User talk:SummerPhDv2.0

This user may have left Wikipedia. SummerPhDv2.0 has not edited Wikipedia since 3 November 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

1) You will frequently be wrong. Discuss the issue on the talk page. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Read the policy/guideline someone says you violated. They might be right.

2) The more certain you are that #1 doesn't apply to you, the better off the project will eventually be without you.

3) Everything else is commentary.

Archives

/Archive 1/Archive 2/Archive 3/Archive4/Archive5/Archive6/Archive7/Archive8/Archive 9/Archive 10/Archive 11/Archive 12/Archive 13/Archive 14/Archive 15/Archive 16/Archive 17/Archive 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

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

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

Hi. I was browsing 'magical negro' after reading about the movie 'music' and looked at the Talk page. Anyway- I live in Scotland and here 'blubbering' means crying as in "he's a blubbering wreck". Whereas 'blabbering' is similar to blethering ie someone who is talking too much. Kind regards Andrew ranfurly (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your querry:

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

Reply:

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

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

Your querry:

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

Reply:

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

I am not a "gentleman".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, this is regarding the edit I made on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_(1997_American_film) page. I forgot to source the film at first but I have since done that. On the official page on Box Office Mojo you can see that the actual numbers the movie has made, somebody has been falsely changing it for some reason. ^[1] also you can just look on the actual "Contact" film page at the bottom under "Box Office" it shows you exactly how much money the film made domestic and international for it's worldwide total of $171.1 million dollars. Somebody recently has simply been changing the first number of the box office total to three and not sourcing this information. Which is violating the page and information, I am simply re-editing it to the actual total box office where at the bottom of the article it is sourced already under box office mojo, I suggest you look at the sources that I have put and see for yourself, Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayman6273737 (talk • contribs) 11:53, July 10, 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hello

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

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

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

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

thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have

to realize it is how I was raised, Southern U.S. is ebad, England is good. 

Unlearning things I've been tought as a kid is far from easy.

38.111.120.74 (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care where your prejudice came from. It has no place here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So even if the person is a racist Alabaman rightwing trump supporter who thinks Eritrea is a bleep hole, they still get to tell me what to do on Wikipedia? 38.111.120.74 (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor's race, religion, ancestry, orientation, identity, age, eye color, political affiliation, favorite flavor of ice cream, need for corrective lenses and a million other things has nothing to do with it. Labeling another user a "racist" because of where they were born has me wondering if you aren't simply trolling. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing more than 30 edits,but i still don't know how to edit correctly,can you help me?,thanks ;-) Kairipines (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PILLARS is a good place to start. Everything else is just commentary.

Consider adopt-a-user. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you one of those people who was in favor keeping Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on the list of music considered the worst? Well about that... Rjrya395 (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the lesson here is threefold: 1) Don't make personal attacks. 2) When called on making personal attacks, don't restore them. 3) When called on it a second time, don't restore them again.[8] - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make that fourfold. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you got anything to say? Rjrya395 (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I commented in the discussion. Yes, I see there is a faction that wants to remove Sgt. Pepper... and thinks that cooking the criteria with the specific aim of excluding it is a legitimate approach. It's not. It's a No true Scotsman argument. "This is a list of music considered the worst by professional music critics. By 'professional music critic' we mean any paid music critic who admits Sgt. Pepper... is the greatest recording in history."

You disagree. You went personal. You were called on it. You were blocked. You decided to keep going. That didn't help.

What are you hoping for here? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now we're done here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been six years and counting since the 2013 Ender's Game film is released. I was expecting a TV series, but we've got is none. Why? --183.171.64.225 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way of knowing.

What the lack of a TV series has to do with your "once-in-a-lifetime" claim is beyond me. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Forgive me if I'm informing you of things you already know but, we now have clear guidance at WP:SONGTRIVIA (summarised from multiple policies and guidelines) to reference when dealing with this kind of stuff. Gotta love those handy shortcuts; they make potential arguments so much easier to handle :D Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you undid an edit I did on Pattie Boyd's page. I added the category victims of domestic abuse. I didn't think I had to add a citation since it was already mentioned in the article that Eric Clapton was violent towards her. I have since added a citation and I re-added the category.Twixister (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are you going to delete the information I added, which is accurate (if you’re from Los Angeles you know), and leave up the false information that they beef with crips as if Crips were one gang and they all beef with the 18 Streets. Don’t correct me on a subject you have no knowledge of. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous1028 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert changes you make to Wikipedia which do not conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

You might be THE recognized expert on all things related to the 18th Street Gang. You might be an outright vandal, adding false and disparaging claims. You might know some things and be mistaken about some other things. I might be the foremost scholar on street gangs or know nothing whatsoever about gangs. Or both of us could be somewhere between those extremes.

