User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 16

Genre revert
Hi. Please see WikiProject_Albums/Sources and under "AllMusic" it says to not use the genres they provide, "as it is generated from a separate source from the prose.". This is why I removed it from the Bridge Over Trouble Water infobox. Thanks. --Jennica ✿ / talk 21:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your edit, marked as minor and described as "formatting" was not a minor edit, not was it simple formatting. Instead, you had removed a sourced genre without explanation (as Allmusic is a reliable source for genres outside of the sidebar, it was not immediately obvious that the genre was not reliably sourced). - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that it's reliable outside an infobox for genres? It says on WP:ALBUMAVOID that it should be avoided. I'm not trying to argue. Just getting clarification.--Jennica ✿ / talk 00:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Biography/reviews are fine, but do not use genre sidebar, as it is generated from a separate source from the prose." The prose -- the main body of the article -- is reliable. The sidebar is automatically generated, most likely from Amazon, and not reliable. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Mjj4ever's unsourced additions
Please stop erasing my revisions to Michael Jackson unreleased songs Wiki page, especially the posthumous and unreleased albums section. Thriller 3D has been confirmed for release this year by John Landis! He directed the original Thriller short film. That's about as reputable a source as there is. Also, as for MJ's unreleased albums, they are confirmed by his collaborators and recording engineers. Please put my revisions back. Thank you! -Mjj4ever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjj4ever (talk • contribs) 14:03, June 27, 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you finally found your way to the talk pages,.


 * Over the past year, I have revert numerous additions you made to List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson because, as the notes on your talk page explain, you did not cite any reliable sources for your changes.


 * If you wish to restore your additions, you will need to cite your sources. If you need help with how this works, ask. Do not continue to add unsourced material. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The Needle Drop
Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding The Needle Drop should be count as an reliable source or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Petticoat Junction edits
Why did you undo my recent edits? I am watching the show every weekday and add info that I notice. I replayed the audio several times and Betty Jo definitely called the dog Higgins. And the Shady Rest dog is not called the Shady Rest Pooch, especially not a capitalized "Pooch."

Respectfully submitted, saps48 Saps48 (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a little too easy to become caught up in a show, notice trivial details and believe they are more important than they are. By watching the show and adding what we see, we could easily have an article dozens of pages long on each episode including all of the dialogue, facts extracted from the dialogue, facts that seem to conflict with facts from other episodes, changing clothing styles, continuity errors, new pieces add to the set, details apparently added about various characters/props/locations, etc.


 * The best defense we have against such runaway articles is WP:NOR: other than very basic facts (simple plot summaries, for example), the article should only include information that independent reliable sources have discussed. If the episode adds a rocking chair, someone flubs a line or you think you can start to map out the town, it is likely trivia. If independent reliable sources don't discuss it, it is trivia and should not be included. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Walking with Dinosaurs
Regarding my most recent edit to Walking with Dinosaurs, it was an attempt to make the sentence grammatically correct, though I can see how it is a little superfluous. I'm ok with the revert, I just wanted to explain. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel that the sentence is grammatically correct. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

i'm sorry.
Summer, I am sorry I was experimenting and I will now use the sandbox instead of editing other article without a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICANEDITKEWLSTUFF112 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

My Edits on Stacy's Mom
Ca you not revert additions without checking? You said my comment was unsourced as the reason it was reverted. You only had to look it up on YouTube to see if it was true, which it is. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRdyQjSHcJE. Can you put it back? If I needed a source, there you go. Use that link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsigs (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I reverted your addition because you did not cite an independent reliable source. I do not doubt that numerous people have created videos/recordings of themselves singing various covers and/or parodies of various songs. That said, the overwhelming majority of those recordings are trivial.


 * In general, covers are not included in the song's article unless the cover is itself notable independent of the original version. The most common ways to demonstrate this are the cover charting or receiving significant coverage in independent reliable sources.


