User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 22

Targeted reversions

You clearly don’t wish to be seen as “vindictive” and yet you’ve continued to engage in a targeted reversion campaign against my edits, the majority of which have been correctly sourced in the body of the article (as you did here, here, and here). Perhaps if you stopped disruptively undoing changes without first scanning the article, not reviewing the validity of the edit, and not doing any subsequent work to improve the page (like sourcing currently unsourced information or removing all unsourced information), you wouldn’t give off the impression of petty knee-jerk reaction against indivual editors. I cordially invite you to make yourself useful on this wonderful website. There are plenty of popular pages on Wikipedia sorely lacking in cited research. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

When you add, change or remove material from articles, it is your responsibility to explain why. In some cases, that will involve adding a reliable source. In other cases, you may need to indicate where the source is already cited or why the change is correct. It is not my job to look at your edit and guess where you might have come up with the information, why you are removing information or where a source might be found.

In your post-block reverts, you used edit summaries to explain. Those explanations make sense. To the extent that you discuss issues and continue to use edit summaries, that is one problem solved.

Next up is personal attacks. Please note you have already received a final warning on your talk page. Your comment above contains personal attacks. I encourage you to remove them. Please discuss content, not editors. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Each of those pages included unexplained edits by other users, all of whom you failed to revert, except for me of course. Stop referencing bookish Wikipedia policies to avoid addressing your bad hands-off editing practices, which therefore clearly do target individual editors rather than the content of edits. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you would have preferred that when reviewing your edits I did not search for the verification you failed to provide. That I did not review every edit on every article does not address you not getting the point: If you make a change to an article, it is your burden to show that the change is verifiable. I have suggested that citing sources and/or using edit summaries may lead to better results for you (fewer warnings, less conflict, no addition blocks) in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. What you do with that suggestion is your decision. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Issue of non-notable awards for Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)

As you probably know that the awards in Beauty and the Beast (2017 film), mostly the film critic organizations in which i stated that these awards are notable and its significance can be traced to the sources that I've linked in the Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) talk page. Within the list in which the awards and nominations in every category were being bestowed on the film and again, i'm going list down the film critic organizations' awards that were given separately.

repeated list

Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association Best Motion Capture Performance - nominated Best Production Design - nominated San Diego Film Critics Society Best Production Design - nominated Best Visual Effects - runner-up Best Costume Design - won Best Use of Music - nominated Chicago Film Critics Association Best Art Direction - nominated St. Louis Film Critics Association Best Production Design - nominated Best Visual Effects - nominated Women Film Critics Circle Best Family Film - nominated Seattle Film Critics Society Best Costume Design - nominated Houston Film Critics Society Best Original Song - nominated

You see, these were the awards and nominations of the categories from every film critics organizations in which the film was being mentioned with and the sources that were being provided in the Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) talk page had its major significance basing on the categories that this film is indicated and with the sources to serve as an evidence to reinstated it back to the accolade section. Saiph121 (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The repeatedly demonstrated consensus is not to include these. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You clearly can't understand what i am really saying, those awards from the film critic organizations that have repeatedly trying to include these back to the accolades are proven as an notable awards and have Wikipedia articles. Even the Golden Trailer Awards, Casting Society of America Awards, and the Visual Effects Society Awards are also considered notable and have Wikipedia articles. It seems that your clear goal was not include awards from film critic organizations and guilds in which you consider them as non-notable awards. Saiph121 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This: [[Casting Society of America|Casting Society of America Awards]] shows that the Casting Society of America has an article. The Casting Society of America Awards does not. Visual Effects Society Awards redirects to Visual Effects Society. The society is notable and has an article. The award is not notable and does not have an article.

The Golden Trailer Awards has an article and I likely should have discussed it first. That said, there is no indication that anyone is reporting about the awards. The source for this award was an archived copy of a forum posting. Forum postings fall under WP:SPS and are not reliable sources. If you would like to restore the nomination, you will need an independent reliable source for the nomination.