Wikipedia does not know who either one of us is and how to weigh what you think the article should say vs. what anyone else thinks it should say. Instead, we cite sources. Long story short: the article should say what independent reliable sources say. If you make changes to an article and you don't cite your sources, anyone can revert your change or remove the information. See WP:V for more information. Ask for help here, on your talk page or on the article's talk page if you don't understand something or aren't sure what to do. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is the talk page from Dancing in the Dark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dancing_in_the_Dark_(Bruce_Springsteen_song)

I described problem first

Release date We had a release date of May 26, 1984, this was actually the date this song entered the Billboard charts (at no 36); it was in top 10 two weeks later the other release date we had was May 3, 1984, and several internet sites copied our information, which is something we should always be aware of when posting data I have serious problem with this date; the correct date should be at least 2 weeks later. It would never take 23 days between release and chart for Springsteen I have all the Billboard records, I will compare the two data points for his other singles, and some other artists I am scanning my 48 Bruce Springsteen books for information on this; Unfortunately, much easier to get recording info than release info David Tilson benchwarrant17@yahoo.com Please contact me with any clues or additional points of view PS I changed date to May 1984 for now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillywilly17 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional Information The 12" single was released May 9, 1984 and was the biggest selling 12" single in the U.S.A. that year. Not sure if this is the same release date. Back in these days, we did not yet have CD singles, full-size CDs were coming or just started (have to look it up) so we still had 7" 45rpm singles, right? I will check, all this off top of my head

The first commercially released CD Single was Angeline by John Martyn released on 1 February 1986.[3]

Although 7 inches remained the standard size for vinyl singles, 12-inch singles were introduced for use by DJs in discos in the 1970s. The longer playing time of these singles allowed the inclusion of extended dance mixes of tracks. In addition, the larger surface area of the 12-inch discs allowed for wider grooves (larger amplitude) and greater separation between grooves, the latter of which results in less cross-talk. Consequently, they are less susceptible to wear and scratches. The 12-inch single is still considered a standard format for dance music, though its popularity has declined in recent years.

May 3 might end up being correct, too bad person who entered that did not cite source! Tillywilly17 (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The May 26 date is definitely wrong that was day it entered Billboard chart

this date is not correct either May 9, 1984

the correct date is May 3, 1984 the date Wickipedia had - If you look way back, you will see that was originally there

I am sorry about changing the secondary date on Born In the USA, I got nervous thinking people woukd read May 26

the — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillywilly17 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he passes WP:SPS under the condition of being a National Film Award for Best Film Critic winner, the fact that he was written for The Hindu (as a full-time writer, not guest) and currently works for Film Companion. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I overreacted to a new editor adding links to a blog and using the WP:PEACOCK label "prominent". - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review and comment on this RfC, please? Many thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time to review and comment at Talk:Paul Stamets. I requested your review of this RfC issue due to your fair-minded discussion at Talk:Coconut oil and Talk:Reiki, among others where you and I have participated. At Talk:Paul Stamets where you said Stamets is verifiably a mycologist, my point in the discussion above the RfC is that there is no academic verification of Stamets as a degree-defined mycologist, an academic title and discipline that would require a PhD. There is no WP:V for him as a mycologist. He is a hobbyist focused on mushrooms the way a gardener (with no botany degree) is focused on flowers. I interpreted the Seattle Times and NY Times as not verifying his credentials, but rather referring to him as a mycologist, as he does himself on his commercial webpage. Thanks again for the effort. --Zefr (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I put me on the list because I was the first women of color mechanic for TWA, there were 3 others after me. If I did it incorrectly please let me know so I can go back on the list. I’m researching to find out if I was first for all major airlines, but I was for TWA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Localber (talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Localber

(FYI: Please add new talk page comments to the bottom of pages, not the top. Depending on your settings, there should be a tab at the top of the page titled "New section which allows you to do this more easily.)

Your edit added your achievement to the article, "First African American Woman Mechanic for Major Commercial Airline: [Carolyn Burton] Trans World Airlines (TWA)."

There are several problems with this entry.

In general, most "List of..." articles are limited to notable entries. For example, List of people from New York City obvious does not (could not, should not) include every person from New York City. It is limited to notable people; those who have their own article on Wikipedia. Harry Belafonte yes, my aunt Edna no. Without discussing the merits of your claim specifically, this limits the article. Jackie Robinson becoming the first African-American to play Major League Baseball in the modern (post-nadir) era was seen by many as a turning point. This brings up the second point.

Everything in Wikipedia should be verifiable. The information must be published in independent reliable sources. Jackie Robinson's achievement was (and repeatedly still is) reported in such sources. For the most part, they are cited in the subjects' individual articles. Who says Robinson was the first? If you check his article, you will find numerous sources backing up the claim. Those sources are reliable (published by a source with an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: the New York Times yes, Breitbart News no) and independent of the subject (not written by Robinson, his friends and family, his manager, etc.

Next, it is generally a bad idea to write about yourself in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Autobiography for more detail.

If you still feel your entry belongs in the article, I would strongly encourage you to follow the guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#COI_editing. As the article now stands, we would need to have an article about you before you could be added. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep an eye of the page? Make sure who violates WP:SYNTH. 2402:1980:8240:C6B4:3E0D:2886:BFB4:D3E9 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, anonymous-editor-who-is-almost-certainly-a-banned-editor. I see you are here to continue your crusade against another banned editor. That crusade -- and failure to heed warnings -- is what got you banned.

No, I will not do anything for you. You'll need to log on under your original account and ask to be unblocked. (I am going to take one look at the article and decide to undo your edits or not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Long time no read! Anyway, there's a problem. Once again, another editor has made a big removal in the List of superhero television series. He/she says the shows are self-evidently non-superhero shows. It appears this editor's removal is due to personal opinions; plus, the editor is ignoring the sources and has left a big mess. The editor's name is User:Kchishol1970. May I have permission to restore it? God bless!!!Sparkles32 (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "permission". (Incidentally, I'm not an admin, not that that is particularly relevant.) I'll take a quick look and see what's what.

