User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Benji the Hunted

Look in the history page. I got them from Joe Camp and a site for animal actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning a source in an edit summary assures the source will quickly disappear into the archives. If you have a reliable source, you must cite it in the article.

An email to you is not a reliable source as there is no way for readers to verify it.

Finally, as discussed on the article's talk page, Wikipedia does not list casting for minor roles. These are minor roles. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm friends with Joe Camp on Facebook and Gmail and he told me the cougar and bear actors. He didn't remember the wolf actor, but I got it from this site: http://www.animalactors.net/wolves.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, an email to you is not a reliable source. Please see WP:IRS.

Again, these are minor roles and should not be included. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I got the bear actor from IMDb too. Can I just insert what Joe Camp said to me on Facebook? Also, where should I write the source on the page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 15:30, November 24, 2018 (UTC)

These are minor roles. Wikipedia does not list who played minor roles in movies. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The adoptive mother's role is major. This is information from the director of the film.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 15:56, November 24, 2018 (UTC)

Again, these are minor roles and should not be included. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The adoptive mother and the wolf's roles are major. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, these are minor roles and should not be included. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I just told you that they're major. Just because they're animals, it doesn't automatically make them minor. I'll look on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. I say they are minor. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. You disagree. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Gee, what could you do if you disagree? If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Show me the link to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

At the top of most Wikipedia pages is a tab linking to its "talk" page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Which one? Yours? Also, tell me how they're minor or rewatch the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 23:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The article's talk page is linked to at the top of the article. Discussions meant to improve the article should take place on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 00:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Please can you leave me alone

Will you stop reverting all my edits please, I'm getting sick and tired of you reverting my edits. I'm allowed to edit on wikipedia if I want to and I won't let you ruin what I edit, don't you realise how much stress you cause for me, so please leave me alone. 82.19.95.171 14:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

As an IP sock of |Wikidestruction, you ore not allowed to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted. Your IP is now blocked. Your only option is to ask to have the block on your original account lifted. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

User:82.19.95.171 has been blocked as a sock. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Camila (album)

Can you keep an eye for the page? When any users/IPs of MariaJaydHicky or Littlemixfan! doing the same thing, you have to persist just in case. 183.171.114.110 (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Gee, random unregistered editor who is definitely not an IPsock of a blocked editor, do tell me more. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

See what I posted on Wikimedia talk page. 183.171.113.96 (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think this has anything to do with Wikipedia. Yes, I see the other genre warrior accuses you of being a particular genre warrior and you insist you are not that particular genre warrior. Maybe, maybe not. It's pretty clear to me that both of you are ip socks of banned genre warriors.

Whether or not your edits and accusations are correct or not is immaterial. I'm not interested. You are banned. Please get the hint and go away. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

User:183.171.114.110 was blocked as a sock, as was the sock the sock was socking. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 965

Is there enough information from the investigation report to make separate articles on the pilots? Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Two issues:

1) The report is a primary source. For stand-alone biographies, you would need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability.

2) The notability of the pilots is based on one event. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my edit

I am writing this message regarding a message you sent to me where you calld one of my recent edits "unsourced". The edit in question was that a user wrote that Season 5 ends January 23 2018, which i changed to 2019 as the hercules beetle episode airs Wednesday, January 23, 2019 and will be the last episode of Season 5. So my edit was not unsourced and i would greatly appreciate if you brought back my edit, and remove that message from my talk page. Thank you

Sincerely John David Velazquez (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Your edit added information to List of Wild Kratts episodes without an explanatory edit summary or source. I have corrected the article to remove the unsourced future episodes and the dates associated with them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

And while you were doing so you removed the actual episodes from the list John David Velazquez (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The actual episodes are unsourced future events. To include them in the article, they need to be verifiable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The episodes are real actually, check https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UB3MV0Wrsmw&t=532s and https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ut04hIetCns and https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OAEieh_1qhI&t=331s John David Velazquez (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

And while i have sources for these episodes that you removed, why didnt you remove the season 6 part, is there a source for that ?John David Velazquez (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not say the episodes aren't real, I said they were unsourced. To add future episodes, you will need to cite reliable sources for the information.

