User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

18th Street Gang

In the infobox under 18th Street gang, states Mexican Mafia as an ally. The rival of the Mexican Mafia is the Nuestra Familia, relevant citations provided in the corresponding article on Mexican Mafia. The infobox also lists Surenos as a rival, however, the Surenos is the affiliated street umbrella to the prison gang Mexican Mafia, also included in the corresponding article. Hoping to hear back from you. DA1 (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source directly stating that Nuestra Familia is a rival to the 18th Street gang, feel free to add the statement to the article with a citation to the relevant source. If, OTOH, your claim is that rivals of the Mexican Mafia are rivals of the 18th Street gang, do not add the claim as this is synthesis.

If sources in the article indicate that Surenos is a rival, it should be included in the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no source provided in the infobox stating Surenos as a rival, nor is there a section within the article discussing a rivalry with the Surenos. The 18th Street Gang is a part of the Surenos. Perhaps its best to take a few steps back and remove that (Surenos) as well for being an uncited addition? My edit shouldn't be the 'only' one being scrutinized. DA1 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Goldbergs (2013 TV series)

How do you propose we explain what the Jenkintown Posse is? To be fair, you should remove every other reference to the Jenkintown Posse on that list.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The addition I reverted was a simple, flat statement that he "is the leader of the Jenkintown Posse". For openers, the most recent episode had the narrator saying he was the leader "in his own mind". More to the point, suppose an article on Abraham Lincoln said that he was the leader of the Moorestown Mavericks. Is that informative in any way or is it useless without some kind of explanation as to what the Mavericks were and how he was the "leader"? In the present context, it seems to be a bit of in-universe trivia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you propose we explain what the Jenkintown Posse is, then, because it needs explanation in the list of other characters.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

^{Superscript text}

Frankly, I don't think the "Jenkintown Posse" needs to be in there at all. The JTP is Barry and his friends. At the moment, the article mentions the JTP three times. Each time it says "...one of Barry's best friends and a member of the Jenkintown Posse..." What would be lost by shortening this to "...one of Barry's best friends..."? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know why Barry's friends yelled "JTP!" until recently. This is why I think I needs to be explained somewhere.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a plot element. This detail is far beyond what would be in a summary of the core storyline. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

And where would we put it? I'm just saying this is something I would want to know.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

We don't put plot details that are beyond a summary of the core storyline anywhere. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not in an ideal world, or good or featured articles, but I think most articles are going against your wishes. And this is information that interests me.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: This is not a matter of my wishes. This is a matter of Wikipedia's guidelines and MOS. You seem to be saying that we would leave this out if this were a good or featured article. That is a very good reason to leave it out. If material in "most" articles goes against our guidelines and MOS, the articles should be corrected or the guidelines/MOS should be revised.

Yes, the information interests you. Wikipedia is not all things to all people. Someone who is interested in where a section of a film was originally going to be set (but ultimately wasn't) may be disappointed that we don't include it in the article. Someone who is interested in names for individual advertising characters (mentioned in passing in various print ads) will be disappointed that we don't include them. "I find it interesting" is neither a guideline nor part of our MOS. Instead, we give "only basic descriptions" to "summarize the core storyline" and "avoid minutiae" like this. The characters are his friends. "JTP" is in-universe minutiae. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Your wishes" means, in this case, your strict interpretation of MOS. I've always believed if the information interest me and seems good enough, especially if I find what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source, it's worth a try. Some people interpret the guidelines more strictly than others, and those that do I have found tend to have done this in good articles. Sometimes the information gets to stay. It took me a long time to even get this far, because for years I saw a source as a source and didn't get that these weren't acceptable sources.

Anyway, I think this is as far as we can go. I am a person who likes trivia, and you say it doesn't belong. I'm not sure I'll ever come around to you way of thinking, but where my edits are accepted, then I will be happy.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thomas and Friends (series 1)

Dirty Objects was paired with Thomas' Christmas Party, and Off the Rails was paired with Down the Mine when originally aired on ITV! (former pair aired on December 25, 1984, latter pair aired on January 8, 1985)
Source: Thomas and Friends Wikia
In the section labelled "Trivia", it clearly says "When first broadcast on CITV Dirty Objects was paired with Thomas's Christmas Party." YudsWiki2003 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In this edit, you changed dates in an article without an edit summary explaining why or citing a reliable source to support the new dates. This behavior is indistinguishable from several vandals who have been making random changes to dates in various kids' TV articles. (As a side note, user edited websites, such as wikia, are not reliable sources.)

