User talk:Matt200055

October 2014
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Don't Stand So Close to Me does not have an edit summary. Please make sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Sum mer PhD (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We have recurring vandals who seem to be obsessed with changing dates, times and other assorted numbers in articles such as Don't Stand So Close to Me. Upon examination -- requiring absurd amounts of work -- the changes turn out to be completely random. Basically, this leaves us with two choices: Absurd amounts of work to verify edits from someone who doesn't use edit summaries or cite sources or reverting the edits and demanding edit summaries and sources.
 * You are making a change without explanation or a source. I'm reverting it again. If you would like to restore your edit, please cite a source for the change and/or use an edit summary that explains where you got your times from. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please cite a source for the change and/or use an edit summary that explains where you got your times from. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You may yet have to join us on the EVIL list, above... Pinkbeast (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added cites for the article. - Sum evil PhD  (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * SumevilPhD? I thought it was SummerPhD! You're not even on the evil list!
 * Yay! Now I am! I'd like to thank God, the Academy and most of all my wonderful wife. Without all of you, I never could have achieved this honor. Thank you! - Offic ially EVIL  (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
I have reverted the founding date of Jehovah's Witnesses. No such claim can be made. But feel free to start a discussion if you have some reliable sources you'd like to raise. BlackCab ( TALK ) 21:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions are appreciated, but, in this recent edit to There's Never a Forever Thing, you removed Articles for deletion notices from articles or removed other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. This makes it difficult to establish consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Avono♂ (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with There's Never a Forever Thing. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Sum mer PhD (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is why you are EVIL, SummerPhD.
 * Not really, that's a misunderstanding. My restoring AfD tags from articles is merely a symptom of my being evil. The reason I'm evil is because God made me evil, so that I can go to Hell and suffer for all eternity. He enjoys that kinda thing. Maybe He should be on your list. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Never.Matt200055 (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The previously archived ANI indicated above has been continued at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

IT WAS VERIFIED. Check the new album, "1989". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiMatt200055 of Alternatia (talk • contribs) 04:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Matt200055, disruption is blockable, the length of time depending on the severity of the disruption. That includes maintaining "evil" lists, but also disruptive editing--genre warring, reverting without explanation, adding unverified information (such as on Taylor Swift), and removing valid information (such as in Template:A-ha). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Sum mer PhD (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Opening of Sockpuppet Investigation
Who would this editor be that opened this investigation? Matt200055 (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be me. I created the investigation in error and have asked for it to be deleted. Please see the question below, though. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Matt200055 = AntiMatt20055?
Please clarify: What is the relationship between these accounts? Is there a reason you have two user names? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Just in case this account got hacked, I would have a backup. Matt200055 (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Given your recent inappropriate behaviour, I'm not buying that excuse, particularly since you're concurrently using both accounts.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You callin' me a liar?! Matt200055 (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm calling you an editor who is known to resort to mischief such as maintaining inappropriate lists of perceived wrongs and vandalising User pages when you don't get your own way instead of discussing on article Talk pages.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Vandalising user pages? Matt200055 (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. But you already know that.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Give proof that I am a vandal towards user pages. C'mon, give proof! Matt200055 (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please hold off on further discussion. I have requested administrator assistance before this goes any further. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * SummerPHD likes making Sockpuppet allegations that both lack evidence and are totally wrong. Check this out....William 02:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground. Your hurt feelings from an issue months ago are not relevant to this issue. Well before you posted this, I addressed the issue. The two accounts are one editor and I attempted to remove the sock case and resolve the issue. If, after looking into it further, you feel there is reason to address my behavior, please take the issue to AN/I. You know the way. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Anywhere where we can discuss this outside of Wikipedia? I'm not addressing your behaviour until I hear your side of the story and make a decision! Matt200055 (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussing this outside of the project would be inappropriate.
 * Opening the sock case on you was unnecessary. While I do not see a legitimate reason for you to be using two accounts, this should have been resolvable by having someone uninvolved explain that to you and blocking the secondary account as a technical matter. Problem solved. To get that going, I attempted to delete the sock case. disagreed and removed the deletion notice from the sock case and responded here. I asked for an admin to step in and address this, but that's gotten a bit complicated now.
 * is apparently upset about a sock case I was involved in here. While WilliamJE was blocked, an anonymous editor started the AN/I case in his defense. I mistakenly believed the IP was WilliamJE. That hurt his feelings. (Apparently, the IP was a sock of a different blocked user.)
 * Now has made a rather cryptic comment about  at the sock case. If you have any comment on that IP's edits, please address them on the sock case.
 * Given the number of situations mixing together here, I am unsure if intervention from a single admin can really clear this up at this point. An AN/I case might be necessary. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Opening the SPI case was valid, but became redundant once Matt200055 confirmed they're both his accounts. Previous interaction with WilliamJE is not relevant to the situation.
 * The comment by PinkBeast was phrased cryptically because Wikipedia policy on 'outing' encourages tip-toeing around the fact that we know an IP editor to be a specific named user. However, Wikipedia's policy does not extend to information an editor has revealed about themself, which would include the obvious timing and content of the vandalising of my User page.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Summer can't keep his facts straight plus falsely accuse people of socking. I wasn't blocked at the time the ANI case he links to above was started. Secondly, within the last month he started another sockpuppet investigation that proved to be wrong. Here it is. Yesterday he accuses me of personal attacks because I point out his blundering and reverts posts of mine to another editor's talk page. His conduct speaks for itself and there should be talk of WP:BOOMERANG before he accuses another editor falsely of sockpuppetry....William 11:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Any real or imagined wrong committed against you (WilliamJE) by SummerPhD in the past has absolutely no relevance here. The user has in fact confirmed that both user accounts are his (and the IP is quite obviously him as well)..-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not an imagined wrong. He accused me of sockpuppetry without evidence when it never took place. Did you notice the SPI was closed and for what reason? He made another wrong accusation of sockpuppetry just recently too. Summer's past behavior of accusing editors of sockpuppetry without evidence is relevant when assessing whether his current accusation should be taken seriously....William 14:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care. I said "real or imagined". In either case, it is not relevant here. Matt200055 and AntiMatt200055 are not only obviously the same user, but the user has also confirmed it.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What he said. Matt200055 (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Paul waaktaar-savoy.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Paul waaktaar-savoy.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Paul waaktaar-savoy.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Paul waaktaar-savoy.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please consider Adopt-a-user
Matt, Please consider signing up for Adopt-a-user. The program would match you up with a more experienced user to help you avoid some of the mistakes you have made in the recent past. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)