User talk:SummerPhDv2.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 PopeTM, 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.


Source[edit]

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[edit]

@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[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. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


Star Wars Holiday Special edit reversal?[edit]

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. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Stop editing[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 10:10, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

WP:EVADE. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(67.253.107.14 has been blocked as a sock of a banned editor. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC))

One (Metallica song)[edit]

[1] [2] 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. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

IP sock[edit]

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[edit]

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. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Summary statements in film articles[edit]

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. - SummerPhDv2.0 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? - SummerPhDv2.0 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)[edit]

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. - SummerPhDv2.0 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.) - SummerPhDv2.0 01:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

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.) - SummerPhDv2.0 18:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, it's you. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sod![edit]

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.) - SummerPhDv2.0 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. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Postdoctoral Wikipedia-ology? MBG02 (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Pooh[edit]

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. - SummerPhDv2.0 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. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I need someone wise and enthusiastic[edit]

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. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Ta. I wouldn’t have seen the “top” page, telling me it’s a school, without your link.
Still wondering why posts are out of date order for Tarantula. Is it a problem that Wiki people need to fix? MBG02 (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Training MBG02[edit]

I’m a bit scared to ask this after the ruthless way you axed the (spurious) Martin Luther claim; so please don’t upset the people of Ipswich, Queensland!!

I can’t see how reference11 substantiates the claim (of possibly being the capital); are you able to make it a better link, or tell me how to find the info (at that link)?

Only if you’re interested. MBG02 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

Hi I would like to apologise for the disruption that I have caused in the past few days. I never meant to start an edit war it's just I can be quite capable on editing stuff here on Wikipedia. Please don't report me on Wikipedia as I want to continue to contribute to editing.

So I am very sorry and I hope that you accept my apology and that we can move on. Please read my message as I really am sorry and I mean it. 82.19.95.171 11:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

82.19.95.171 is an IP sock of Wikidestruction vandal. WP:EVADE applies. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Very nice[edit]

Very nice, Summer, though most likely pearls before swine. Turn it into an essay, maybe? Why don't these people just consult the group's (any group's) website, if they want to know its self-description? Bishonen | talk 17:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC).

I got your message.[edit]

Hey SummerPhDv2.0, just to let you know that on my edit of Oddbods, you were right about taking out the possible starting air date for KidsClick airing this show. It's not going to air on that channel at all. Apparently my Local TV Guide thought that it was premiering on August 20, 2018 (Lovable98158 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC))

Can't Stop Falling in Love Edits[edit]

Hi. Respectfully, I'm just wondering why my edit was reverted. I do not believe it was biased information and it was indeed an "other version" of the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchen31273 (talkcontribs) 02:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Any time you aren't sure why an edit was made, there are three places to check. There might be discussion on an editor's talk page or the article's talk page, but the first place to check is the article's history. My edit summary there cites WP:COVERSONG.
Essentially, there are absurd numbers of covers of some songs (including several thousand of the Beatles' "Yesterday" and virtually an unlimited list of live covers of "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" and "Little Wing"). Most of them are not notable. COVERSONG outlines the general consensus of which few should be included. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain! That sounds like a fair reason, but as this version was featured in a fairly prominent movie, I was just wondering if you might be willing to make an exception? Thanks either way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchen31273 (talkcontribs) 04:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a matter of me making an exception. I don't have any more authority on Wikipedia than anyone else. That said, WP:CONSENSUS determines just about everything. The general consensus for inclusion of cover versions is outlined at WP:COVERSONG. If, for some reason, you think this cover's use in one particular film is enough to make this the exception to the rule, you'll need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and build a local consensus to override the general consensus.
Keep in mind, cover versions in songs are by no means rare and COVERSONG does not see them as particular noteworthy. The best way that I can think of to find a way to include it would be to find reliable sources about the song that discuss this version, showing that it is significant. Clarification: A source about Joe Cocker might discuss his cover of "With a Little Help from My Friends" (and just about every other song he ever recorded). That's not a sign of significance, just a sign that someone was writing about Joe Cocker. If, OTOH, a source is specifically about "With a Little Help from My Friends" and discusses (i.e., more than a mention) Cocker's cover, it might be a sign that the cover is a meaningful part of the song's history (which it is). Thus With_a_Little_Help_from_My_Friends#Joe_Cocker_version. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Michael Provost[edit]