Having received a final warning for the behavior, you went back to the article and did it again.

Whether your changes are correct or not, you will be blocked from editing if you continue to make changes to dates without citing sources and/or explaining your changes in edit summaries. You have been warned repeatedly and don't seem to be understanding the problem. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In response to this thread, YudsWiki2003 nominated my user and talk pages for deletion, stating an intention to "get revenge". YudsWiki2003 has been blocked from editing for 48 hours for personal attacks and disruption. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Wolf of Wall Street

Can i ask why did you remove my edit from the page since it was well-sourced?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.250.26.232 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, you are editing in defiance of a current block.[1] - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Val Vigoda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Long Story Short. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The Cat in the Hat (film)

Please review your reversion at The Cat in the Hat (film). "[T]he film was a disappointment at the box office grossed $134 million" is missing a verb (having), which is what I added and you reverted. General Ization ^Talk 01:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, "[T]he film [which] was a disappointment at the box office grossed $134 million" would work. General Ization ^Talk 01:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect you intended to revert the entire "disappointment" addition, which was the edit prior to mine. General Ization ^Talk 02:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. You are correct. I've made the change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sweeney Todd

You just maliciously deleted 30 hours of solid work that I'm currently updating with new research. You will notice there is no other Timeline for the events of Sweeney Todd on the entire internet. I alone am providing this. I have not slept in days. Put it back now please.Zxen3 (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Zxen3

I am sorry, however the material is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. First, the article Sweeney Todd is about the character as he appears in various works. Only the briefest summaries of the works would be appropriate here.

In the main article, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Wikipedia would provide a brief plot summary. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, extensive presentations like this are simply not what we do. While we do not have a specific guideline for musicals, our guideline for films is 400 to 700 words, depending on the complexity of the plot. (See MOS:PLOT.) In my opinion, this is a reasonable guideline for this work. Your addition was roughly 3,500 words long.

Your addition is available through the page history. I'd suggest your copy your work to a blog and/or see if there is another project elsewhere that would be interested in hosting it. Please keep in mind that when you entered the text here you irrevocably released your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL (in other words, if you do post it elsewhere, you cannot claim copyright). - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Non-minor "minor" edit, including removal of content

Hi SummerPhDv2.0. The removed quote was featured later in the same article already. I certainly understand that removal of content in a way that changes the meaning does not constitute a minor edit, but this was a removal of repeated content, so the meaning of the article is not really changed. There's no need for such a quote to be featured twice.

I don't have any particular stake in that article, and if you strongly care about that quote being kept in twice I'll leave it be. But I assume the issue was just because you saw that I had removed content in an edit flagged as "minor", and didn't see that that content was repeated elsewhere in the article and thus redundant, which is totally understandable - I do see how that would seem a strange and non-minor edit. In future I'll state in my edit summary when removal of content is because it was repeated elsewhere, so the same misunderstanding does not occur again. BreakfastJr (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It (character)

 Self-trout for goofing up that revert. Thanks. Your revert was the one I had intended. Murph9000 (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So you're human. No need to break out the fish. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, dialogue?

As it says "hi SummerPhDv2.0", I made some changes again to Stand by Me (song), and had a rave on the talk page. I was wondering if you felt like saying anything, critiquing, whatnot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunswicknic (talk • contribs) 13:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

re: U.B.N

Hello SummerPhDv2.0 - If you had looked at the previous revisions you would have noticed that I did not change the article. I merely reverted it back to the correct version. Someone else had changed the information on the page confusing United Blood Nation and West Coast Bloods. I have once again removed the incorrect Wiki and reverted it back to the original version. Please see revision history before you removed the correct information and revert back to the incorrect version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.84.165.4 (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Several problems are showing up here at once, re your edits to United Blood Nation. First, I reverted your edit because it made substantial changes to the material in the article without explanation of any kind. Without an edit summary, there is no way to tell what you are doing without searching the edit history, checking sources, etc. Please use edit summaries.

The changes you made had two obvious problems. You removed sources (without explanation) and replaced the text that was there with material that is clearly copied from somewhere. Knowing the text is copied, but not knowing where it was copied from usually is a sign of a copyright violation. Do not copy-paste text.