 * For example, thousands (literally) of acts have recorded covers of the Beatles "Yesterday" (expanding this to unofficial recordings (Youtube and such), we would easily be in the tens of thousands). Our article mentions two of them: One by Bob Dylan is mentioned in passing along with his opinion that the song is horrible. The other is one by Paul McCartney at the Grammys. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't want to be rude but...
In the top of the page, where is #9? From to 8 to 10. Just saying. Again, not trying to be rude, but it's bugging me. Donny (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I left it in Florida. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ha ha very funny. Good one. Donny (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Lay off the girl Donny. I did not intend for you to start bashing this girl's work and she might leave now. Great job. Špičky (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow. Just wow. Donny (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S.*clap* *clap* *clap* Donny (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hooks
How is someone's death not lead material? Almost all individuals have their deaths in the lead. why would you remove it? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  23:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MOSBIO, the lede section should include:
 * Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility));
 * Dates of birth and death, if known (but for dates of birth see WP:BLPPRIVACY, which takes precedence).
 * Context (location or nationality);
 * The notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played;
 * Why the person is notable.


 * Basically, the goal is to state who the person is/was and why they are notable. For most people, their cause of death has little or nothing to do with their notability. Suppose we were talking about Helen Keller. If you were telling someone who Helen Keller was, it's very unlikely you would mention her death. Abraham Lincoln's assassination would likely be part of all but the shortest of summaries. Ask 100 people at random who Helen Keller was and I'd wager 0 would mention her death. Of 100 people asked about Lincoln, a good number would mention his assassination.


 * Hooks was an actress and comedian, known for SNL, Designing Women, and a few other roles. If we asked 100 people about Hooks, the only reason any would mention her death is WP:RECENTISM. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

New MariaJaydHicky sock?
I saw your note at Talk:Rihanna, after reporting for edit-warring. Without reviewing the huge SPI report, the account certainly seems like someone with an editing history and an axe to grind. The edits, edit summaries, and comments look like another sock. What do you think? --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Good catch. That's a WP:DUCK. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism
I see you blocked this IP user User talk:104.57.183.127 for 3 days. It appears even after his block, he's still vandalizing some pages, examples here and here. There's more but it be best to look at his revision history. Maybe it's time for a permanent block? Armegon (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not an admin. I cannot block anyone.


 * If the editor is making unsourced/unexplained changes (which may or may not be "vandalism"), revert the change(s) and place warnings on their talk page. If it looks like they've been warned enough and just aren't getting it (or if it seems to be a continuation of their past problem(s), post a notice at Administrator intervention against vandalism.


 * (Both placing warnings and requesting blocks is much easier using Twinkle.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The New Bulk Removal of the List of superhero television series
As you probably already know, DoctorHver (talk) made a bulk removal in the List of superhero television series. He said the list had too much stuff and that it should only consist of American shows. I don't know about length, but the list is supposed to be about all superhero TV shows. He also removed a couple of shows that are America. Plus, it's not just removals; DoctorHver (talk) left a mess. Is it all right if I undo the changes?Sparkles32 (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The bold-revert-discuss cycle is a good way to approach such situations. If someone boldly makes a change to an article and you disagree (especially if it is a major restructuring of the article), revert the change and start a discussion of the issue on the talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored the removals. DoctorHver (talk) might have something to say about this, but we'll see.  Thanks!  God bless!!!Sparkles32 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Home Alone 3
Home Alone 3 really is the only film in the franchise that takes place after Christmas, i'm not making it up. Why do you keep removing it from the page, are you saying it's not true?Dansham (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I keep removing it from the page and saying it is original research, which it is. When you determine that a film is a reunion of two actors who previously worked together in a different film several years earlier, I remove that as original research also.


 * With some reading and imagination, it is possible to find millions of things that are "true" but trivial: How old Wilma's mother was when Wilma was born in The Flintstones, the number of forks on the table in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?, how long SpongeBob has worked at the Krusty Krab, etc.


 * The easiest way to sort out the meaningful from the trivial (and, possibly, the just plain wrong) is to cite an independent reliable source which directly states a fact. If no independent reliable sources are discussing which of the films in the series take place at before, near or after Christmas, it is unsourced and trivial.


 * On a related note, you have been repeatedly warned and blocked for adding information to articles which seems to be deliberately incorrect. At that time, I warned you that you would need to begin citing reliable sources for any additions/changes to information in articles.


 * Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's pillars. You will need to cite reliable sources. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Difficulty citing sources
I find citing sources extremely hard to do. ChocolateElemental (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You'll need to work on that. If you are having specific problems, ask. There are a few tools that might be helpful. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As for my edits being reverted recently, the sources that I've picked are actually correct on Applejack and Twilight being tomboyish characters, even if the site is user edited. Sadly, it's the only sources that I can find that Applejack and Twilight are confirmed on what I've already stated. It makes me quite a little sad really. ChocolateElemental (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's too bad. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The Cat in the Hat (film) edits
Audrey Geisel's refusal to allow any more live-action Seuss adaptations was due to The Cat in the Hat's largely negative reception. How is that disruptive editing? 24.18.128.102 (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There has been an unending parade of edits by disposable IPs targeting this article with attempts to add synthesis. The source cited for her refusal to allow further adaptations does not say it was because of this film's reviews.


 * {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emoji&diff=prev&oldid=795381093 This edit] added similar synthesis to another article.


 * Your edit here added an infobox directly over a warning not to add an infobox (p9inting toward the specific consensus).


 * And, of course, we have your dispute at The Master of Disguise.


 * Overall, yes, I'd say "disruptive editing" is a fair description. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

One warning
Stay off my fucking talk page. Or my friendly banter will take on a new tone you will not like. At all. Try me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk • contribs) 08:09, August 29, 2017 (UTC)


 * "Your" talk pages are not yours and exist to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. I will continue to post warnings and notices to those pages as needed. You are correct that we can't make you learn anything: reliable sources, civility, etc. We can and will tell you what you need to learn if you want to stick around. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Missed topic
The information from the articles that are said on the Foodfight! page is not factual information. The writers of the articles were not there and do not know what happened. Production was delayed, yes. But the reasons stated are not true. Ceejsanjosee (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed your comment originally. You had placed it in the middle of my talk page and I didn't catch it. Usually, it's best to add new topics to the bottom of talk pages to ensure that doesn't happen.
 * The articles cited at Foodfight! are secondary and/or tertiary sources (as Wikipedia generally prefers).
 * A primary source would be someone who was actually there. While you might think that would be better, such sources are often biased in one way or another (whether they mean to be or not), taking credit that should go to others and placing blame on others that should go on them.
 * Secondary sources are those where the author spoke to the people who were there, read what they wrote, watched interviews with them, etc. Tertiary sources are written by those who have reviewed secondary sources. Carefully chosen secondary and tertiary sources provide objectivity, helping to clarify what happened and why.
 * For further information, please see WP:PSTS. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Strange userpage
That's very unusual that you list every addresses along with every name of each section. What's that even mean? Just curious. 2607:FEA8:4F20:59F:7196:7667:53C9:A348 (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I do not understand what you are asking. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting Blade Runner 2049 Edits re Music
Please check the talk page for this film before reverting any more edits re the music composers. It has been quite clear for months that Johann Johannsson was replaced by Hans Zimmer (since when did Zimmer do "additional music" credits?! Please check the references on the talk page which have just been updated. Quelbastro (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Someone (perhaps you) editing anonymously removed a warning from the article saying NOT to repeatedly add these two. That anonymous editor provided neither a source nor an edit summary explaining their change. They remove the sourced composer and added the two in dispute. At that moment, the talk page had only the August 1 statement from Walter Görlitz, backing up the warning not to repeatedly add them.


 * Please use edit summaries explaining why you are removing warnings backed up by the talk page and doing exactly what they say not to do. When an edit summary will not sufficiently explain your change, please use an edit summary referring editors to the talk page and explain the change there. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Okays
Sorry if we're stepping on each other's toes. No malice intended. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

King Arthur reverted edits
Hello SummerPhDv2.0! Just saw your reversion of my edits on the King Arthur film. I was going to add a reason on the article's talk page but I decided not to. The real reason for the edit was that it sounded more like (I don't know if this is the right word for it) "propaganda" in order to make people not see the film. Also lead sections are more like snippets (copy-edits) of the actual article itself and the edited portion was not found in any other place than the lead section. The only other reason that I feel like this would be warranted would be if this were added into the reception section and the sentence rewritten as such:

The film was a box-office bomb, grossing $146 million worldwide against its $175 million production budget and received negative reviews from critics who warned audience members to "stay away". --Paleface Jack (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Box office bomb" is original research and/or an opinion. The Box office gross and budget are simple facts, without unnecessary interpretation. If you prefer, look at it this way: If "box office bomb" is simply a re-statement of the numbers that is obvious and factual, it is redundant and adds nothing over simply providing the numbers. If it adds something, where did that "something" come from?