ALL of the organizations you listed in the collapsed list above are notable and have articles. NONE of the awards are notable. The consensus is to not include them. You keep challenging this. There is nothing to challenge. You do not seem to understand that the WP:CONSENSUS determines virtually everything at Wikipedia. If you edit against the consensus, you will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This is just the proof that you're trying to stripped off any notable awards of Beauty and the Beast accolades' section either from film critic organizations or guilds in order to reduce the number of awards that the film has earned as well making the disadvantage of this film to other films that have awards from film critic organizations and guilds being listed. In fact, I've been repeatedly stating my reasons all over again that these awards are absolutely notable and I'm only saying that the awards that do not have Wikipedia articles should not be included. Clearly, this consensus that states of all awards particularly from the film critic organizations and guilds even that have Wikipedia articles are all considered as non-notable awards and should not be included, which is totally incorrect and biased. Since you really started this dispute by recklessly interfering and excessively removing these awards that have importance and notability of this film, this statement will treat this dispute as a serious matter and I'm not going to make an reversion of the edit to its original form until this dispute is resolved. Saiph121 (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The consensus says they do not belong in articles. I removed them from Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) and have begun removing them from other articles (starting with Wonder Woman). If you restore them without a new consensus, you will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There will no intention of mine to restore these disputed awards (including guild awards) unless you formed a new consensus to allow the inclusion of these awards that only have Wikipedia articles as this type of rule have been applied in one notable article, List of accolades received by The Shape of Water (film) as this current consensus was totally incorrect and biased. Saiph121 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not know what you are trying to say. Your English is too garbled. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say that I'm not going to restore these awards (including guild awards) unless you're going to form a new consensus to allow the inclusion of these awards that only have Wikipedia articles. This rule was applied in one notable article (List of accolades received by The Shape of Water (film)). Saiph121 (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:SummerPhDv2.0 - It didn't take long at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Saiph121 - If you don't pay attention to admonitions on your own talk page and at noticeboards, maybe you will pay attention at another user's talk page. There is a consensus, and continuing to edit against it is tendentious, and, although the use of dispute resolution mechanisms is normally encouraged, using them in order to filibuster is deprecated. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't the movie industry create a plethora of awards anyway just in order to sell movies (in all forms, whether tickets or views or disks)? Isn't that another reason to limit the amount of coverage that we provide to non-notable awards that are simply promotion? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Your reports to AIV

You seem to do a fair amount of anti-vandal patrol, particularly on media-related list articles. I've come across a number of your reports, and taken action on a fair few of them. However, I've become increasingly concerned that the lack of precision in your warnings and reports is making them harder to deal with; in particular, you use the term "vandalism" far too liberally. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. When a user who is repeatedly adding unsourced content receives a vandalism warning, it is unlikely to make them stop their behavior, because from their point of view, they are correct. Furthermore, if I see a report at AIV in which the user has been adding unsourced content but has been only warned for vandalism, I am reluctant to block the user. A block is meant to be preventive, not punitive; it is also an extreme measure. If a user has been warned about a specific behavior, and repeats exactly that type of behavior, a block is entirely justified, and far less troublesome to execute. So, while I appreciate that it may seem like a waste of time to spend more than minimal effort on disruptive editors, I ask that you be a little more careful with your warnings and reports in the future. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Vegan nutrition

Hi Summer,

In my edit, I didn't just replace two names with the word "many". That would indeed be an edit worth reverting. What my edit actually did was to add a third association, with reference. Your revert deleted these two additions. Your revert also added a duplicate of the paragraph that followed.

I also removed some repetition. I'm guessing that when I removed one duplicate name and added one new name, you didn't notice that the addition was different to what was removed. And easy mistake.

Is three associations enough to use the word "many"? I'm pretty sure that with a little effort either of us could find a few more to bulk up the numbers.

Great floors (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

"Many" is a slippery word. No matter how many I find, saying "Many people consider My Little Pony - The movie to be the best film of 2017" would be synthesis.

For this reason, Coconut oil does not say "Due to its high levels of saturated fat, many governmental organizations advise that coconut oil consumption should be limited or avoided."

"The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly known as the American Dietetic Association) and the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada state..." is a verifiable, factual claim. "Many national associations of dietitians state..." is an opinion: someone else might say "several", "some" or "a few". - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but when removing the word "many", there was no reason to delete the information and the reference that I added :-) Ballena has fixed it now anyway. Great floors (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Brother and cousin

re special:diff/824368513 I figure I would just fact tag it in case some older episodes might've called him a cousin and then later called him a brother.