You are saying that you are restoring a previous "clean" version, but I can't seem to nail down when this version existed. The version you have there now makes several major changes to the article from the version I reverted, including changing the founding date, adding unsourced info and removing another Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps if you would go back and look at the revision history you would see what I'm referring to. Please, PLEASE stop reverting back to incorrect info. Even if you would do ONE SINGLE google search on the differences between UBN and West Coast Bloods you'd see that you keep reverting to factually incorrect information. As for copy-pasting, I copy-pasted from the previously correct Wiki history. IF you would pay attention to the the revision log instead of merely coping and pasting the previous incorrect entries you'd see the mistakes you continually make.

There is no copy right infringement. Someone went into the wiki put in incorrect information, changing the UBN entry to information relating to the West Coast Bloods and you refuse to even take a second to do a bit of research before changing it back. You are doing a disservice to the public by not fact checking anything before changing entries. :IntelAnnie:— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:6bc7:b900::4 (talk • contribs) 10:01, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

1) Please sign your additions to talk pages by ~~~~ at the end of your posts. Also, please consider registering an account. It makes it much easier to communicate with you and allows you to easily track changes being made to pages you have been working on.

2) When you boldly make an edit and another editor reverts your change, it is time to discuss the issue, not simply restore your change and say that you are right. That will not resolve the issue. We call this the bold, revert, discuss cycle.

3) Yes, I know you have said that you are copying the "correct" info from Wikpedia's history. However, as you have entered it, you have not given correct attribution to the material you are trying to restore. Additionally, you have not given any indication of where the incorrect changes were made. Other editors cannot be expected to dig through the article's history and/or search the web in an effort ot substantiate material you added. I have asked you to give the date/time of the version you feel was the last correct version. By doing so, I will be able to see what you are changing and why. This article (along with many other gang articles) is subject to a considerable amount of vandalism and unsourced changes. People with strong opinions about the gang -- for and against -- change the number of members, dates, ethnic make up, etc. Additionally, we get a lot of "street" information: someone heard something somewhere, assumes it is true and adds it to the article. Wikipedia cannot (and will not) accept changes just because some anonymous person on the Internet (you, me or anyone else) says it is true. Yes, you are trying to correct the entry. Great. If you do it the right way, no one will be able to revert your changes. If you continue to do it the wrong way, you will continue to be reverted. I've seen this taken to absurd extremes -- people insisting that they are right, refusing to provide attribution/cite sources/explain what they are doin -- leading to people being blocked from editing, the article locked and, much later, someone making the same change, with attribution and sources, with no problems.

Please point to the version you are saying is correct and I will explain how you can revert to it. Do NOT copy and paste the text. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You've been reverting changes for months. Other people have been correcting the information. You keep changing it to reflect information that is only for the West Coast Bloods and NOT for United Blood Nation. They are TWO totally different things. Take a look at the revision log. ANY of the original wiki entries. I have also repeatedly added references and links back to the references and you keep deleting them. Why don't you try actually reading a link or two that's been provided instead of continually putting up the wrong information? What you're doing is considered to be vandalism. And you're propagating misinformation. You're the reason people keep making changes to the UBN wiki page.

And I've signed my name each and every post I've made and you delete it from the talk thread.  :::::INTELANNIE:::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.84.165.4 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not remove anything from your posts. With this edit, I added code so that your ":IntelAnnie:" would show that way. As it was at the beginning of a line, our software interprets the first colon as a tab, so it showed as " IntelAnnie:".

Please note this is not your signature. ANYONE can add ":IntelAnnie:", ":::::INTELANNIE::::", "GangIntelAna" or any other variation you invent to a post. The only way to have a signature is to register an account. With an account, every time you visit Wikipedia, you would be shown a list of changes to articles you've been working on and talk page comments (like this one) directed to you. It does not reveal your personal information. In fact, it helps hide it. With an account, no one can tell where you are editing from. Without an account, anyone can easily tell where you are editing from right now. If you continue to edit without an account, you can expect the system to continue adding a default signature for you, identifying you by the IP address you are editing through at NCREN or the one you used before with Time Warner Cable.

Unexplained edits, edits that are obviously copy-pastes, etc. are frequently reverted. No, editors cannot be expected to carefully study and research your edits. If there is a good reason for your change, it is your responsibility to make that clear. The reason for this is simple: Wikipedia has vandals. We have vandals who like to change dates in articles at random. We have vandals who like to dream up forthcoming movies and TV shows and add them to articles. We have vandals who create articles on entirely fictional 17th century wars. We have vandals who want to make one particular gang a lot smaller than it is and another one much larger.