You could well be right here Draft talk:Michael Provost about his notability, feel free to tag or send to afd. I'll see if I can find more content and sources in the mean time, All good wishes. Theroadislong (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Ninja Sex Party[edit]

Hi there. You recently left a message on my page about needing a source for my edit. It came from this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRApGRUceJo at the 4:34 mark. If you could add it back with the reference or tell me how to do it I would appreciate it. Thanks! 72.23.137.192 (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITE. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Production (Mirwais Ahmadzaï album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mirwais (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:KIDSTVDATES[edit]

Hey, I was investigating some old stuff here and ran across your page WP:KIDSTVDATES. I was happy to see that because actually I uncovered the same thing back in 2012. The actual culprit, although there are several people who do that, was originally known as Meadyforzbs (talk · contribs). And it's just not TV dates, the sneaky vandalism also happened to birth and death dates.

I used several hours to research it and filed a SPI back in 2012: [3] See if it's of any use. But I got frustrated and left the case. But apparently he has continued it with some other IPs, and even one IP from my SPI case has continued it until 2014. Thibbs had tagged that particular IP and I found your page.

It would be good if someone constructed an actual long-term abuse case page about it. --Pudeo (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Consider it emphasis and reinforcement[edit]

When the background of interactions here is supposed to be AGF, then it is difficult sometimes to realize the serious 'longtime' badness of an editors actions. And longtime is key here. Often, the window examined is restricted to 'lately', and often again that is loosely defined as <24 hours.

So I spent the time to underline the overall behaviour, continuing over the year that editor has been 'contributing'. Because I've seen AIV pass on taking action, because a fuller examination is taxing also, and sometimes (often?) not done. Since I knew AIV would peek at the talk page, emphasis that this is a ongoing situation to end was worth adding, I thought.

And my motivation is chiefly the tax upon all those editors who have had to revert those edits. Dozens of times. And the residue that has not yet been reverted.

The conventional block summary is "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". When does that become 'clear'? How does one help make it clear? Shenme (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Editor adds unsourced material.
  • "Please don't do that."
  • Editor adds unsourced material.
  • "Please stop."
  • Editor adds unsourced material.
  • "Stop."
  • Editor adds unsourced material.
  • "Final warning: If you do that again, you will be blocked."
  • Editor adds unsourced material.
At this point, we can follow through and block them or say, essentially, "No, really, we want you to stop doing that. Honest. At some point we will block you if you keep doing it. Maybe. Some day. We mean it. This time for sure."
I sent them to AIV. An admin looked at the long string of warnings and continued refusal to discuss the issue, decided they are WP:NOTHERE and indefed them. If the editor wants to edit, they can certainly request to be unblocked. (I'm not holding my breath.) If you would like to appeal the block for some reason, feel free to raise the issue with the blocking admin. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

Hi I know this was a long time ago but I was wondering why you removed the phrase ":Only those subjects who are notable enough for their own articles should be included here. in this edit [4] on the article List of drag queens. --Dom from Paris (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The time elapsed shouldn't matter. While I would hope my edit summary would make it clear why I was doing what I did to anyone, if it wasn't that clear it should at least make sense to me. :)
Wikipedia's Manual of Style calls for avoidance of self-reference. Basically, articles should be written as if they are not specifically in Wikipedia. The word "notable" means one thing in every day conversation. Here it refers to notability, a "Wikipedia policy or technicalities", per WP:SELF. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC request regarding Here (Alicia Keys album)[edit]

Can you comment on this RfC? It concerns whether a rather lengthy, quote-filled section should be trimmed or not? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Perfect Velvet[edit]

Can you keep an eye when who violates WP:SYNTH. 123.136.106.28 (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Autism Speaks[edit]

You know this is a bunch of antivaxers who push abusive pseudoscience, right? Guy (Help!) 07:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I see you have a strong opinion on this. I suggested you take this to the article's talk page. I strongly suggest you do that before editing further. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Your hypocritical warning is noted. Odd how you reverted more than I did, yet you issued the warning. Take that to WP:ANEW if you like. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Your counting is off. I rather suspect we'll end up at AN/I, ANEW would be a waste of time. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Perfect Velvet - synthesis[edit]

Can you keep an eye when who violates WP:SYNTH. 183.171.115.143 (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)