It IS possible but not something you'd normally see in a kid's cartoon (at least not intentionally). A sibling is someone who has a parent who is your parent, while a cousin is someone who has a parent who is your aunt or uncle...

So if someone's father+aunt or mother+uncle produced offspring, that offspring would be both your sibling and your cousin.

There's a couple examples of this in "The Ordinary, Extraordinary Botsfords" for Todd Ming and Violet Heaslip, if you check their family trees. In both cases their parents share the same mom+dad in the illustration. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, remarriages, step-families, consanguineous parents and other situations can lead to complicated relationship packages. In a kids' cartoon, they tend to keep things simple. Unless the show explicitly deals with an issue, it likely isn't there.

Kids' TV articles tend to accumulate lots of OR, plot summaries buried in character descriptions, bad dates, very extraordinarily lengthy superfluous trivial strings of modifiers, etc. Much of it is from flyby IPs. There is little change anyone will come back to provide a source. I usually just dump it with a simplified edit summary. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

3RR

I'm sorry, I know you edit in good faith, but we're required to warn an editor when he is at three reverts and is approaching a breach of WP:3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

No, adding a maintenance template asking for a source is not reverting your restoration of unsourced information. Instead, pretend I warned you for adding unsourced information and removing the template. If you believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, please take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard. I'd suggest the following wording: "Is what this post doesn't say a reliable source for saying the author never said something?" We'll see if the folks at the noticeboard have a sense of humor. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lost your password AGAIN? Response

I lost the first one which you know these two are my accounts how can that be a sockpuppety I never claimed thats not my account? Also calling my source weak on Mandarese people is joke as alot of wiki ref are weak or bias as you should know very well also where is the claim that they are christian its like you have your own bias's against certain religious groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

As you seem to prefer to blank comments on your talk page, it's rather difficult to hold a conversation. (Prior warnings on your four talk pages are still visible through page history, of course.)

If you have a legitimate reason for using multiple accounts (outlined at Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses), you must disclose that you are using multiple accounts, as explained in Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Alternative_account_notification.

Yes, I remove unreliable sources. Any material added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you believe I have incorrectly removed a reliable source, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Next Time I will btw do I state it on the second account or just leave it as you already know as you seem like the queen of wiki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 18:47, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

As you have not stated which legitimate reason you feel applies, I cannot say. It has nothing to do with me knowing it is about the coomunity knowing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Saiph121 SPI

Do you want to open the User:Saiph121 SPI for their latest sock (User:Arnasus56) or should I? Bennv3771 (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already reported. Looks like this will be a game of Whack-a-mole for a bit. I assume you've already noted the WHOIS and Geolocates on the IPs are all identical. We might end up needing a rangeblock, I guess. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Get Lucky (Daft Punk song)

Hello. I've just reverted this deletion of text: [1]. I have no idea what you saw there but I know for a fact that Alisa Kozhikina's cover is notable on its own, there's even a prominent link to a professional review on the right side. And I can see many more references for other covers. Did you check them before wholesale deleting the section? At first glance, everything is sourced. I can see a link to iTunes, but I can also see that some covers are discussed in reliable sources. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:COVERSONG is pretty clear and indications that a cover passes COVERSONG are usually equally clear. It's rare for a song to meet "the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song" without also meeting WP:NSONG. Yeah, if Jane Smith record a cover, an article about her or the album might discuss the song, but we're looking for an article about the song that provides substantial coverage about her version. That's uncommon, unless the cover charted.

That leaves NSONG. For most post-1950 covers, passing NSONG is a matter of charting. None of the covers indicate that they have charted.

