User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Asking assistance for Wiki editing

Could you assist me with some information?

1. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: Since the parties are not obligated to comply with the advise of DRN moderator, what's the solution when someone is sure that the other parties are not going to agree with him anyway and a ruling from a judge is essential. I am sure DRN is not an option in this case. Could "Mediation" be an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Mediation Committee? If not, then is "Arbitration" an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Arbitration Committee?

2. What’s the difference between Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and a specialized noticeboard such as “Fringe theory noticeboard”? I know specialized noticeboards are subject specific. But my question is that whether the moderators in “Fringe theory noticeboard” are only administrators or general users as well? If there are general users as well, how can I become a fringe theory noticeboard volunteer? Do I need to list my username anywhere and/or add any template in my user page?

3. When I am in a dispute with a couple of admins in a Wikipedia page, what’s the process of reporting those abusive admins. Let’s say, the admins are reverting any edit that is against their personal views and beliefs. And those admins need to be removed from the page. The Wikipedia manual says as admins can be removed through a dispute resolution process. But it doesn’t explain how. Because DRN moderator or Mediation committee may not be able to remove an administrator. So, if an user is in dispute with administrators, should he directly file a case to Arbitration Committee?

4. How can I add a new section and subsection to a Wiki article and remove an existing section from a Wiki article in visual editor?

5. I found that some contributions are deleted from “History” page of an article. So how to delete a contribution and who can do it?

6. Wiki policy states as I should not copy contents from other websites and should rather write my own contents. But what if the contents are open source contents? Can I directly copy those in Wikipedia? Are online news posts open source, including the images in the news? Can I use these texts and images in Wikipedia without editing? Can I copy and paste statements of medical national and international organizations in Wikipedia without editing?

7. Where to find images for a Wikiedia article if the image is not already available in Wikimedia? Are the images collected from news posts open source? And many sites don't have their images copyrighted. Do those images qualify as open source? When I upload an image, Wikipedia asks for copyright information. I have no idea what information to provide? What info should I provide if the image is in open source? And if the image is owned by me? Wikipedia asks me to contact the copyright holder and ask them for copyright information for the image. But some websites don't have "Contact us" section, some other sites are unresponsive when they are contacted, and even when I contact a website owner, he may not be able to provide me copyright information as the images are not copyrighted. So what information to provide Wikipedia in such a case? How do Wikipedia verify if the images are already copyrighted or not. If I claim to be granted permission for reuse from the copyright holder, how does Wikipedia verify the copyright holder has actually granted me permission for reuse of the copyrighted content?

8. How to add videos to a Wikipedia article? Do I need to provide copyright information for a video available in Youtube? Are there other policies on videos such as policies for graphic videos?

9. When I create a new article, how do I save my private draft for the article. If I click on "Save", the draft will become public and will be accessible for anyone. But I like it to be private. Is it possible. Furthermore, when I edit on an existing article, is there a way I can save my edits as a draft before publishing? It is an essential function. Because some posts may be very long and will take a long time to write. So, my unsaved works can be lost if browser tab is closed or if the texts are accidentally selected and deleted. So saving draft is essential.

10. Where can I save the usernames of my co-writers in my Wikipedia account like a phone book? I can't memorize the usernames of every persons. Thus, I need to have a phone book when the usernames will be saved in the respective categories.

11. How can I be connected with the community to improve each Wikipedia article? I know each important article is being monitored by some administrators. But how do I know which administrators is monitoring a page so that I can discuss with them about improving the article? How to get connected with the community for editing articles? I heard that communication is important here. But how? Everyone is stranger here. Whom to contact among these random people?

12. What’s the use of pending changes reviewing by administrators and “pending change reviewers”? As much as I know anyone can revert another user’s edit. In that case, what will change if an edit is approved by an administrator or a “Pending changes reviewer”? Will other users be unable to revert the edit back then? If not, then what’s the use of pending changes reviewing? Furthermore, how do the users know an edit has been approved by a administrator or a pending changes reviewers? Will the approval appear anywhere such as in the “History” page?

13. What’s the requirement and process for becoming a pending changes reviewer? Can anyone become a pending changes reviewer?

