User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Response

Hello, I'm VerifiedFixes. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, K. Michelle, but you failed to research and provide your own independent reliable sources to help out with the workload "before" making changes to another user's edits. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation next time, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you!

VerifiedFixes (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are adding/restoring a contested unsourced claim related to a living person. The onus is on you to cite a reliable source. As you failed to do so, the material should be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That is our policy on the issue. Please see WP:BLP. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you even understand how editing on Wikipedia works? You keep referencing things "I already know" but the problem lies with you because you DO NOT follow them, so please stop issuing them to other users. If you question an edit that doesn't pose as vandalism add citations (not delete them), you also don't claim other people's work as your own especially when you couldn't even reference a link "on your own" of the artist stating her birthday.

You "failed" to do proper protocol, everything I contribute to Wikipedia is sourced and "if necessary" I add references when needed. The month and day wasn't even in questioning, it was the year and you know this. You just wanted to cause unnecessary drama because I called you out.

You have multiple vandalism strikes against your account, I don't. I've never went against rules or been alerted by any admins because my edits (sometimes not perfect) are legit and follow guidelines.

VerifiedFixes (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I realize you are probably still trying to find your way around. Please realize that WP:BLP is not a suggestion. It is a firm policy.

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (WP:BLP, bolding in the original)

The subject's birthdate had been repeatedly challenged for several years, leading to several editors being blocked. The talk page contains extensive discussion of the issue and the date had been changed (challenged) very recently. The cite to Ebony does not support the birthdate. I removed it, per policy. You restored it in direct violation of policy.

I did not claim anyone's work as my own. I am unsure where this claim came from.

Yes, I have multiple editors who have claimed my edits were vandalism. Many of them were then blocked from editing. In 12 years of editing, I have never been blocked or restricted in any way. If you feel, based on your weeks of experience, that I am a problem, feel free to take the issue to AN/I. Otherwise, I would encourage you to read or re-read WP:BLP. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

So you mean to tell me you didn't create a new talk discussion stating that you added a source (which you state) and didn't do.

I know the history of the K. Michelle article, your stunt has caused the age problem with that particular article (that I tried to fix and was fixed for several days) to not be resolved still.

So please stop you're not realizing anything, you don't know me, you don't know if I've had an account on here before years ago that I lost access to because I removed the email, or etc..

You come off very condescending and act as if you're a mod/admin or employee and that I'm not 300 edits away from being an extended confirmed user like you.

I know the rules and have always applied them to the way I edit. You on the other hand doesn't and it has caused you to rub many the wrong way. You're not untouchable as you realize, you have flown under the radar far too long (never say never), you fate here is not written in stone and you shouldn't act as it is.

Also please stop lying to make yourself look good. You've never seen me state anywhere, that the Ebony Magazine interview had anything other than her age at the time. VerifiedFixes (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not state that I added a source. I said that "we" (Wikipedia) now have a reliable source, that it did not give a complete date (it doesn't) and that I updated the article to reflect what the source does say (I did). I removed poorly source disputed material from a BLP. That is Wikipedia policy. There is no wiggle room here.

You repeatedly restored the unsourced month and day and the poorly sourced (implied possible) year. The onus was on you to provide an inline citation for the disputed material. You did not. You restored the full date, citing only the Ebony article. This implies that you either felt it supported the material and addressed the concern (it does not) or that there was no dispute (which there clearly is -- another editor bumped it from the infobox based on the same concern).

You eventually provided a link to a source to confirm the month and day on the article's talk page. I added the required in-line citation to the article. Read or re-read WP:BLP and move on.

If you seriously feel that I am a problem, please take the issue to AN/I. Otherwise, I expect that you will drop the matter and move on. I do not believe that I am "untouchable" or perfect. I know that I am acting in good faith (and expect you to assume the same) and believe that I have a solid understanding of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. I have not lied and do not appreciate the repeated personal attack. Please consider this your first warning. Personal attacks are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Just saw your response here after I already responded to your last reply on K. Michelle. Let's not continue going back and forth, it's pointless and taking time away from other articles we could be editing. I feel as though you were in the wrong for how you went about things. Instead, if you questioned the information that I provided, you should've notified me via a citation summarizing I needed to provide a month and day. When I first navigated to the article it was a mess, also I saw the citation in the infobox to check talk for birth_day. When I checked talk the only issue I saw was concerns about the year not the month and day which could easily be sourced via the artist's social media accounts. She celebrates or acknowledges it every year which shouldn't be hard to find.