BTW, you seem to have been doing a lot of work on the at article. Thanks! - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! And thanks to you as well! God bless!!!Sparkles32 (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You left an edit summary on my Talk page that reads "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:Smooth jazz". Would you quote the sections from my posts that you consider to be personal attacks? Second, would you regard the comment "It's a notable topic. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not living in this universe" as a personal attack? I'm still trying to learn what constitutes a personal attack and incivility on Wikipedia, with the intent to correct past mistakes. This is not a request for linked acronyms. I would like you to explain the situation in your words in plain, clear language. Thank you very much for answering my questions.
–Vmavanti (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in exploring this with you. Wikipedia's civility guidelines -- which have been linked for you several times and explained -- are sufficiently clear.

Further, I am not particularly moved by your attempt to abandon individual agency. You are responsible for your own actions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know know what to make of these comments or how they can be considered acceptable responses on Wikipedia. I didn't ask for "exploration". I asked two simple, direct questions that require little time to answer. Nowhere have I "abandoned agency" if you are suggesting I am trying to avoid responsibility. If I were irresponsible, I would be avoiding the subject, not talking about it. For starters, I have four years of work and 75,000 edits that say I am responsible. My willingness to engage in discussion, debate, to understand and improve are signs of responsibility. I don't see how editors can accuse someone of personal attacks and incivility without being specific. I disagree that it is enough to show someone a link to the documentation. I have discussed with editors over the years that the documentation can be confusing and contradictory. I don't understand how excluding or forbidding sincere, honest talk from Talk pages benefits anyone.
–Vmavanti (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

The purpose of an article's talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article. Article talk pages should not be used as platforms for your personal views. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colleague,
   Your indiscriminate reversion on Silent Running is unacceptable. We need discuss no further for now, if you do a block self-revert, and shape up -- at least as concerns my edits. Alternatively,

1. mentally segregate my edit into segments corresponding to those that are made manifest by the diff display,
2. restore (or at least clearly identify) the hills you don't consider worth defending),
   

and I will, notwithstanding, carefully reconsider even those portions before restoring them, and consider entering further collegial dialogue with you about any remaining unrestored segments that you address promptly on a segment-by-segment basis. Yeah, if you'd like, in good faith, to defend some of them with exactly the same specific argument(s), I probably won't need to be hard-nosed about that.
   This could "... be the beginning of a great friendship."
Collegially,
--JerzyA (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your unexplained edits were, as nearly as I could tell, not an improvement. The rambling hidden comments were clearly not encyclopedic additions.

If you would like to work on addressing the problems with your additions, we are now up to the "D" in WP:BRD; you boldly made changes, I reverted them, now we discuss them on the article's talk page.

As your changes seem to cover a lot of ground, I encourage you to "partialize": break your changes down into pieces, pick one piece to start with and -- as directly and succinctly as possible -- explain what you feel should be changed and why. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2601:644:4301:xxx added "mixed reviews" or something in "Critical reception" section which violates WP:SYNTH. I'd initially reverted but that blindly rollbacker restored it back. Would you like to figure it out? 2402:1980:824B:3413:3AC8:A644:A85F:29B2 (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of banned users looking for registered users to edit on their behalf, no, I won't. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me and the rest of the world how exactly Salafism "developed... as a response to Western European imperialism" is a true statement from a reputable source. This is not spoken as an opinion, nor is there a counter-balancing opinion, so this is clearly being spoken as a statement of fact."Western European Imperialism" had nothing to do with Salafism, nor did Salafism develop in the 19th century. Salafism has existed throughout the entire history of Islam. All Islamic Caliphates have been governed by Salafists. A Caliphate is, by nature, an Islamic Empire that wages Jihad against ALL non-Muslims, as commanded by Muhammad in the Koran. Thus, Salafism dates back to Muhammad. Nor was there any discernible departure from Salafism in the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th or 18th centuries. The article as it stands now suggest that Western Civilization did something to cause Salafism in the 19th century. This is an outright lie, which can be proven by the reality of the relationship between Western Civilization, Islam and the rest of the world during this period. Islam was actively invading, conquering, forcibly converting, occupying and enslaving millions of Europeans during the period from the 13th through the 19th century, until the Ottoman Empire was defeated in WW1. All the while, the Islamic invaders' governments and leaders were as Salafist as one can be. They conquered all of Greece, all of Israel, all of Constantinople and the Pontus, all of Ionia, all of Spain, all of Portugal, and much of Italy, Eastern Europe, Asia, North Africa, and India. Salafism was as much or more influenced by the Empires of Egypt, Persia, Parthia, Babylon, Germany (its ally in WW1 and WW2),India, Russia, Africa, China and Mongolia as it was by Western Civilization, so why are those empires not listed as the reason for the emergence of Salafism, at least on par with Western Civilization? Perhaps you are unaware, but there is a reason why Islamic Caliphates have tended to lay the blame for their problems on certain regions. It is because those regions are the Jihadist Salafists' primary targets for terror attacks and invasion, because they consider those regions to be the greatest barriers to their efforts to conquer all of mankind and the entire world, as the Koran commands them to. They are the perpetrators of the crime, not the victims as they like to claim. Is it Wikipedia's position that al-Baghdadi and Bin Laden were heroes and martyrs who died in a just and righteous fight against western imperialists? It certainly sounds that way when I read your articles, which makes me wonder if someone like al-Baghdadi wrote the article, then preserved it in the editorial process and the arbitration committee, in spite of the many efforts prior to my own to remedy the lies, the bias, the deception, the Jihadist propaganda and the injustice spoken in your article. That's certainly what that article sounds like when it is phrased the way it currently is. This needs to stop. The article is not neutral. The article does not contain all sides of the mainstream opinions. The article presents a lie as if it was a fact. The article appears to lay the blame on the Greeks, Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese, Macedonians, and Jews for the Islamic invasion and occupation of their countries for centuries, supposedly because they were western imperialists themselves, and therefore Salafism emerged because of what they did, deservedly so, and that's why all those European nations and peoples lost their land and their liberty for centuries, right Wikipedia? Then in WW1, those lousy Western Imperialists dared to prevent the German-Islamist/Salafist powers from conquering all of the rest of Europe, and that's why Salafism came into being, right Wikipedia? This is outrageous. Correct the article or I will inform those who need to know that Wikipedia is promoting Jihadist propaganda and thus encouraging attacks on Western targets. This ends here. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not read your wall of text.

