User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Toto (Oz) edits

Why did you revert both my attempt and another editor's attempt to set the record straight on Toto (band), the band, not being named after the dog Toto (Oz). The band page makes it pretty clear and the sources there are valid. You could argue that it is disputed, but it is not reasonable to say that the current statement (the one you restored twice) is the truth.

RoyLeban (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Your edit cited a fansite, which is not a reliable source. My edit summary made this clear.[1]

The IP editor did not cite a source of any kind. My edit summary made this clear.[2] - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Your "-fansite" comment did not "make this clear". I do not know anything about the site that you are referring to as a fan site. I've never been there, have no interest in visiting, have no idea if it is a fan site or not. I'm guessing you don't know either. I took the information from another Wikipedia page. By reverting this change (twice), you are saying that information that has been on the Toto (band) page for at least six years is incorrect. There have been a thousand edits to the band page in the last six years and nobody else was concerned.

At a minimum, the story on the Toto (Oz) page is disputed. That's pretty undeniable. If the Toto (band) page is to be believed, it is incorrect. You might also want to see also see page 200 of Rock Band Name Origins by Greg Metzer and page 251 of A Concise History of Rock Music by Paul Fowles.

I don't wish to get into an edit war with somebody who obviously has far more time to edit than I do. Therefore, I respectfully request that you either restore the change or you create a new edit which makes the truth clear. Thank you.

RoyLeban (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about the site and haven't visited it, you should not be using it as a source for information you are providing.

When I say a site is a fansite, it is because I have checked it out and believe it is a fansite. If you believe it is a reliable source, the burden is yours to demonstrate that on the article's talk page.

There are millions of articles on Wikipedia with tens of millions of citations. Some of those sources are nearly perfect and should not be changed. Others do not exist, never did and were added by vandals. Some don't say what they are cited for. Some say the exact opposite of what they are cited for. Some followed the Wikipedia policies in place years ago but do not fit with our current policies. Long story short: Do not copy material from one article to another. Doing so is essentially using Wikipedia as a source for itself and, in some cases, rather than improving the encyclopedia will be cloning errors and making it worse.

"If the [[Toto (band) page is to be believed"? No article on Wikipedia is to "be believed". Everything on Wikipedia is to be verifiable. It seems you may have found a bad cite on Wikipedia which should be corrected. That it has been there for quite some time while others have edited other parts of the article does not mean that any/all of them have read and verified everything else in the article. As it turns out, you did not verify the source you were adding to this article. I did. I find that the source is self-published and not reliable. If you disagree, please present your case defending the source on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

How exactly did you check out the site you are calling a fansite? It is defunct. If you had looked at the page in the Internet Archive, you would have found that the author quoted an entire interview verbatim. Do you think he made it up? Why would anybody do that? Did you look at the two books I cited? Of course not. I see that it is more important to you that rules be followed the way YOU interpret them than anything else. Please spend your time dealing with actual problems, of which there are plenty. RoyLeban (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

How did I check it? Yes, I used the Internet Archive. It looks like a fansite (and a defunct one at that). Did I look at the two books you added? No, because you had not added them. I removed the fansite you plainly stated you did not look at.

The author (who?) quotes an entire interview. The author (who?) is not a reliable source. Did they make it up, introduce errors or deliberately fudge details for whatever reason? I don't know. Neither do you. Why would anyone make it up, make mistakes or make changes? Who knows? It's the Internet. Look around Wikipedia and you'll find entire strings of articles on a series of land wars in Europe that simply did not happen.

If you feel there is some variant interpretation of our policies which states that material in articles becomes reliable merely for existing for some length of time or that you need not actually look at the sources you are citing, please do explain.