Abir Babu (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI - I've already answered all of his questions on my user talk page. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I hope you didn't spend too long on that, Oshwah. I have a strong feeling this precocious new editor will be answering some questions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tenod888 pretty soon. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
You have GOT to be kidding me... I spent two hours answering all of his questions....... wow. Whelp, if the account is a sock puppet... he got me. He frggin' got me good.... damnit, lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't be sure and I haven't looked very closely yet, but there is something realllllly suspicious going on. Another editor asked if they are Tendo888, they said no. If not Tendo, I'd say there's still a very strong chance this isn't their first rodeo. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Killyourstereo.com

This website must be self-publish blog, as appeared on One More Light (song), Neverbloom, Our Streets Turn White, Howdilly Doodilly, It's Nothing Personal, A Day to Remember, I Wish I Could Stay Here, Hunting Grounds, Home (August Burns Red album), Beloved (I Killed the Prom Queen album), Metanoia (For All Eternity album), The Urgency, Marc Orrell, Casey (band), Falling in Reverse, Daytrader (band), A Day to Remember discography, Homesick (A Day to Remember album), List of A Day to Remember concert tours, No Sleep (Volumes album), Ronnie Radke, Isolate and Medicate, Genuine & Counterfeit, Like There's No Tomorrow, Space Zombies EP, And Their Name Was Treason, Fear Inside Our Bones, Singularity (Northlane album), Linkin Park#Musical style and influences, Singularity (Northlane album), Novel American, Fight the Silence, In Exile (After the Fall album), Tom Denney, Bayonet (band), This Is the Warning, As You Are (album), In Some Way, Shape, or Form, Nu metalcore, Amber Calling, Hold Conversation, Colourmeinkindness, When You're Through Thinking, Say Yes, Bring Me the Horizon, Verse (band), The Smith Street Band, Lost Verses, Hate (Thy Art Is Murder album), Unconditional (Memphis May Fire album), HalfNoise, Alesana, Parkway Drive, Coheed and Cambria, Closure in Moscow, For All Eternity (band) and The Penance and the Patience. 183.171.182.251 (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

And you are telling me this because... - SummerPhDv2.0 04:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Beauty and the Beast generally positive reviews info

Give a good reason why you remove the generally positive reviews info on the upper portion of the Beauty and the Beast 2017 film version page? It's not an original research. It's what the sources had been sourced with. Saiph121 (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You need a source that says the critical reviews were generally positive, not individual reviews that you feel were generally positive. That is synthesis. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
This not a synthesis. It's an consensus by the critics based on the rotten tomatoes in which they declared generally positive reviews on this film and not just any individual reviews with the likes of the Charlotte Observer and the Independent. Saiph121 (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not care how reliable the individual reviews are, when you combine what multiple sources say to say something new, that is synthesis. Hell, it is the definition at WP:SYN.
Yes, Rotten Tomatoes Metacritic has an algorithm that looked at the number created by another algorithm and spat out "generally favorable reviews". That phrase is Metacritic's phrase and should not be repeated in Wikipedia's voice: "When (Metacritic) is cited when writing about a film's critical response, provide a brief explanation of the scoring process. Include the number of reviews used to create the score to give readers context, and avoid using relative time references or specific dates." Wikipedia:Review_aggregators#Use_in_articles That is not what you are doing. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
That is not what I'm am doing. I'm not using that individual reviews as a proof of generally positive reviews. I'm only emphasizing the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as kind of sources in a consensus that speaks to itself and how the film looks like. Saiph121 (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Review_aggregators#Use_in_articles, when using Metacritic and/or Rotten Tomatoes, "provide a brief explanation of the scoring process. Include the number of reviews used to create the score to give readers context, and avoid using relative time references or specific dates." - SummerPhDv2.0 01:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Two can play....