 * Yes, the film received negative reviews. It also received positive reviews and some reviews that were somewhere in between. This is the case with most films. Saying it received negative reviews fails to distinguish films that received a collective "meh" from critics from those that were widely panned. Any attempt to re-write that comment to make that distinction, though, is synthesis (combining material from multiple sources to say something none of the sources say directly). Using a direct quote from an undoubtedly reliable source that summarizes the general opinions of critics completely side-steps the problem. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Tara McDonald's birth place not UK
Tara McDonald was not born south of the 59th parallel, nor was she born on the island of Great Britain. I was in Hammerfest a while back (July), and I found birth records at the hospital showing Tara Jane McDonald being born on September 9, 1988. Much like you, I thought she was born in Dartford, UK, until I looked at all the birth records for the year 1988 in Dartford, as well as England and Wales, in case she was born somewhere else in the UK. She was not born in the UK at all, though she moved there at an early age. Birth records don't lie, the "reliable source" you claim to rely upon for her birth place is wrong, as is the website, as it was not her that put it together, it was Daniel Wiliams, who is a patriate of England. Either way I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt that Tara Jane McDonald was not born anywhere south of the 59th parallel, and Dartford is just north of the 51st parallel, which is 19 degrees south of her birth place. thanks.

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

allie x
I'm discussing it at the talk page rather than editing. If i find you're following me again you are going to an/i! LEAVE ME ALONE ! 199.101.62.55 (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You are repeatedly restoring an unsourced controversial claim about a living person. This is an issue under our policy on the subject. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. That you do not wish to read the policy or discuss the issue at the Reliable sources noticeboard does not exempt you from the policy.


 * If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Allah help you v2.0, because you need it. You Americans always think your interpretation of these policies are the way to go. If the BLP desk would answer me at all then maybe I would go there. However with me anyway, they have a not so good track record in getting back to me. I have an easier time getting in touch with GOogle interms of those annoying "you have logged in to a new IP address " messages after I moved here from Aberdeen. I could have done what I did at Tara McDonald, but no! I brought it up at the talk page, where I got an answer, and I was about to respond with a "fair point, but don't throw it off the table" message. here's a thought how about y'all shrink shrink shrink yuor policy pages to be more readable and less wordy and maybe we'll be more willing to read them again and again and again. Allah have mercy on you Americans.

yours truely, Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As explained, topics at the Reliable sources noticeboard are consistently and substantially addressed.


 * Your assumptions regarding my nationality are neither relevant nor accurate. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My assumptions abuot your nationality are relivent because it's always Americans thinking because I'm scotish that I can't understand policies, or that my interpretation is wrong. As for the BLP noticebord, in 2020 I brought up an issue regarding the singer Inah. I had to push to get her hane of Elena Apostolinu put in the article. I added sources for Thaio Cruse's name being Jacob Thaio Cruse and it got considered because I pushed pushed pushed. Guess where all my opposition came from. The god damn united states. So that's why I bring it up. SO here's a thought, shrink your policies, be open to me criticizing Americans for trying to push the status quo, and stop dogging my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me make it clear clear clear to you.
 * I don't think Americans are bad people, it's just I will not allow Americans, including American wikipedia administrators to tell me what to do because it's always Americans opposing me.
 * I said that by my experience with the BLP ref desc has proven unhelpful because of a lack of answers, though my last try was in 2013 while I was still in Aberdeen, so you won't find it at this IP.
 * 3. Any edits made before August 31 from this address are not mine.  I use a VPN  because my wife put one on the network I use.  her credit card number got stolen by someone so it's a precaution  she is taking to prevent that, so I can't turn it off. she'd kill me if i tried lol.

Clear?

