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)