People copying mistakes from one article to another is an actual problem. YMMV. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the page and added four references, including a long quote from the interview and three books, including the two I mentioned earlier. If you think it is the case that the band was named after the dog, the burden is on you. You might also want to refresh your memory on what vandalism is (it's not what you implied above). And maybe disruptive editing too. It doesn't matter what the page said yesterday. As you said, there's lots of misinformation on Wikipedia, so you can't point to what was there yesterday and say it's correct. There was a single citation from a small regional newspaper in 1982, hardly a reliable source. If you think the three books and the quoted interview are all wrong, and only that one author from 36 years ago is right, feel free to present your case on the article's talk page. Editors who value deletions over quality and truth make Wikipedia worse and drive away contributors. Please don't be that editor. Maybe you'd care to update the band page with the extra references, now that I wasted my time digging it up. RoyLeban (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I have re-removed the defunct fansite you have again cited as a source. It seems you have now looked at it, which is an improvement. If you feel there is some ambiguity in WP:IRS which I am misinterpreting, I await elucidation.

You are adding material to an article, based on sources you are expected to have actually looked at. That is where the burden lies: with the editor who is adding material and/or sources. I feel that WP:BURDEN is quite clear on that point. If you interpret it otherwise, please explain.

I feel I am quite clear on what vandalism is. Someone adding citations to sources which never existed (as I discussed above) clearly fit the bill. Your interpretation might say otherwise, but it seems quite clear. You can rant as much as you would like about the sources you have added now being stone tablets from Mt. Sinai. Maybe they are. I haven't looked at them yet. The simple fact remains: The defunct fansite is not a reliable source. Adding a citation to a source you did not see is indefensible.

One further point: I have neither stated nor implied that I "value deletions over quality and truth". Do not imply otherwise. Yes, I remove bad sources and unsourced material. If you do not feel this increases quality and truth verifiability, I have a series of land wars in Europe to tell you about. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

With regard to WP:IRS, exceptions can be made when there are no other sources. In this case, there is a somewhat lengthy interview which occurred pre-Internet and for which other online sources do not exist at the moment (though the same interview can be found on other sites, also without attribution). Maybe it will appear in Google Books someday and we can learn the original source. There is no disadvantage to quoting the interview.

When you revert a change, you also have a burden to be accurate. This is especially true when reverting something which says "X is disputed" and making it say "X is not disputed" when you know full well that it is disputed. This is just poor editing.

I'm not sure you know what vandalism is. It has to be a deliberate act of corruption. Citations which never existed and which the editor knows are fake, sure. Citations which somebody thinks are valid but turn out not to be (e.g., they got from a bad secondary reference) are not vandalism. I once had an editor object to citations I made from several well-known but rare books by famous authors. I happen to own the books and I literally pulled them down from my bookshelf (carefully, they are old and easy to damage) and typed in text from them. The idiot I gave up on said I couldn't cite them because he didn't have the books to check my references, as if he was the ultimate arbiter of truth. He also removed scanned images, as if maybe I had fabricated them (some came from Google Books). Pretty stupid. I didn't say that you valued deletions over quality and truth. In fact, I said "Please don't be that editor." Your responses here make me think you might be heading in that direction. I hope you don't because you do seem to understand the goal of Wikipedia.

I'm done here. I wasted way more time than I wanted on a small change I don't even care that much about. I edit Wikipedia rarely now because I don't like bad administrators and editors, and I think overall Wikipedia has hurt knowledge in the world by killing off valuable encyclopedic content in favor of content edited by people who have the most time on their hands. That's sad. Here, I just saw something that was wrong and wanted to fix it. RoyLeban (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No, when no other sources other than unreliable ones exist we do not make exceptions and use the unreliable sources. We leave out the information.

I haven't a clue why you keep bringing up whether or not I know what vandalism is. Trust me. After a decade, I'm pretty clear on what vandalism, but thank you for saying you don't think I do, while not disagreeing with anything I said. I'll be sure to continue to not make an unspecified mistake.