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Prior to this point, I did not know you are Scottish and did not care. I still don't care. Your assumptions about my nationality are still neither relevant nor correct.
 * I'm assuming 2020 is a typo. In any case Inna's last name, "Apostoleanu", was added without discussion in 2009, shortly after the article was created. It seems to have been there ever since, without challenge. I find no discussion of "Inna" or "Apostoleanu" at any of the noticeboards. Whatever. The BLP noticeboard seems to be running quite nicely now. If you take your question there and it is not discussed, you've at least tried to follow procedure. Refusing to discuss the issue and continuing any way is a sure way to get blocked.
 * You do not get to decide the nationality, race, religion, gender, sex, orientation, age, disability status, native language, hair color, handedness or any other irrelevant characteristic of the admins and other editors you will deal with on Wikipedia. You are not entitled to choose who you will interact with and which policies you will abide by. You will need to follow Wikipedia's policies, not discriminate based on irrelevant characteristics and remain civil. It's really that simple.
 * On Wikipedia, a notable actress is not an entirely unrelated singer and various women are not lying about where they were born UNLESS published independent reliable sources say so. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I can decide not to interact with United States based users on Wikipedia. Why? I do not like the US all that much. However, I said i will not allow American users to tryeto inforce policies on me. Non-Americans, absolutely can do so. Americans though, no way. And stop acting like a pro feminist SJW type person. I am not deciding gender, sexual orientation or what not (even though only two genders exist). I am saying I am tired of Americans opposing me. maybe you're not American, but unles ssomeone says where they're from, I have to guess, and I will guess. deal with it. If someone chooses not to interact with me because I'm from Aberdeen, i'm okay with that. thakns.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

And it's not just women. You sound like a feminst. I said that I have been pushing for the name Jacob Thaio Cruse on Thaio Cruse for years. As for Allie X, I hear a Scandinavian accent, a pretty strong one, not the Canadian accent, either stereotypical or general North American one. I brought it up at BLP and I would appreciate it if you didn't contaminiate the discussion with your possible feminism. Note I said possible because I don't know if you are or are not feminist, and it doesn't matter anyway. Andrew Nichols
 * Americans, people who won't tell you their nationality and even (gasp!) feminists will enforce Wikipedia's policies, revert your edits, post to your talk page, challenge information you add that various young women are lying about being from Canada/UK to (for some unknown reason) hide that they are from Norway/Sweden/Greenland, etc.
 * I'm afraid I will have to contaminate . contribute to the discussion, whatever my nationality, philosophical leanings, hair color, etc. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah you're probibly a wee lass with blue hair, sarkeesian supporting cuck loving... (icelandic wife taps me) Oh what? Anyway, I did get my first ever answer at that BLP desk. Don't bother bringing up feminism there because it's toxic. I won't bring up how it's toxic because my hospital visit and cat scans from an incident are anecdotal.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I detect a hint of a Russian accent. You aren't really Scottish. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Wendy Mesley
Are you Wendy Mesley? Right now Hekla's on the phone with someone named who is calling about my biography investigations that I have been doing since 2003. She has brought up my Wikipedia edits, I'm not sure if this is you. If it is not you at all then please disregard this. If it is you, please keep this on Wiki. I should not be getting this call. thanks.

Andrew Nichols


 * That would be confusing as she claims to be Canadian, but has a slight hint of a Tasmanian accent. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

well guess what lassy. I know that's you ringin' me, and my wife. yeah stop it! And yuo ain't no Tazzie! lol Andrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

on a serious note, if you are, I really would appreciate it if we kept this on wiki please. how you guys got a hold of my number is beyond me but please keep this on wiki. I have Hekla yelling at me because we just got called by her, I'm not going to contribute to any more discussions for a bit until this is sourted out. I threw in a bit of humor for you, but right now I am going to have to ask that if yuo are or if you are associated with her, I would appreciate it if I didn't get this phone call again. Please respect that fact.

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps she was born there, then moved. I thought I heard a bit of a tongue click...


 * I know it's another dreaded policy, but doxing is not allowed. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read that policy yourself. why am I getting this call? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I read policies -- usually more than once a decade.


