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.

Blubbering

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

Not the best edit summary... "Blubbering" is uncontrollable talking. An editor who adds unnecessary info about a favorite star's nude scene in a film likely just burned off a bit of their excitation by "telling the world". Someone over the course of most of a day adding similar info over several films with an imagined story arc with the nudity becoming a defining character trait is likely beyond that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Three Laws are slavery.

So, basically you say, until criticism was published off-site it can not be referenced in Wikipedia. But, if it was published off-site, then it can be referenced in Wikipedia. Ok, I made an off-site copy: https://the-arioch.livejournal.com/90752.html So, now it can be linked in the main article, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.90.116.114 (talk • contribs) 04:46, May 24, 2019 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the articles' topics. Improvements to articles can be made through reference to independent reliable sources. Your blog entry is not a reliable source. Please see WP:IRS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Your requested explanation.

The information you have called "unsourced" that I added to Vulgar Display of Power is sourced in the article. dannymusiceditor ^oops 05:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I've even gone so far as to furhter bolster the genre with new sources. dannymusiceditor ^oops 05:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Rather than searching the article and researching the genres to support your change, I reverted it as "Unsourced/undiscussed genre change". The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. There was no need for additional care on my part. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you nuts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your new version, had it been made first, would have raised less concern: I would have chopped the bit about Streisand (including the grammatical error) and left the rest. By itself, the statement on her appearance sticks out like a sore thumb. It's about the critic not liking the way she looks and says nothing about the film. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

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

That a mainstream publication let "a aardvark" go is rather surprising. That a review of a film would wander afield into discussing the actress's appearance rather than the film is not surprising. That we would somehow pick this tidbit of nonsense as a summary of the whole review is inexplicable. It's like summarizing the New York Times coverage of the Camp David Accords by quoting a piece about the size of Carter's forehead. It's off-topic minutia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

No we're not

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

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

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

Finally, the section header here seems to indicate that this account is being used by more than one person. Is that correct? - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

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

"Defamation" is, again, incorrect and a personal attack. Personal attacks are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. Please consider this your final warning. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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

I really don't need you to suggest AN/I. Frankly, with your history, I'd just ask an uninvolved admin to apply the discretionary sanctions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Let me be more succinct: The editor in question's history is one of dancing near and over the line on discretionary sanctions on issues related to gender, then (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) disappearing. I'm not playing that game. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The Leftovers

Have you ever seen The Leftovers? Do you honestly think the character Wayne does not qualify on the list you keep editing? Every reference in this section sites someone's opinion as to whether the trope is being used, so how can you dismiss a reference where there's an active debate as to the use of the trope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.96.37 (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether you or I think a character is a "magical Negro" or not is immaterial. Wikipedia is based on independent reliable sources. Yes, many articles have opinions in them. For example, our article on "North" quotes someone as saying, "I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it." That someone is not a random Wikipedia editor or some random person with a blog. (If you would like to read random people's comments, there are sites for that.) It's Roger Ebert's opinion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You're using standards of objectivity for an inherently subjective narrative device. There's no such thing as a "Magical Negro" -- it's a pejorative. Screenwriters aren't writing the stories of the grand "Magical Negro"; instead, they're criticized for unwittingly characterizing black people as super-human. When and where this phrase is deployed is subjective, an opinion of a writer. By such standards, every *fictional* character listed on the page enters the discussion as an example of a "Magical Negro" once mentioned in some publication of note as a "Magical Negro". In my addition to the page, I have given another example from the Washington Beacon editorial page to a discussion as to whether the character is a "Magical Negro". This should suffice, as it's a much more reputable source than many of the others listed as references and clearly references a debate as to Wayne being a "Magical Negro". Nevertheless, the way you are curating this page makes it clear that your AND my opinions don't matter -- only yours does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.96.37 (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

On the talk page, I suggested 3 other references that demonstrate the character represented an example of a MN. Since you removed my changes the last time, would the following references allow me to re-add the character to the list: (1) This is an interview with the executive producer of The Leftovers addressing the commentary that the show used characters like Wayne as a “magical black man” trope: https://screencrush.com/the-leftovers-season-2-finale-tom-perrotta/. (2) Here is a recap of season 1 where they specifically indicate that Wayne has become a "Magical Negro" by the end of the season: https://www.tvbuzer.com/news/the-leftovers-season-1-finale-recap-the-guilty-remnant-s-memorial-day-plot-has-devastating-consequences-50379. (3) This is an academic text that discusses Holy Wayne in Chapter 2 (https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Politics-Colorblind-Routledge-Transformations-ebook/dp/B00YY64066): "Holy Wayne oft-disrobed, muscular, dark body takes the pain...of his predominately white, male clientele. The visual imagery is iconic and hearkens back to past representations of Black men acting as magical negros largely in service of white men." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.96.37 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I need help blocking someone

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

He won’t stop.