In additions to vandals, we have editors who simply do not know what they are doing. In your case, it is obvious you copied text from somewhere. If it was from somewhere other than Wikipedia, it is likely a copyright violation and must be removed. If it is from an earlier version of this article, we need to show which version you reverted to for legal reasons (your edits have not done so). If you are copying from a different Wikipedia article, again, we cannot simply copy-paste that text.

I have asked you to indicate the specific version of the article you are reverting to (give the date and time) and I will help you restore it. Then I will examine your claim. No, I will not simply "take your word for it", nor will I research the entire article to determine if what you are restoring/adding is correct.

Failing that, I have begun a discussion on the article's talk page. If you are unwilling or unable to tell me which version you are reverting to, I intend to tear the article apart, taking the sources that have been cited at various times, checking to see if they are reliable, ditching and bad sources, rebuild the infobox based on the remaining sources and replace the body of the article with a prose version of that same information.

For now, as I am unable to verify where your changes came from (and you haven't explained), I am reverting your edits again. Feel free to tell me which version (by date and time) you are trying to revert to and/or discuss the issue on the article's talk page. If, OTOH, you continue to revert to your preferred version without explaining, the article will be locked while I work on it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

List of tomboys in fiction

You undo my tomboy edit. What is reliable source for you, what is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioLightZ (talk • contribs) 16:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

(Reverted good faith edits by RadioLightZ (talk): Not in source cited (and likely not a reliable source). (TW)) I didnt understand what you want and why you undoing my addition to tomboy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioLightZ (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There were two problems with your source:

The source does not directly say the character is a tomboy. That means you cannot use it to say that the character is a tomboy.

The source seems to be user edited. That means it is not "reliable" and you cannot use it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

https://www.animecharactersdatabase.com/tags.php?id=612 is a reliable for you, or again not? listen, just watch "Cowboy Bebop" anime and see that Ed obviously a tomboy. sample - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL5L0RZFXUw — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioLightZ (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This is another user edited site.[2]

Whether or not I would say the character is a tomboy is immaterial. Entries must cite a reliable source saying they are a tomboy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

1.What is not edited sites. Give me list of examples 2. So at your opinion Edward looks and acting like a normal girl? And Edward is suitable name for a female? So she is not tomboy?

1) User-edited sites cannot be used as sources. A "user-edited" site is one where anyone reading the site can edit it. I cannot provide you with a list of reliable sources. WP:IRS explains how to tell if a source is reliable. If you are unable to understand WP:IRS, it is possible that your English isn't good enough to edit the English Wikipedia.

2) Your and my opinion of whether or not Edward is a tomboy has nothing to do with whether or not we can include her on the list. We need an independent reliable source that says she is a tomboy. This is explained at WP:V. If you are unable to understand WP:V, it is possible that your English isn't good enough to edit the English Wikipedia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Political Correctness - Would this source be acceptable for third party coverage of the PC discussion in the art world?

Hi Summer,

I am back at WP after a lengthy absence and was wondering if this source would be acceptable in regards to our earlier discussion over at Political Correctness. Thank you! 2602:301:772D:62D0:B9A9:D15D:E78D:EB49 (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

As you are discussing article content, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page so that any other interested editors may participate and/or follow the discussion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I pinged you over there... 2602:301:772D:62D0:B9A9:D15D:E78D:EB49 (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Love Light in Flight

So, what's the next move for that article?Mrakd002.302 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said, the only problems I see are a lack of sources and lack of depth.

What are the problems you see? - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't lost control

Hi. Why remove the genre of "She's Lost Control" as being post punk? Check the genre of the album or even "New Dawn Fades". Want a reference there? Regards.

I just don't particularly want to discuss it esp. given the lyrical content, I will if you wish. But I feel the overall album consensus should rise above any canopy otherwise. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Your will need either:

*a reliable source saying the song is post-punk or

*a consensus on the talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll go for it. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Blanking material

