User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 14

You've got the wrong user
I appear to have received a message from you regarding an allegedly "uncivil" edit I allegedly made to a page -- I believe it was for someone named Millie something or other -- Jackson, perhaps? I do not know who this person is, and have never seen the page, let alone edited it, so am rather confused as to why I should have been called out by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.80.250 (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be referring to several warnings, ranging from a warning about the edit to Millie Jackson you mention (in July 2012) to the civility warning from me (in June 2016), for this edit. The edit was made by someone using the IP address you are editing from right now. Some ISPs assign addresses that stay with the user long term, others do not. As the warning says, "If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices." - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

User:SummerPhDv2.0/Fringe
Libel, not liable. Good essay, BTW. --Neil N  talk to me 16:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oops. I never could spell. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Petermiketaylor socks
Hi Summer, hope all's well with you. If you see any Pennsylvania IPs at Dink, the Little Dinosaur, there is a strong likelihood that it's a sock of Petermiketaylor, who was asserting some nonsense about the Disney character Black Pete being a wolf, not a cat at various articles. There's an intersection of Dink and Black Pete with this Pennsylvania IP. I've protected the Dink article for 3 months. If you have trouble with him after that, please keep reverting and let me know. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I knew I'd run across him before, but couldn't remember/find where. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?
Can you explain why you've done this? The film is clearly discriminatory towards atheists as it always paints them as the antagonists seeking to persecute Christians and promotes this agenda through means of propaganda. It's without a doubt very discriminatory due to the fact that many atheists in the United States sue to maintain their secular rights from being violated, especially due to the fact that they're highly discriminated against, which many Christians in the United States see as persecution.

Mateoski06 (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. Looking through your edit history, it is fairly easy to see where your opinions lie. Please review WP:NPOV. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * When critics of both films criticize it for it's major use of strawmanning, and when atheists are among the most hated minorities in the US, and when they're painted as the antagonists seeking to persecute Christians, I think it goes a little beyond just an opinion, especially when atheists are also painted as the antagonists in a situation that is highly unlikely to occur, but I digress. Is there a talk page for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateoski06 (talk • contribs) 22:46, October 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the article talk pages to start. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Cybermutt
I noticed that you had reverted someone else's vandalism... The plot on the article seems (to me) to have nothing in common with the plot on Rotten Tomatoes nor IMDB It's been this way since the article's creation. Any thoughts? IMDB and RT don't mention the father dying from cancer. Resolving this sort of thing makes my brain explode. Thanks -Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim1138 (talk • contribs) 03:20, October 21, 2016 (UTC)
 * The only gap I see between our summary and RT is the father dying of cancer. The plot summary at IMDb is also missing only the father dying of cancer. That bit shows up in user reviews. I'm not sure I really see a problem. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:IPsock
Hi there! I see that you reverted my edit on Talk:24.88.92.254. The template IPsock is to identify IP addresses that may be (or may have been) used by a particular sockmaster with a registered account. For example, if User:Example is a user who abuses multiple accounts and is suspected of sometimes editing from IP address 1.2.3.4, then on Talk:1.2.3.4 you'd place to identify it. It doesn't make any sense to say that one IP address might be used by a different IP address, then you're relaying information which is technically impossible. And it's redundant to place this template on an IP address associated with a school: there might be hundreds of users who sometimes edit from that address who also edit from a different address, and listing all of the other possible IP addresses doesn't help us identify users violating the sockpuppetry policy, it just clutters the page. The template is really only useful if an IP is static anyway, otherwise there's probably about 65,000 IPs the user might end up on, depending on their ISP. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are you reverting all my edits?
They can be sourced from Discogs, iTunes or translations of the equivalent articles on other language wikipedias. For example, the description of the cover art on the Hard-Off article was taken from the equivalent article on de.wiki, while the names of Oleh Skrypka's children were taken from his article on the Russian Wikipedia. Heepman1997 (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We have numerous editors making unsourced additions/changes to dates in various articles. Some specialize in kids' TV shows, dates of birth, song release dates, song recording dates, etc. Others change various dates. Some are good faith edits and would be fine if sourced or explained. Others, when examined, are wrong. Some follow a detectable pattern (one adds the date of whatever holiday seems to be about right). Others are inexplicable. Please cite sources when adding information and use edit summaries.