 * When my phone rings and I wonder who it is or why they are calling, I usually answer it. Of course that's exactly what an American feminist (damn them!) would do. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hekla answered it, it was asking about my investigations. The reason why I am wondering if you are, is because she brought up Tara McDonald. I did not mention a dispute on McDonald's birth place until this week. talked about my Wikipedia edits, Hekla was grilling me about that, so that's why I'm worried. Sorry Summer, but right now I'm not fucking around, I'm not joking, I'm dead serious. If you are, maybe you are, maybe you're not. But if you are, I beg of you please keep this on Wiki. I don't know how found out that it was me doing the edits to Tara McDonald article, but alls I know is that we're scared and wirred right now. It's quite possible that you're not, I just want to let you know though that if you are, do not call agai please. I will be contacting the CBC about this, but in the mean time I want assurence that I won't be called about Wikipedia edits ever again. thanks.

Talk page
Hey Summer. Just got the notification that you did a rollback on the Allie X Talk page. I have read up on the whole context and see it has gotten to WP:ANI now. I have to say I was a bit miffed by the revert and almost reverted back. Then I noticed the string of reverts. Glad I didn't! Guess what I am trying to say is, feel free drop me a line when something like that occurs. Thanks! Karst (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The thread is "odd discussion at BLP noticeboard". Tornado chaser (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if andy is watching my talk page, even if he is that's not the place for you to argue, argue on you talk page, his talk page, or ANI. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

update on the phone call
I contacted CBC myself, and I even spoke to Wendy Mesley. You got off quite lucky my friend. Wendy mesley does not edit wikipedia, and her knowledge of my Tara McDonald edits came from an anonymous tip. I won't go after this further, I'll leave it there. When Hekla and I got the call though, I hope you understand why I was in freak out mode. Remember, you don't think strait when something like this happens. JUst thought I'd fill you in, and say I am beyond ultra sorry for this mistake. thank you.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am hardly your friend and I had no need for luck. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh i forgot, you don't speak scottish.

Think of it how brits use the term "love" even when it's not someone they love.

Andrew Nichols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course I speak "Scottish". I am all things: American, a feminist, a Canadian reporter who is investigating some obscure nonsense edit about a semi-notable songwriter who is allegedly hiding that she's Icelandic, to be published three years from now in an explosive tell-all using hints of accents to expose the international conspiracy to hide how many people at actually born up north and falsify their histories to... um... do something nefarious, I guess. It all makes perfect sense.


 * Please note that until your work is published, none of your research belongs here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

boy. I wish it was as dramatic as you say it was. No. we're trying to find this out for our piece about secret identities of celebrities. Sia is our biggest target, but as I said at the BLP thing, Hekla said not to publish more results until the series airs on CBC. Anne-Marie Mediwake said that she'd host it, though that was in 2010. and it will be bassed on research i've done. Since anne left CBC we'll need a host, I'm looking at Hannah Thibedeau or Natasha Fatah.

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See, I'd say not to publish it on Wikipedia because it will be removed repeatedly as unsourced controversial claims about a living person and you'll be blocked. Also, there's the basic idea that giving it all away now lets the air out of your explosive tell-all in 2020. "Tune in tonight on CBC for a documentary full of stuff you read on Wikipedia 3 years ago!" - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Requesting admin assistance
For reasons I cannot quite figure out, I am having problems creating an AfD page for List of American police officers killed in the line of duty. Twinkle added the header to the article, but balked at creating Articles for deletion/List of American police officers killed in the line of duty with a message that it is blacklisted, but without providing links that allowed me to figure out what the issue is. Can someone clue me in here?

(My deletion rationale is commented out here to save me the trouble of re-typing it)

Thanks. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's because "... killed in ..." is blacklisted. Do you want me to create the page and copy-paste your rationale into it? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please. Why the blacklisting? Vandalism? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. You can sign the rationale if you want, which will probably make it less confusing for people.  I'm not sure why the phrase was blacklisted, but my guess is that it has something to do with contentious article creations, especially stuff under discretionary sanctions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars Holiday Special Comment
Hello, I recently made a mention of you here concerning edits made at: Star Wars Holiday Special. I was suddenly accused out of nowhere, and the entire section was blanked out in order to (presumably) prevent the discussion from taking place any further on that talk page. I feel obligated to notify you since you were a participant in the conversation, and the edits regarding the article. Also, I wanted to do you the courtesy of explaining why I mentioned you in a section that no longer exists. The links above will catch you up to speed on the discussion and the edits. However, the other user has made an indication that they don't care about my edits at this point, and asked me to leave them alone, which I gladly oblige. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Genre Changes
Hello thank you for telling me you may remove edits by me if they aren't necessary but if i have provided a source i would like discussion on my talk page first before its removed thank you. Colorfulprint (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean this edit. I reverted it right before I left you that message.