I left the "season six" part because there are elements for season six on the chart that cite sources. If you see anything for future episodes that is not sourced, feel free to remove it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

And what are the sources for the episodes listed in Season 6 John David Velazquez (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

They are in the article. Feel free to check them out. If there are problems with them, feel free to correct them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

For example what is the source for "deer buckaroo" i cant find it John David Velazquez (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You deleted my verified edit

You posted:

" Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Thank You for Your Service (2017 film). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SummerPhD^v2.0 00:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)"

Excuse me? The box office total of $9,995,692 is accurate as verified by the currently listed citation Box Office Mojo-- this total box office includes both the domestic total ($9.5 million) and the foreign total ($495,000) which can be found under the tab labeled "Foreign" (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=thankyou2017.htm). My edit for Thank You for Your Service (2017 film) was correct and should remain.

^{User talk:Ldavid1985} 04:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldavid1985 (talk • contribs) 23:40, November 14, 2018 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, Ldavid1985, you originally added this to my user page and I did not see it. I have moved it here to respond.

Your edit on November 14, 2018, said that the film had grossed $9,995,692, using the source citation already in place.

The cited source, however, was not Box Office Mojo on November 14, 2018. The cited source was Box Office Mojo on December 7, 2017. Additionally, the page linked to in the cite does not say $9,995,692. If you are adding figures from two pages, the cite needs to make this clear. Also, an edit summary would have been helpful, as always.

Additionally, please see MOS:LARGENUM. It is unlikely that the figure cited is accurate down to the single dollar. As such, a rounded figure is preferred. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

sock yes, that user no

RE [[1]]. Sorry, I was taken in by a joejob.. CU shows that user is actually user: Architect 134 [2] Meters (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sultans of Swing

I had a good look at the source before this edit [3], which you reverted. [4] and [5] suggest it is at least a serious publishing effort, which identifies its writers. There is a bit an endorsement of it at Mental Floss: [6] . I can see that I'm pushing the envelope on this one, but I don't see how the sources in favour of Bill Wilson's claim (both from NUVO (newspaper), a bi-weekly newspaper in Indiana) are any more reliable. Here's also another endorsement for songfacts.com [7]; just a DJ, but probably about as reliable as NUVO.

So if you delete my edit you should really delete the other sources too. Adpete (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I am discussing the info you added, citing SongFacts. Anything else in that article or any other article stands or falls on its own; it is of no relevance here.

If you click the double arrows at the end of various entries on that SongFacts page, you will see them credited as "Bertrand - Paris, France" or "Mark - West Bountiful, UT". (The entry you are citing is unsigned.) The page is user-edited, failing WP:SPS. Note the policy page on SongFacts you cited makes this clear: "How can I contribute to Songfacts? You can contribute to Songfacts by clicking 'Suggest a Songfact,' and entering anything you know about a song into the form, along with where you found the information. We will review your entries and enter them into the database if we deem them appropriate. You need to register to add Songfacts so we can give you proper credit." Apparently "Mark - West Bountiful, UT" is "proper credit".

If you feel other sources in the article are not reliable, feel free to raise the issue on the article's talk page or edit the article, as appropriate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Sultans of Swing, which is probably where I should have written the first time. Adpete (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

9 to 5

So, Seinfeld is trivial, but whatever the heck John Peel's Record Box is, that’s topical. Good to know. Tuvalkin (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the use of a song in a TV show is a trivial use in popular culture, as the link in my edit summary explains.

I did not say anything about "John Peel's Record Box". By reverting your trivial addition I did not intend to signal that I had carefully reviewed and approved of absolutely everything else in the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You woulda been 13

I want to add this to Talk:Janet_Jackson#Nipple_flash but after having some dick totally erase my post at [[8]] I’ll just tell you;

The NippleGate was a major topic. It was constantly on the news and talk shows – and in conversation. It may not have translated to Google-able references but it seemed to get much more coverage and concern (in the US) than any (or all) school shootings. And (though hardly mentioned) was almost certainly hyped because she’s black.

(Not about purple this time).

MBG02 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was all over the news. That, however, does not establish the vague "regarded as one of the most controversial television events in history". Given that TV avoids controversy the way moths avoid flames, it's hard to imagine anyone seriously undertaking a ranking of "controversial" television "events", though I have no doubt that everyone from TV Guide to Entertainment Weekly have likely done exactly that.

