User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 20

The Book of Pooh
I'm pretty sure that "videocassette" on the copyright pages for the Book of Pooh episodes refers to the fact that Disney stored the episodes on videocassettes for broadcast. It specifically says "Betacam SP", which was the industry standard for most TV stations and high-end production houses until the late 1990s but also remained a common standard for standard definition video post-production into the 2000s. https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=52&ti=51,52&Search_Arg=the%20book%20of%20pooh&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=fDwAFUJci-jaZBIs9uERGy9PCOL&SEQ=20180809214939&SID=20

Many of the episodes of The Book of Pooh had no home video release, including the final episode, so it could only refer to the date that episode was broadcast by Disney (using a Betacam SP tape). Further proof of this lies in the dates for the other episodes, for example the first episode, which aired on January 22, 2001; the copyright page's description for it also says "Videocassette (Betacam SP)": https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search_Arg=the%20book%20of%20pooh&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=06RvfquAlW0nVzDLB7_QpfModKh&SEQ=20180809213650&SID=7

Therefore the series end date needs to be changed to November 29, 2004. The date of October 1, 2003 is an incorrect date with no reputable source. The only episode that premiered on October 1 was episode 40 (or season 2 episode 14), "The Book of Boo", but that was in 2001. Besides, the episode guide has already been changed to reflect the correct airdates (as well as adding episodes that were completely missing), including the final episode's airdate of November 29, 2004. So if the summary and infobox still say it ended on October 1, 2003, the article will be both incorrect and inconsistent.

--MrLeap (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "Description: Videocassette (Betacam SP)" refers to how the work was submitted to the copyright office.


 * As for the "Date of publication", it has nothing to do with when portions were broadcast. Please see Section 1902.


 * Finally, a filing with the United States Copyright Office would be a primary source and should not be used for any information requiring interpretation. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well then, how come the first episode and others have the same date of filing as the date they aired on TV? And where did the date October 1, 2003 come from? It appears to be entirely unsourced. It's not from those external links to IMDb or TV.com (in fact TV.com claims the last episode "The Great Honey Pot"/"Paging Piglet" aired on November 5, 2002, and that the last episode aired was "The Case of the Disappeared Donkey"/"The Littlest Dinosnore" on July 8, 2003 which is also almost certainly wrong). How do we know that October 1, 2003 is correct, and if it is, which episode aired on that date? The last one? I can't find any proof for it and most sites seem to have incomplete or incorrect info for the airdates.

--MrLeap (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Your speculation based on a source that does not say what you thought it said is not a reliable source for something it does not say.
 * 2) If there are other dates that match your speculation based on that source, someone may have done exactly what you are trying to do and been wrong for the same reason.
 * 3) If you wish to challenge the date you are attempting to replace, feel free to remove it explaining that you are doing so because it is unsourced. While you are at it, intellectual honesty would require you to remove ALL of the similarly unsourced dates. If you're really just sore about that one date, realize that it isn't specifically that you doubt that date, it's that you believe your misunderstanding of the Copyright Office's database is somehow correct. The link I've provided directly states that airing something does not establish a publication date. As such, the "publication date" and the air date might be the same, but will not always be the same.
 * TL;DR version: You do not have a reliable source for the air date you are attempting to add. I have challenged it. Please see WP:V. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I need someone wise and enthusiastic
I’m waiting to see if Ruby2010 repairs a page Victoire Conroy that looks (to me) to be vandalised. The (possible) vandal changed Victoire to Victoria, making it very confusing - but did change 1 occurrence of Victoria to princess Victoria. So there might a valid reason for the edit?

I’m guessing Ruby2010 doesn’t log-on often. I was wondering if I should (try to) “ping” her?

But that’s only half my query: the vandal also added 1 character to an item on a Talk page, creating a typo. (The same item already has a typo, which I’d love to correct; is that ok - in general? I’m still “unnerved” about someone else typing “site” for “cite”.)  The same IP was vandalous when last used for edits in April. What happens? Is it something I should know how to report, or how to fix?

I might as well ask you this too (I was going to wait see if I was bothering you); The Talk:Tarantula has the most current item (2018) at number1; the rest aren’t in proper date order either (from 2005). Problem?