If any of those covers are notable independent of the original version, there is no indication of it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, passing WP:NSONG isn't a matter of charting for many rock songs, indie songs, etc. There are many rock songs that never charted but they were reviewed/discussed by multiple sources.
Secondy, I don't think it's that uncommon at all for a song to meet "the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song" withour meeting WP:NSONG. Cause to meet NSONG, a song has to be discussed by several reliable sources, while WP:COVERSONG requires only one.
And talking about this particlar song....
I've already mentioned Alisa Kozhikina's cover. And I've looked at some references already present in the article (not all of them), and I see this and this. (The second one is not really reliable, but...) So it's already clear that the whole section shouldn't be deleted. And I think there are more sources about more songs to be found. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I now see I misunderstood. A cover should either meet NSONGS or be discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song. But it's actually even easier to meet. At least, Songfacts discusses several covers in its article about the song: [2]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I've also decided to look for more sources about Alisa Kozhikina's cover. (Just in case.) i've already found this and this. The first one is a dedicated music website, the second one is dedicated to TV. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The first source is not about the song, it's about the cover. As for the second, EW is certainly reliable, but it's again about the cover, not the song. Further, "here's a fun link I found" is hardly "discussion". Why the distinction between articles about the song? Consider the "Star Spangled Banner". Virtually every professional baseball/football/hockey/basketball/whatever game in the U.S. starts with someone singing it. Those games generate articles that might discuss Pink's flu-altered version or Roseanne Barr's unusual take. There's no point piling all of those into a list.

Songfacts, OTOH, is not a reliable source. It's essentially a forum, consisting mostly of people providing their guesses on the meanings of songs and half-remembered facts they seem to remember hearing somewhere. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The first source is not about the song, it's about the cover.
— In this case I was proving that the cover was notable on its own (WP:COVERSONG #2). --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I won't stop you if you look at the sources and remove everything that you won't judge notable from the article. (Except Alisa Kozhikina's cover which as I've said passes WP:NSONG).
But actually, what bothers me about all this is that WP:COVERSONG is not compatible with WP:NSONG. The latter says that a song may be notable if it "has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." Now try browsing the articles in the "Frank Sinatra songs" category. You'll see many articles that list covers by very, very famous artists. But mostly you won't see any chart positions. Therefore you can't remove the lists from such articles without making them vulnerable for deletion. (Cause right now their only claim to notability is the fact that they have been covered many times.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Literally hundreds of notable orchestras and violinists have recorded Brahms Concerto in D. Being released by multiple artists would mean the song is notable. Taking it to mean that each recording is notable would have us list hundreds of recordings in our article, which I'm willing to bet we don't. (Actually, I know we don't even have a discography for Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg.} - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edits regarding Beautiful Thugger Girls

You remove this off the article. I don't agree that should not be removed, we use Metacritic's wording, which says "universal acclaim". That's why it was there. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

In context, in the "Critical reception" section of articles, we can directly quote Metacritic's statement, attributing it to Metacritic.

We do not, however, use their mechanically applied terms, such as "universal acclaim" as statements of fact. MC uses a small subset of critics (i.e., they do not use every music critic in the world). Their numerical score represents Metacritic's interpretation of those critics' reviews. "Universal acclaim", however, would mean that every critic in the world ("universal") enthusiastically and publicly praised ("acclaimed") the album. Clearly, we do not know this to be the case. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand that, but should it be said "received widespread acclaim from critics" instead of "received acclaim from critics"? To me, it probably made more sense than the previous statement. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Neither one. Both are WP:SYN as we do not have a reliable source that says the film received "acclaim" or "widespread acclaim". - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Metacritic--the source cited--says "universal", meaning "widespread". TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Metacritic's algorithm automatically applies that term to all scores above a certain point. There is no fact checking applied to its determination. As a result, it is not a reliable source other than for what Metacritic says.

"Universal" means "of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases." Using it to mean "widespread" is similar to the non-literal use of "literally", as in "I literally died of embarrassment", spoken by someone who is literally not dead. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, how about this source. It says: But despite being a compelling figure in the rap world and receiving widespread acclaim for the album he released early last week, Beautiful Thugger Girls, formerly titled Easy Breezy Beautiful Thugger Girls or E.B.B.T.G.. What you think of it? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I says what you needed it to say (not surprising, given you were looking for a source to say exactly that). That's a point of concern: you aren't trying to find a source saying what the general opinion was, you tried to find a source saying what you want to say the general opinion was.

