User talk:SummerPhDv2.0

This talk page is for Tefkasp: The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD.

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

Same ornery Lesbian Space Pope_TM, new user name.

Incidents, accidents, hints, allegations and things left unsaid

1) Questions you ask here will be answered here.

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

3) This is no number 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Berklee Alisa Edit

Thanks for the help...wasn't sure I should add the New York Times Bestseller bit, but decided to put it in anyway. Thanks for tidying it up. :-)

~usmarinesjz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmarinesjz (talk • contribs) 17:00, September 18, 2012‎

Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Binders full of women is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 07:41, June 29, 2013‎

Ancient astronauts

See Talk:Ancient astronauts#Nation of Islam - you may wish to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 13:04, July 5, 2013‎

talkback

Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. You have new messages at Talk:Wonga.com.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybec (talk • contribs) 01:06, October 16, 2013‎

Barbie Cancelled Film

Hey there, my friend! Thanks for editing the "Cancelled Film" in Barbie (film series). Anyway, I made some edits to make the sentences more clear. I hope you will not change it again. Thank you. :)

Here are some other page where you can find the trademark controversy of the Sleeping Beauty:

• The Sleeping Beauty (ballet)#Trademark controversy
• Aurora (Disney)#Trademark.

You can check them out and compare with the Barbie (film series) page. Thank you. :) Bianca Anne Martins (talk) 12:55 PM, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Rip Taylor

Thank you for the heads up about not filling out the edit feature on Rip Taylor's listing when I deleted a paragraph about Patty Duke and him on "Super Password". I just went back, removed the paragraph in question again, and filled out the edit feature as you advised. The reason I removed the paragraph in the first place was because I strongly felt when I read it that the incident described in the paragraph - which seemed to me to be the LONGEST paragraph in his biography - was of a truly minor, trivial incident that added absolutely nothing important or insightful about the individual's life. Genarians (talk)

sharon leal edit

how was the to source i provided here not goood enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.57.56 (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edit said they divorced in 2007. The article does not say that. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You cancelled my change abouts the movie list. Please re-add it, these are the sources of my edits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2584018/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_5, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0495095/ Furthermore one of the above sources was already in the page as external links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelightandsea (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source when you add material to an article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought that IMDB.com was a reliable websit, however I have other sources. If you know how to add the references, please add these two sources and update the filmography for me. Many thanks. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/freedom_2015/# http://www.fandango.com/sharonleal/filmography/p264185 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelightandsea (talk • contribs) 21:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been a long time, SummerPhD

Remember me? It's been a while (six years now), so you probably don't. My original account was GreenBayPackersfan09. That was my first Wikipedia account (I was 11 year old when I first used that account in 2009, and 14 when i lasted used it in 2012). I'm 17 years old now. I remember when I would used to create a lot of articles, notably on actors who starred in shows that I watched (wizards of waverly place, hannah montana, etc.) We first crossed paths in 2009 when you nominated a good number of them for deletion (some of them got deleted). If you look at the talk page on the GreenBayPackers account, you'll notice that I actually got vindicated on a good number of the articles you nominated for deletion – a lot of the articles are intact, and in fact have been expanded with pictures, more sources, etc. such as the Harry Shum and Simon Curtis article. I forgot the password to that account, and later used sockpuppets (which I remember you blocked me for, lol). So, how have you been? I've been well. I've started editing a broad multitude of articles productively (I'd argue I was editing productively with that other account as well, and that you were being a tad overzealous). I now edit articles on current events, public figures, politicians, etc. I've learned a lot about Wikipedia's rules, and have made a good number of productive edits. I just stopped by to say it's amazing you're still around. Some people retire after a well. Anyway, just wanted to let you know. Scaravich105nj (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Scaravich105nj has been indefinitely blocked for personal attacks/rants. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Now confirmed to be part of a sock farm. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)c

removal of my SS United States edit

I'm curious why you deleted my addition to the Wikipedia article about the SS United States. I felt it was worth noting that it is visible from the Walt Whitman bridge because that is one of the three or four best views of the ship. I realize that the United States or parts of it can be spotted from "the Ben Franklin [bridge], the Comcast building, the aquarium, IKEA's restaurant and hundreds of other places." But *not* with a view comparable to that from the Walt Whitman. I hope you will reconsider your reverting my edit. In any case, I do look forward to your response. Richard27182 Richard27182 (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, it's a few factors all coming together.

It's not encyclopedic: Where can one spot the Walt Whitman Bridge, Ben Franklin, Comcast building, Aquarium, Ikea and hundreds of other places from? While we certainly have some articles discussing how to view their subject (e.g., Moon discussed various aspects of viewing the Moon), most do not. Many things can be spotted/viewed/examined in various ways. Is the view better during a brief trip across the Walt Whitman, a slower drive down Columbus Blvd or a half hour shopping break in Ikea's restaurant? Who knows -- it's a matter of opinion and purpose. If you want an overall view of the ship, hiring a helicopter up the street might give you exactly what you're looking for. Curious about the state of the paint/hull? Walking from Ikea's lot or a small boat might be better. Hoping to just see it while driving by? I-95, the Walt Whitman, Ben Franklin or Columbus Blvd might be just the thing.

It's not sourced: Yeah, no one is going to doubt that it can be seen from the bridge. That's not the point. The point is it is trivial. We don't discuss Mel Gibson's nose (though I swear someone tried to add it to the article) because sources don't discuss it. (We do, however, discuss his unusual kidney.)