 * Unreliable sources include user-edited pages, such as other languages' Wikipedias. If someone at the German Wikipedia adds an unsourced date and the Russian Wikipedia uses it as a source and we use the Russian Wikipedia, someone at the German Wikipedia can then cite the English Wikipedia as a source for their date. Maybe the date is right. Maybe it's a mistake. Maybe it's vandalism.


 * We generally do not include the names of minors who are only peripherally related to the topic of an article. In general, at the very least, such information about living people must cite independent reliable secondary sources. Per Biographies_of_living_persons, "names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." The Russian Wikipedia is not a reliable secondary source. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are some edits that just popped up on my watch list after adding this note: - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Blanket reverting
Good morning. May I urge you to be more selective in your reverting? You recently blanket reverted several edits of mine at List of Thomas & Friends railway engines. Your edit summary stated "unsourced", which appears an irrelevant explanation for most of my edits, as most were concerned with corrections to grammar and syntax, or removal of the repetition with which this article is plagued (in one case I was removing 2 out of 3 identical comments within the space of 3 sentences). If there was something within those edits which you felt was unsourced you should really have reverted it alone, or tagged it with a cite tag. Thanks.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  02:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Veggie Albums
Can you tell me why you are consistently reverting the additions that the anon editor is trying to make to the page. From what I see, he is trying to make the albums chronologically listed and add in an album that's not on the page. What am I missing? Ckruschke (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * As noted in some of my edit summaries, some of Sro23's edit summaries and on the talk pages of each IP, this is banned editor Wattsj528 evading their block. For details on their current case, see Sockpuppet investigations/Wattsj528. For further info, review the archives for that case, including several IPs in the same range as the recent ones. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - I understood that part. However, the edits themselves seem to benign at worst and helpful at best. I mean I understand towing the line, but still... Do you have an issue if I do a copy and paste and post the changes on my own? Ckruschke (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Wattsj528 has been exceptionally difficult and disruptive, with lots of good, bad and indifferent edits along the way. I am not willing to vet any of their material for accuracy and will likely continue to revert their edits. You are certainly free to verify the information they attempted to add and, assuming it is verifiable, add it yourself. It will be your edit, not theirs. I have no issue with you editing, that's what editors do, after all! - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just making sure your issue wasn't with the content. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

KIDSTVDATES
Given that there are so many and they switch up IPs every few days, getting an admin to look into rangeblocks is probably a good idea. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That was part of the plan. Unfortunately, looking at the results so far, I don't see any obvious clumps. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen any in the usual places lately. Maybe they got bored? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I've seen a return of The UPN Vandal and others adding faked future seasons, movies and such. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Was patrolling for more of this and happened across 207.126.210.191. WTF? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't a clue. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Some bored kid in a library, I guess. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hard to say. As good a guess as any, I suppose. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Genres
Let's get one thing clear - editing a genre once is not "disruptive editing/frequent or mass changes", so please do not threaten with blocking - I simply removed "funk" once from "Something About You", it was added by an IP user only two months ago and it is unsourced. See WP:OR. Nowhere can I find a source to back it up. But it sure is a new wave song; the article has had "new wave" as its genre since 2008. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By all means, let us be clear. WP:THREATEN does say that it "is unacceptable to threaten another that some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken will occur." If you feel that consensus warnings are threatening an action that cannot or will not occur, I can assure you that you are mistaken.


 * You refer to "editing a genre once". This is not accurate. Yes, my two warnings mentioned one particular change. Trust me, you have made several unsourced/undiscussed changes to genres in various articles:, , , , , etc. All of these were changes to genres without citing sources or prior discussion. If any of them are backed by prior discussion or are reverting prior unsourced/undiscussed changes, an edit summary would be a great way to convey that information. Unfortunately, you have chosen not to use edit summaries.