The next question would be whether it's a reliable source or not. The site doesn't really have much to say, other than "We're not critics, we're fans." and that the site started out as a "'zine". I don't see anything to indicate editorial oversight or fact-checking. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have another question, another article Jeffery says the same thing, why you ignored that article? Maybe because that mixtape have more reviews on Metacritic then Beautiful Thugger Girls. Which is why you remove it, because it have eight reviews instead of eleven reviews? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a lot simpler than that. There are roughly 5.5 million articles on Wikipedia. I'm watching a small fraction of those, roughly 12,000 articles. I can't fix everything. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

But should this be removed too? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Summer, i-D has been around since 1980 and certainly has enough fact-checking because it has a history of being a print publication with an editorial staff. That's the same logo used at the top of that website. That's its digital outlet, hosted on Vice's website, so I'd say what TheAmazingPeanuts quoted above is absolutely a reliable enough source to be included on the article. Regardless of your concerns that apparently Metacritic would need "fact-checking" for a score(?), they are considered reliable and we now have two reliable sources saying "universal acclaim" and "widespread acclaim". If you have concerns, please raise it at WP:RSN. I'd say it's fine to include on the article, even worded as a paraphrase and not a direct quote. Two sources back it up. Ss112 07:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: I completely agreed with you on this. There's nothing wrong of having that quote or any quote from Metacritic in the article, it's even in WP:ALBUM/SOURCE right here. So I be restoring the edits and adding the I-D source with it, since it's not a big deal as long it's in the guidelines. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Already restored it. I think if there are any objections to it now (with two reliable sources stating it received "acclaim"), it should be raised on Talk:Beautiful Thugger Girls to get consensus, as user talk pages are not really the place for that. Ss112 08:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: You are completely right, I should have start a consensus in the article's talk page and pinged the user there instead. I try to remember that in the future. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Budd Dwyer

I was describing the legal effect of Dwyer's request for a pardon, and in support of my assertion, I cited a decision of the United States Supreme Court. The decision even has its own Wikipedia article. Citing a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States is not "original research."John Paul Parks (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You are citing a primary source which you interpret as applying to Dwyer. This is synthesis. In order to make that claim, you will need an independent reliable source which directly states that Dwyer's contemplation of the law confessed his guilt. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

VintageVHSTreasures

You warned them a year ago that we'd open an SPI if they continued. Since then, the Nick Studio 10 article has had a pattern of the user's same unsourced negative edits under various IPv4 and IPv6 addresses (including one in a July 2016 wave of vandalism), and they went completely silent on the main account, so I've opened up an SPI about them. I welcome anything you can contribute. Nate • (chatter) 04:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for your help on my talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: VintageVHSTreasures

I wasn't sure whether to include in the sockpuppet investigation, as it's off-Wiki, but I find their comment near the top of this page enlightening. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 05:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, good ol' off-Wiki ribbing, gotta love it (and neither of us are admins so...why comment on an admin rant post?). I still have a 'rant video' from a Sam & Cat vandal where they mention my name on YouTube, along with one other user 'slandering' me with detritus on several newsgroups, Google Groups and 'sucks' impersonator accounts (they almost got me blocked on Portuguese Wikipedia due to confusion!). That comment basically spells WP:SOCK out. Nate • (chatter) 11:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Prior to this, I wasn't sure that I was evil. Now it's pretty clear, though Ebyabe makes it clear I have room to grow. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Wonder if there's a way to contact the owner of the blog and get the comments turned off. This has been going on for too long. Sro23 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Looks like harmless, if churlish, venting to me. If they can't let go of the hurt from being blocked and move on, better to vent there then stew in it, I guess. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Plus sometimes it can confirm what they are doing, or provide amusement, like here. If they can't realize that their postings there help us detect their vandalism here... well, I think Ron White said it best. I guess the only thing that really bugs me is the constant ranting about cyber-bullying, which is of course not what any of us are doing. It just diminishes the real thing, like crying wolf. So sad. :( --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 08:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: It says you have to be logged in to view that forum. Can you tell me what they're saying about me? Sro23 (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sro23: It's a thread started by an old favorite, entitled "Sro23, the most abusive user on Wikipedia." Which is saying something, as there are users on here way worse than you. :) For one thing they say you're physically abusive. Which is odd, since I doubt you've actually met each other in the real world. Various people tried to tell them that the term does not mean what they think it means, to no avail. Don't worry, they didn't get anything like the sympathetic ear they thought they would. I was going to respond back to them, but it is of course pointless. Nothing is impossible for the person impervious to reason, or explainable, which is them in a nutshell. To paraphrase a font of wisdom, I find their lack of self-awareness disturbing. The thread has pretty much run its course and will likely be closed soon. I just keep reading it and the blog they also post on for the sake of amusement, doncha know.  :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 07:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Titanic (1997 film)

Sorry, I don't know what a "fomat" is! I know a "video" is some sort of format, but TV series are not films!.