The miscommunication was on your part not mines, I just came in to do what I do best, provide verifiable corrections.

When you speak "we" Wikipedia, it involves communication had you communicated better and left proper citations asking for "month and day" I could've provide that information a little bit faster instead of us going back and forth over nonsense.

As far as the other information provided by the other user who bumped the new information provided, yearbooks are not reliable and shouldn't be taken into consideration. Yearbooks have errors in them all the time, (examples: incorrect name spellings, students are not noted for possible; promotions, demotions, full calendar year expels, or main class changes that may have occurred within the year or etc.), they are not reliable.

Both informations that I provided, are reliable and can be crossed referenced starting with the timeframe of age listed in an interview via one of the most respected urban magazines of it's time in the industry, which also has proper tools to correct republish/reissue any typos or misprints.

Last but not least, I really don't appreciate you keep saying that I have broken so many "rules", which is not true and shouldn't be put out there like that. I take contributing to Wikipedia very serious and I wouldn't risk putting my account in jeopardy just to prove a point. Do you not realize the hours spent users have lost contributing, it's not worth the foolishness of getting banned. Those "personal attacks" as you call them, was me stating in disbelief of what I witnessed going on or what it may seemed to me.

The only thing I can suggest is, that we work "together" to remove that discussion from that page (as it is not needed there) and leave "this" discussion here on our personal talk pages (as this is the correct platform for it). VerifiedFixes (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I should not have notified you or anyone else of unsourced controversial information in a biography of a living person. Per Wikipedia's very clear policy, I should have immediately removed the information without waiting for further discussion. That is policy. The material had been challenged in the past and there was absolutely nothing to indicate that it was suddenly not challenged. That you can easily find a source does not change the requirement for an in-line citation. WP:BLP is a policy that we "must adhere strictly to". I am sorry, but there is no room for discussion here.

Obviously, you feel the miscommunication was my fault. "Communication", however, requires a mutually understood language. Let me be very clear: In English (which is not your primary language), a "lie" is a deliberate falsehood. Repeatedly saying that I am lying and adding in motives for those alleged lies is inarguably not an assumption of good faith. Your misunderstanding my statement does not make it a "lie".

I did not lie. I was not trying to make myself look good. Discuss content, not editors. Do not attack other editors.

That you disagree with the use of the yearbook should be discussed on the article's talk page. The other editor, Binksternet, has similarly been an active editor for over a decade. I don't always agree with him, but I do respect him. Your conduct is your reputation and you are your reputation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

See, "I" tried to be the bigger person and say "maybe "we" both were wrong on how things went about" but I see you still want to keep up the drama, lies, and now verbally assault me with insults after insults (instead of giving constructive criticism). English is my first language!

Let me tell you how "communication" works, since all you know how to do is reference this or reference that (instead of actually showcasing what you're referencing). "Communication" is when you have resolved issues with admins who've mistakenly misjudged new material you've brought to articles and "communicated" to resolve the "miscommunication". "Communication" is when they left proper citations (asking for additional information needed) like every other responsible editor on here knows how to do (including newbies), as well as senior editors (who doesn't let how many editing points they've achieved or how many years they've been on this platform go to their heads)!

You've gone too far with many users on here, all an admin has to do is look through your personal talk page history (before you quickly modify it SMH) and articles you've edited on talk page history. Like I said earlier you're "crossing that line". I have "yet" since I've been on here got into it with any users, you know why? I know how to communicate with other users "first" before ruining and disrespecting someone's time or hard work. If I question any edits made by any user, I do two things, check my resources "myself" to verify if the new information submitted is indeed true, or (if I couldn't find the information myself) I ask the user via citation to leave a legit reference near the edit. I do not operate in the manner you've shown me in the last couple of days or what you've shown other users in the past few years.