 * A quick check of that article's edit history shows numerous unsourced/unexplained changes to genres by several editors (mostly IPs), including at least two frequent vandals. Roughly 6 months ago, there were no genres on this article. Previous genres have included new wave, synthpop, jazz funk, pop rock, rock and pop. They had been added and removed in random fashion over the years with little attention (Level 42's moment in the sun is long gone). The IPs started adding a few of them back -- without sources, discussion or even so much as an edit summary -- and they were generally removed. There are still no sources and there is still no discussion. In addition to the warnings from me, you have been warned for similar edits in the past. With all of this in mind, you have returned to the article to restore your contested addition of unsourced information with no edit summary. I would suggest that adding sources or removing the information and starting discussion on the talk page would be a good idea. If you disagree, I will remove the unsourced genres myself and start a discussion in a day or so. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not add any unsourced genres to those articles, I simply pipelinked the genres to their correct page titles (new wave, house, ambient) and for "Don't You (Forget About Me)" and "Urgent" I simply removed unsourced genres. These minor changes are in compliance with Wikipedia rules. In future I'll mention in the edit summary my changes. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Minnie Driver
Hi, Summer. I notice you've removed my amendment to the article on Minnie Driver. At the time I thought I'd given adequate reasoning for the addition of a 3rd forename given at birth, i.e. that she was born in the registration district where I work as a registrar of births, deaths and marriages, and that I *literally* had her birth registration page open in front of me next to the keyboard as I typed. You may doubt my veracity, but if you'd like to spend £10 on ordering a copy of her birth certificate from Westminster City Council https://www.westminster.gov.uk/order-copy-certificate you're welcome to see for yourself. I'll even tell you in advance that her birth record is located in the register for Sub-District All Souls, volume 18B, entry 199. But I'm not going to buy one myself to send you - registrars aren't paid terribly well here - and I can't provide an online citation to any other document or source. As the author of the original article, you might like to use the information I've given you to create your own citation, but as I'm busy at work and can hardly afford the time to write what I just have, I'm afraid I'm not going to try doing it myself, not even for Wikipedia, which I try so hard to improve where I find inaccuracies. Anyway, you might not find the quality of my reference (merely quoting a few numbers) adequate, and might remove it again, which will *really* make me wish I hadn't bothered to try and help. But without my amendment Wikipedia is left less accurate. Best wishes Neil (London) (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For legal reasons (outlined at WP:BLP) we have very strict policies about inclusion of details of living individuals. In particular, WP:BLPPRIMARY applies here: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

20 November 2016 (Like I would)
Hi,

Regarding to your Like I would page, can you please tell me where haven't I cited resources? thank you --Ramy5077 (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * With this edit to Like I Would, you changed the recorded date from 2016 to 2015-16 saying "the song may have been recorded in late 2015" and indicating this was a minor edit. As you were changing facts, this was not a minor edit. Saying it "may have been" recorded in 2015 sounds a lot like a guess. You certainly did not cite a reliable source for the change. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing Really Matters
Before you make idiotic reverts like this, look at what the article body contains and the previous edits. — I B  [ Poke ] 06:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You should probably re-think the personal attack.


 * Your edit changed genres in the body of the article and the infobox with no explanation other than "more cleaning". Just prior to that, you changed cited material with no explanation whatsoever. No, I did not dig through the edit history or the entirety of the article to see if there might be some kind of explanation for your preferred version somewhere in there. I also didn't look at every edit you've ever made, read everything on the article's talk page, read your talk page or examine every editor who has ever edited the article to see if maybe you were reverting vandalism from several months ago.