Lest we forget...

https://web.archive.org/web/20110601000000*/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SummerPhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to use archive.org. Tapping the history at the top of this page will give you every edit made here. Also, virtually everything ever said on either* of my talk pages is available through the "Archives" box near the top of the page. Additionally, feel free to review every edit I've ever made** through Special:Contributions/SummerPhDv2.0 and Special:Contributions/SummerPhDv.
*Due to a mix up with passwords, I have edited as both SummerPhD and, more recently, as SummerPhDv2.0.
**Edits to articles which have now been deleted might be available through archive.org, if you know specifically which articles you are looking for and when. You might have better luck asking any admin for help.
Happy hunting (after your block, of course)! - SummerPhDv2.0 00:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
67.224.73.109 has been blocked for one month for personal attacks. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of LGBT-related, feminism-related, narcissism-related and witchcraft-related categories in Beauty and the Beast 2017 version

Your actions in removing LGBT-related, feminism-related and narcissism-related categories in Beauty and the Beast 2017 version is very regrettable despite the fact that for the LGBT-related and feminism-related that I've provided sources to prove its justification yet you've chosen to remove them even proven with sources to support it and by removing these categories, you've intended to dispute my edits as "pointless" and "not defining".

As for the feminism-related, narcissism-related and witchcraft-related categories; despite putting all the reasoning for its inclusion in the 2017 film and not just comparing these categories to the original 1991 version as in the case of feminism-related which has a Time Magazine reference to describe with that "The Feminist Message of the New Beauty and the Beast Has Always Been Part of the Story". As for the narcissism-related and witchcraft-related categories, both of these were present in the film in the case of witchcraft-related which I've stated in the talk page of Beauty and the Beast 2017 version that "Witchcraft may have been a part of the backstory of this film but the point is that it's been a cause that drives the plot of the story particularly the witchcraft that had an impact".

Overall, by declaring these categories even with sources to prove it as "not defining", it clearly show to the point just how truly stupid and regrettable that this kind of action had been taken and by my own defense, these categories are not my unique personal standard rather the presence that the film represents with. With this of kind of dispute going nowhere, I'm directly challenging its removal of these categories and direct this dispute to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to seek a middle ground for the justification of these categories to be retain rather being removed. Saiph121 (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that one source is not "commonly". Yes, witchcraft is related to the film. However, reliable sources do not commonly and consistently define the film as being about witchcraft. "Commonly" means "very often; frequently". If sources "frequently" defined the film as being about witchcraft, it would not be one source showing this, it would be most of the sources. "Consistently" means "in every case or on every occasion; invariably". One source is not even close to "in every case".
I am not making up "commonly and consistently", it is in the editing guideline that you have been repeatedly pointed to by numerous editors. Your repeated !votes at Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Category:Witchcraft_in_film were commonly and consistently countered. Note, that is not one editor countering you, that was every editor who responded.
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. When you believe something should be in an article, such as Category:Witchcraft in film and the other four editors say it should not be in the article, the WP:CONSENSUS is against you and it is time to move on. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, AN/I is not for content disputes, which is what this is. For content disputes, the first stop is the article's talk page. If you aren't satisfied there, next up is requesting a third opinion, but we're already up to five opinions there. After that, you're likely looking at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, though I suspect you will find that the noticeboard will see a consensus of our against one as pretty clear-cut, especially given that you seem to simply not understand the applicable guideline. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
In regards to LGBT-related and feminism-related, why did you consider removing them despite I've provided sources to prove with? Saiph121 (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, one source is not "commonly and consistently". - SummerPhDv2.0 02:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a reliable source to proven with that feminism is related to this film and you're saying that it's not "commonly and consistently" which is that i'm disputing with its non inclusion. Saiph121 (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, one source is not "commonly and consistently". - SummerPhDv2.0 02:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a reliable source to proven with that feminism is related to this film and you're saying that it's not "commonly and consistently" which is that i'm disputing with its non inclusion. Saiph121 (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems you simply do not understand the words in the guideline. Imagine 1 million people. All of them have heads. = People commonly and consistently have heads. 2 of the 1 million people have three legs. = People do not commonly and consistently have 3 legs.
There are 226 sources in the article. Roughly 95% of those sources say this is a Disney film. = Sources commonly and consistently say it is a Disney film. Roughly 3 of the sources say anything about witchcraft. = Sources do not commonly and consistently say the film is about witchcraft. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Oleg Skripka

Look up "oleg skripka ghetto". It's also on his Russian Wikipedia article. Heepman1997 (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to add it to the article, you must cite an independent reliable source which directly supports your claim. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added one of the sources ru.wiki cited. Heepman1997 (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