Since you've insulted my English, I'm going to "indirectly" insult your upbringing by showcasing what a "proper" upbringing gets you. During my upbringing, I was taught to respect others (treat others the way I wanted to be treated), if I question something (ask), and never lie (which you've done multiple times since I've met you). You just did it again when you "lied" and said I "attacked" the other user who brought up the yearbook. I did no such thing, every single conversation we've had whether it be here or on K. Michelle was public before you falsely removed some things and deemed them as attacks because you didn't like what was being said because it was true. No worries though, it's all archived. No matter how many times you try to modify or hide things.

Back to the lie. I strictly kept the subject about yearbooks vs publishers/magazines, see this is exactly why I called you a liar (not as an insult/attack) but for the actions you've shown me. Please source where I "attacked" (the word you love using without knowing the proper meaning to it) the other user? I have not said one negative thing about that user, never had a conversation with them, or ever brought them up. You were the one who brought them up first, I responded to your statement about the information I submitted on the article being bumped and my response was strictly about the two subjects at hand, our conflict and yearbooks vs publishings/magazines/interviews.

Here's my final thoughts and your "constructive criticism" (which the only user on this platform that I've ever had any issues with personally and have shown "constructive criticism" to, is you). At this point I'm done, there's no middle ground with you, there's no agreeing to disagree with you, there's nothing. You don't have the compassion or capacity to want to get along with any user and resolve conflicts. All you can do is add fuel to fire and add false reports on people's pages. You can have a that! I won't even fight you on that. Go head and go off! What I will say is this, whatever happens after this happens. You are a very dangerous editor in this community and from what you have told me earlier, it has cost "many" to lose their accounts because they spoke up, went against you, and paid a terrible cost! If the community doesn't see that and I'm the next victim then so be it! The tools you're using and the little power Wikipedia has given us is not to be used in the manner you're using them. VerifiedFixes (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I see the discussion on AN/I is asking for information to support your claims. When looking through my history, please keep in mind that this is my second account. As explained on my talk page, a lost password forced me to abandon User:SummerPhD. To the best of my knowledge, neither account has ever been compromised, so all of the edits are mine. Though the talk archives above combine both accounts, reviewing my individual edits would require looking at both Special:Contributions/SummerPhD and Special:Contributions/SummerPhDv2.0.

You seem to be particularly concerned with blocked editors. A few who posted on my talk page were reverted by other editors for personal attacks, sockpuppetry and similar reasons. I've left most as they are, often (in the more recent cases) with a note indicating they were blocked/banned. On the current page, the only one I see a note for is Special:Contributions/154.119.79.254 (they were later blocked for socking under several other IPs). On my most recent archive page, I see notes for Special:Contributions/Saiph121 (now banned, with several sock accounts and a dozen or more IPs blocked as well), Special:Contributions/ScratchMarshall (now blocked as a sock of Tyciol]], Special:Contributions/Arnasus56 (a sock of Saiph121), Special:Contributions/John Paul Parks (indefinitely blocked, but I don't remember if I requested it), Special:Contributions/VintageVHSTreasures, Special:Contributions/80.0.228.119 and Special:Contributions/Scoobybay26. That's just the most recent archive, there are plenty more.

There are also lots of other editors blocked and/or banned in response to my requests who do not show up on my talk pages.:

• Look for my edits to pages starting with "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/…" (usually you'll need to click the archive link) for sockpuppetry cases I've either started or commented on (and a couple where editors claimed I was socking).
• This link should show any requests I've made or commented on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard along with several discussions started about me.
• I've made hundreds (at least) of requests for fairly routine blocks at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (for edit warring) and Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. I'm not aware of particularly easy ways to search either of those. Sorry. They shouldn't be too hard to find in my edit history. Here's one from today.
• Also, a good number of editors have been blocked in the middle of discussions with me or by admins who were discussing the situation with me. Again, I do not really know of an easy way to find these.

I've been here for some time. A lot of what you will find is simple vandalism. Some is edit warring by editors who want the article to say something but are unable/unwilling to provide a source or discuss the issue. A good bit more is LTA editors who are obsessed with one or more particular iss{{u|VerifiedFixes}ue (e.g. refusing to accept that sources call the Black Eyed Peas "pop" or wanting to change which of the main characters on Friends got married).