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

So you're suggesting Wiki should give him no chance? If you can change, so can he. Less drastic measures needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra4201 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Collaboration and communication are not optional. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, well. Thanks for taking the time to reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra4201 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)#Regarding a certain detail in the plot

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)#Regarding a certain detail in the plot. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

June 2019

CASSIOPEIA: You seem to have placed this warning in error. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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

June 2019 - Stop giving me a threat

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

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

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

Incidentally, calling me "a huge hipocritical [sic] person" and claiming (incorrectly) that I am threatening you could easily be seen as a personal attack. Personal attacks are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. As you have been warned about this in the past, please realize that the next time it happens, you will receive a final warning. If you continue after that, you will be blocked from editing. (ETA: Actually, given FlightTime's comment above, you might be moving toward a block a bit faster than I thought.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Bah. It's no mere threat. It's a "death threat". Those who blank every warning they get and simply restore what they want often benefit from a ham-fisted approach, paying attention to something a lot simpler than the consensus warnings they ignore as "threats". - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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

I don't care what you prefer for breakfast. The editor is having trouble hearing, so I turned up the volume. If they can't understand what they are hearing, that's a different problem. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Awfully prejudicial against breakfast to assume there's something wring with the most important meal of the day. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

RE: MGTOW

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

Reverted Talkpage Item

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

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

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

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

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

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic ("thoughts that occur to (users) concerning the article's subject"). Your observations cannot be included in the article; they are off topic. It is common to simply delete discussion clearly about the article subject itself instead of its treatment in the article. All of this is discussed at WP:TPG which explains Wikipedia's guidelines on the issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

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

As there are zero reliable sources discussing this in relation to the show, any addition based on this observation would be WP:OR. There is nothing to change/add to an article based on an editor's observation/thoughts on the topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Tootsie Pop Article

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was actually kinda fun. Thanks. Now don't do it again. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitri Gasgenov (talk • contribs) 16:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

List of films considered the best

If you go on the page of Battleship Potemkin it reads "Battleship Potemkin is a 1925 Soviet silent film", while on the page of Carol it reads "Carol is a 2015 drama film". It does not mention LGBT as a genre. --Mazewaxie 09:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Incidentally, the article, siting the BFI source, says it is "the best LGBT film." Is LGBTQ a film genre? Dartmouth says it is.[6] - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply regarding multiple accounts

Your querry:

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

Reply:

I do not know, nor have heard of before, of any user named "Writersupreme". Hence I cannot possibly conduct any joint activity with him / her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra4201 (talk • contribs) 14:33, July 2, 2019 (UTC)

Given the number of unlikely coincidences that would need to have occurred, I am quite certain a quick sockpuppetry case would resolve the issue. Given the resolution of your next issue, however, I don't think I'll need to bother. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply regarding Spamming

Your querry:

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

Reply:

Please describe any offensive action taken by me in this regard. We should discuss it like two gentlemen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra4201 (talk • contribs) 14:33, July 2, 2019 (UTC)

I am not a "gentleman".

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

As your purpose here is to promote your website, you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Did I just personally offend you? Anyways, I took down all that I had added, including new ones after that. Hopefully, there aren't any left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra4201 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

A query. If the website's illegit, can't it be simply blacklisted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra4201 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Further, since reliability is based on context, some sites are of limited utility. While we wouldn't cite, for example, an entrepreneur's personal blog for claims their product is going to save the world, we might use it for basic, non-controversial info about them or their company. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Binders full of women)

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

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

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

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

The talk page discussion I mentioned is at Talk:Binders_full_of_women. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Hello, this is regarding the edit I made on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_(1997_American_film) page. I forgot to source the film at first but I have since done that. On the official page on Box Office Mojo you can see that the actual numbers the movie has made, somebody has been falsely changing it for some reason. also you can just look on the actual "Contact" film page at the bottom under "Box Office" it shows you exactly how much money the film made domestic and international for it's worldwide total of $171.1 million dollars. Somebody recently has simply been changing the first number of the box office total to three and not sourcing this information. Which is violating the page and information, I am simply re-editing it to the actual total box office where at the bottom of the article it is sourced already under box office mojo, I suggest you look at the sources that I have put and see for yourself, Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayman6273737 (talk • contribs) 11:53, July 10, 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Film review summaries are a recurring problem. The review aggregators (Rotten Tomatoes, Metacrtic, etc.) assign summaries ("generally positive", "mixed or average", etc.) by way of an algorithm. As a result, we can't cite that piece as a reliable source (which requires editorial oversight). All we can do is quote it with inline attribution. This leads to some editors adding their own interpretations ("mixed to positive", "mostly negative", "well received", etc.). As there is no reliable source to individually back up the statement, it is "synthesis" (as described at WP:SYN) and cannot be used. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

how do you get an apple music link?

Hello

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

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

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

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

thanks.

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

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

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

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

I understand you won't be responding to this for several days, as you are currently blocked for disruptive editing. I also note that you currently seem to be pursuing some kind of campaign against U.S. editors on your talk page. You will, of course, receive notes from around the world regarding your edits and are expected to communicate with other users without regard to your prejudices. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A link to Apple Music will not make the cover noteworthy. The cover fails WP:COVERSONG and should not be included in the article. If you disagree, you will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)