DRN case closed

This message template was placed here by Nihlus, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Beauty and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Overcategorization". The case is now closed: consensus has been reached on the talk page. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Nihlus 21:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Additional comments by volunteer: If further disagreements form where consensus is not achievable, feel free to refile.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request

Your name is being listed in this resolution. Better comply. Saiph121 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've filed a new dispute resolution concerning the following disputed categories for the Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) article.
You need to explain your motives in your opposition in the inclusion of these following categories, because in my own judgement these are considered as "DEFINING" in which you disagree with that notion and even disregarding the sources that have been provided in this categories to be proven and justified in its reasons to be including in which the current consensus that has been ruled is completely biased and prejudiced. Saiph121 (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is neither biased nor prejudiced. You just disagree with it.
I have tried to explain to you what "commonly and consistently" means. It seems you still do not understand. I'm sorry, I really can't help you understand. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm stating that notion that it's you that DO NOT UNDERSTAND the importance of these four categories within the film and yet on a record, the source that were being provided with "commonly and consistently" justification. Furthermore, I'm not disagreeing but rather proving the right action in including these categories and the consensus committed by yours and the others are completely biased and prejudiced. Yet I'm questioning another motive of yours whether you're acting like an administrator or not. Saiph121 (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. When editors disagree, we try to find solutions that address the concerns while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When that is not possible, a reasonable consensus resolves the issue. The recurring consensus is that several of the categories you have repeatedly added do not belong in the article.
This leaves you with several options. While I am neither an admin nor a psychic (I cannot directly limit your actions or tell the future), I've been here for over a decade and have a pretty good idea how things will turn out. Here's what I see as the possibilities:
1) You can continue to add the categories back to the article, despite the consensus. If you do so, you will be blocked from editing. The first block will likely be brief. Further blocks, if needed, will be longer. Eventually you will be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.
2) You can accept the consensus -- without liking it -- and move on. Maybe you've learned some things about collaboration and the limits of your understanding/English.
3) You can leave the English Wikipedia and edit in a language you are more comfortable with. There are close to 300 different Wikipedias. Each is independent of the others and the policies vary a bit from one to another. As you seem to stumble in English at times, you might do better in (I'm guessing) Cebuano, Spanish, Tagalog or any of the sister projects.
4) You can work to understand the guidelines better (in this case, WP:DEFINING) to try to understand why everyone disagrees with you. In doing so, you are likely to encounter fewer problems editing and can continue discussing the issue on the talk pages to build a new consensus to accept one or more of the categories you have suggested. Though the current consensus is clearly against your additions, consensus can change over time.
5) You can work to change the guidelines and policies. This is difficult, takes a lot of time and frankly probably won't work. That said, very few of Wikipedia's policies cannot be changed. The best way to start is likely at the Village Pump. Explaining what guideline/policy you feel should be changed, how it should be changed and -- most importantly -- why the change would improve the project is a good start. Again, this is intentionally a long, slow process. Don't expect a quick change.
6) You can leave Wikipedia.
7) You can start your own version of Wikipedia, using some or all of the software Wikipedia uses and copying some or all of the articles Wikipedia has. Change or eliminate policies and guidelines suit your needs. A lot of these projects go nowhere and quickly dry up. A few have dedicated followers. The basic instructions are available at [1]. A few of the more successful spin offs (other than language versions) are Wookieepedia (all things Star Wars), Memory Alpha (Star Trek), Conservapedia (right wing/conservative Christian version of Wikipedia), RationalWiki (challenging pseudoscience and other bunk), Scholarpedia (content written by category experts), Deletionpedia (articles deleted from Wikipedia) and a number of others.
That's pretty much it. You might move from one approach to another and the outcomes might vary a bit, but that is pretty much what you can expect. The choice is yours to make. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Your suggestions and advice on leaving Wikipedia or even questioning my ability on English is very insulting and egregious. Still your actions in which you're acting like an administrator is completely put into question while denying much of the information by the others for own benefit. Like you and the others, the consensus you've made against the disputed categories that was supposed to be a part of the main article is biased and prejudiced and on the contrary, you're the ones who disagreed with it because what you've seen is "not defining" or whatever stupid term you'll have to prevent these categories from being included. Saiph121 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Leaving Wikipedia is one of your options, not my suggestion.
I am not questioning your "ability on English", I am pointing out that your problems with English might be making editing here harder. If you believe your English is accurate, you are mistaken. Had I received the above paragraph from one of my students, I would have returned it positively drowning in red ink. While multilingualism is a valuable and impressive skill, overestimating your abilities detracts from both.
If you feel I am inappropriately "acting like an administrator", I'd suggest you ask an administrator. You'll need to point out specific thing I have done that are restricted to administrators. Having been here for aver a decade, I am fairly confident that I have not overstepped my bounds.
I'm not sure what "benefit" you think I am gaining from removing the categories. My goal is the improve the project. Several editors feel the categories do not belong. That is neither "bias" nor "prejudice". We simply disagree with you. Defining, which you call a "stupid term", is explained at WP:CATDEF, one of Wikipedia's guidelines. A guideline is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". We are attempting to follow it. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Dispute on Feminism, Bibliophilia and Narcissism categories on beauty and the beast 2017 article