Many of my edits reverting suspected vandalism (after my first couple of years) allow me to place a semi-automated warning on the user's talk page. You might want to look at those edits, as there are usually several of them to the same user before a block. The edit summary for the talk warning includes "(TW)".

There are certainly other ways of weeding through my edits, but I think these will give you some help with finding the edits you are most concerned with. Knock yourself out. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

VerifiedFixes has been blocked indefinitely for "battlegrounding, bludgeoning, personal attacks, casting aspersions, refusing to listen, and general hostility and aggression." - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --VerifiedFixes (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

VerifiedFixes was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks, etc. AN/I case closed.[1] - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Mistake

I apologize for posting incorrect info about Zoey Tur. My friend told me she switched back to Male and I was trying to fix her pronouns. Also, I edited the page again because I thought you were trolling. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should've checked my facts first. Austino The Captain (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC Request

Dear Fellow Wikipedian

I would like to invite you to my RFC request on  the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.

Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

McDonald's Ad Programs.

https://www.opinion.com.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/McDonalds-1.jpg

This is a billboard from a Polish McDonald's Sezam restaurant located in Warsaw.

Here's a link containing an article about the McKiełbasa discontinued product description from 2003. (which funnily enough came back last month after a 16 year hiatus)

https://franchising.pl/artykul/1458/mckielbasa-fast-foodzie/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.231.125 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You can see the "Każdy Dzień to Twój dzień" slogan as I've mentioned in the edit.

I've also requested any original video material from McDonald's Poland and will be more than happy to include a citation to it if I obtain any.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.231.125 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Hi Summer! I love your NOT section it's brilliant! Just bumped into a comment of yours on a fruitarian's talk page. Wikipedia needs the kind of sensible, no-nonsense defense you bring. Cheers!

Curdigirl (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you very much for correcting my mistake; I sincerely apologize for that Sc2353 (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop making me the enemy.

Hello I just like to ask you two please stop making me sound like a horrible person, I did not change the genre from art pop to art rock to suit my own point of view, I did it based on the fact that Fleetwood Mac is a rock band. This is by no means an attack, I just like you to stop making me sound like a narcissist. Nasma654 (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The note I left on your talk page is a widely used text added to the talk pages of users who have made changes to genres without consensus or discussion after a prior notice.

Due to the large number of conflicting changes made to song, album and artist pages related to genre, the widely held consensus is that such changes should not be made without citing a reliable source for the change or establishing a consensus for the change on the article's talk page. You did neither.

Please note that a large number of similar changes you made to other articles have also been reverted for similar reasons.[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. While I cannot speak for other editors, my goal is not to "make (you) sound like a horrible person" or "narcissist". My goal is to ensure that changes to articles reflect a neutral point of view and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Additionally, I am not taking a position on what genres should be listed. I am saying that changes should reflect cited sources and/or a consensus on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Page needs to be fixed

There was a script error made by a user in series overview or whatever on List of Bubble Guppies episodes can you please fix this? - BubbleGuppiesIsTheBest BubbleGuppiesIsTheBest (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't immediately understand what you are talking about. I do immediately see your recent spree of vandalism. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Westlife Singles Release dates issue

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

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

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

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

Sorry

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

Samuel Barber - Adagio for Strings edit by Melt deleted

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

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

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

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

please advise

Melt 08:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Excuse Me

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

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

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

This Love (Maroon 5 song)

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

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

Remake or reimagining

The people at the website Inside the Magic said that it was best to call the 2017 live-action Beauty and the Beast a reimagining instead of a remake of the 1991 animated film. [8] That was why I changed the word. Should we keep the word as it is in the article? And1987 (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please, revert BLP vandalism on Big Mike (rapper)

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

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

Nevada IPs

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

Socks at Proud Boys

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

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

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

Japanese wolf in contemporary culture

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

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

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

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

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

Baby (Justin Bieber song)

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

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

Personal attacks are blockable?

Then who blocks you?

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

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

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

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

You were wrong about Bubble Guppies

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

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

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

Hi

Resolved

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

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

miranda cosgrove edit

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

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

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

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

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