I was going to add the same comment as (the current) #1. MBG02 (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * AtVictoire Conroy, 103.24.208.250 changed the name a few places and added the wild, unsourced claim that Victoire and Victoria switched places before the coronation. 78.150.233.208 removed the unsourced identity swap. I'd say it is highly unlikely that the name changes are in any way beneficial, especially without an edit summary giving a reason for the changes. I would suggest completing the revert by restoring the last version by  and warn the IP for unsourced additions.
 * If you look at User_talk:103.24.208.250 you'll see it's a school with a lengthy list of warnings, which is kinda typical: kids messing around. It also means the warning is unlikely to help any.
 * The IP's change to someone else's talk page comment should be reverted. Per WP:TALK, there are very few acceptable reasons to edit another user's talk comments. The only reasons I can think of off-hand are reverting someone else's change (such as this one), biographies of living persons violations and completely off-topic chat ("Follow me on Instagram!", "Visit _______ to learn how to make $20 million overnight with your computer!", etc.).
 * One thing I'd recommend is adding [[WP:TWINKLE|Twinkle] to your account. Using it, if you spot an obvious problem edit, one click reverts the edit and allows you to leave an edit summary, then takes you to the user's talk page. Clicking "Warn" there brings up a box that allows you to select from several dozen pre-written warnings. Twinkle fills in the article name, adds your signature and posts the warning. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ta. I wouldn’t have seen the “top” page, telling me it’s a school, without your link.
 * Still wondering why posts are out of date order for Tarantula. Is it a problem that Wiki people need to fix? MBG02 (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Training MBG02
I’m a bit scared to ask this after the ruthless way you axed the (spurious) Martin Luther claim; so please don’t upset the people of Ipswich, Queensland!!

I can’t see how reference11 substantiates the claim (of possibly being the capital); are you able to make it a better link, or tell me how to find the info (at that link)?

Only if you’re interested. MBG02 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Apology
Hi I would like to apologise for the disruption that I have caused in the past few days. I never meant to start an edit war it's just I can be quite capable on editing stuff here on Wikipedia. Please don't report me on Wikipedia as I want to continue to contribute to editing.

So I am very sorry and I hope that you accept my apology and that we can move on. Please read my message as I really am sorry and I mean it. 82.19.95.171 11:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 82.19.95.171 is an IP sock of Wikidestruction vandal. WP:EVADE applies. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Very nice
Very nice, Summer, though most likely pearls before swine. Turn it into an essay, maybe? Why don't these people just consult the group's (any group's) website, if they want to know its self-description? Bishonen &#124; talk 17:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC).

I got your message.
Hey SummerPhDv2.0, just to let you know that on my edit of Oddbods, you were right about taking out the possible starting air date for KidsClick airing this show. It's not going to air on that channel at all. Apparently my Local TV Guide thought that it was premiering on August 20, 2018 (Lovable98158 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC))

Can't Stop Falling in Love Edits
Hi. Respectfully, I'm just wondering why my edit was reverted. I do not believe it was biased information and it was indeed an "other version" of the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchen31273 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Any time you aren't sure why an edit was made, there are three places to check. There might be discussion on an editor's talk page or the article's talk page, but the first place to check is the article's history. My edit summary there cites WP:COVERSONG.


 * Essentially, there are absurd numbers of covers of some songs (including several thousand of the Beatles' "Yesterday" and virtually an unlimited list of live covers of "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" and "Little Wing"). Most of them are not notable. COVERSONG outlines the general consensus of which few should be included. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain! That sounds like a fair reason, but as this version was featured in a fairly prominent movie, I was just wondering if you might be willing to make an exception? Thanks either way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchen31273 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of me making an exception. I don't have any more authority on Wikipedia than anyone else. That said, WP:CONSENSUS determines just about everything. The general consensus for inclusion of cover versions is outlined at WP:COVERSONG. If, for some reason, you think this cover's use in one particular film is enough to make this the exception to the rule, you'll need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and build a local consensus to override the general consensus.


 * Keep in mind, cover versions in songs are by no means rare and COVERSONG does not see them as particular noteworthy. The best way that I can think of to find a way to include it would be to find reliable sources about the song that discuss this version, showing that it is significant. Clarification: A source about Joe Cocker might discuss his cover of "With a Little Help from My Friends" (and just about every other song he ever recorded). That's not a sign of significance, just a sign that someone was writing about Joe Cocker. If, OTOH, a source is specifically about "With a Little Help from My Friends" and discusses (i.e., more than a mention) Cocker's cover, it might be a sign that the cover is a meaningful part of the song's history (which it is). Thus With_a_Little_Help_from_My_Friends. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Michael Provost
You could well be right here Draft talk:Michael Provost about his notability, feel free to tag or send to afd. I'll see if I can find more content and sources in the mean time, All good wishes. Theroadislong (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Ninja Sex Party
Hi there. You recently left a message on my page about needing a source for my edit. It came from this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRApGRUceJo at the 4:34 mark. If you could add it back with the reference or tell me how to do it I would appreciate it. Thanks! 72.23.137.192 (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CITE. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sod!
Re: Martin Luther in Bowling. Thanks for checking for sources; but it resulted in what-I-hoped-wouldn’t-happen. I emailed that blog (when I 1st posted to the Talk); not expecting an answer now. I almost paid to get an eBook on Martin Luther but I didn’t think it was worth $3 just for this. I’m new at this; but I’m surprised at how many things can’t be confirmed or refuted with the all-knowing Google.