I have removed the unreliable source and cleaned up the section in question to reflect what the reliable sources actually say. In the band's article, I've removed the unreliable source, leaving cite needed tags for now. At some point I'll simply remove the unsourced material, unless someone finds reliable sources, or establishes a consensus that we can use unreliable sources when we want to add information that isn't verifiable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent Edit to Young earth Creationism

Hello, You recently partially undid my edit to the aforementioned article. I removed the text you reverted to because it exaggerated the source material. The source material, [3] states, and I quote "[Young Earth Creationist's] arguments are detailed and often refer to scientific evidence, but may use it incorrectly." The material under citation says "[The Young Earth Creationist's arguments are] often framed with pseudoscientific misconceptions."

This is a prime example of source exaggeration. I ask that you undo your edit. Thank You, Plaba123 (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Plaba123

When you removed the material, you said it was poorly sourced. There is nothing wrong with the source.

If you feel that using scientific evidence incorrectly is not "pseudoscientific misconceptions", perhaps you could suggest another wording to clarify the misuse of scientific evidence. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Will do.Plaba123 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Plaba123

PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE REASON NO ONE CAN STAND WIKIPEDIA

And why teachers won't even let kids use Wikipedia as a source. Get a real job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:FF09:0:8D4E:DC09:2288:8C32 (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No one can stand Wikipedia, but they all read it? Interesting.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I won't let my students cite Wikipedia is that I want my students to research topics and tell me what they found, not what various anonymous Wikipedia editors found. Cheers. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

See also

Regarding your edit to the "See also" section on the article Humboldt Broncos bus crash, we're having a discussion on the talk page as to whether to keep that link in that section or to remove it since it also exists elsewhere in the article. I was hoping you could offer some input in that discussion since you made this edit. Thanks in advance! Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello there!

I saw you had notified me of my mistake in an edit I made to the It (2017) page. For some reason I can't reply to that on my own talk page, but I wanted to say that my edit wasn't meant to be unsourced as I had seen the reference had a title that implied an actress was definitely cast. This is my fault, I should have read the full article as to not poorly source content. But hey, keep doing what you're doing! it actually helps me to improve my editing approaches when someone directs you in the right path. Iwillflywhenidie (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"Along with"

re: [4]

It's interesting you reverted this particular addition, because I gave it thought (meaning, not just a haphazard edit). Per Strunk and White, I wouldn't dare add a needless word if it were indeed unnecessary. In this case, "along" helps clarify the relationship of the "new rhythm section" to the quartet itself. On first read, with only "with" there, it seems to imply that CSNY changed by absorbing these two rhythm players and then recorded as a foursome, rather than a quartet that played "along with" two other people.

Thanks for your vigilant attention to detail. I won't change it again without hearing from you, but that's my thinking for what it's worth (no Buffalo Springfield reference intended). Brhiba (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:59.100.215.150

The IP remains inactive. If it's active or new other sock users, go to WP:SPI and open a case for the master there. 115.164.61.100 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Gee, um, thanks for sharing, anonymous-IP-user-who-is-clearly-not-another-block-evading-genre-warrior. I'll have to look into that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

59.100.215.150 has been blocked as a sock of Littlemixfan!. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

References

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: [5], [6], [7], [8]. 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)

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)

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)

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 [9]. I gonna replace that website with Yahoo! since Hypebeast isn't considered a reliable source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Colors

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

Source

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

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

@SummerPhDv2.0:,

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

Fyre edit

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

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

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

Star Wars Holiday Special edit reversal?

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

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

Stop editing

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

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

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

IP sock

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

One (Metallica song)

[10] [11] You're kidding, right – was that some sort of mistake? An IP changed the genre from the long-standing thrash metal to progressive metal without sources/discussion, so I reverted them – why was I reverted, and why for the same reason? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Sara Smile

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

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

Astroworld (album)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary statements in film articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. RT approval rating

2. RT summary statement

3. MC rating and summary statement

4. PostTrak and Cinemascore audience reaction

--> New paragraph <--

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

6. Professional critic review #1

7. Professional critic review #2

etc...

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

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

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

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

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

August 2018

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

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

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