Per this, there is no reason to just blank things on account of being unsourced, and in fact, it can be viewed as bitey and pointy. You can tag with {{cn}} or {{refimprove}}, which is more appropriate. The reasons for immediate blanking are BLP violations or legitimate factual controversy. Other material can be removed, but doesn't have to be. Blanking a list that can be verified makes more work for others, as unless we can drop everything right now, intervening edits may make it challenging to resurrect the material, and then you've made more work for everyone else. The article in question is monitored by editors who have been around here a long time, but we are busy people and things get worked on in their own time. You are welcome to initiate an article improvement discussion at the talkpage. Better yet, you are also welcome to add sources yourself. Montanabw^(talk) 22:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I certainly did not bite any newcomers there, nor am I disrupting the project to make a point. These lists tend to sprout up in every article on every tiny town that has an editor connected to it. We get notable residents who someone heard once got gas there, movies and TV shows filmed there (because someone is certain that one scene looked a lot like Tom's Shoe Store on Main St.) and other such unsourced "content". No, I don't have to delete the list as part of policy, but I am certainly allowed to. Additionally, I am not taking on new work assignments from other editors at present. Yes, I could ask for sources, let it sit for a year and, gosh, no one bothered to look up the ones that were there and now there are a few more. I could then remove the old ones and let the new ones sit for a year while the old ones are restored and a few more pop up, all while fighting back the few sources that are added while repeatedly explaining that IMDb, Stripteasepedia and GreatFallsTalks.com's message board are not reliable sources.

No thanks. If you would like to keep them, the article's talk page explains Wikipedia's core policy on this. I'm sure sourcing that 2009 film in post production was next up on someone's to do list.

If you'd like to adopt a list somewhere, add {{cn}} tags to new entries as they are added, allow however much time you feel is appropriate, then accept those that don't get sourced (that would be all of them) as a personal assignment for you to research, feel free. I've found that killing the unsourced, unverified list -- which is fully consistent with policy -- and reverting future additions with consensus talk page warnings eventually brings in sourced, stable additions. While unsourced additions and fake sources still show up at List of Berklee College of Music alumni, the list has grown, with sources, in the two years since I killed half the list for being unsourced.

If you believe this article should somehow be exempt from WP:V, I invite you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, first off, Great Falls was at one time the largest city in Montana, still is the third-largest city in Montana, supports an Air Force base and is a major commercial center for northern Montana and southern Alberta. So it is not "Smallville" and your insulting, snarky condescending tone is uncivil in the extreme (to say nothing of expressing bigotry against places that aren't major metro areas). Second, I've been on WP for 11 years, and your contribs indicate you have only been here for two, so, really, do not quote policy at me. Third, to show good faith, it is far more appropriate to add appropriate tags such as {{dubious}} if you think a statement is wrong, or {{Unreliable source}} where there was an IMDb problem. At the talkpage, I also provided you a simple source, so you can choose to waste bandwidth being snarky or you can fix the problem and add a couple sources; if this means a couple films get tossed, that's fine. But I have 5,000 articles on my watchlist and other priorities at the moment, so it would be appropriate for you to...

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Montanabw^(talk) 00:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Great Falls averages 400 page visits a day. Smallville, which does not exist, gets about 2,600. If I marked a fact there as needing a source, I'd bet it would get a source. A film that apparently was in post-production when it was added to Great Falls 8 years ago I would expect to get zero attention. I realize you are too busy to bother with this, so it is certainly easier to tell me to do it. WP:SOFIXIT? Yeah, "Be bold can be explained in three words: 'Go for it'." I went for it. Apparently you didn't really want that.

I see another editor has WP:SOFIXedIT. Unless you have anything else to accuse me of, I think we're on to the article's talk page now. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

W-e-e-e-lll...! Yes-- I did an initial patch, and then the other editor who curates that article did a more thorough job. So.... An apology from you for doing a driveby blanking of the section and then doubling down with condescension and rudeness would be nice, though I don't anticipate it happening. I still fail to understand why you chose to go after this particular article -- was it a random pick or what? I wish you'd just understand the burden you create -- While there are many ways to contribute to wikipedia, people who seldom create content need to have a bit more consideration for those of us who do. I've only created about 250 articles, but I also maintain a 5000-article watchlist. Have you ever taken an article to GAN or FAC? I ask that sincerely because I don't know if you understand how hard it is to do content work -- WE KNOW there are problems all across WP but only so much time to fix them and SO FEW PEOPLE to fix them -- trust me, everybody complains, but can they be arsed to do any actual content work? No. It's The Little Red Hen stuff like this that makes good editors want to quit. So even if you don't feel inclined to behave with any grace to me, please think about ways you can be part of the solution next time. Montanabw^(talk) 08:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You removed material as unsourced. One month later, I removed material as unsourced.

You'll have to forgive my condescension and rudeness. I'm a "jerk", "lazy", "rude" and a "bigot".

I did not create a burden. I created a WP:BURDEN, one which you chose to ignore. You've created more articles than I have. That's swell.

I am terribly sorry that my work does not meet your standards. Geeze, there I go with my condescension, rudeness, lack of grace, bigotry and all the rest. I'm just part of the problem.