So, how ornery are you? MBG02 (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * PS. I’m still perplexed. I’m guessing there’s no answer but I’d like to hear your thoughts;


 * The statement was added on 14 Oct 2015 by someone who (almost) doubled the article over 11 days. The article (now) has 174 pagewatchers, and gets almost 1,000 views a day. The author of the reference you removed is quite clearly stating that he thinks the statement is crap. (And it’s the same reference as the one added in 2015.)


 * So; 1. Why would someone cite it, and 2. Why does something so (obviously) spurious stay for so long?  I’m guessing 1. He only read the 12 words he wanted - and didn’t look at the pre and post words, and 2. “Once it’s written it must be fact” syndrome.
 * MBG02 (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't forget 3. This is a backwater article that isn't read much.


 * All things considered, I'm inclined to believe this is either simply not true or is an exaggeration.


 * The encyclopedia we have cited gives a lot of info about the history of bowling, including most of the section on Luther. One possibility is that Luther's lane was nine pins and someone saw a source to the effect that he had ordered it be 9 pins. Through enough repetitions, it morphs into him somehow permanently establishing 9 as the official number. Note that the blog source I removed cites three other blogs as its sources: one is a dead link, the second cites a source that doesn't have this claim and a third cites another blog. That blog cites a source that I cannot locate without a hike to the library. It is possible, though unlikely, that I'll make a stop there at the beginning of the semester, but it's a bit of a hike. More likely, I'll check for e-access or forget it. (I might be referring to the blogs out of order as I looked at this earlier today, then got sidetracked by some writing I needed to finish.)


 * My searching online has come up empty. I find plenty of blogs, trivia lists and such, but nothing even remotely reliable. Google Scholar chokes on a landslide of false positives involving various combinations of MLK Day at bowling alleys, scholarship on MLK or Martin Luther at Bowling Green State and such.


 * In general, it's always easier to find sources about a general topic and write based on them than it is to take something someone else wrote and try to find sources. I also tried a backdoor approach, looking for sources on the number of pins. I can add as many sources as anyone would like on the 9 pin gambling ban and 10 pins as a work around, but nothing about Luther and 9 pins. Interesting that the encyclopedia cited mentions both Luther's bowling lane and the 9 to 10 pin switch back-to-back, almost inviting something similar to what we are trying to prove here.


 * (Usually, my orneriness here peaks when someone requests indifference to get their way. An example would be someone making an unsourced change, me reverting it and them restoring the change with the expressed or silent explanation of "It doesn't matter, so let it go." Everything else is just me being who I am.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I thought 1000 views a day (for 3 years) wouldn’t be “backwater” but I do expect only 1% of those would have read that particular sentence. I also suspect a lot of the Google finds for post2015 have sourced this line from the Wiki article. I wish I knew how to get hold of a real person (by email) who “really” knows... and not just for this factoid. There must be lots of Martin Luther experts in colleges and universities.
 * You’re a student? Do you (or anybody) get taught how to use Wiki (and Google) at school/ college/ university? PS If there’s a better forum for nattering, tell me that too.  MBG02 (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not a student. I'm on a postdoctoral at the moment.
 * There certainly are any number of researchers whose work covers Luther, though his bowling is likely not on their radar. More to the point, if the world's recognized expert were to respond to you by email, phone or letter and confirm our factoid, we still wouldn't have the source we need. One of Wikipedia's core policies is verifiability: readers must be able to check the sources for statements and be able to verify that the information comes from a reliable source. An email to you is not a reliable source. We need something published in a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In the present case, we'd most likely mean a peer-reviewed academic journal, a text from an academic publisher or a mainstream source with a solid reputation re history (think more Time magazine or the New York Times, rather than Mental Floss or the Sheboygon Penny Shopper).
 * I doubt there are may such sources focused specifically on Luther's bowling (if any at all). So, we're really looking for a source on Luther or on bowling that happens to cover Luther's bowling. As a result, we need full text searches, not just titles. My first instinct was Google Scholar, but all the searches I tried were either swamped with false positives (someone from Bowling Green State writing about MLK, for example) or quickly petered out. A halfway decent reference librarian could probably make reasonably short work of this, but I can't very well use my credentials to ask by phone/email, I'd need to be there in person for an informal request.
 * Like I said, I'm out of options at the moment. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Postdoctoral Wikipedia-ology? MBG02 (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Production (Mirwais Ahmadzaï album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mirwais ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Production_%28Mirwais_Ahmadza%C3%AF_album%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Production_%28Mirwais_Ahmadza%C3%AF_album%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:KIDSTVDATES
Hey, I was investigating some old stuff here and ran across your page WP:KIDSTVDATES. I was happy to see that because actually I uncovered the same thing back in 2012. The actual culprit, although there are several people who do that, was originally known as. And it's just not TV dates, the sneaky vandalism also happened to birth and death dates.