--Aledownload (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of awkward. We're trying to find a word/phrase to combine two different technologies. You are right to question what was there. I just found your solution to be problematic as well

In any case, another editor has come up with another attempt at this vex-some section. I have other concerns, outline on the talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Emoji Movie Edit

I'm not kidding the emoji movie has a very forced feminist massage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeispointless (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating this? - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Loving You (Michael Jackson song)

I see that you edited a part of the article where you edited the part of the recording. In the article it clearly states that the song was recorded from 1985-1987 there was no reason for you to change it to only 1987. Also, why do I need to put a source when it’s says when it was recorded in the article?. Absolutely no reason for you to change my edit. Nd102903 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason you are editing under multiple accounts? It seems you've had problems with unsourced dates and genres, not using edit summaries and not citing sources before. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Nd102903: Still waiting for a response. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, you made a change to a date without explaining why or providing a source.

As I stated above, you see to be using two accounts. Do you have a valid reason for doing so? - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

go away please 😊

I absolutely agree with the previous person above me! You seem like nothing but an annoying pillock who has nothing to do but fuck around with other people’s edits that are constructive! It’s prbably bc ur ugly af 😂 Please do me a favour and take yourself away and shove your fingers where the sun don’t shine😘. Kbye!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.228.119 (talk • contribs) 11:59, January 17, 2018 (UTC)

80.0.228.119 has been blocked for vandalism. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Now you can’t revert my edits anymore. Scoobybay26 (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So.....

What now? I guess you didn't want to argue with me. 73.87.74.115 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing to argue about. If you continue to use article talk pages for off topic discussion, you will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, I saw your signature and it's pretty, and I figured it was a good chance for me to say hi! So.. HI! Also, I love a good snarky user page, anywho, hi again! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

People are being sexist when they revert my edits Scoobybay26 (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what gave you that idea.

I've obviously reverted several of your edits. You seem to be making a lot of changes to dates in song articles without explanations or sources. If the information is already in the article, an edit summary saying where it is in the article would help. If it isn't in the article, you'll need to cite the reliable sources you are getting the dates from.

If you need help, please ask here, on the articles' talk pages or on your own talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No reverted good faith edits allowed! 😡 Scoobybay26 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems you might need to learn how to cite sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Scoobybay26 has been indefinitely blocked for nonconstructive editing and personal attacks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

George Michael's cause of death

Thanks for correcting me. 60.240.8.249 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Linkin Park - Numb

Unlike for the other genres (Nu metal and alternative rock), there was no reference for the "gothic rock" genre, where I think it would be necessary, REALLY necessary. I've had problems with references a few times, so I know what I'm talking about !

And I find almost curious to invoke neutrality now and not when someone had published this "gothic rock" tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.159.250 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Discuss the issue on the article's talk page, wait for discussion and -- if there is no discussion -- then make the change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please help I am involved in a edit war with IP's

Volga tatar's and Irreligion in Saudi arabia are being vandalised by Various IP's tht seem to be the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought you where going to be fair but your clearly have bias's so hopefully this is the last time I ever talk to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by contribs) 14:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Arsi786: I do not recall ever having said the Joshua Project is a reliable source. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think I've ever said anything about it at all.

I have, however, run across you editing under three different accounts and several IPs. I have noticed your edits seem to be almost entirely focused on increasing the size of Muslim populations and/or decreasing (sometimes eliminating) Christian and atheist populations. At times this involves removing sources without explanation, inaccurate edit summaries (or no edit summary at all), and adding unsourced or poorly sourced material (once claiming it didn't matter).