Unlike you, I haven't done a goddamned thing to improve the project in my 11 years here. All I have done is remove information. 99.9% of that material was valuable information. The remaining 0.1% is harmless. I should either buck up and become a mini-you or dig a hole, climb in and pull the dirt on top of myself. That's for sharing.

Incidentally:

===Apollos University===

{{main|Apollos_University}}

Great Falls is also home to [[Apollos University]], a private university founded in 2004 that relocated from California to downtown Great Falls in 2016. Apollos offers online degree offerings ranging from associates and undergraduate programs through to the doctorate in business administration and information technology.

Granted, it's not a non-notable B-movie filmed, in part, near Great Falls... - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, we can discuss this with a bit more rationality. Looking at your comments, I am concerned you are taking my legitimate criticisms (that you were rude to just blank a whole section without attempting to determine if any of the content was legitimate or not) and exaggerating what I said to make it appear that my criticisms are far more extreme than they are. Looking at your public userpage, it is also clear that you have gotten attacked a lot by other people, so perhaps your reaction is at least understandable if you have been besieged by internet trolls, and there are a lot of those. However, I am not one of them. I am an experienced editor who works on content. I am also an editor who gets very tired of people who point out problems but will not contribute solutions other than to tell me that I should do all the work. Montanabw^(talk) 02:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

So, as I said at Magnolia677s talkpage and the article talkpage, we can mutually acknowledge that the problem has been fixed, and, sadly, the bulk of the work was not completed by either of us. We could settle this spat pretty simply with some mutual ownership of where we each went off the rails followed by mutual apology. How about you examine 1) the parameters of your apparent bias against rural and western America (I interpreted your comments as implying that nothing notable could possibly be filmed there -- and if that was your intent, it was really, really offensive, particularly given the sourced content Tim1965 and I verified) and examine 2) why you felt it was OK to blank what you hadn't reviewed (Your example of me dumping a new edit with a very clear WP:NOADS violation was apples and oranges compared to a review of a laundry list that clearly had degraded over the years, but was about 60%-70% salvagable))? In turn, I will examine why I was so easily triggered by your actions and responded with such intensity. Would that be reasonable? Montanabw^(talk) 02:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You have repeatedly called me a jerk, rude and a lot more for removing unsourced material. You have repeatedly said that I did so without explanation. Now you are asking me to apologize to you while explaining that, gosh, you're just tired of people like me. Oh, and now "Unsourced" means "removed what I think is advertising". As for me supposedly telling you that you should "do all the work", please review the edit history to see which one of us said, "do the work". Yes, in restoring unsourced material that was challenged, the WP:BURDEN is yours. Even though you are busy, busy, busy; the burden is yours. Even though you want me to leave the material there and tag it, the burden is yours. Even though you want me to research a list of non-notable films, the burden is yours. That is not me being rude, a jerk, a bigot or anything else you have repeatedly called me, that is policy. You don't have to like it, but you can't demand that I follow what you might wish were policy and ignore what is policy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content removal guidelines clearly state "If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal." No discussion from anyone occurred on the Talk page until after several back and forth edits. Furthermore, the guidelines assert "When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed." It seems unreasonable to assume that no sources for the unverified content could be found (especially that for the major-studio motion pictures, or films with Wikipedia articles). The information should have been retained, with some for of tagging and a Talk Page discussion. The guidelines specifically ask editors "If you think a source can be found, but you do not wish to supply one yourself, you can add the template {{fact}} ({{cn}} will also work) after the statement, which will add [citation needed]. This will encourage someone, often the editor who initially added the statement, to add a citation for the information." If the information is questionable (but not obviously so) under WP:PROMOTION, then removal would also be inappropriate. The guidelines ask for a Talk Page discussion and tagging in borderline cases. So whether "I or you or anyone else" feels "every rinky-dink town in America has a list like this" (sic) is irrelevant; whether "you or I or anyone else" does not think an editor is paying attention to the Great Falls page is irrelevant. Wikipedia's policy is to encourage discussion and tagging before removal. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content removal is an essay, not a guideline, much less a policy. As it says, "This page is an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." What it says you "can" do is someone's opinion of what you can do. You have changed that opinion of what can be done to a policy of what must be done.

WP:V is a core policy. It states, unequivocally, that any editor may remove unsourced material at any time. It further states that unsourced material should not be restored without an inline citation. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution....Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." (bolding in the original) Any editor may remove unsourced material at any time. Anyone who wishes to restore it must provide an inline source.