As for race being a part of it, it's rather hard to unravel that one. A Venn diagram of those seriously offended by a nipple on TV and those outraged by black/white sexuality on TV is pretty much a single circle.

!

MBG02 (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

So long as all the reliable sources spelled "Jackson", "Timberlake", "CBS" and "NFL" correctly, it doesn't look like anyone was hurt. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A Kind of Magic

If my correction to the opening paragraph of the section was "original synthesis", surely what preceded it (and had been there for a long time) was too, which said "Critical reaction to A Kind of Magic was mixed", which it wasn't, as the quotes from contemporary reviews were negative, not mixed, hence why I had corrected it. Rodericksilly (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I removed synthesis. I did not restore any. I don't care if it was wrong before and you maintained a similar level of wrong, I removed the problem. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Wawa

Businessman is the common, universal term for a man in business. Businessperson is a word used by Public Relations departments in Western countries. Please remember the spirit of the MoS and the ethos of Wikipedia itself in the future; compare this dilemma with the common usage of AD over CE here in the name of WP:ACCESSIBILITY, even though the former is not politically correct, even though 99.99% of people using it casually aren't thinking of Jesus Christ.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You made an edit. I reverted you. Yes, it is now time to discuss the issue. It is not time for you to repeatedly restore your contested edit. I cannot fathom why you feel your edit is so important as to override the common consideration of WP:BRD. Incidentally, discussions of article content normally occur on the article's talk page.

WP:COMMONNAME, which you previously cited, has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. It discusses the selection of article titles.

MOS:GNL, which I have cited, applies to article text. "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." You feel the term is "forced" and that the gendered noun is part of "the common vernacular" for the "common 'man'". I propose that "businessperson" in this context is quite clear, is not forced and will not confuse the common person.

You have further stated the term is "unwieldy". This seems to rely on an uncommon usage of the word "unwieldy" as I see no normal sense of the word here.

Your assertions that I am here to "push a point" and that you "can obviously see why (I) would push this" are off-topic and I would encourage you to remember WP:NPA.

You have also suggested that "GNL doesn't apply here", though you have given no indication as to why. Your assertion does not override the Manual of Style. - SummerPhD^v2.0 07:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I can tell you don't like bureaucratic nightmares as much as the next person, neither do I. I'm a very simple, direct person although I never intend any malice whatsoever. Please, just be straight with me as I tell you this: Using "businessperson" isn't going to exert any influence. It's not going to promote anything. Even subconsciously. It's an article about a convenience store and the founder is from the Victorian era. Come on already, please be honest with yourself. Just let it go...it just is ridiculous and tiresome. It's pointless and we're just LARPing over a single word no one will notice.

I am really just being stubborn, I would tell you not to waste your time but I would be a hypocrite. But maybe that's okay.

"Businessperson" - just like "Common Era". I'm sorry Jesus.~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 07:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, let me put it this way: You win. Happy New Year (sincerely)!--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 07:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia explicitly uses both BC/AD and BCE/CE, per MOS.

No, you can't tell much of anything about me and, as mentioned above, assuming you can is a bad idea. Do not assume I am here to push a point, am trying exert influence or am being dishonest with myself. Please discuss content, not editors.

Why you would argue over something you consider to be pointless would be interesting to consider, but off-topic here.

In any case, you seem to be willing to accept "businessperson" now and I will consider this issue resolved. - SummerPhD^v2.0 07:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Many have called me quite intuitive before, you would be surprised. Enjoy your New Year, Summer. Cheers.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Dates

I do thank you very much for keeping an eye on these articles, I can see they get a lot of unsourced edits. But reliable sources (Morgunblaðið is the main newspaper in Iceland) date this book's publication to 1995:

• Critique of the 1995 original publication: [9]
• Discussion of the book under „Brand New Books“ [10]
• Discussion of Scheving visiting the children's hospital in 1995 in celebration of his books publication [11]
• Discussion of the 1996 original theatre play [12] ("The book was published before last year's Christmas")
• The only version listed in the Icelandic Library Database is from 1995 [13].

