User talk:SummerPhDv2.0

From June 12, 2006 through May 25, 2015 I edited as SummerPhD. I then managed to lose my password and was unable to prove my identity as I had not updated my email address. Oops!

I then briefly edited as "Tefkasp" (for: The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD). No one understood.

Now I'm just SummerPhDv2.0. Same ornery Lesbian Space Pope_TM, new user name.

Incidents, accidents, hints, allegations and things left unsaid

1) Questions you ask here will be answered here.

2) Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things: ~~~~

3) There is no number 3.

4) I did not delete "your" page or block you. I am not an admin. (I may have suggested that the page should be deleted or that you should be blocked.)

4a) You do not have a First Amendment right to edit Wikipedia.

5) I don't care if you did hear it from your best friend that her next-door neighbor's cousin knows this guy who once dated someone who went to high school with a roadie for the band, we still need a reliable, verifiable source.

6) The blog/myspace/youtube/sign on a telephone pole you read is not a reliable, verifiable source.

7) You are free to assume I am stupid, lazy or "out to get you". We probably just disagree.

8) Personal attacks are a blockable offense. Sometimes the block is even enforced.

10) Try not to be a low to moderate level dick. If you must be offensive and/or boorish, please go for the gold.

Westlife Singles Release dates issue

Hi, I saw that you reverted my edits that I did for Westlife's single Uptown Girl.

I understand why you did that because I need to provide a reliable source, but the problem is the single wasn't released on March 6 2001, it was released on 5th March 2001 in the UK.

So my question is what can I do to prove that I have a good source. 82.3.151.146 (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.151.146 (talk)

You will need to cite the source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

I see that I may have offended you, that was not my intention, and I apologize for that. Paul August ☎ 13:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Samuel Barber - Adagio for Strings edit by Melt deleted

You asked: "who calls it faithful", I called it faithful, I'm not a RS, I removed it. I know he worked very hard to honor Barber's composition by attaining near perfect orchestration and rendition (faithful) a fact I should've referenced and presented differently; but it already appears into his very well sourced and referenced biographical page for readers to consult if they so chose: redundant.

I also removed the description of the movie that I shouldn't have copied there because the reference points to said movie well referenced page where awaits a description for readers to consult if they so chose, again: redundant.

Fun fact - I just noticed my contribution was, in essence and surprise (as in: but why is this here?), already present on the Samuel Barber main page when, in my opinion, it should be on the Adagio for Strings page. This now forces me treat my projected contribution in a new way: propose to move this topic to user Parkwells who made said contribution, or be bold and do it without asking for many reasons but foremost: I think it has to be done regardless; still kindly leave an explanatory note. I also think the Parkwells contribution is somewhat rubbish and has to be improved by means of simplification, correction, more accurate description and omission of the unreferenced "dances" part (I wonder where Parkwells got that from). As always, Parkwells is more than welcome to add to or modify my contribution if necessary.

The essence of my contribution is to inform readers about the adaptation conducted by Georges Delerue (primordial mention absent from Parkwells contribution) for the movie Platoon and to describe the additions made by Delerue i.e. monologue and sound effects in a succinct and direct way. Please note that I referenced the 1986 movie Platoon the correct way by Platoon when Parkwells referenced it as Platoon which, as you can see, points to the definition of the word instead of the movie. Relevant and accurate similarities I plan to maintain.

please advise

Melt 08:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

As discussed on the article's talk page, this is about what independent reliable sources say on the subject.

A source about A which discusses A's interaction with B is presenting material for an article on A, not B. If you have sources about the song which discuss its use in the film, you might have something to add (subject to WP:WEIGHT, etc.) to the article about the song. If, however, the source is primarily discussing the film, Barber or some other topic, you might have material for an article about the film, Barber or some other topic.

Please discuss the topic further on the article's talk page. Also note that your confusion re another editor's contribution ("I wonder where Parkwells got that from") points to a shared problem; neither of you provided sources for your additions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Excuse Me

Would you mind kindly explaining why you undid some of my recent edits on the Wordgirl page?