The material was unsourced. I removed it because it was unsourced. I made it clear that was why I removed it. Restoring the material without inline sources was against policy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I shall try one last time to get through to you about policy interpretation. The policy does not mandate removal of everything unsourced or require removal solely because something unsourced (in which case, we'd delete 3/4 of the encyclopedia, I fear) WP:V's standard is "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (emphasis added). In other words, you certainly may "challenge" material, if it's an immediate problem, it can be removed immediately but blanking just for being unsourced is not mandated save for limited circumstances (such as BLP violations, hoaxes and other specific reasons). On the rest, there is WP:NODEADLINE. Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not stated that unsourced material must be removed, only that policy allows me to do so. You restored the material without an inline source. That action was in violation of policy: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

Did I have to remove the material? No. Was there anything wrong with me removing unsourced material? Also no. Was there anything wrong with you restoring the unsourced material without an inline cite? Yes.

I could have done something different. You should have done something different. That's policy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

We shall have to agree to disagree. Also, can't hurt to cite the rest of the policy to provide context; cherry-picking doesn't strengthen your argument... " ...In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] ... If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." I do wish you'd take your own advice at #10 at the top of this page and take it to heart. Montanabw^(talk) 02:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not "cherry picking", you are assuming I did not consider (and dismiss) tagging the material. That I am encouraged to (find and) provide a cite is not an imperative. You should not have restored the material without inline cites. That is policy.

The only arguments here are 1) what you wish I had not done 2) what policy says you should not have done. I don't disagree that you wanted me to do something else. Do you disagree that you should not have restored the material without an inline cite and attacked me personally? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thompson Twins discography

Regarding the edit on the Thompson Twins discography (Greatest Hits, 1996): the album was released in 1990 and was the only compilation of their's on the Stylus label. Source: official charts website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.153.127 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your change to the year because you did not provide an edit summary explaining your change.

As it turns out, our article on the album in question, Greatest Hits (Thompson Twins album) and Amazon both say it came out in 1996.[3] - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate all your input

For the record I am not some Harvard yard, ivory-tower braniac. I dropped out of junior college (or rather was kicked out for no reason for breaking a bunch of windows). Anyway, I realize I might seem daft to you, but I assure you I am trying my best. 2602:301:772D:62D0:90B8:3F33:32DF:5308 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you are daft any more than I think breaking a bunch of windows is not a reason. That doesn't mean I think your suggested addition is necessarily an improvement or that breaking windows is a good reason. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

°°^°° Suicide Squad Edit °°^°°

Hi,

The edit was not intentional; it was caused by technical difficulties. I don't intend to edit SQUAT on Wikipedia anymore. BlbAtp (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sleepy Hollow

Some unknown person removed Sleepy Hollow from the List of superhero television series, saying it doesn't call the main character a superhero. However, the source, http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/sleepy-hollow/240688/sleepy-hollow-and-the-abyss-gazes-back-review, refers to the two main characters as "biblical superheroes." What do you think?Sparkles32 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

If the other editor hasn't responded to your comment on the talk page in a couple of days, restore it. If they remove it again without explanation on the talk page, I think you're on the right side of this. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Walt Disney World Railroad Problems

Greetings. I'd just like to inform you that the unregistered South Carolina poster that has disruptively edited the Walt Disney World Railroad article in the past is back (the one whose edits led to the entire content of the article being deleted last year). He has been sourcing his edits now, which is a welcome change, but he still doesn't know what the difference between important and unimportant information is and his grammar is still worse than a 5th grader. I have allowed him to make edits in the hope that he would eventually start editing correctly, but he does not respond to my suggestions about improving his edits, and I have basically been babysitting him and reviewing all of his countless edits for the past several weeks. Even if the edits are acceptable, I still have to spell check and grammar check every edit, which is very cumbersome and time-consuming. I have nominated the article for semi-protection (for the fourth time) here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Walt Disney World Railroad. The person's current non-mobile IP is here: 98.25.195.28, but he mainly uses mobile IPs now, which makes it an even bigger pain. Just thought I'd keep you in the loop. Jackdude101 (Talk) 05:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: I was unable to convince the Admin who responded to the above request to semi-protect the article, so I just resubmitted it with more details included about the problem (the same link above will take you to it). If you have a moment, briefly commenting on that protection request about your shared experiences with this person will increase the chances of it being implemented, and hopefully permanently this time. Jackdude101 (Talk) 01:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Lyrick Studios