By declaring the categories on Feminism, Bibliophilia and Narcissism on beauty and the beast 2017 article as WP:NON-DEFINING, you are disregarding the importance of these categories to the film despite placing sources to prove and verify their qualities and presence to the film. If such preposterous removal of these categories keeps on happening, i might file an dispute resolution unless you stop removing these kind of categories and consider these categories to be accepted on the 2017 article, and i'm doing my work for what is right. Saiph121 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You are editing against a clear consensus. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing.
Films about narcissism is clearly a settled issue, having reached a clear consensus on the talk page, reaffirmed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Absolutely no one supports your opinion on this and a wide majority do not think it is defining.
Feminist films is a weaker consensus, affirmed through a limited discussion on the talk page and numerous reverts in the article (all reverting you, whether or not you were signed in at the time you added it or not). Nevertheless, the current consensus is to exclude it. Feel free to take the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard, notifying the 5 editors who have reverted you or start a request for comment. Until a consensus to the contrary is established, the consensus to exclude it stands. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Then I might start filing an dispute resolution to tackle down these three disputed categories to challenge this disputed and biased consensus that is still currently standing. Again, I'm defending that notion that these are no "encyclopedia" work and the three are considered "DEFINING" in which the wide majority had a prejudiced and biased opinion. Saiph121 (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

At any rate, reporting a user to AIV over a content dispute is not appropriate. Editing against consensus is not (necessarily) vandalism. Please make sure reports to AIV are for clear vandalism. See also this discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, among several recent similar discussions, about the problems caused by over-reporting. GoldenRing (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Meh. I've gotten blocks passed before on clear cases of editing against consensus. It's a lot cleaner for a simple wake-up call than the whole AN/I mess. I'll file it tonight. Cheers. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Here to talk about the growth of Christianity

I did not take any sources of pew I only took the false ones if you actually visited the link its from a pro christian site that doesn't even show where it get's its information from and I left the links which were legit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LION786 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What article(s) are you referring to? You apparently created this account after whatever edits you are talking about, so I have no way to figure out what you are talking about. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I only removed unreliable sources and I left the ones which were true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LION786 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edit at Christian population growth[2] and your previous edits Seem to indicate you have some strong opinions regarding the subjects you are editing. As I noted on your talk page previously[3], removing sources without explanation, changing data without explanation, using deceptive edit summaries, etc. is not going to work here.
If you feel some sources are not reliable sources, you will need to explain why on the articles' talk pages. If you disagree with what reliable sources say, you will need to discuss the issue on the articles' talk pages. If you want to change material to fit your opinions, you will need to find something other than Wikipedia to do with your time. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Obnoxious sarcasm about bubblegum rock