And please, respond on here since I’ve built this message. Austin012599 (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

As explained (sort of!) in my edit summary, an uncredited role is unsourced. Basically, for most shows, we do not need a source for credited roles; the show's credits are assumed to be the source. An uncredited role -- even if you are absolutely sure it is true -- needs a citation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This Love (Maroon 5 song)

Can you keep an eye on the page? Make sure whoever adding genres are based on sources that explicitly says what it is. 115.164.182.5 (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, anonymous editor who is certainly not an IPsock of a GWAR editor. I was waiting for a de facto banned editor to come along and give me my next assignment. I'll get right on it. Where shall I report back? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Remake or reimagining

The people at the website Inside the Magic said that it was best to call the 2017 live-action Beauty and the Beast a reimagining instead of a remake of the 1991 animated film. [1] That was why I changed the word. Should we keep the word as it is in the article? And1987 (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Disney likes to use their own language for simple things. Instead of theme park employees, designers and remakes, they prefer "cast members", "imagineers" and "reimaginings".

Similarly, we had a music album a while ago where the press releases pretended it was a film. Songs and featured artists because "scenes" and "co-stars". Various companies call their employees "associates", "crew members", "co-owners", "shipmates", etc.

Wikipedia aims to describe things. No matter what a press release says, a song is a "song", a designer is a "designer" and yes, a remake is a "remake" and a reboot is a "reboot". I'd assume the English Wikipedai uses English -- not "Disney-ish". - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Socks at Proud Boys

I've requested an SPI, you might be interested to comment. The case could be found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kilometerman. Thanks. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC).

I don't doubt there are socks (as you noted my indications for BlaineBoles22). That said, I don't have any additional data other than what you've shown. If anything pops up, I'll add a note. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

So they are meatpuppets rather than socks as checkuser evidence suggesting they're unrelated. Not a big concern. If they start beefing up their accounts then ECP should be able to handle. The situation looked like what happened on Identity Evropa, except even more inept. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please, revert BLP vandalism on Big Mike (rapper)

User BigMikeMikeYung (talk) made Conflict of interest/vandalism edits on Big Mike (rapper) article on April 25, 2019. I undid three of its five edit, but I guess we need to revert 'em to your last revision of the page. Thank you. 158.181.214.71 (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

As I get an awful lot of requests to make edits from various socks of indefinitely blocked editors, vandals, etc. I ignore all anonymous requests. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Nevada IPs

I've created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nevada IPs. Feel free to comment. XavierClover (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Japanese wolf in contemporary culture

It doesn't seem correct to me to remove the references to Japanese wolf in recent movies. In both cases the reference is clearly to Japanese wolf. Princess Mononoke deals specifically with the ancient history of Japan, and the destruction of the natural environment by humans. Wolf children has content specifically about the extinction of the wolf in Japan. To make out that these movies deal with wolves in general seems silly to me, and to make out that these are trivial references... Princess Mononoke was the highest grossing movie in Japanese history for four years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regularuk (talk • contribs) 17:33, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

The article is about the Japanese wolf. The question would be how significant the movie is to the history of the Japanese wolf. If independent reliable sources about Japanese wolves discuss how the film had a meaningful impact on Japanese wolves, you might have something. Otherwise, it strikes me as a trivial in popular culture use.

Consider Richard Nixon, a now dead U.S. president. He appears as a major character in numerous Academy Award winning films (All the President's Men and Dick come to mind), Pulitzer winning books ("All the President's Men and several others), and an award winning opera ("Nixon in China"). He also shows up in scores of other notable films, books and TV shows, is the topic of a Grammy winning album (Madman Across the Water) and song ("Ohio") and a bunch of other stuff, including a disembodied head in the 22nd century. None of them are mentioned in Richard Nixon because none of them are significant to the subject -- reliable sources discussing Nixon don't discuss any of them. (Articles on all of the subjects, though, do discuss Nixon.)

On the other hand, Gerald Ford (another dead president) does discuss Chevy Chase's impression of him on Saturday Night Live. Why? Because it did impact the subject. Years later, Ford in a New York Times interview said that he felt the continued negative attention was a major stumbling block (no pun intended) on his re-election campaign.

If the film specifies that the wolves are Japanese wolves, the article on the film should likely mention that (if it doesn't specify, you'll need a source to call them anything other than wolves. If sources about Japanese wolves discuss the film (how people think of them, conservation status, increased research on them, etc.), then I think you'd have something. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Baby (Justin Bieber song)

Can you revert the user who involved unsourced genre? 2402:1980:256:DB71:ABD5:F9C:1EE1:BD00 (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I can, but I ignore random editing requests, especially from IPs in genre wars as they are usually socks of banned editors. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks are blockable?

Then who blocks you?

I correctly stated MGTOW is not on SPLC list https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map/by-ideology

and you say it is meat/sock puppetry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtcampbell baseball (talk • contribs) 12:37, May 7, 2019 (UTC)

Yes, personal attacks are a blockable offence. Please see WP:NPA for more information. If you feel my implying that there is likely meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry and/or off-wiki canvasing involved at Men Going Their Own Way is a personal attack, you will likely need to address the issue at WP:AN/I.