I used several hours to research it and filed a SPI back in 2012: See if it's of any use. But I got frustrated and left the case. But apparently he has continued it with some other IPs, and even one IP from my SPI case has continued it until 2014. Thibbs had tagged that particular IP and I found your page.

It would be good if someone constructed an actual long-term abuse case page about it. --Pudeo (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Consider it emphasis and reinforcement
When the background of interactions here is supposed to be AGF, then it is difficult sometimes to realize the serious 'longtime' badness of an editors actions. And longtime is key here. Often, the window examined is restricted to 'lately', and often again that is loosely defined as <24 hours.

So I spent the time to underline the overall behaviour, continuing over the year that editor has been 'contributing'. Because I've seen AIV pass on taking action, because a fuller examination is taxing also, and sometimes (often?) not done. Since I knew AIV would peek at the talk page, emphasis that this is a ongoing situation to end was worth adding, I thought.

And my motivation is chiefly the tax upon all those editors who have had to revert those edits. Dozens of times. And the residue that has not yet been reverted.

The conventional block summary is "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". When does that become 'clear'? How does one help make it clear? Shenme (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Editor adds unsourced material.
 * "Please don't do that."
 * Editor adds unsourced material.
 * "Please stop."
 * Editor adds unsourced material.
 * "Stop."
 * Editor adds unsourced material.
 * "Final warning: If you do that again, you will be blocked."
 * Editor adds unsourced material.


 * At this point, we can follow through and block them or say, essentially, "No, really, we want you to stop doing that. Honest. At some point we will block you if you keep doing it. Maybe. Some day. We mean it. This time for sure."


 * I sent them to AIV. An admin looked at the long string of warnings and continued refusal to discuss the issue, decided they are WP:NOTHERE and indefed them. If the editor wants to edit, they can certainly request to be unblocked. (I'm not holding my breath.) If you would like to appeal the block for some reason, feel free to raise the issue with the blocking admin. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi I know this was a long time ago but I was wondering why you removed the phrase ":Only those subjects who are notable enough for their own articles should be included here. in this edit on the article List of drag queens. --Dom from Paris (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The time elapsed shouldn't matter. While I would hope my edit summary would make it clear why I was doing what I did to anyone, if it wasn't that clear it should at least make sense to me. :)


 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style calls for avoidance of self-reference. Basically, articles should be written as if they are not specifically in Wikipedia. The word "notable" means one thing in every day conversation. Here it refers to notability, a "Wikipedia policy or technicalities", per WP:SELF. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC request regarding Here (Alicia Keys album)
Can you comment on this RfC? It concerns whether a rather lengthy, quote-filled section should be trimmed or not? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Perfect Velvet
Can you keep an eye when who violates WP:SYNTH. 123.136.106.28 (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Perfect Velvet - synthesis
Can you keep an eye when who violates WP:SYNTH. 183.171.115.143 (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Autism Speaks
You know this is a bunch of antivaxers who push abusive pseudoscience, right? Guy (Help!) 07:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I see you have a strong opinion on this. I suggested you take this to the article's talk page. I strongly suggest you do that before editing further. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your hypocritical warning is noted. Odd how you reverted more than I did, yet you issued the warning. Take that to WP:ANEW if you like. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your counting is off. I rather suspect we'll end up at AN/I, ANEW would be a waste of time. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Spellbound
Regarding your revert of my comments on the talk page of the Hitchcock movie Spellbound, okay it was too forum-like so I won’t butt heads with you regarding the matter. However, your talk page is not an article. Judging by the rapidity of your revert, I assume you are a watcher on the article. Therefore, I am going to guess that you have seen the movie. If so, just out of curiosity, do you agree with me that the movie is terribly predictable? I don’t ever before recall watching a movie like this and guessing the actual culprit so early on. Thanks for your input! Best regards.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You keep reverting my edits.
You keep reverting my edits on Country Roads, Take Me Home. I added another use for the song, in the section that lists times it was used. First it was marked irrelevant, then trivial.