Self-admitted obnoxious sarcasm related to bubblegum rock is not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) ...what would you prefer: the truth, or a flattering lie...?! ;) — fortunavelut luna 10:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
It would seem you are having some difficulties with Wikipedia's guidelines, DarkOne.[4] Once you figure it out, stop back and we'll chat. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
My deletion of your comment was on the *exact* same basis as your deletion of my comment. You even used the boilerplate "Please refrain from using talk pages...for general discussion of the topic". Yet this is exactly what you can be seen doing on the Talk:Stand (R.E.M. song) page. You're seen engaging in editorial commentary and extensive general discussion of the topic - part of which you yourself explicitly call "obnoxious sarcasm.." further explicitly stating it as your opinion. You go on to say how consensus and citations won't sway your opinion. How are your opinions cogent to Wikipedia? By all means, clarify for me how any of this isn't hypocrisy on your part. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
My comment, which you deleted because I challenged yours, suggested that we replace unsourced information with sourced information and suggested sources.[5] Information from reliable sources is how Wikipedia is improved. Best possible outcome: Unsourced material in the article is replace with sourced info (not just "possible", it's what happened).
Your comments, removed by two editors, were rants about what you perceive to be bias in entirety of the project as exemplified in the consensus FAQ.[6][7] Best possible outcome: The ranting about leftists and liberals draws more off-topic chat about fascists and racists removed before.
I am sorry to have hurt your feelings, but there is virtually nothing to be gained from further discussion here. If you would like to press the issue further, feel free to take the issue to whatever forum you feel is appropriate. Some of your options are listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Drop the honesty-challenged passive-aggressive rhetoric - you're not "sorry" about anything, you didn't "challenge" my comment you deleted it. You delete the comments of others on the basis of a standard you exempt yourself from. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Please watch the personal attacks. As I mentioned, if you feel you need to discuss this further, you will need to find another venue. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


Berklee Alisa Edit

Thanks for the help...wasn't sure I should add the New York Times Bestseller bit, but decided to put it in anyway. Thanks for tidying it up. :-)

~usmarinesjz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmarinesjz (talk • contribs) 17:00, September 18, 2012‎

Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Binders full of women is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 07:41, June 29, 2013‎

Ancient astronauts

See Talk:Ancient astronauts#Nation of Islam - you may wish to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 13:04, July 5, 2013‎

talkback

Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. You have new messages at Talk:Wonga.com.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybec (talk • contribs) 01:06, October 16, 2013‎

Barbie Cancelled Film

Hey there, my friend! Thanks for editing the "Cancelled Film" in Barbie (film series). Anyway, I made some edits to make the sentences more clear. I hope you will not change it again. Thank you. :)

Here are some other page where you can find the trademark controversy of the Sleeping Beauty:

You can check them out and compare with the Barbie (film series) page. Thank you. :) Bianca Anne Martins (talk) 12:55 PM, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Rip Taylor

Thank you for the heads up about not filling out the edit feature on Rip Taylor's listing when I deleted a paragraph about Patty Duke and him on "Super Password". I just went back, removed the paragraph in question again, and filled out the edit feature as you advised. The reason I removed the paragraph in the first place was because I strongly felt when I read it that the incident described in the paragraph - which seemed to me to be the LONGEST paragraph in his biography - was of a truly minor, trivial incident that added absolutely nothing important or insightful about the individual's life. Genarians (talk)

Sockpuppet discussion invite

You are obviously aware of the frequent bad edits to the Walt Disney World Railroad article, but have you ever considered that the vast majority of those unregistered IP edits are being done by the same person? If you look up the geolocations for the ones that do those huge walls of edits all at once, they are all from the same town: Lexington, South Carolina. I opened up an investigation about it here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.107.173.231. Feel free to comment there when you have a moment. Jackdude101 (Talk) 6:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate your emphasis

…on verifiable sources, and the frankness and humour you bring regarding others' responses to you here. At the risk of "BingGD," I would suggest that no part of anyone's "privates", irrespective of gender/sex, should be seen as an acceptable term of insult or derision—as all such parts evolved/were put there for good reason. (I muster great restraint in not being more descriptive.) "A" words, "B" words, "C" words, "D" words, all should be beneath us. A good natured invitation to use a higher brow variation of your point no. 10. Cheers, Le Prof

Your awesome!

I love your work with Wikipedia those vandalizing little skunks are bullies and are rude! Your awesome Bro!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by ICANEDITKEWLSTUFF112 (talk • contribs) 09:31, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

My recent edit.