So far, I have said absolutely nothing about he article's content.

I am addressing your disruptive editing. Whether you are right, wrong or somewhere in between is immaterial at this point. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked from editing again.

As you seem to feel very strongly about the article content (as you have with previous articles you have been involved with), you may wish to take a break from editing and return when you feel to can discuss the issues briefly and succinctly.

Rather than a long wall of text, try breaking the issue down into smaller pieces and start with one of those pieces using the following formats:

• The article says "FU is BAR" but we don't have a source stating that. We should remove the claim.
• The source cited, "FUBAR Monthly" is not a reliable source. It is merely a blog. We should remove that source and claims sourced to it.
• The article says "FU is BAR" but the source cited says "FU is not BAR". We should correct that.
• The reliable source cited says "FU is BAR" but another source, "HHGTTG" says "FU is not BAR". We should include that as well.

If, instead, you continue as you have been, you will be blocked from editing again. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a false statement, SummerPhD^v2.0, and I think you know it. How exactly is removing a demonstrably false, biased, non-neutral, non-consensus statement that is at best an opinion, at worst an outright lie designed to promote global terrorism, disruptive? My removal of that statement was entirely appropriate, and I and many others will continue to demand that you remove the statement until you do so. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON THAT STATEMENT, BY EDITORS OR BY SCHOLARS, therefore Wikipedia policies require that you remove it, and/or include the converse opinion, which is, by the way, the opinion of the majority of humanity and scholars. Remove the comment immediately, or prove that the comment has the consensus of the community and scholars, which is impossible, because there is no such consensus, and if anything, the consensus is just the opposite of what the article says. This fact is evident from both the talk page and all of the articles about Islam, Islamic imperialism, Islamic Salafist behavior that persisted long before the 19th century, and Islamic invasions and aggression toward not only Europe, but every civilization they came in contact with. That is not an opinion. That is factual, well-established history, which can be found in hundreds of Wikipedia articles' sources. Your refusal to read my comment, complaint, justification and request for arbitration is unprofessional and contrary to your duties to the Wikipedia community commensurate with your office. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "duties...commensurate with (my) office"? Please tell me what the duties of my office are...I'd be interested to hear.

In the meantime, your edits were disruptive. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked from editing.

If you wish to discuss the content of the article, please use the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

174.126.168.126 has been blocked for BATTLE. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! One of my friends insists that mac and cheese is classified as a soup and I, a scholar, could not disagree more. So, of course, I felt the need to edit the wikipedia article to include the fact that mac and cheese is NOT and will NEVER BE a soup, to prove my point. Am I wrong in saying this?

-Kelly Candle Kellymccandle (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kellymccandle,

You were wrong to add it to Wikipedia. Independent reliable sources do not discuss whether or not mac & cheese is a soup, so Wikipedia has nothing to say on the subject. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The movie Split was released theatrically in 2017, not 2016. Usually movies are described with their theatrical release date, not the year it premiered. Alexis.rans (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with describing it as a 2016 film, please open a discussion of the issue on the article's talk page. In addition to changing the text of the article (as you did), the article would need to be moved. The article is not at "Split (2017 Movie)". It's at Split (2016 American film).

Why "...2016..."? As the article says, "The film premiered at Fantastic Fest on September 26, 2016...". Per MOS, "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." WP:FILMRELEASE - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your follow up at The Dice Man book's article. I take your word for the fact that the Pop culture section should be redacted. But perhaps return the one entry that did have a citation? And perhaps the couple that also appear in the box at article end, or are otherwise wikilinked? Leave it to you. A stub of a section, even with only one entry, but with a citation, might set the momentum in a good direction. Cheers. And sorry to hear about your unexpected break with the past. 50.252.127.89 (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of citations. Most references to a subject in popular culture are simply trivial.

Imagine the topic were Richard Nixon. There are countless films, TV shows, novels, exposes, songs, album titles, operas, cartoons, etc. that mention or discuss Nixon. However, none of them are meaningful subjects when discussing Nixon. Yes, an article about Nixon in China would naturally discuss Nixon -- it's hard to say anything meaningful about the opera without discussing Nixon. The reverse is not true: the overwhelming majority of sources about Richard Nixon do not discuss that opera, Madman Across the Water, "Ohio" or his head living in a jar in the 23rd century.