The only reliable source claiming a 1991 publication is the 2004 NYTimes article, so it must be a misprint. – Þjarkur (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

NYT does not say it was published in 1991, it calls it a "1991 book". Your sources say it was published in 1995. Other sources I've run across -- unreliable ones -- say it was written in 1991 and published in 1995. That would be consistent with the source cited (and the wording change I made) without necessitating a jump to the conclusion that the New York Times, while speaking to the subject, somehow got something as basic as this date wrong. In any case, it would be rather extraordinary for him to both publish the first book and launch a tour ex novo in the same year. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hm, since the NYTimes article was about the show and not the fairly obscure children's book, a small mixup wouldn't surprise me. That article says "Based on Mr. Scheving's 1991 book, the show combines...". I haven't heard of people describing books left in the authors drafts that way before, that wording is usually reserved for published books. There exists not a single newspaper article about Scheving in the year 1991 and the 1995–1996 articles don't describe the book as having existed before.

According to all sources from the time he published a book in December 1995, in April 1996 an amateur theater puts up his play [14] and in November 1996 a professional theater shows this play [15].

Since the book didn't "exist" before 1995, I don't think the article can claim anything else than "It is based upon a children's book from 1995".

In fact the article about the amateur play claims: "Magnús's book came out before Christmas 1995 and immediately Sigurgeir became interested in creating a play about it. He got Magnús's permission to write a script based on the book".

It really does appear all later sources come from this very Wikipedia article as a citogenesis.

– Þjarkur (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Black Disciples

You don't see the reference here [16]? ♟♙ (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you added a source, but the source you added doesn't include the information it is cited for. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

May I ask why you're reverting me but not removing any of the other unsourced content in that portion of the infobox? For example, the version you're reverting to reintroduces the unsourced content "Other Black street gangs". ♟♙ (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You added material with a source that did not support the material. I don't know if I've ever reviewed the existing material or not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me.

So I’ve tried to add relevant information several times. You keep taking it down. I can give you several websites that verify that the Insane Cnote’s as part of the folk nation alliance. Besides the fact that I’ve been a member of the Cnote’s since 1995. PickleJeuce (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

To add or change information in the article, you will need to cite a reliable source for the information. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

New to Wiki Editing But You Keep Reverting Info on MPDG

1. I added a bit of info from an online magazine, Erraticus, which you cited as "not a reliable source." I've found the magazine to be a fantastic publication. Can you help me understand why you think it is "not a reliable source." 2. I also added Ruby Sparks to the list of Manic Pixie Dream Girls, and cited a IMDB as a source for it. Can you explain why the inclusion was taken down?

Cheers, The Invisible Hook (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC) (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This refers to your edits to Manic Pixie Dream Girl.

The first issue is your addition of Jeffrey Howard's suggestion to reconceptualize the character, citing erraticus.com The primary issue here is independent reliable sources.

In general, citing someone's opinion is going to require something to show that the person's opinion is of some impact. You and I both have opinions, but our opinions on McDonald's fries, NASA's budget or Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo are pretty much irrelevant. Various notable individuals likely also have opinions on those subjects, as do various special interest groups. Typically, we sort these out by coverage in independent reliable sources. If Jane Doe writes about one of those topics we generally don't consider it noteworthy unless a reliable source reports on her opinion. Donald Trump tweets that he doesn't like McDonald's fries? Who cares. He tweets a threat to slash NASA's budget? That's likely relevant to NASA and likely to be covered by reliable sources. Jeffrey Howard is some random guy who runs what he calls an online magazine.

I see nothing to indicate that the website is a reliable source. Moreover, as Howard is both the author of the piece and the "publisher" (such as it is) of the website, this is a self-published source. I don't really see any indication that he is a profession film critic or relevant academic. As near as I can tell, he is a sometime author with a couple of writing credits on his CV and this is his blog.

Next is citing IMDb as a source for a character being an MPDG. I love IMDb and use it frequently to figure out who and actor is, who directed a film, etc. That said, much of IMDb's content is, in effect, user-edited. Though there is some oversight, it isn't a reliable source for much. Most editors will accept it for credited roles in widely available films, release dates and similar information that is generally widely available. Uncredited roles, unreleased/rare/lost films and such are generally questionable. Most other info on the site: biographies, film analysis, etc. is generally rejected. I'm not entirely sure what you are citing at IMDb. Nothing on the page actually says "manic pixie dream girl" and there is really no place on the site where it would be reliable. For more info, please see WP:Citing IMDb.

(Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. In general, the best place to address issues related to content is on the article's talk page. If someone else editing the article sees our discussion, they might chime in with their opinion and/or other material that might help resolve the situation. Additionally, anyone looking at the article in the future can easily see what's already been discussed. User talk pages are best used to discuss individual editor's behavior: Why did you do X? Can you take a look at Y?, that sort of thing. If you disagree with my opinion on this content or want to discuss it a bit more, please ask on the article's talk page. If you think I'm off-base, am being unreasonable for some reason having nothing to do with the content, etc., feel free to comment here.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion over to the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Talkpage. While I appreciate your thoroughness (which wikipedia absolutely needs!), I find your assessment of the magazine misunderstands the nature of the publication. Erraticus has contributions from dozens of writers, who are authors of books, academics, or have been featured in other notable publications. It doesn't really contain the trappings common to blogs. In what ways do you feel it's a blog? As far as I can discern, as a reader of Erraticus, it's a younger publication (2 years, it seems?) with some insightful essays from knowledgable writers. The authors seem perfectly capable and qualified to write about the things they're writing about.The Invisible Hook (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Your recent editing history at People Nation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ^{154.119.79.254 (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)}

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with a new account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

154.119.79.254 is a single purpose account making unsourced/unexplained changes to several gang articles, sitting on a 3RR warning and, so far, not discussing the issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

154.119.79.254 has been blocked for edit warring/proxy editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on Ownership of content. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Report_on_ownership_of_content. Thank you. 154.119.79.254 (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

154.119.79.254 has been blocked for edit warring/proxy editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Old Apostolic Church

Dear SummerPHD. Thank you for your correct edits. I seek your advice to the following question:

How does one reference information that is purely oral tradition?

The edits to the Old Apostolic Church are difficult to reference due to the policy of not having written doctrine or views, although orally these would be well known traditions.

Could you please advise how to go about making oral traditions available to the public on Wikipedia?

Regards Origen.Adamantius (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. All content should be based on independent reliable sources.

"Independent" refers to sources which are not connected to the subject of the article. In this case, the church, its writings and its members are not independent of the church and would generally not be usable as sources for the article.

"Reliable sources" refers to "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Oral traditions are neither published nor would your reporting of them here be backed by a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 184 (number). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin:

1) Please don't template the regulars.

2) That this is a level 2 warning seems to indicate you saw one of the warnings above from User:154.119.79.254 but either did not see or did not read the responses to that block user's nonsense.

3) When you see a revert by a regular that does not make immediate sense to you and are about to guess it is vandalism, taking a moment to read the talk page of the editor they are reverting. In this case, it reveals that the revert you are objecting to was made against a block-evading vandal -- a sock of User:154.119.79.254. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

As reverting an established block evader, I apologize for the warning. However, User:119.148.37.33's edit was unexplained blanking, and should be reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

blind

Hello, it's Nahom here. i am tired of having to explain to all you people that I cannot use the reference ting because the captchas. JAWS is a screen-reader I use and it has no audio option for the captchas. I used the sources. Look at the edit summary then you can put in the reference to the article i did. original research, how ridiculous is that? Next time you go to leave a mesage please read the top of the page. I explain there. thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to be part of your continuing frustration. Obviously this is not the best user experience for you. I thought we had a fix for this and have asked for clarification to try to resolve this.

As for the edit itself, the text on the page for the video makes it clear these are actors portraying members of the band. The video is a spoof. Though another editor came in after my revert and restored it with your cite included in-line, I have removed it for this reason. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Creating auser account requires this captcha too. I tried requesting accounts from several e-mails, granted one of them was hacked in 2016 so I'd rather not do that. The captcha thingy needs an audio option to insert links, because right now it's just a visual thing, and my girlfriend's not always around, so I can't just say "Nina, come read this for me please?" It's awesome having a musician for a GF, but it also means she's always out. I may be away for a bit coming up as we're going back to the UK for a week or so, that's a big maybe, so if I don't get back to you after tomorrow then that's why. I'm trying to find more sources to note the similarities between Roses and Something Just Like This, I mustn't be the first person to note the similarities, in a youtube review of Something Just Like This, notable critic Todd In The Shadows notes this similarity, though I don't know much about American music critics. I know you're not trying to be dificult, it's just people also need t olook at summaries rather than just assume original research. thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