 * Genres in song articles, for whatever reason, seem to be a big problem on Wikipedia. They don't need to be. If you have a reliable source for a genre not listed in the article, add the genre and cite the source. If you disagree with a genre already listed or want to add a genre that you think belongs on the page (but don't have a source), discuss it on the article's talk page and establish a consensus before making the change. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much that is very helpful! I will be sure to edit things properly. Colorfulprint (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of . - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Photos and videos of porn are not objectionable, they are very inconvenient. As for configuring wp, you should be forced to configure it. If you want to view porn, then switch it on. BTW, the switch probably turns off depictions which are educational, as opposed to photos/videos. You may call this censorship, but it is in the sake of usability. One can not study biology/sexology and post photos of jizzblowing dicks. Thats for pornhub. I will revert the articles to not post pornvideos and photos until it is default to view it that way and _you_ can have a switch to stare at your desired dicks. Soft cocks are fine, erect cocks = porn. Thats how the whole TV industry does it, wikipedia is no better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addeps3 (talk • contribs) 09:46, September 25, 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not follow your understanding of "the" TV industry. At the moment, our guidelines are outlined at WP:NOTCENSORED. If you think we should handle things differently, you will need to build a consensus to do so BEFORE making the change in any articles. If you continue without doing so, you will be blocked from editing. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)‎

September 2017
I never made any corrections to anyone's spelling in the Wonder Woman talk page. How dare you accuse me of that! Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So you are just going to ignore this one, not even own up or apologize for it? That shows the type of person that you really are. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I did not say you corrected anyone's spelling. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

G12 CSD
Just a note that if you're deciding whether to tag a page for WP:G12 speedy deletion and the alleged source where it was copied from is a book/publisher website, you should check if that publisher is one of those that republishes Wikipedia content. In the case of Bernard Hollander for example, Cel publishing is entirely devoted to republishing Wikipedia content, so G12 would be inapplicable. Thanks,  Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Wake me up edit
Hi, the source is the Youtube music video (?v=pIgZ7gMze7A), were the typical Squeezoom effects can be seen (Sliding picture-in-picture, 2 squeezed frames side by side, Strobe/Freeze-Frame), however, the inclusion of Youtube links is blacklisted on Wikipedia.

What is further indicative of a SqueeZoom system: At this time (1982), the Ampex ADO (1983) didn't yet exist and the crude (Squeezoom had only 256 levels of picture size control) animation indicates to me, it must have been a Squeezoom DVE.

The clearness of video, lack of movie artifacts and the horizontally squeezed picture indicate to me, it must be an early DVE machine. Please see "Squeezoom" in Youtube.

I have a historical DVE system (Grass Valley DPM-700)  myself in my collection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.209.74 (talk • contribs) 16:02, September 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * Your edit claims the video "is notable of being one of the first music videos to use digital video effects most likely done on an early Vital SqueeZoom unit. Digital video effects later saw extensive use in music videos."