A rare instance where a reference in popular culture is meaningful is the skits on Saturday Night Live where Chevy Chase imitated Gerald Ford. Why is that included at Gerald Ford? Because it has a meaningful part in the story of Ford, as he discussed in an interview with the New York Times, cited in the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with you—most of these sections are simply unsourced editor WP:OR relating personal experience. On the oither hand, I do believe we need a "Critical response" section, because articles, everywhere—Wikipedia and in the popular media—say things like "it was critically well received" without providing any source. At the same time, the one academic that had a look at this subject in 2015 found that there was no real research justification for the hyperbole (i.e., content along the lines that it was a life-changing novel for an entire generation). As well, people characterise the work as being a missive that is anti-psychiatry, when the evidence for the time is that, historically, this was not a period with such attitudes, but in fact just the opposite (and at least one of The Guardian exposes states this). So, I think the question is begged—what have informed people about that period in history, and about this genre/area of aleatory had to say about the origins of the ideas, and then the way in which Cockcroft handled them? And this question can be asked twice—what did they think at the time of its original publication, and what are critics and profs now saying, with the perspective of the decades since? My hunch is that, as a publication by a small house, it engendered little response in the U.S., initially, but that as it picked up in Europe, someone stateside had something to say. But this is research on the body of writing, pre-internet, and so it will take a while to flesh out. Meanwhile, I think I will put the critical response section back in, if empty—I only left the librarian statement in, to keep the section in, and not empty—so that there is a place to put in critical response information as it is found (and to encourage people to look for it). Cheers. An old Prof, still in saddle. 2601:246:C700:9B0:8940:B5F:88C:155 (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have recently oppened a talk section on Beyoncé and Jay-Z's collaborative album "Everything is Love" to clarify if the project should be labeled as a joint album or a debut album by "The Carters". Can you help me to clarify this matter, please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Everything_Is_Love

186.248.94.205 (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Summer. 203.63.75.145 posted in Talk:See You Again#Writers in September, but along with the others are European-located IPs for those years. It looks to me like they have multiple Xboxmanwar socks. Same as Talk:Rebel Heart. 2402:1980:24E:A9D3:95E7:CFEE:9803:4291 (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous banned editors editing anonymously -- often in disputes with other banned editors editing anonymously. Given the frequency with which they show up here asking me to edit on their behalf, I have a longstanding of not getting involved. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... do you revert uselessly my contribution here [9] ? --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition, "Some action cams are been used in this film.", has several problems, any one of which would be reason enough to remove it.

1) The grammar is bad enough that I cannot be certain enough what you were trying to say to be able to correct it. Presumably, you meant "Action cameras were used to film some segments." However, you might have meant that a character uses action cameras or something else. Assuming English isn't your primary language, you might be more successful editing Wikipedia in one of the [www.wikipedia.org hundreds of other languages available].

2) It seems to be a random bit of trivia, placed randomly in the article. Assuming you were saying how parts of the film were shot, where you placed it has no relation to anything else being discussed.

3) It is unsourced. One of the pillars of the project is verifiability. When material is not sourced, we have no way of knowing if it is true and significant. Maybe you got it from a documentary on the making of the film that discusses the choice of action cameras as an important aspect of the "feel of the film". Maybe you saw the film, had recently used an action camera yourself and just guessed that they were used for the film. Maybe you made it up and added the material as a joke. There's no way to tell without fully researching what action cameras have to do with The Martian. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, add it yourself. Because what I say it's real. --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you were trying to say. You will need to improve the grammar.

I do not have a source for your claim. It is your responsibility to provide one.

It may be true, but trivial. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A source ???? Watch the film. And you see that. --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I raised three issues. You may have addressed one. That leaves two more. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked this user on 9th Dec, but on 10th Dec it was released. He started overlinking again, refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/125.238.204.17. I have undid them all but I hope you could extend the ban to longer period. This user is very annoying. - Jay (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Graham87 has blocked the account for 3 month - Jay (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. I did not -- cannot -- block anyone. I requested their first block. When I saw them editing with a new IP, I reverted all of their edits and asked for them to be blocked again.[10] I expect they'll be back. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thanks for your explanation. Perhaps you could also update the page for String Band as it doesn't currently mention anything about the possibility of having woodwinds. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.111.174 (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A string band is an old-time music or jazz ensemble made up mainly or solely of string instrument." If it is "mainly" string instruments, there is something else there.

If you would like to research and add a fuller description to String band, feel free to do so. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today someone registered an account, User:Privacyshattered and sent me an email. As they have not edited, I have left a note on User talk:Privacyshattered pointing them to this discussion.

The email reads:

hi, cant do it alone; restore rocky's rec to 9-4 and here is proof https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&diff=905573901&oldid=905572814 here r references https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rocky_Marciano#Amateur_Record_9-4 make follow up here but dont say i wrote; write me first so we can agree on this and there are many other articles needing correction; wikipedoia is garbage as proven wikipediasucks.co but at least lets have something right! also on rm and rocky 6 page u can do new thead saying that the super fight film with ali was inspiration to rocky 6! encyclopediasupreme.org/Rocky/AliVsRocky2.pdf ali vs rocky 2 comin soon!