In any case, we need to find a way for you to be able to cite your own sources in-line. Had your edit not been reverted when it was, it might have been removed days, weeks or months later. No one can reasonably be expected to dig through hundreds of edits looking for a source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I don't know who to take it up with at Wikipedia, they need to realize thair current captcha system is a problem for blind users who use JAWS. 23.151.192.182 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Your IP changed. I hope you got the message from Graham87 at User talk:23.151.192.180. Their answer is focused on trying to get you through the current frustration. As Graham87 is also an admin, they can probably clarify what the root of the problem is and what needs to happen the correct the situation.

I have a general understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines in terms of formatting, alt text and such to ensure our articles are as accessible as possible. Technology issues are rather beyond me, but I'm honestly ignorant as to why we don't have the audio option for Captcha. I guess the best I can really do is add a meager amount of weight behind any question of prioritizing the issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I've sent your new IP a message. @SummerPhDv2.0: I did this because I mistakenly thought that you'd tried to ping the IP, and that wouldn't have worked. The reason we have no audio captcha is that there aren't any open-source extensions for such a thing. Graham87 01:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks guys, sorry about the IP change, I've had a problem with my router. I'm going away for a bit but I will e-mail Graham when I get back. I'll be gone for a while. I should be back about February 7th, assuming our flights don't get delayed. thanks. Nahom PS, one of my e-mail addresses got hacked so hopefully it wasn't used by any Wikipedians in the past. It should be okay. thanks.

23.151.192.182 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Walt Disney World Railroad article in danger

Hello. Remember back in 2016 when you identified the Walt Disney World Railroad article as having so much trivial and unsourced content that you cleared it out, turned it into a redirect, and then I rewrote it from scratch? Unless you haven't kept track, it was later given semi-protection to stop the Lexington, South Carolina-based IP editor responsible for the article's previous poor state from touching it (it's now a featured article, as well). Unfortunately, last month this IP user created an actual username, User:NickH2001, which he has used to get around the article's semi-protection. I have opened up a discussion about him here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NickH2001, but the responding admin doesn't seem convinced that this user is a bad egg. Any input that you can provide in that discussion will be helpful. Thank you. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 14:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I've commented at AN/I. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Your talk page comment removal

I've gone ahead and reverted your removal of my comment from the talk page of Glass (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please refer to WP:TPG for guidance on talk page etiquette and behavior. Regarding the message you left on my talk page, I refer you directly to this essay: Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. My comment, as posted, was actually far better than what I'd initially typed out, FWIW. I get the impression this new user was the anonymous IP trying to add the negative review language to the article with a reference to the New York Times (however, the NYT article made no mention of the film being reviewed negatively). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"Your ignorance is truly stunning" is clearly a personal attack. That it is "far better" than what you originally wrote does not make it any better. Please discuss content, not editors.

Your brief talk page (6 topics, with no archive) did not make it immediately obvious that you are a regular. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Considering I was not the one who added the content he finds objectionable, the ignorance comment is fully fitting as he was attacking me as if I was the person who added the content he disliked. He also, as an IP, left comments which I promptly removed from my talk page. I will happily comment on content as soon as all other editors involved are held to that same standard. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment on content, not editors. Personal attacks are not acceptable. Stop it and drop it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we're done here. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Off topic chat

You recently marked a couple of observations on the talk page of Media Bias in the United States as "off topic chat". No big deal, but since you are a rational person I thought I would at least respectfully ask you remove that. You may disagree with my statement that the positions Right and Left have drifted strongly Right since Reagan, but it is certainly relevant to the question whether a low percentage of Republican journalists shows bias. There may be a low percentage of Republican journalists because they are biased, that is because they have formed an unreasonable prejudice against the Republican Party. But another explanation for the low percentage of Republican journalists may be that journalists tend to be better informed than the general public, and think that the Republican Party has moved so far to the Right that it is bad for America, in which case not being Republican is a rational choice and does not show bias. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of article topics. Whether your observations are correct or not is irrelevant. They are off topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)