Long story short, you must explain why you are you doing what you are doing. If you remove sourced material, you must explain why: Is the source unreliable? Is the material updated? Disputed by other sources? If you add material, you must provide a reliable source. If someone disputes the source, you will need to show that the source is reliable. Vaguely (and apparently incorrectly) arguing that another editor "accepts" the source is not helpful in any way. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0: Why are bring past drama up that has already been settled and how do I decrease christian populations i have a issue with one of the references that someone used that was based on estimates which is a joke and I clearly left pew or vice references as they are legit and if something has no references it should be removed and I clearly remember you took my edit off on mandarese people that I had sourced and you said it was not valid so then I put the joshua reference in and you said nothing at all so I presumed that reference was to your legit or to you liking.

Arsi786 (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2018

I fail to see how anything has been settled. You are still using multiple accounts without disclosure and just posted to my talk page under an IP. In the present case, you are again substantially reducing the Christian population and increasing the Muslim population. You still are not using edit summaries. These are all current recurring patterns.

Multiple accounts and IPs? I gave you a link explaining why this is generally prohibited and how to disclose if you had an acceptable use. You did not follow through.

It would be amazing if in the course of verifying various religious populations EVERY correction I found increased one particular group and substantially decreased or eliminated two other particular groups. Instead, I would expect to find some going one way, some going the other. That does not appear to happen in your editing. I rather suspect you are looking for sources to say what you want them to say and disregarding results you do not like. In the present case, your source does say what you want it to say, but its reliability has been called into question by more than one editor. Additionally, that source is either incomplete or discussing a different population. This article is discussing roughly 1 million people. Your source has a population of roughly one half of that.

If you are having troubles figuring out how to use edit summaries, I can certainly provide you with the link again.

Do not assume that not challenging any particular edit you have made means that I agree with it 100%. I don't know whether I even looked at it (and neither do you).

On my talk page, you accused me of being biased. Other than not agreeing with you, what is your basis for that claim? - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0: I am going to delete the convo here and paste it on your talk page as it seems a weird place to talk about certain issues. I stopped using my other accounts as well as using ip's go check yourself if you do not believe me. I do use edit summaries but the ip was refusing to listen so I stopped also show me proof that i have purposely reduced christian population numbers i remember only doing it once for that esimate on the growth of christians.

Also both sites joshua project and the site I orginally gave said their population is in it's 500,000~ and the population stated on its wiki page has no references but of course you would chhose to ignore that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh i just relised i left the ip message sorry my phone is not signed in on my wiki account.

You have used the IP (77.98.203.53) twice today. You previously stated you had a legitimate reason for using multiple accounts and wished to disclose. You apparently did not disclose. I don't know whether you had a legitimate reason and now that reason no longer applies or if you never had a legitimate reason. In either case, transparency would require your disclosure of the other two accounts. Please note I had a password issue some time ago. I promptly added a disclosure statement to the top of my user page. A long term abuse editor challenged me on that. My transparent handling of the situation eliminated the problem.

Your editing seems to have an agenda: reporting higher Muslim populations and lower Christian and atheist numbers. That agenda is not compatible with WP:NPOV, one of the pillars of this project.

Use. Edit. Summaries. Yes, you used edit summaries in the two edits immediately after I asked you to. Prior to that, you use edit summaries about 10% of the time (not counting talk page edits, which are 0%).

You decided that by not discussing the origin of the population figures in the article I must have noticed it and ignored it? No. I said what that source says seems to be at odds with what our article was discussing. I neither said nor meant to imply that the article is perfect in any other way. I noted a disparity. It is worth noting, though, that your editing of the article was entirely focused on increasing the Muslim population and decreasing the Christian population.

You had no response on the accusation that you repeatedly increase Muslim populations and repeatedly reduce or eliminate atheist populations. You have challenged that you decrease Christian populations. How about:[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Those are all from the one IP. If you'd like similar evidence from any of your multiple accounts, I can show you those as well. Ditto if you don't remember increasing Muslim populations or reducing or eliminating atheist populations under various accounts and IPs. Try this: find nine edits you have made (under any of your accounts or IPs) that substantially increased the Christian population size. Remember, I looked at a tiny minority of your edits to find the nine where you decreased the size. Finding a similar number in all of your edits should be easy, unless your editing is focused on making a particular kind of edit or every article in the project is biased in exactly the same direction. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed articles that include those that are from belivers of a muslim background as they don't show there references but base it on estimates as you can easily see for yourself but I do admit that I had tampered with the iranian americans but with moroccon one I removed one site which seemed false as it was posted by chistian news site which often lie and are bias regarding other religions anyway these have already been explained and the muslim population in europe my deletation of that particular sorce was correct as another user said that another german article had new evidence disproving the old one. Saying I use multiple accounts daily or regularly is not true one account I had forgotten my password the other account I stopped using after you told me off and this is my main account while I only use probably the 77 ip address and the other one which Is linked to a place that i use to go to study but no longer go their so i only use one which is the 77ip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Muslims "don't show there [sic] references". Christian news sites "often lie and are bias [sic]". You "had tampered". You seem to be living in a world where you can identify whether someone is lying or merely not citing their sources (or just "tampering") based on their religion. Wikipedia does not accept these prejudices.