If i may point out, the content i added did have a source, and i provided it. What occured was a formatting error Dr.Pietroczar (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean your edits at Anti-Defamation League, which I removed here with the edit summary "Not a reliable source."
Yes, of course David Duke disagrees with the ADL. Yes, he can point to various groups who, again, no surprise, disagree with the ADL. And yes, he can probably even point to some people and groups that aren't normally associated with hooded robes and swastikas who he says disagree with the ADL. In fact, some of them probably have disagreed with the ADL on various issues.
That said, he is not an independent reliable source. He has strong opinions on... oh, just about everyone. His summary of other's opinions and a token will get you on the bus. If you would lie to argue that David Duke and his ilk are reliable sources for anything, you will need to discuss the issue on the article's website. Good luck. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

I have continued the discussion on the Stand (R.E.M. song) article. Dpm12 (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Michelle Thomas

Hi there, I didnt add anything to Ms. Thomas' page. I did, however, omit redundant information that made no sense. "Age 30 (or 30 years old)" doesnt flow grammatically and is redundant. The same situation occurred with her date of death. I will fix these again and this time I will document the reason for the changes. Thanks.

Update: Strange. You said you changed it back to the way it was, but you actually added new information to replace the erroneous information that I deleted. Im not sure why I was even contacted. Mahalo.

Clarawolfe (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)ClarawolfeClarawolfe (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarawolfe: Your edit at Michelle Thomas removed a redundant statement and a source without an edit summary explaining why.
The changes you made were apparently trying to correct a portion of the mess created by the anonymous editor immediately before you who seems to have been trying to remove some of the conflicting sources re Thomas's birth/death dates and age. My revert was not just of your edit, but also of the preceding three edits. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0:

Noted.

Clarawolfe (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)ClarawolfeClarawolfe (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2

I'm pretty sure you're not going to violate 3RR (and you've already opened a talk page discussion), but sometimes people yell at me when I don't post edit warring warnings to everyone involved in a dispute. So, I guess please just keep an eye on your reverts at Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Noted. I can't decide if I should bother with an SPI. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't bother. I already checked with CU. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: December 2017

Per the AllMusic ref for the Jungle Rules album, Yeung says that there are "18 tracks of varied hip-hop". Those 18 tracks constitute the entire album, so he is in effect calling all of Jungle Rules hip hop. When Yeung calls all 18 tracks hip hop, that includes "Unforgettable". Alternative hip hop isn't mentioned anywhere, hence why I reverted it back to hip hop. Is this wrong? Maybe you need to look into the nature of the edit before you issue warnings like this? Theo (edits) 19:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You changed a genre the burden of demonstrating that the change is verifiable is yours. You can do that by either citing a reliable source for the material or establishing a consensus for the change on the article's talk page. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Why should I have to take it to the talk page when the source only uses the term "hip-hop", not alternative hip hop, the "user" (here [8], doesn't have an account) who made this change is guilty of original research. How did I do wrong by reverting it back to being strictly in line with source material? Theo (edits) 02:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the edit in question. It gives no explanation whatsoever for the change in an edit summary or on the talk page.
This is the warning for the change, saying that you had made another change to genres without discussion or sources. There was neither discussion nor sources.
Your first response was to delete the warning and say that a source in a different article doesn't support what you removed and obliquely supports what you added.
I responded that you changed the genre without discussion or sources.
You are now saying you were reverting it to what the source says and asking what you did wrong.
One last time: You made another change to genres without discussion or sources. There was neither discussion nor did you cite sources. On Wikipedia, other editors will review your changes. It is your job to demonstrate that the change is supported by sources and/or discussion. Editors reviewing your changes cannot be expected to guess that it is sourced in another article or that you were reverting someone else's change because you felt it was unsupported.
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Request

Can you keep an eye of Axel F, Who Do You Love Now?, Doctor Jones and Workaholic (song)? 183.171.181.68 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

A vague request from an anonymous source? Gee, yeah, let me get right on that. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I forgot my accont password

So that's why i created another account and i never used a bias approach so wiki uses weak articles that are made up by estimastions rather than acual sites such vice and pew sites which i left alone as they are legit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion7861 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please help with Saiph121