I have no idea who wrote this, why they are using a secondary account and why they are contacting me via email asking me to make changes for them. It would seem likely that they are trying to hide something from someone. Given the number of socks around here, that's my first guess.

In any case, I will not edit on behalf of anyone else. If you are not a banned/blocked editor and the edits are legitimate, it's certainly easier to do it yourself than try to explain it to me and have me do it. I will, however, take a look and watch for signs of socking, undeclared multiple accounts, etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rocky_Marciano#Amateur_Record_9-4 claims you are a banned editor. What's the story, Privacyshattered? - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings -- this is an editor banned from all Wikimedia projects (This one, most commonly known as the "George Reeves Person" or "GRP"). He hides behind proxies, and probably has made upwards of a thousand sockpuppets since Wikipedia originally banned him in 2006. I routinely remove his stuff (unreliable original research, mainly). Antandrus (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough. Thanks for the clarification. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit there! I thought it would be important to mention here!UpWithJimmy (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In articles such as this one, we have very brief episode summaries of perhaps 2 or 3 sentences. Minor elements, such as the brief appearance of a backpack in the background simply does not merit coverage. Your edit seems to imply that the appearance of the backpack is what half of the episode is about. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen other episode lists of other TV shows like Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi have trivia things like that on their summaries, so I thought it would be worth noting here. True, the Stimpy backpack behind the character's back isn't important to the plot as it is just a background thing, but I thought SOMEWHERE it should be noted. Do you know where we can add trivia stuff like this?UpWithJimmy (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are other articles. Some of them are great. Some of them are horrible. That another article has trivia, typos, copyright violations, strange formatting or anything else does not mean that those things are good and should be in other articles.

No, I am not aware of anywhere on Wikipedia that should include that level of detail on a cartoon episode. There are, of course, other projects -- wikis dedicated to specific shows and other topics. I don't know if there is one that applies here or not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mummers Parade, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Catholic League, Native Americans and Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say, “Bragging about your PhD is not a good look”, but, after getting a gander of your talk page, I can see that probably the least of your problems. DetroitWheels74 (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You started it, lady. And if I'm going to launch a "personal attack" on you, I'll have to take a number. DetroitWheels74 (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not attack you. Whether or not others have attacked me, you are responsible for your own actions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So are you...or do you not read the acres of complaints on your own talk page? DetroitWheels74 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a specific complaint, please explain. Otherwise, I think we're done here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed your edits is because September by Earth Wind and Fire is in fact considered a meme. I hate to source Know Your Meme but here's a whole article on it https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/september-by-earth-wind-fire. Here is a Vox article on aswell regarding how the meme arose https://www.vox.com/2018/9/21/17887990/earth-wind-fire-september-21-meme-demi-adejuyigbe. I think it would be helpful to keep the categories "Internet Memes" and "Music Memes" because that's exactly what the song is - you can see it all over the place on Sept. 21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiulio8 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the article says absolutely nothing about a meme. To someone reading the article (or brought there by one of the categories), it makes absolutely no sense. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the articles in the categories of Internet Meme and Music Meme have no mention of the article subject being a meme. By your standards, the category should be removed from them even if it applies. I don't think it is significant even to add a whole new header regarding the fact that it is a meme - would the addition of a category not suffice? I don't understand. Digiulio8 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if "almost all" do not have sourced content discussing its use in a meme, it should be removed from almost all of them. If, based on the sources, there is virtually nothing to say about its use in a meme, the fact is trivial.

Per Wikipedia:Categorization, categories are for essential defining characteristics of a topic -- "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having". Check the sources in the article. Do they commonly and consistently discuss the song being used in a meme? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... lol Digiulio8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your revert. Unsourced? I was careful in my edit summary to make sure everyone knew it was sourced, "adding some material from the section on political discourse to the lead, there are sources in the article for all of this". If you look at the section you'll see the sources. I never add unsourced material and I'd hate for people to think I do, would you please self-revert? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 06:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your edit summary said there were sources elsewhere in the article. Two problems:

What you say in an edit summary quickly disappears into the edit history. Wikipedia's goal of verifiability is for readers to be be able to easily check that the information comes from a reliable source. The only way to find your note would be to dig through the article's history to find the edit and your note.

Saying there are sources elsewhere in the article does not indicate which sources. Additionally, there is the possibility that those sources elsewhere will be removed at some point in the future.

The solution here is to cite those sources with the information you are adding. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are wrong. See WP:Lead. I'm a bit disappointed that you think that a former Arbitrator and current Checkuser and Oversighter might be unaware of policy. Are you really going to edit war if I just revert you in line with [WP:Lead]]? I've always thought that you were a good editor and all of this comes as a bit of a surprise. Doug Weller talk 05:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a former Arbitrator? News to me.

Anywho, checking a bit closer, I now see you were summarizing in the lead. Of course that's appropriate. I was thrown by the statements that you had sources elsewhere in the article and thought you were adding new material. Carry on. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Any chance you could self-revert so it doesn't look like an edit war? Doug Weller talk 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Oops, you did it earlier, thanks again. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we call End of the World classic rock, remove folk from Losing My Religion, classify Billie Jean as pop, and find a specific genre for Don't Stop Believing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by REMEndofTheWorld (talk • contribs) 15:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REMEndofTheWorld is about to be blocked as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be blocked so I'm taking it to the talk page as I want to establish consensus on the genres first — Preceding unsigned comment added by REMEndofTheWorld (talk • contribs) 15:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You, the person, are already indefinitely blocked. You are not eligible to edit articles or discuss content in any way. Any editor may revert any or all of your edits without further explanation. Your only option is to log on to your original account and asked to be unblocked. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should login to PianoManFolkRock and ask to be unblocked?— Preceding unsigned comment added by REMEndofTheWorld (talk • contribs) 10:25, February 4, 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. As you have been edit warring and socking with dozens of accounts and IP addresses, it is very unlikely you will be unblocked right now. You might, however, be given the [[WP:SO|standard offer, offering you a way to become a productive editor.