I don't see how it's irrelevant - it's literally in the section about times it was used, and I'm giving a time that it was used. And of course it's trivial. That whole section is trivial. It's trivia. No-one needs to know it, but it's fun to know.

My example is as valid as any other example in the section. Why is that use less valid than any of the others? They're all trivial. That's the point.

I think that it's just as valid as anything else on the list. I honestly don't see why it can't be there. It's kinda stupid that it's more "irrelevant" and more "trivial" than any other example, and therefore doesn't deserve to be there.

Please explain why this is less valid than the rest.

Um... tilde things... 49.197.185.12 (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, RTGame put something on YouTube using the song. Yes, it was in the Studio Ghibli film Whisper of the Heart.


 * The first is some random person violating copyright on social media.


 * The second is a major studio, founded by Hayao Miyazaki, Isao Takahata and Toshio Suzuki with funding from Topcraft, distributed worldwide (in the U.S. by Disney). Check out the sea of notable people involved in the film in its article.


 * Using your standard of "someone put it on youtube", how long would the section be for the Pharrell Williams song "Happy"? Wouldn't we include absolutely every video of someone dancing to it, someone's kid doing a bad karaoke version, every radio station contest using the song, various commercials, sketch show parodies, etc.? Who would ever read such a list?


 * If you want to include trivia, how long would the article Richard Nixon be? Let's see: Elton John's album title Madman Across the Water, the Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young song "Ohio", the opera Nixon in China, several films (Dick, All the President's Men, virtually every film about the Vietnam war, Deep Throat, etc.), countless books and novels, multiple Pulitzer Prizes, Oscars and Grammys and a disembodied head living in a jar in the 31st century are all notable references to Nixon. All of them are discussed in major publications. None of them tell us anything about Nixon, though, so none of them are in the article Richard Nixon. All of them are much more significant to Richard Nixon than what some random, non-notable person put on youtube.


 * No one reading about the song is thinking, "Gee, I wonder if there are any random, non-notable people who have added anything to youtube using this song? I hope there is one randomly-selected example of the thousands that must exist listed at the end."


 * For further information, please see WP:IPC. I was the second editor to undo your addition. If you still disagree and want to add your youtube video, you will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Book of Pooh Talk Page
Can you reply to my message I left on the Book of Pooh talk page to see if my suggestion is relevant? YouDontKnowSponge (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Hello, I'm Herb Washington. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, User:SummerPhDv2.0/Cellco vandal, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Herb Washington (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * has been indefinitely blocked. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Warning Given/London Bridge
The reason that I changed was because that it originally (According to the composition) considered a DANCE song, not a DANCE-POP song, so I assumed someone had changed it without having any sources to prove it. So I changed it back. I've done this several times with other songs and one user (Who has no username) sent me two messages in September that I was making disruptive edits even when I was sourcing them or removing genres that people randomly inserted or are not included in the source. I've learned my lesson about genres early in June and started sourcing where I get genres from. Please understand that I wasn't trying to be disruptive, but if you want me to stop with editing genres then I shall. Sorry about that.