Hello. I'm not sure why my Lyrick Studios edit was reverted, since the original date didn't have a citation either. I want to say Lyrick was established in either 1994 or 1995, but I cannot find anywhere on the Internet that verifies that. The article itself says it was established in 1994. I do know for sure the date of 1992 is incorrect, since it's predecessor (The Lyons Group) was still a division of DLM, Inc (according to the credits of Season 1 Barney episodes). By 1995, Lyons became a division of Lyrick under the name "Lyons Partnership L.P". NBA2030 (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

For whatever reason, we have lots of changes to dates in articles related to kids' media without references to back up the change or explanation of any kind (edit summary or talk page). Maybe the change was right. Maybe the original was right. Maybe they're both wrong.

So what's wrong with changing the unsourced info that you say you think is wrong for other information that you say you think might be right? Well, it didn't improve the situation. Yes, you think it did, but some of the editors making these changes are clearly vandals. Any editor (including the vandals) would (under your theory) be free to make whatever changes they want.

Sourced info would end that. Unsourced changes only perpetuates it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Seriously?

Not reliable? Amazon is reliable. --ACase0000 (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. Credits listed at Amazon are from IMDb (which is not reliable for unreleased/forthcoming productions). The release date given on Amazon has no reasonable connection to the theatrical release date. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that is the case. Additionaly, Thomas films are never released theatrically in the USA (only on DVD), only in Japan, the UK and Australia. --ACase0000 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:Citing IMDb.

I don't care where it is released theatrically, the Amazon cite would only show when Amazon expects to have physical media for sale. As we have reason to believe there will be a token theatrical release first, that is not a release date.

The main issue here is that the article fails WP:NFILM. To remain, we need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources and confirmation from those sources that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process. We do not have that. I should probably take it to AfD and/or redirect it, but unsourced additions to this page are a handy way of finding editors who are adding unsourced material elsewhere. For the moment, I'm content to leave the article up and keep yanking out all of the unsourced additions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I am sorry I bothered you. --ACase0000 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Also I think the List of Thomas & Friends railway engines needs to be protected again. What do you think? --ACase0000 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Rocket Power Episodes

How would I add sources to List of Rocket Power Episodes? Would I get my edits back? It took me over an hour to do! Please write back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandnic (talk • contribs) 20:53, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

If you click the "History" tab at the top of the article's page, you will find all of your changes listed. For help citing a source, please see WP:CITE. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

A Guinness for you!

"I guess boys will be boys, except when you don't like the idea that some of the virtual tantrums are from children." LOL! Cheers! DonQuixote (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

LOL,theres isnt any reliable source sorry

Hey dude,here's the guy that edited the Space Invaders page Yeah,i don't have a reliable source for the info that i wrote,and yeah, no one will belive me if I don't justify where i got the information;so I just wanted to ask,Would it stay if I just don't place the name of this presountous record beater acquainted of the creator guy? (I know that still it smells fishy in here) I would categorise it as "urban legend" or "popular belief" just like other pages Im not affirming that its true although i belive so Thank you BLackySensei BlackySensei (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

BlackySensei has been indefinitely blocked.

(The answer would have been no.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

File:Wonder Woman statue at Athens Metro Mall.jpg	for defending the...
	...Wonder Woman article. Agree with your thoughts on its talkpage. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have any thoughts for the discussion there, Shearonink, they would be helpful. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what that particular editor is actually looking to change or what their exact objection is, but sure - I'll think on it and post some thoughts. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, at this point I give up and am stepping away from the Alamo Drafthouse controversy wording - I think my brain is getting a Wiki-headache. Sorry. Shearonink (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Grace j

an article in VIBE magazine says it? but, i don’t see no citations or nothin. Not even in MLA format... I have a screenshot of the article doe... Gheeoe (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

g Jones article in VIBE says it well you need to a citations? maybe MLA or not but WP:CITE... we don't want no article screenshot it no reliability... - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Adeva (grace j)

I know it’s March 1994, page 74, on Vibe Magazine. Gheeoe (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I now sleep at night it adeva g jones on VIBE! - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop It

Stop the edit warring and any other form of disruptive editing. Sort out your differences with Revrant civilly or at ANI. But if there is any more edit warring I will block both of you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a BLP issue, normally exempt from 3RR. The contentious claim was "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I warned the other editor and asked them to discuss the issue at the BLP noticeboard. After a final warning, I reported the other editor at ANV. Rejected there, I have now taken the issue to ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revrant_and_BLP_issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. ANI is where this belongs for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)