 * Your edit was unexplained. You did not indicate sources for the change. There is no discussion of genre on the talk page. I'll add cite needed tags for the genres and give you some time to clarify. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * So you mean to say that the source for this edit says the song is dance-pop? Please pull and show me the source I challenge you. I know what I am doing SPHD. The article was full of a bunch of WP:OR and false genres under the pretext of using the source. Get a better thing to do seriously. — I B  [ Poke ] 14:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am saying the source does not support your claim. If you feel it does, please verify the page number and supply a quote. As I have already stated, this appears to be an unsourced genre change. - 15:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your newest edit seems to confuse the ambiguous dance ("a haunting dance track") with EDM. A step in the right direction.
 * This is a similar problem. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked user editing by IP
Hi SummerPhDv2.0. Perhaps you can help sort WP:ANI out or suggest a way to proceed? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I apologise
I should have just brought the typo on your user page to your attention, but when I saw the request to update the vandalism counter I was tempted to joke about it. I'm sorry, I realise it must be unnerving to have had your user page vandalised that many times. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Lousy references
As someone who has personally removed about a thousand links to obvious crappy mirrors, this was an ego bruising. I'm glad I was polite about it 99.8% of the time. :) Kuru   (talk)  02:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that one pops up frequently. After all, who'd think there would be unreliable sources about such sober topics with no POV to push, no axe to grind. I search for it ever month or so and always find a few. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Raymond Hahn
Do you still keep track of Joshua Raymond Hahn? Just encountered them and was wondering if I should add to User:EvergreenFir/socks or if you have a page going for them.Ping me in reply please.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen him in a while. The last thing I have is at User:SummerPhD/UPN. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Coronado
Hello, I'm 68taileddragon. I just wanted to confirm that Coronado does indeed have a semi-arid climate. You didn't make a mistake. Coronado has strong Mediterranean (Csb) characteristics, but does not receive enough precipitation to classify as a Mediterranean climate. -68taileddragon
 * Your edit to Coronado, California is original research. The source cited supports the material that was there before your change. If you wish to state that some sources say Csb and others say BSk you will need to provide a reliable source that states that. As this discussion is about article content, please take any further discussion to the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Honey, I'm Good.
How is a short comment explaining what the couples are actually doing qualify as "trivial"? Samer (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheerleader (song)
Hi

I edited the year of Milli Vanilli's first US no. 1 (1988, not 1984). That's not only checkable on their wiki page, but also essential knowledge of popular music culture. I've re-edited it now. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.154.17.22 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We have numerous vandals who -- for whatever reason -- go through song articles and make random changes to dates. Edit summaries are the only way to know that you are making a constructive change. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 06:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Peter Gabriel - 'US' Album - Single release Dates
Hi, Apologies for not citing my sources for the release dates of the last three singles from this album, which led to you rolling back the changes you made. They are...

'Steam' - Release Date:05Jan93 Source:  http://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/19930110/7501/ see New Entry at 17 on Chart dated 10Jan93 - 16Jan93 The single would have been released in the week preceding the publication of the chart - so on sale on Tues 5th Jan 1993 (Monday was the New Year's Day Bank Holiday and therefore shops closed in the UK.) While not a valid source, I can personally validate this from the till receipt I have tucked away in my copy of the CD Single.

Blood Of Eden - Release Date: 22Mar93 Source:  http://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/19930328/7501/ New Entry at 45 on Chart dated 28 March 1993 - 03 April 1993 ie for sales in the week preceding the publication of the chart - so on sale on Mon 22nd Mar93 I can also personally validate this from the till receipt I have tucked away in my copy of the CD Single.

Kiss That Frog - Release Date: 13Sep93 http://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/19930919/7501/ New Entry at 62 on Chart dated 19 September 1993 - 25 September 1993 ie for sales in the week preceding the publication of the chart - so on sale on Mon 13Sep93 Again, I have the till receipt tucked away in my copy of the CD Single to confirms this.

What's the next steps - do I make the changes again (while quoting the above references this time), or do you back out your reversal (assuming my quoted sources are sufficient evidence)? Capnbahb (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, we are looking for reliable sources to directly state the information we are giving. While the charts implythat the singles had been released by those dates, the chart + must have charted immediately + must have been on sale one week prior reasoning is synthesis (combining two or more sources to support a statement that neither one makes directly).


 * For something as inconsequential as a song date, I wouldn't normally care. Unfortunately, we have very persistent vandal (or several) who is going to numerous articles and making unsourced changes to song release/recording dates/locations. Many of those have been incorrect (some of them wildly so) and their particular focus has mostly been on artists who were most popular in the 1980s. Why? I don't know.