70.173.240.183 (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * London Bridge (Fergie song) is but one of several articles with the same problem. Changes to genres without sources or prior discussion (and, in your case, not even so much as an edit summary) are disruptive. Please see WP:GWAR. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Use of Confederate flag in Italy, 11 Oct. 2018
Hi! I found your username in the report of my "undo". What was wrong in my addition? I can't citate sources about use of Confederate flag by Napoli FC supporters started in the years when "Dukes of Hazzard" (here in Italy title was only "Hazzard") was broadcasted by Mediaset (Silvo Berlusconi TV network): for doing it, I'd have to find and link all pics or clips of Napoli supporters before and after Italy knew Bo and Luke, but all I wrote is true. Place where I put my addition (after "At European far-right events" paragraph) wasn't the best, maybe I had to create a new section, but it could be done by someone better skilled than me without deleting all... P.S. Italian racists, till now, feel quite at ease showing "good ole" homemade Fascism stuff, resisting to overseas fashions: with Dixie's flags, someone could mistake them for Napoli supporters! ;D 151.24.7.216 (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Short answer: Your addition is original research. You need an independent reliable source saying what you want to add, in discussion about the topic of the article.
 * A bit more detail: People notice things all the time. Sometimes they are right, other times what they think they saw isn't what they think it was. Sometimes what they saw is significant, other times it's trivial. One of Wikipedia's core values is verifiability: everything must be sourced or sourcable to reliable sources. Rock critics say Joe's Garage Band is the greatest band in the history of the world? What's your source for that? The Purple political party has always voted 'no' on civil rights legislation? What's your source for that? Part of that requirement is that the source must actually say what you are saying. So, for example, one source or several sources saying the Purples voted against bills W, X, Y and Z and calling those bills civil rights legislation is not saying they always/usually/often vote against civil rights legislation. That is synthesis.
 * Links to various pictures, other sources showing they are Napoli FC supporters, other sources connecting this to the TV show, etc. are not enough. To say Napoli FC supporters started using the flag as a result of the show, you need an independent reliable source saying that Napoli FC supporters started using the flag as a result of the show.
 * If your source is an article about Napoli FC, that would be enough to add it to the article about Napoli FC. To add it to the Wikipedia article about the flag, you need a source discussing the flag. Why? (cf. WP:WEIGHT). Otherwise, large topic would become useless collections of trivia: Donald Trump, rather than being a collection of meaningful information about him would be littered with references to KFC, Atlantic City, a Broadway show he once said he liked, the brand of shoes he wears, his barber's name, etc. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Use of Confederate flag in Italy #2
Ciao, here again with more (or less reliable, but however) sources and details.

“Southern pride” in Italy football stadiums

On a Napoli supporters forum thread about use of Confederate flag, it’s told that it started at the end of Seventies (more or less the period when Dukes of Hazzard  began to be aired in Italy, ndr).

Washington Post reporter Adam Taylor, in an article of June 22, 2015 about use of Confederate flag in Italy, reports that first time Napoli supporters were noticed flying the flag abroad was in Chelsea, during quarterfinals of football Champions League in 2012. He quotes explanation given several years before to historian Don Harrison Doyle by a professor of American Literature in Naples: ''“We too are a defeated people. Once we were a rich and independent country, and then they came from the North and conquered us and took our wealth and power away to Rome.”''

Writer Vladimiro Bottone, in an article on Naples newspaper Corriere del Mezzogiorno quoted by a football supporters site, adds that stadium is the […] “place [where] the first virulent and explicit opposition between North and South of the post-war period was made visible in a mass dimension” […]. For Napoli supporters, […] “Napoli is what it could have been if the robbery of Savoy sneaky team (aiming to Juventus FC, main team of Torino, town of the Savoy, the Italian Royal family, ndr) was not able to perpetrate its damage, to the point of colonizing the Belpaese football with the violence of fraud, thus distorting the development of what should be a fair competition between territories. […].

Can I edit it? 151.24.0.41 (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The forum post is a self-published source and not useful here. Pretty much anyone can say pretty much anything in an internet forum.


 * The Washington Post is certainly a reliable source for this topic and the source provides broad coverage of a number of uses of the flag. I'm not sure I'd bother with the quote pulled from Doyle's work as it boils down what an unnamed colleague told him. Doyle's book (from University of Georgia Press) is certainly also a reliable source.


 * The link to the article in "Fan's Magazine" is dead. My knowledge of Italian is limited to a few terms used in music and those that have entered the vernacular in the U.S. ("Allegro", "al fresco", etc. aren't going to get me very far.) That said, my level of confidence that "Fan's Magazine" meets our criteria for reliable sources starts out pretty low and got worse when I saw they use Hotmail for their email. Again, I'm limited by my single language, but you'd likely do better to cite Corriere del Mezzogiorno directly. I am not saying that it is a reliable source, but it might be. Citing it directly would be a much better bet than citing a questionable source quoting it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Use of Confederate flag in Italy #2 bis: the final cut?
"Southern pride in Italy stadiums

Washington Post reporter Adam Taylor, in an article of June 22, 2015 about use of Confederate flag in Italy, reports that first time Napoli supporters were noticed flying the flag abroad was in Chelsea, during quarterfinals of football Champions League in 2012. He quotes explanation, given several years before to historian Don Harrison Doyle and reported in "Divided Nations (2002) by a professor of American Literature in Naples: “We too are a defeated people. Once we were a rich and independent country, and then they came from the North and conquered us and took our wealth and power away to Rome.”