In the meantime, stop editing. Every edit you make is just another violation of your block and, as you should have realized by now, isn't going to last anyway. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been reported to an admin SummerPhDv2.0? We need to put an end to these disruptive edits ASAP! Robvanvee 15:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a note at ARV and I've added this account to the extensive sock case already underway. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually sourced the genre for Billie Jean! — Preceding unsigned comment added by REMEndofTheWorld (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to edit in defiance of a standing block. Your edit will be reverted. Stop editing, log on to your original account and follow the directions to request an unblock. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REMEndofTheWorld has been indefinitely blocked as a sock, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PianoManFolkRock. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPI could take a while. Is it not worth taking it to the last blocking admin or requesting page protection until they are re-indeffed? Robvanvee 15:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the note right before your last comment. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something. I'd just like to put an end to the constant back and forth which is why I'm suggesting temporary page protection. Robvanvee 15:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The various accounts and IPs have been blocked (though more will certainly surface). Several of the regular targets have been protected several times over the past couple of months, with the editor adding targets while waiting for the protection to end. At some point, someone will either get lucky and discover a blockable range with limited collateral damage or will file an abuse request with their ISP.

At the moment, it's a game a whack-a-mole, likely with someone who just doesn't understand and hasn't figured out all of their efforts have been wasted. So long as Wikipedia allows anonymous editing, there is little else we can do. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aah! Thanks for the explanation. Robvanvee 16:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of evidence of less-than-innocence involved, but nothing to discuss openly. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the information on the 2Pac Better Dayz site. Someone else did and they spelled a couple of things wrong so I was only fixing the wording. WilliamTFrank (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You restored unsourced information I had removed. In doing so, the addition of the information became yours. Please do not add unsourced information to articles. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope this is the right way to notify you that I have requested dispute resolution for the Reiki article, specifically regarding using the NIH definition for Reiki.Pamxz (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding NIH definition. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Needs Work".The discussion is about the topic Reiki. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Pamxz (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one that thinks these edits are quite similar to the genre-warrior sock? User:DMacks, User:EvergreenFir, you two have also been involved. It seems like a pretty suspicious article overlap. ^Talk 04:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for showing up on my page and arrogantly telling me what to do. I added something with the intention of noting a link between the credits on Ozark and those of The Wild Wild West in a section on the opening credits where they were already being discussed, but I guess you are some Wikipedia god who will tell other people what to contribute on a TALK page. Gosh, we are SO lucky! ````GTGeek88 (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GTGeek88: Please note, I have moved your comment from my user page to my talk page.

The comment I left on your talk page was not written by me. It is a consensus note used throughout the project to notify editors of common situations. If you feel the text is "arrogant", you may wish to discuss the issue at the village pump to perhaps reword the note to sound more welcoming.

The comment you made on the Ozark (TV series) talk page was, IMO, entirely focused on your opinion of something related to the show. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion of article's topics. Article talk pages are intended to be used to discuss sourced improvements to their associated articles.

If you have further concerns regarding talk pages, please review Wikipedia's talk page guidelines.

If you feel my use of a consensus warning notice was out of line and needs further attention, feel free to review some of your options at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE.

Please also note that comment here, along with the associated edit summary, constitutes a personal attack. Such attacks are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new - I don't understand why you keep reverting my change - Im not say she isn't black, I just rearrange the text. For the reason I cited with the change - "while she may have partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa by way of her father, its misleading to lead with she is African American, given her phenotype and birth mother."ADOS MMXX (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not "keep reverting (your) change". I reverted it once. You bumped African American to the end and removed a raft of AA categories without explanation of any kind.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimora_Lee_Simmons&type=revision&diff=946420506&oldid=945450390&diffmode=source I explained that I was reverting "Unexplained changes".

Then you returned with a verbose, WP:OR explanation involving your definitions and observations.[11] Another editor, Praxidicae, reverted you, referring you to "discussion" (the talk page, where discussion cites the sources saying she is half African American and trying to figure out weightings for Korean/Japanese, based on the sources.

"In her book Fabulousity she stated that she was 1/2 black and half mixed-Asian..." says the talk page. I personally see the reliable source, People, states "...whose father is African-American and mother is Japanese-American,..."[12]

Phenotype is not an argument, it is WP:OR. Also OR: "...may have partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa..." In any case, to make any change to this section, you will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and establish a consensus to do so. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit that explicitly calls them a hip hop, pop, R&B and dance-pop group and said it had been discussed on the talk page; there is little to none evidence on the group’s talk page saying as to it, also when you reverted it back to your preferred version, you haven’t even checked any facts: 1) Billboard’s review for them being hip hop reverts to a 404 error/dead page, whereas the Wall Street Journal’s article is still active and explicitly calls the group a hip-hop [[[sic]]] group.