 * In any case, I don't want to set up any of these articles with unsourced dates that this vandal can later change to another date. I feel it's better to give a sourced if not very specific date (a year, for example) rather than a specific uncited claim. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

George Michael
YOU AGAIN!!!! Go awayJb666 (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You could have left it at the personal attack.Doubling down was a really bad idea. Oh well. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Jb666 has been indefinitely blocked. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Matt Houston - Marilyn
This episode did not air Oct 14th 1983 as the entire ABC lineup was pre-empted due to Game 3 of the World Series being telecast by ABC. These are based on ratings provided for the week of programming. Access to these is restricted though, so I cannot publish them. However it is easy to confirm the World Series played Oct 14th, just not sure how to prove ABC telecast the game between 8 - 11pm on Oct 14th 1983. (Supes81Supes81 (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)).


 * You seem to have made a number of changes to dates in various articles without providing a reliable source for the change or an edit summary explaining. For whatever reason, we have one or more vandals who make similar edits to various articles. On later examination, some of them have turned out to be not merely wrong, but apparently random. If you have reliable published sources for changes, please cite them. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipediholism troll
Let me know if you spot more of that Wikipediholism trolling. I'm still getting the hang of some of this stuff, but I'm pretty sure my range blocks will take care of it all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll let you know if there are recurring problems. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends (series 4)
Hello, the user disrupting this and other pages was given a 'final warning' yesterday, (see his TP before he blanked it). He has also come to the attention of an Admin. (first message on his TP as it stands now). Regards, Eagleash (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A page of yours
I noticed that you cited WP:KIDSTVDATES in a recent edit. I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only one who has noticed this, but it seems like the problem is being ignored; most of the vandalism is getting through, and it seems impossible to handle -- Articles mostly seem to have years worth of these kinds of edits, so reverting to an earlier version is not possible. The user deletes sources along the way, making any restoration much more difficult. Because so few people catch on, IP's are not blocked either, so the user returns even with the IP's with which they've been vandalizing. The user likewise props up their edits with additional other IP's, tag-teaming and/or re-instating any previously-reverted dubious changes.

In the end, I gave up trying to fix any of this, because to be honest, I'm really amazed, overwhelmed and demoralized by the sheer scale of the disruption here and how effective it has been. I know that articles with unsourced dates and numbers get this kind of vandalism, but this is just in a whole different ballpark. Eik Corell (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't completely given up. For one thing, I need to take a list of all the IPs (from "What links here") and sort them to see if there are any identifiable ranges. If so, a range block or two might be possible and offer some relief.


 * I know there has been some work on an edit filter for similar issues. (We have similar problems with song/album dates and such.) I doubt a filter can block these, but it may offer a way to quickly identify an IP making lots of similar changes. Upping user permissions to allow for an automated rollback of all of a user's edits might also be a part of it, along with semi-protection or pending revisions.


 * Ultimately, I think we have entirely too much vandalism and/or incompetence in a range of articles: kids' media, recent popular music and similar. I expect this to lead to increased use of pending revisions and/or semi-protection in a broad way. It's either that or an on-going game of whack-a-mole like we have now. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

See "The number-changers" at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friends_of_gays_should_not_be_allowed_to_edit_rticles&oldid=925743 -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Bring the Jubilee
1) It's time to start archiving this page, since it's so long that I couldn't fully load it into my browser.

2) Your edits to "Bring the Jubilee" were unhelpful, since Southron is the spelling actually used in the book, as attempted to be explained in comments in the source of the article, and as discussed on the article talk page.

3) WP:DTR could have saved you a little further embarrassment. AnonMoos (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) The auto-archiving on this page seems to be on the fritz. I've been meaning to look into it.


 * 2) Sorry my edit to Bring the Jubilee was not helpful. Changing "Southern Independence Day" to "Southron Independence Day" can indeed make sense if you read the article's talk page or hidden comments elsewhere in the article. That said, and edit summay here would have also made that clear.