Writer Vladimiro Bottone, in an article of July 15, 2004 on Naples newspaper Corriere |Corriere del Mezzogiorno adds that stadium is the […] “place [where] the first virulent and explicit opposition between North and South of the post-war period was made visible in a mass dimension” […]. For Napoli supporters, […] “Napoli is what it could have been if the robbery of Savoy sneaky team (aiming to Juventus FC, main team of Turin, town of the Savoy, the Italian Royal family, ndr) was not able to perpetrate its damage, to the point of colonizing the Belpaese football with the violence of fraud, thus distorting the development of what should be a fair competition between territories. […].

A Napoli supporter group born in Eighties, South |South Boys Curva B, had modified Confederate flags flags as insignia. 151.24.0.41 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Who is this?
Hi Summer, who do you suspect this IP to be? I'm curious, because I'm contemplating a block of that IP. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This should be enough. (I'm not sure who made that edit, though.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please bother me
Jane Austen

I know there are a lot of people I could ask this; but I picked you. Aren’t you lucky!

The Talk:Pride and Prejudice mentions that a plot “summary“ should be c800 words; can you point me to that instruction article? NB: I have no intention of rewriting it.

I’ve seen quite a few “summaries” that are probably over 2k words; is there a mechanism (procedure) for breaking that into a (new) short “summary” with (the retitled) “plot”?

MBG02 (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't edit many articles on novels (I read enough for work, thanks), so I'm not sure where the 800 words figure mentioned for novels came from.


 * The Manual of Style is a set of guidelines, not quite "policy", but generally followed. Manual_of_Style/Novels doesn't seem to say "800 words". The closest it comes is "Three or four paragraphs are usually sufficient for a full-length work, although very complex and lengthy novels may need a bit more." While Austen's works are usually pretty character intensive, implying the plot summary might be rather brief, I don't have a meaningful guess as to what a plot summary would look like if I wrote it.


 * The best suggestion I can make is to keep in mind that the plot summary should summarize the plot, not the work. So, as an off-the-wall example, the screwball comedy The Master of Disguise started out with a very long summary of 1,300 words. The film (which sucks, BTW) has a paper thin plot stuffed full of one-liners, prat falls, visual guffaws, etc. Describing the work might include a lot of that, but a summary of the actual plot came in at about 350 words -- a bit below the guideline (400 to 700 for films), but it seemed to make sense.


 * Beyond that, I'd encourage you to discuss it on the article's talk page. Start with what the guidelines suggest and see what anyone thinks. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, old girl. I realised a bit after typing, that the long plot summaries I’ve read were (probably) all movies. (... I mean wise girl.). MBG02 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Purple teeth
I restored some minor damage to Golden apple by cutting (from 5 versions ago) and pasting. But since all those 5 versions (effectively) did nothing, could I have tapped undo 5 times? MBG02 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Probably, but selecting those five changes as "selected revisions" using the radio buttons on the history page then clicking "undo" would be more efficient. Or, if all of the changes you want to undo are the five most recent ones, selecting "cur" (for "current") on the history page would give you the same option. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, Clapton sometimes plays like he has three arms. Purple teeth? Um... maybe it's some kind of clever allusion to the mix of well-crafted lyrics and racist nonsense spilling from his mouth. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Flying Purple People Eater. I tried the radio buttons (just now); didn’t seem to work. I’ll try it again if I ever see a similar case. MBG02 (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked url stopped me from adding reference
Hi. I read your comment about removing my edit because of no reference. I did not include reference because the link, which came from change.org, is blocked. I would be greatful if you could remove the blocked link because I don't know how to as I am new to Wikipedia. change. org is blocked link

--Canti60 (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Anyone can start a petition on change.org about anything and say pretty much anything in their description statement. That there is a petition is trivial, it is a self-published source. The site is not a reliable source for anything.