I would encourage you to both discuss the content issue on the article's talk page and discuss the dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You were wrong about Bubble Guppies

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Bubble_Guppies The user who edited the page was Horean, an admin that put it will be renewed. Told ya! You never listened to my advice BubbleGuppiesIsTheBest (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hornean is not an admin. Anonymous blogs are still not reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh ok I thought he was BubbleGuppiesIsTheBest (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Resolved

How are things going just wanted to drop by.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 20:59, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

Mission accomplished. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

miranda cosgrove edit

I think it's very unnecessary to have a citation for Cosgrove's birthday, as I've never seen an article do that before. So it just seems unprofessional to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AceAlen (talk • contribs) 11:29, May 15, 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability is one of the pillars of this project. Cosgrove's birth name and date of birth also fall under Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.

Birth dates are frequently challenged, especially in entertainment biographies. "All material...must be verifiable...and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." WP:V

ANY information in an article that is unsourced is subject to removal by any editor at any time. "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." WP:V

In any case, removing material from an article (such as your removal of the source) without explaining why in an edit summary leaves other editors wondering what you are doing and why. I typically revert first and ask questions later. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Blubbering

Hi, thanks for your removal of what you call "blubbering" from the various X-Men films. Just as a matter of interest, what do you mean by the term "blubbering" in this context? Thanks! Captainllama (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Not the best edit summary... "Blubbering" is uncontrollable talking. An editor who adds unnecessary info about a favorite star's nude scene in a film likely just burned off a bit of their excitation by "telling the world". Someone over the course of most of a day adding similar info over several films with an imagined story arc with the nudity becoming a defining character trait is likely beyond that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Three Laws are slavery.

So, basically you say, until criticism was published off-site it can not be referenced in Wikipedia. But, if it was published off-site, then it can be referenced in Wikipedia. Ok, I made an off-site copy: https://the-arioch.livejournal.com/90752.html So, now it can be linked in the main article, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.90.116.114 (talk • contribs) 04:46, May 24, 2019 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the articles' topics. Improvements to articles can be made through reference to independent reliable sources. Your blog entry is not a reliable source. Please see WP:IRS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Your requested explanation.

The information you have called "unsourced" that I added to Vulgar Display of Power is sourced in the article. dannymusiceditor ^oops 05:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I've even gone so far as to furhter bolster the genre with new sources. dannymusiceditor ^oops 05:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you nuts?

Your reversion and edit summary at What's Up, Doc? (1972 film). "Not a reliable source (fact checking would include proofreading) not a summary statement re film

1 John Simon is WP notable. He wrote theater and film criticism for over 40 years and has published at least 3 books on the former. Reverse Angle[2] is one of them. Since what I put in liked to Simon's WP article (which if you read you may have learned that one of What's up Doc's characters was a parody of Simon), your summary is simply unbelievable.

2 The source I cite is his book. Written by him. How does that fail WP:RS?

3 Fact checking? And by the way that's a word for word quote. I own a copy of Reverse Angle.

4 It is in the reception section of the article. Reception sections are for among other things, what was written about the film in question. John Simon is a published film critic just like Roger Ebert who is quoted in countless film articles.

You don't know what WP:RS means and have made approximately 150,000 edits here? I should expect this from you since you are the same nut who idiotically accused me of sockpuppetry[3]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Your new version, had it been made first, would have raised less concern: I would have chopped the bit about Streisand (including the grammatical error) and left the rest. By itself, the statement on her appearance sticks out like a sore thumb. It's about the critic not liking the way she looks and says nothing about the film. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That's how Simon writes, like it or dislike it. His picking on the appearance of actors or actresses (Besides Streisand, try Wallace Shawn, Liza Minelli, Melanie Griffith to name a few) is well known. Your mentions of fact checking, reliable sources and proofreading are way off base....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That a mainstream publication let "a aardvark" go is rather surprising. That a review of a film would wander afield into discussing the actress's appearance rather than the film is not surprising. That we would somehow pick this tidbit of nonsense as a summary of the whole review is inexplicable. It's like summarizing the New York Times coverage of the Camp David Accords by quoting a piece about the size of Carter's forehead. It's off-topic minutia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This is what she done to me on the Bubble Guppies Page File:SummerPHDV2.0thing.png BubbleGuppiesIsTheBest (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Image: File:SummerPHDV2.0thing.jpeg BubbleGuppiesIsTheBest (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)