 * 3) I do not typically template the regulars. I did not immediately recognize you as a regular. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Among those who actually follow the article, this is a long-standing perennial issue, and would not require an edit-summary to explain. See the message of "17:12, 15 October 2010" near the top of User talk:AnonMoos/Archive3 for my general edit summary philosophy... AnonMoos (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not one of those who follow the article. While I think an edit summary would be a reasonable approach, I've added hidden notes so that perhaps others seeing an unexplained, unusual change might see some kind of explanation. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The UPN Vandal & Disney's Animal Kingdom
Based on the, your page User:SummerPhD/UPN, and WP:Duck, I believe that the person who has vandalizing Disney's Animal Kingdom is The UPN Vandal. I have tagged all of the IP addresses they used with. Should I add Disney's Animal Kingdom to Long-term abuse/The UPN Vandal? Elisfkc (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You certainly can if you would like. It seems, though, that the current "whack-a-mole" approach is of little effect. I am of the opinion that the only solution available here (and in other cases, such as WP:KIDSTVDATES) is a marked increase in our use of semi-protection and/or pending changes, projectwide. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Saturday in the Park
I hope you don't mind, but I changed the genre classification of the song Saturday in the Park from "disco-rock" to "rock" and "soft rock", adding a reference from Rolling Stone in the process. I would raise the issue on the article's talk page, but I guarantee you that nobody watches it, so I decided to just edit it. I'm raising this at your talk page because you had previously reverted an effort to change the genre of the song. Do you approve of the alterations? Kurtis (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Disco-rock" was not supported by sources or a consensus, so I have no problem with it being removed.


 * That said, I have some issues with what you've added in replacement. "Rock" would be redundant as "soft rock" is a sub-genre. (Were the article about the American quarter, we wouldn't say it is a coin and an American coin.) This leaves "soft rock". While the source does call the band "brass-powered soft-rockers", it does not give a genre for the song, simply calling it "perfect Seventies mellowness" and a "radio staple".


 * Frankly, most sources about individual songs don't discuss genre. The most common sources for such info tend to be articles about albums (where there is some variation in genre from song to song) or articles of the "20 Best Soft Rock Songs from the 70s" (with care to avoid blogs and such).


 * Discussion and consensus are very much workable, excepting genres and bands with passionate defenders who want to debate endlessly whether a band/song is prog rock or proto-prog rock (not to mention the millions of microscopic sub-genres of heavy metal: blackened Viking death metal?). You're probably right that no one will respond on the talk page. If, though, you say something briefly defending "soft rock" on the talk page, let it sit for a bit and no one responds, they have slept on their rights and you can reasonably assume no one disagreed. You become a consensus of one. Someone can certainly challenge it later if they disagree. IMO, though, no one can reasonably say you changed it without a source or consensus. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Final warning: Vandalism
Hi, just to let you know that you're intended final warning ended up at the wrong place. Either that, or you'll have to get another username because this one's been hacked. Sorry :( - BilCat (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . The warning was intended for an IP who was redirecting their talk page to various articles. Between the revert and my warning, they redirected the talk page to the article you saw. They are currently taking some time off. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem. - BilCat (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me...
For "Same Damn Life", I meant to put something in my edit summary, for which I usually do for genre changes. ("Disagree? Feel free. Revert me.") I failed to enter such a summary that time. Since you obviously disagree with me anyway, I will not reinstate that edit. I just wanted you to know that I knew what I was doing.

But seriously, do you think it's only post-grunge?  danny music editor  Speak up! 04:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is or is not only post-grunge. I think you are making a lot of changes to genres without sources or consensus. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Please block this NOTHERE user. - MrX 12:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Michelle Thomas Talk Page
Good evening! I left you a message on the Michelle Thomas talk page. I realize it's been over a year since that discussion, but I've been sporadic in my edits, and wanted to pass along some information to you regarding the grave site. Take care! Harland Q  Pitt  05:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Music Genres
Why do genres for songs and albums need sources anyway? DBZFan30 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Heck, why does anything need a source? How am I supposed to tell the world what I think of that new movie if I need a source for it? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thomas and Friends (series 2 and 3)
Series 2 came out in 1986, not 1985. Series 3 came out in 1991, not 1987. Someone must have hacked the Thomas and Friends articles, series 2 and later. I did not vandalize the series 3 article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by YudsWiki2003 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC) Series 4-20 appear to have been fixed.


 * You have repeatedly edited articles to claim that "Thomas & Friends" is an American show. This is clearly not the case.