I said you have used multiple accounts and IPs without disclosure. Those are undisputed facts. I did not say you use multiple accounts daily or regularly. You are attacking a straw man.

You have not discussed the apparent bias in your editing. Most of the articles you have edited seem to have had understated the Muslim population, overstated the Christian and atheist populations and/or incorrectly reported that some people have given up Islam in favor of Christianity or atheism. I am aware of no cases where you found an article with errors in the opposite direction (i.e., they overstated the Muslim population, understated the Christian, etc.). To what do you attribute this remarkable coincidence whereby the fallacious religion-based biases you have ascribed to "Christian news" sources happen to coincide with otherwise unreported site-wide biases in reporting of population sizes?

Actually, you used the Evangelical Christian Joshua Project as a source (despite your aversion to those lying Christians) when their data seems to support your opinion at Talk:Mandarese people#Sources. It would seem you are more interested in using sources that support the claims you are inserting and find problems with sources that come to conclusions you don't like. Looking for sources that say what you want them to say is a biased act. Supporting sources as reliable because you agree with them is biased. Removing sources because you don't like what they say is biased. You appear to be doing all of these things. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow I never said christian are liars I said which their website "often lie" as various amount of stuff regarding muslims and there website's are bias half of the time and if you read them they say muslim are terrorist or that they are anti christ worshippers but the one I was particularly talking about seemed fake just go on it see for yourself. Vice and Pew are legit sites that I never mess with anyway you accused me off using my multiple accounts BUT YOU KNOW FOR A FACT I HAVE STOPPED the ip thing was a mistake i thought my phone was logged on but it was not also I do admit i have a bias when editing but it seems alot of these articles are posting information from sites that cannot be taken seriously and I remove them but now i know the proper way to do it contest to it on the talk page until someone responds and deal with it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow this whole mess started when I asked your help as I thought we were friends and had found a understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Christians lie when they are writing for a website? Is that statement supposed to not be prejudiced? Yes, there are websites that say Muslims are terrorists, Satan worshipers, etc. There are websites that say Christians rape their children, eat their mothers and deserve to die. There are websites full of prejudicial bias against any population you'd care to look for. Generalizing to say that "Christian websites" (or Muslim, Hindu, Asian, white, European, Canadian, etc.) lie is prejudiced and is neither correct nor acceptable.

I accused you of using multiple accounts and editing under several IPs because you edited under multiple accounts and IPs. When we discussed it, you said you would disclose the acceptable reason you had used multiple accounts. I still do not see any indication that you have done so. You say you have stopped using multiple accounts (you clearly still use at least one IP). I can see you have not used either of the two accounts I am aware of for several months. I suggested it would be a good idea to disclose the two accounts. I see no indication that you have done so.

The "proper way to do it" is to work against your bias or avoid the issue. Go look for cases where our articles say the Muslim population is higher than reliable sources say and fix it. Find articles that don't discuss people converting from Islam to Christianity or atheism and add it to the article. If you aren't able to do that, it would probably be a good idea to restrict yourself to editing articles that are completely unrelated to the issue.

I understand your bias. It is not acceptable here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and I will follow up on it also I don't have hatred of christians I meant christian news sites are bais against muslims espically that website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sharknado (film series) edit

The source for the claim in question is the same article that is quoted as the source for the previous sentence in the section. Should the citation for the source have gone after all the information? 68.194.185.214 (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Put the information wherever it makes sense and place the source so that that it is clear that the information is rom that source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)