 * If, on the other hand, there is a petition that gets enough attention and the petition is discussed in independent reliable sources, then you might have something significant -- and you would also have a reliable source to cite. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sunshine of your Love Revert
You reverted an edit because you claim it is unsoureced. If that is the case, the entire line "With elements of hard rock, psychedelia, and pop" is unsourced. The elements of Heavy Metal in the song are described on the page linked, namely "highly amplified distortion, extended guitar solos, emphatic beats" which are clearly elements of the song. Kevinskogg (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Two things regarding your edit at Sunshine of Your Love:
 * 1) Please be sure your edit summaries explain why you made the change you made. Yes, you "added heavy metal". Looking at the edit without reading an edit summary would have made that obvious. Similarly, an edit summary of "added that Eric Clapton has 3 arms and purple teeth" would be true if that's what you did. Better would be a summary that explains where either piece of info came from: "See first paragraph", "as sourced" (if you included one) or "it came to me in a dream".
 * 2) The sentence you refer to above does not say it is a "heavy metal" song. If you take issue with that sentence, that is a separate issue. Your addition was neither sourced nor discussed. Wikipedia has an on-going issue where some editors change listed genres in song/album/artist articles based on their personal opinions in one, several, dozens or hundreds of articles. Soon another editor disagrees and changes them again, meaning the articles do not reflect verifiable information, but rather the opinion of the last person to edit the article. This has become known as "genre warring. Most experienced editors revert such edits on sight. To avoid this, make sure any changes you wish to make to genres either cite a reliable source for the information or reflect a consensus, established on the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand. To clarify, I did not say it was a Heavy Metal song or have any "issue" with the sentence "has elements of".  I don't understand what your point of this statement is "The sentence you refer to above does not say it is a "heavy metal" song. If you take issue with that sentence, that is a separate issue."  While I am fully accepting that adding the genre to the list should be discussed and I will use that approach in the future, I would like to understand your point as mentioned so as to further improve my editing.Kevinskogg (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To add that the song has elements of heavy metal, you will need a source.
 * The existing sentence is not obviously sourced. If you disagree with it, you can:
 * 1) remove it as unsourced,
 * 2) find and add a source for it,
 * 3) tag it as needing a source, or
 * 4) leave it as it is and move on. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * So even though the original sentence itself isn't sourced you leave it. There is no source for "With elements of hard rock, psychedelia, and pop,..." what I don't understand is why that is OK for you and adding "heavy metal" is not.  In fact, the end of that sentence "...it is one of Cream's best known and most popular songs," is not referenced either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinskogg (talk • contribs) 21:46, October 31, 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are unsourced statements in pretty much every one of Wikipedia's 5.7 million articles. If you find something that you dispute or simply think should be supported in any article you have the same options.
 * I am not disputing anything that is in the article currently. I am not defending anything that is in the article. I am disputing the addition of "elements of heavy metal".
 * If you'd like to challenge any of what you've mentioned, you can. I'd predict a few things. First, someone will bring up that the lede section should be a summary of the rest of the article and, as a result, generally is not sourced as the material should be in the article elsewhere with a cite there if anyone challenges or is likely to challenge it. Next, someone is likely to point out that hard rock, psychedelia, pop and "one of (their) best known" all show up elsewhere in the article, though you might dispute the specific wording in the lede. For "one of (their) most popular songs" will be supported by it certainly being one of their top selling singles (I haven't looked, but I'd guess it might be second or third to "White Room" and something that charted better than I would expect).
 * If you'd like to challenge anything that is there, challenge it. That, however, has nothing to do with what you want to add.
 * If you wan to add "elements of heavy metal", you will need either a reliable source or a consensus on the talk page to add the material over my objection without a source. (Since this article is likely not getting a lot of views, I doubt simply asking on the talk page will get many (if any) responses. You'll likely need to start an RfC to get the ball rolling.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Notable members (of Phi Sigma Alpha)
They are notable, I provide references to each to prove notability. Not having a wikipedia article is not synonymous with not being notable. See List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothersEl Johnson (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Whatever U Want (Consequence song)
Just a heads-up: I see that this page that you redirected a while back has been reinstated. I don't have time right now to check the refs to see whether it passes the GNG, but I thought I'd let you know. --Slashme (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look as well. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bubbling under charting and sources for basic details adds up to a very weak keep in my book. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Purple feathers now
Hi. Talk:List of The Lion King characters. MBG02 (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The spotted red-billed rhesus rhino is renowned for its regal plumage. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Original Research! MBG02 (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not. It's true! What else could it be with those feathers? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Latin Eagles
Hello SummerPhDv2.0. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Latin Eagles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''previously kept at AFD, not eligible for speedy deletion. Please do check the the article history before tagging next time.''' Thank you. So Why  09:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed that. I'll save this one for work when I have time. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Lion Guard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monitor ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Lion_Guard check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Lion_Guard?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)