2) Have you ever read the source for pop, dance-pop and EDM? I take it you haven’t as you would’ve seen this: Mainstream EDM is a marriage made in heaven with mainstream pop. Calvin Harris reflects back to a moment in pop history in 2011 when a combination of major artists including Lady Gaga, Black Eyed Peas and David Guetta were all hitting the top of the charts with EDM-heavy tracks. Whilst Europe has been partying for decades, the US – a sleeping giant in the EDM world – suddenly woke up. Collaborations with EDM Producers and the biggest names in pop became commonplace. Calvin Harris alone has worked with Rhianna, Ellie Goulding and Florence. Dance music took over the charts Stateside and Pop EDM was born, becoming the mainstream sound listened to on the school run and office commute. Pop EDM’s success is largely a result of fusing the genius of hit song writing with hook-laden electronic soundtracks. And doesn’t call them pop, dance-pop or EDM and only what the music trend was.

So please read before you revert. Iluvdancemusic (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a sockpuppet of a banned editor, WP:EVADE applies. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iluvdancemusic has been indefinitely blocked as a sock. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this wonderful expression. You caused me a big smile. Love --Steue (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The East German judge scored me low on the parallel ports and token rings. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. More than two years ago I made a ridiculously bad attempt to troll you on a throwaway IP address. First, I would like to apologize for that. I think I was mad about some page reversion that I no longer care about, and my 2018 self thought trolling with an outdated "Zimbabwe scam" would be a good retaliation.

Anyway: for whatever reason, 2018 me also thought it would be a good idea to use my actual email address in my trolling messages. I don't know how, but bots and/or people have somehow located my email from the three edits I made on that IP and my inbox is now flooded with weird spam relating to editing wikis. This is a real surprise because my messages were reverted quickly and never responded to. The email address was only live on Wikipedia for a few minutes before being buried in the page history. These bots or people definitely found my email from the IP's contribution page, which is bizarre.

I was wondering: is there a way that those edits I made could somehow be hidden to prevent people from getting my email address and associating it with spam? On a related note, do you have any idea how bots/people are even finding those old edits? Again, they were only on the page history for a few minutes, yet now my email inbox is flooded because of them. Thanks. And sorry once more for my uncreative trolling way back then. --DontMessageMezze (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, all old edits are accessible through page history. For example, here's an edit to White House in 2001. Bots can (and obviously do) dig through Wikipedia constantly. You can have those edits removed from accessible history through a process explained at WP:OVERSIGHT.

No matter what, bots that have already collected your address so far will still have it. Nothing you can do about that.

Another problem is that there are numerous sites built on information from Wikipedia. Some of them merely copy selected articles to build their own content: Wikipedia article's showing up as blog posts, local history sites, wikis dedicated to narrower topics, etc. Also, there are sites about Wikipedia: people analyzing content and who adds it, forums where they complain about various editors, etc. If your info is on any of those sites, we can't control that either.

Additionally, various sites archive various portions of the Internet. We don't control them either.

Nothing on the Internet ever really goes away. I don't really see much success forthcoming... - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've deleted the revisions per request. Sro23 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for the response. It means a ton to me that you responded and took this seriously. If you could remove the link on your userpage to one of the now-hidden revisions it would be great as well.

And thank you Sro23 for hiding the revisions. Don't know how much good it will do (I guess only time will tell), but I'm so grateful that you went through the trouble to do it for me. DontMessageMezze2 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend long-term (semi-)protection? DawgDeputy (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need my !vote... - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yay

BulgeUwU (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a good source considering the only real sources for internet culture are the items and culture itself? I get that youtube isn't a credible source, but do you know any places where I could find a good source regarding the meme itself? Plutonical (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There might not be one. If a company is notable (and this one is), there are in-depth reliable sources about the company. Aspects of the company that are relevant to the story of the company will be in those sources. If sources about the company don't discuss the meme, it's simply not significant to the subject of the company. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly has this been issued to me at this time? Because of my participation on the talk section of the Jared Taylor page (weeks ago)? There are other participants there who have not gotten such a notice. I know the notice itself says "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date"......but the fact I got it and others haven't.....makes me think there is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response on your talk page. Today I notified all three of the most recent contributors (including you). The three contributors prior have also been notified (or have notified others of the situtation).

This is not about you or your contributions. It is merely a notice of the situation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your PROD on Șapte Seri. It's certainly notable enough, though the article is outdated & under-referenced. (Sadly, so is the article in ro-wiki, or I'd just pull in material from there.)

I'm focused mainly on Commons these days, so if you are pursuing this further, please do ping me. If you really want to bring this to a head, I'll work on further researching the article and fleshing it out, but I haven't really been very active on writing in Wikipedia lately. - Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Twister (1996 film). I was merely correcting a link on the plot summary. Next time, think before falsely accusing someone of making an "unsourced and trivial" edit! Areaseven (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no assumption of bad faith. There is a pickup truck in the film. That it is a Dodge Ram is borderline trivial to begin with -- the model of the truck is completely irrelevant to the plot. That you believe it is a 1994-2002, second generation BR/BE model is unsourced: the information is not clearly stated in the film or obvious to all viewers without specialized knowledge. It is unsourced and, IMO, trivial.

An assumption of bad faith would involve me saying something about your reasons for adding the claim. I said nothing whatsoever about your motives. - SummerPhD^v2.0 07:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]