 * None of this is sourced. To claim that something is "notable" for (whatever), you would need to have independent reliable sources discussing that (whatever) and referring to the video as a notable example of it. The phrase "one of the" first/largest/fastest/oldest/etc. is weak, generally used when sources don't really say what the first/largest/etc. is. It is a dodge; an unsourced one at that. That you believe it to be "most likely" anything is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject, not what our editors believe to be true. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sròn
Looks like the Wikipedia article came first.Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I deleted it, and the creator has protested on my page. What do you say, Summer and Dlohcierekim? Restore? Maybe I was hasty because of all the other copyvios they have created. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC).
 * I would restore, but have there been other copyvios from this creator? That probably needs looking into.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps can shed some light on the other G12's. These were long standing articles. Could they have all had content "borrowed" w/o attribution? I'm inclined to think so . . . . Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at User talk:LHOON, Dlohcierekim. I really doubt the unsourced phrenology stubs on Wikipedia were first in those cases. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Saw them. Was amazed.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Considering the Sròn page, it should be reinstated. The copyvio page reported (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LSJqqBtrePsJ:rvlvy.co/main/index.php%3Fs%3DSr%25C3%25B2n%2520a) just contains excerpts from various Wikipedia pages (scroll through it to see) such as Sròn a' Choire Ghairbh, Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Strontian and many others. If you delete Sròn for this "copyvio", are you going to delete all these pages too?
 * I wrote the original text of the Sròn page, including adding the images, and can assert it was not copyvio from somewhere else. The copyvio software sometimes works well, but not always. LHOON (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, LHOON, I've restored it. Sorry about that. I'm assuming the phrenology stubs were actual copyvios. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC).


 * Thanks for restoring! However, the page still shows the deletion notice.
 * As for the phrenology stubs, the situation is a bit more complex as I messed some things a bit up when creating these pages a numbers of years ago, taking content from pages (which I created at www.phrenology.org), with permission of course but without stating this correctly as the original pages still show an improper (c) copyright and not (cc) as should be to be able to use it and as is anyway the intention of the author. That site is very old now and needs a major overhaul, upon which the whole situation can be rectified with proper referencing and attribution. But thus is future work... (The illustrations on these pages can be used anyway since copyright expired) LHOON (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec) The phrenology stubs were the editor's first articles when they were quite new to Wikipedia. (They were pretty clear though, with the site saying they were "lasted edited" several years before the articles here were created. I'm pretty shocked I missed the republisher. I guess I was hasty. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * sorry for the bad G12. In my haste it looked like you had been a new editor simply copying websites to create articles.


 * As for the phrenology stubs, I think the AfDs on several of them should give you pause before spending too much time on recreation. When it comes to fringe and pseudoscience topics, we generally limit articles to what independent reliable sources have to say about the topic. As plenty of mainstream academic and scholarly sources visit the core ideas of phrenology as part of broader discussions of discarded ideas, we have an article on the subject. It clearly needs some work, but it does pass the bar for notability. However, I haven't been able to find sources independent of phrenology discussing the concepts you had created articles for. If you recreated them without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, you are likely to see them deleted again. I'd suggest picking one of them, building a stub with the best sources you can find and seeing how it goes before spending too much time on what might be a dead end. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. Be sure that whenever I would re-create one of these pages they will not be just short unreferenced stubs, but fitted with proper historical references in the right context. These stubs were very old, lacking correct sourcing, and I have seen a lot of evolution in Wikipedia articles since then, with much more focus on proper referencing now. This is a good thing and enhances wikipedia's value and reliability. The faculties are mentioned of course in the main Phrenology article, but explanation (and of course the illustrations!) may indeed need to come on separate pages as that main page is already very long. But all this will be long-term work ...   LHOON (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

GENERAL NOTE
Hello, I'm 60.119.24.222. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 60.119.24.222 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * has been blocked for one year for... whatever that was. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

User:X.Bosher-Smith.X
Just wanted to make sure you had a chance to see my comment on your AIV report of User:X.Bosher-Smith.X in case you want to act further on it. Comments are removed so quickly there... GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Her false socking claims were on the IP she moved to when the account was tagged. She's on to a new IP now.


 * Soon enough, she'll fixate on a couple articles, we'll protecct those pages and she'll go away for a bit. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * X.Bosher-Smith.X has been blocked indefinitely as a sock. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing edits
Please STOP removing reliable edits. We see you have removed 3 different edits even if they are reliable. This is a shared IP address so please don't remove edits without discussion ~ Kind Regards 43.251.108.78 (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As yet another sock of, you are hardly in a position to make demands. Per WP:EVADE, any editor may revert any or all of your edits without further explanation. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 43.251.108.78 has been blocked as a sock. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Bye Bye Baby
I'm sorry for this. Definitely was a mistake considering I would usually never revert your edit and not even use the rollback tool. — I B  [ Poke  ] 12:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)