 * You have repeatedly changed dates in a variety of articles without citing a source or explaining the change. For whatever reason, we have vandals who repeatedly randomly change dates in articles. This is well documented at WP:KIDSTVDATES. If you can clarify which dates are correct with reliable sources, please do so. If all you are able to do is claim that you are right and the article was wrong, we have no reasonable way to decide if you are or not. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

'''Again, I did not vandalize any articles! I was just fixing the air dates of series 2 and 3!''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by YudsWiki2003 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you continue to make unsourced, unexplained changes to dates in articles, you will be blocked from editing. Please see WP:KIDSTVDATES. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Careless Whisper Views
SummerPhDv2.0, I don't think how many views Careless whisper has in YouTube is really WP:SPS. There are lots of articles in Wikipedia that talks about views, including See You Again. So, I would like to ask you what is problem with that. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The edit I removed stated how many views, how many likes and how many dislikes the song had on youtube according to youtube. You view a video, like it or dislike it and the number on youtube changes. You just published it. Further, this is a primary source: the source is reporting on itself. How many views, likes and dislikes does the song have on every other site? How many times was it played on WNEW-FM? WMMR? MTV? We could look up and add thousands of such figures. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I just want to say my opinion about posting views on YouTube. First of all, it's a fact, and YouTube is the main video posting-media, compared to your WNEW-FM, WMMR, MTV, etc. Also, youtube views are available in various articles in Wikipedia, as I said. Also, it helps us understand how popular is that video, how people like it or dislike it, etc. So, I would like you to allow me to put views, likes, and dislikes of YouTube. I will keep updating it.Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, other articles exist. Some of them are nearly perfect. Some of them are completely salvageable and should be deleted. Most are somewhere in between. Other articles may have content that seems to be similar to what you wish to add here. That does not mean that the material should be in that article. It also does not follow that the situation in this article is the same.


 * Your current assumption that appearance on a video sharing site popular in 2017 is a meaningful measure of a song released in 1984 is unreasonable. For most of the song's history, youtube did not exist. In fact, MTV was the dominant source for music videos at that point.


 * Yes, it is verifiable that one particular version of the video (of four on youtube) had a certain number of views on a certain date. Also verifiable: the number of views other versions have, the length of the video, the date it was uploaded, the name of the uploader, what Michael is wearing in the video, the color of the floor in the video, the instruments shown in the video and a thousand other things. The ephemeral detail of the number of views a video received as of a random date on a particular video site does not matter right now and will not matter 10 years from now (when youtube will likely no longer be dominant, much as MTV barely shows videos any more). - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Later on, if views of YouTube seems to be okay or resonable to put in this article, do you agree it will be okay to put how many views a video has on this article? Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what you are asking. Please re-word it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am saying that one day, if I come with a thesis that proves 'views of Careless Whisper in YouTube' is useful to put in Wikipedia, would you agree? Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If, one day, you come up with a thesis, I will consider your thesis. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * So, I think there at least needs to be how many likes, and dislikes are in YouTube. It tells how people likes or dislikes video, and the ratio from likes to dislikes is likely to stay similar. So, may I put likes and this likes? Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia categorically does not use site users' ratings (see, for example, Citing_IMDb and Manual_of_Style/Film) because they are demographically skewed and subject to vote stacking. If you want to include a site's users' ratings in an article, you have two choices:
 * 1) Establish a broad consensus on the article's talk page showing that this particular song is somehow a special case. In other words, you would need to convince a good number of editors that this song is in some way different than every other song in such a way that we should ignore the rule in this case. (This approach usually fails when it turns out it is not a special case but rather special pleading.)
 * Establish a much broader consensus, most likely at the Village Pump to change the established consensus that we do not use such user generated content. (Changing general rules is usually difficult because it affects the entire project. This suggestion, for example, would impact any article covering any product, film, TV show, song, album, video game, book, etc. rated by users at amazon.com, bestbuy.com, target.com, IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, commonsensemedia.org, Yelp, Trip Advisor, etc.
 * TL;DR version: Wikipedia does not use "votes" by site users. Why should be include youtube users' ratings of this song's video but not ratings of the album from dozens of other sites (target.com, walmart.com, bestbuy.com, etc.)? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I understand the reasoning behind your actions on Talk:Men Going Their Own Way and I accept responsibility. I'm just sad you didn't have the courage to enforce the same rule when it comes to the OP. Not wanting to ruffle any feathers with the admins, eh? ;-) - Psychotic17 (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh. So sorry I made you sad. :( - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. We all make other people sad sometimes. Life is full of little disappointments. ;-) - Psychotic17 (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What
Was this? &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's another sock of Sockpuppet_investigations/SlitherioFan2016. Many of their blocks, including the most recent (108.71.121.183), include a loss of talk page access for continued trolling. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Michelle Thomas
Hi. Thanks for fixing this. For some reason I was under the impression the matter was finally resolved based on NY Times obituary. But I have no problems leaving it as it is. Yours, Quis separabit?  02:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Response
You are right sorry Moneymake10000000r (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

