Ask to have a huge number of articles semi-protected. That won't happen.

3) Work to change the policy to limit anonymous editing. Good luck.

4) Continue reverting all of their edits.

I picked #4. If you have another option, I'm all ears. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Request an IP Range block? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty big range, but you could give it a try. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. Yes, even 5.90.99.225 - 5.90.238.125 looks a bit big. I'll ask for advice. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

... at User talk:Ritchie333. But not practical, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. Lesbian Space Popes typically get a very bad name at Wikipedia.

Cheryl Ladd

What blanking are you reffering to? MissTofATX (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX

Looking at the history of the article, you'll notice that your revert removed over 3,000 characters from the article. That included the infobox and the lead paragraph (which you have now restored), each roughly 500 characters. I don't have time to dig into it right now, but there is still roughly 2,000 characters that has been removed.

It would be much easier to follow if every edit included a descriptive edit summary and if some of the larger edits were broken down into smaller edits. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The 3000 characters net with another +/- change. Before, when working on the filmography, I did not go in and delete the existing data first, I kept that as a reference to building the new table not copying and pasting it into the new table. When I was finished, I deleted the previous information, so yeah, that would appear to look like a big change. I made am error with the red links/blue links, corrected that today. I also moved the Discography, lower on the page, than the films & then today, I moved the personal life section. The re-added lede section which I accidentally deleted, that's fair and I've taken accountability for my error. The main categories I actually wrote up, which was the filmography, I added a lot more detail, did not reduce; but, I went back today and looked at everything with a fine tooth comb.

To your point though, about writing better edit summaries, I agree, and will do so from now on. Thank you, MissTofATX (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX

Also, my reasoning on publishing smaller batches of edits -vs- larger ones is because of my paranoia (but, I think it's realistic) that something will fritz out before I get to save my work. I'm obbessive-compulsive about saving my work in the digital era, ask anybody I've trained to use Microsoft Excel😜😂. Hopefully, one day wikipedia will have/create a pit-stop save point before you publish all your changes. That visible spell check as you go. MissTofATX (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX

Sorry for that

I'm so sorry. But I don't want to be block! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.109.209 (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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)