User:Saiph121, a notoriously disruptive user, was banned for 48 hours just two days ago. Upon return, he has immediately begun being disruptive again, constantly jamming "produced" works into director navboxes without separating them into a separate "Produced" category or line in the box. This is not the usual Wikipedia format and it is unnecessary information in these navboxes. He also keeps adding director navboxes to films that they only produced, which is very confusing for most readers. I don't consider it good Wikipedia style. If produced works are to be included, then they should be in a different section in the navbox. --Nicholas0 (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Ask them to discuss the issue and open discussion on the article's talk page. If they restore the bad addition without discussing it first, give them a warning on their talk page. If they still continue, give them a warning for WP:3RR. After that, I'd suggest taking the issue to WP:AN/I. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Shearonink (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. You have new messages at Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film).
Message added 01:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

YoungBoy Never Broke Again

If you were wondering why I added Moneybagg Yo to the list of NBA YoungBoy's associated acts it is because they do collaborate quite frequently (and have released a joint mixtape, so it just doesn't make sense as to why my edit was reverted there. Just clarifying the reason for my edit. BAPreme (T | C) 20:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing sourced in the article showing a connection between the two. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

VeggieTales

How is VeggieTales a preschool show? It has some stuff that might go over kids heads. (pop culture references, the jokes) In my opinion, it's a really good show for anyone, young and old to enjoy. Jteka9870 (talk) Jteka9870 (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a pre-school show because independent reliable sources say it is. Your opinion does not belong in an encyclopedia. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Jessica Jacobs vandal is back

Our "introduce Americanisms to an Australian article" friend is back. As I've told them *Americans* "graduate" but Australians "leave school" or "Finish Year 12". The also changed "the second actress to portray Melanie Atwood" to "Melanie Atwood #2". Can you lock-down the article for a while, please. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I cannot edit protect articles. If you believe it should be protected, you can make that request at WP:RPP.
That said, I see two edits at the article in question. That isn't likely to be accepted as reason enough at RPP. If you are aware of other instances by this same editor and feel there is enough of it to warrant a range block, you will need to take it to WP:AN/I. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Speaking Clock edit

I responded to your comment on my talk page. Please can I have your input? Cexycy (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please respond

Again, I have responded to your input. Cexycy (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

{{block|You always edit vandalism}}— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.7.14 (talk • contribs) 18:34, January 9, 2018 (UTC)

172.58.7.14 has been blocked from editing. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Lord of the Shrugs

Just spotted your user page quote, which gave me a hearty chuckle. Thanks for that. 😋 Paradoctor (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard in relation to consensus dispute on Non-notable awards

I've filed a new Dispute resolution noticeboard to address the current consensus dispute on Non-notable awards in the main article of Beauty and the Beast that will rule out a resolution that awards belonging to film critic organizations with direct-linked articles to Wikipedia should be considered as notable awards. You're invited in this resolution to state your reasons. Saiph121 (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"I am not an admin."

I just act like one to fill my lonely and frustrated life. So, angry lesbo, huh? This explains a lot. I knew there must be a problem. Likely a smoker in denial too. So sorry but I'm not responsible for your problems dealing with men. Maybe if you spent more time taking care of yourself and less time ranting at strangers on wikipedia, you'd be more attractive and have better success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiForAll (talk • contribs) 02:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiForAll has been warned for "ranting at strangers on wikipedia". - SummerPhDv2.0 02:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Magic School Bus Edits

I was only trying to clean up the article to provide in order to provide the correct air dates. The airdates mentioned in the article are all wrong and I was using this for reference - https://www.thetvdb.com/?tab=seasonall&id=71416. See also that article's talkpage I have posted an RFC for further details. Many thanks. --206.128.252.84 (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page. You did not cite a source. Further, the source you say you used is another "anyone can edit" website. For all we know, Wikipedia had the wrong dates, tvdb copied them, Wikipedia was corrected and now you are inadvertently copying the wrong information back to Wikipedia. Or maybe both are wrong. We don't need "a source", we need "a reliable source." Thanks. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive_17&oldid=832467568"