New project idea
Hey. I noticed you have contributed to the talk page for this article: List of American police officers killed in the line of duty. I would like to propose that we break this article down into separate pages such as List of American police officers killed in the line of duty, 2017 for example and a separate one for 2016, 2015 and so on. We have separate pages on the Wikipedia for List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States: e.g. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2011, List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2012, etc. so surely this is justified? I feel we owe it to the officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. Big project I know but wouldn't hurt to make a start what do you think? ODMP would be a great source and database for us to use. Inexpiable (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipediholism troll
I know I said I'd probably reinstate the range blocks if the site ban proposal on the Wikipediholism troll went through, but every time I check the ranges, there doesn't seems to be much recent activity. If you get tired of the reverting the troll, let me know, and I'll do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll let you know if they don't seem to get the message. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Southernisation
Why do I need a external link for something that is already on wikipedia? The internal link describes nationalism for southerners ie what would constitute southernisation in the context of nationalism. Is there some other kind of southern nationalism that I'm not aware of which is on the site or not on the site? Even if there is I don't see why I'd need a external link. If I do provide links to confederate sites they'll just be dismissed as not being "reliable sources". The Unbeholden (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The sources already cited do not refer to the narrower nationalism or patriotism you seem to feel is intended here. There is nothing to indicate that this is neo-Confederate nationalism or southern patriotism rather than nationalism/patriotism connecting with the United States.


 * You are correct that neo-confederate sources would be neither reliable nor independent. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Southerners don't believe in that kind of liberalism, universalism or humanitarianism of the north - somekind of 'American' civic nationalism is northern ideas. Using mainstream media isn't reliable either because it has a liberal bias, ie not neutral point of view (NPOV). For example attacks on the Confederate flag, Christianity, right of secession, states rights, property rights, dismissing the national origins act and doctrine of segregation. So if I can't use the sources that talk about neo-confederacy except those that are biased against it, how much room does that leave for descriptive neutral edits? The Unbeholden (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, you feel that mainstream sources are wrong and -- rather conveniently -- only the semi-obscure, partisan sources that happen to agree with you are correct.


 * That's a rather unfortunate situation. Until the world -- mainstream media, the academic community, etc. (New York Times, American Historical Association, Louisiana State University Press, Harper's'...) -- sees the world "correctly" by agreeing with you, the world and Wikipedia will remain benighted.


 * It is also unfortunate that only minority, partisan sources seem to recognize that they are the true voice of the people, while the people obstinately continue to read the mainstream sources (which is, after all, what makes them "mainstream").


 * This is clearly an insoluble situation. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Be Cool, Scooby-Doo! revert
Hi SummerPhD, I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit on Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!, as the date the IP deleted was actually unsourced in the first place. Diff: 1. The original edit apparently got missed in a large group of 15 unsourced edits by various IPs back in February, so IP 82* was actually right to remove the date as it was likely fake (though they still should have explained their edit). Thanks though for the revert as I probably would never have caught it otherwise! Cheers, Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  20:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Moana reversion
Hi, thanks for your feedback about perceived overlinking in Moana (2016 film). I disagree given that the fishhook is central to the plot, and I was myself unsure what the term referred to, hence that wikilink facilitates reading the article. Please do not revert again. Thanks, DPdH (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If it is central to the plot, I'll give it a pass. (Too many kids' articles end up with links to every noun in the plot.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro Vs Piers Morgan.
I've left some links here   Costatitanica (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)