Wikipedia is not a tourist guide: The best view of the ship might be to simply trespass. A leisurely hour sipping a soda at Ikea might over stay your welcome. Does the Walt Whitman allow foot traffic? Is driving on Columbus advisable at all (I'd say not, some driver's need to buy a clue). Independent reliable sources discuss various ways to see the Grand Canyon (from the rim, hiking a trail, donkey train, by boat, etc.), so we discuss them. We don't discuss much else about them -- who you meet hiking a trail (not Americans, mostly), what a raft trip costs, etc. -- because that isn't what Wikipedia is about.

Come to think of it, the bit about I-95 shouldn't really be there either. Nothing that encourages traffic on I-95 should be on Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear SummerPhD

Thank you for replying and for doing so so promptly. Because the view of the SS United States from the Walt Whitman Bridge is about as good as that from the other two viewing points that *had* been mentioned, I felt it only fair that the Walt Whitman be included with the original two (from "shore" and "Interstate-95"). However, since the original two have now also been removed, I have no problem. I understand and I do *not* disagree with your arguments for not listing vantage points in general. And as long as the article continues to avoid suggesting places for viewing the ship from, I have no complaints nor do I have any plans to try to reintroduce my edit.

Sincerely,

Richard

Richard27182 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my edits

Every edit I have made is true. I wouldn't put it there if it was wrong. Please everyone stop deleting my edits. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm having trouble. I would never vandalize Wikipedia but all my edits are being called vandalism. thankyou from supergreg22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergreg22 (talk • contribs) 17:13, May 2, 2015‎

Hi, Supergreg22 and welcome to Wikipedia}}.

Sorry you seem to be having trouble, we are trying to help. A few points that may help:

1. When you make a change to an article, below the editing box is an area marked "Edit summary". Please use this to give a brief description of why you are making the change.
2. If a change is made to an article you are watching and you want to see why, click the "history" tab at the top of the page. This will show you the edit summaries left by other users. So, for example, at Full House (season 6), you would see that I said, "Reverted good faith edits by Supergreg22 (talk): Trivial. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page." (The info you added, while likely true, is trivial.) Rather than undoing another user's revert of your edit, we suggest that you stop at this point and discuss the issue on the article's talk page, by clicking the "talk" tab.
3. With so many editors making so many changes, communication is important. Please discuss disputes on the article talk pages. Please use edit summaries. When editors don't do this -- and repeatedly change articles back to their preferred version -- it is difficult to figure out who is doing what and why. We do get editors who simply want to have the articles "their" way or simply vandalize articles. Without edit summaries and talk page discussion, people start to assume you are one of those!

In general: When in doubt, slow down and talk it out. Happy editing! - SummerPhD (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Incoherent French vandal

Hi Summer, by chance do you have any detailed information on 78.112.129.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? I'm not quite sure what to do here, but this guy has got some tendrils out there. Looking through his edit history I found Draft:MetroQuan (which I see that you've also found), but when you start following the other IPs in that edit history, you find 86.69.112.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which leads to a lot of other draft articles, and other IPs creating these disruptions. Thoughts? We'd pretty much have to get an admin to devote a lot of time to reverting this crap. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Not much help from me, I'm afraid. I noted their repeated use of one fair use album cover in numerous unrelated draft articles, links to draft articles in live articles and other confusion. All I have is a brief list of IPs:

Special:Contributions/77.158.41.12

Special:Contributions/78.126.213.28

Special:Contributions/86.69.112.35

Special:Contributions/78.126.170.122

Special:Contributions/91.68.144.122

Special:Contributions/78.201.236.77

Special:Contributions/78.112.129.63

Where to from here? AIV and sock seem fairly pointless. ANI? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb: In case you missed it, he is now registered as Killian779. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oill keep me eyes peeled! (<--Some sort of seafaring accent) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

MetalMachine Music

hi SummerPHd,

Just checking with you regarding your edits of my additions to the Metal Machine Music article. Many thanks, Deeperknowledge 22 Deeperknowledge22 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Full House

How do I add sources? And what if there isn't a source for it. I'm sorry, I didn't know it was wrong. Full House used to be my favorite show (now it is Boy Meets World) so when I got the account I wanted to improve the article. Please help me put a source. Thank you, Supergreg22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergreg22 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Full_House_(season_6)#Trivia. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Bechdel test

Hi, could you take a look at the latest edits? I think our new colleague is going at it the wrong way, but I'm not sure that I have the time or the patience or the skill to explain how... Regards,  Sandstein  21:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

VeggieTales

My Twilight Zone hypothesis: The VeggieTales vandalism is coming from one kid who travels a lot and who never grows older than 11. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nah. With long-term editors making changes to dates, adding ages for fictional characters, repetitively redundant modifiers, in-depth descriptions of minor credit screen/FBI warning changes and similar stuff, all in kid's TV shows spread over several years... This, IMO, is developmental disabilities. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I had a more creative take, but I was bound by civility and all that rot, but it involved a tiny working brain lobe, a fantasy sequence, and a dank basement in Colorado, and I don't mean "dank" in a gorgeously stinky marijuana way. Although now that I bring it up, whatchoo holdin'? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that the VeggieTales vandal (or any other specific editor) has a developmental disorder. That would be a civility issue. I am saying that the parsimonious explanation for obsessive solo work on minutia related to media designed for children by people who cannot be children themselves is either teens to 20-somethings with developmental disorders and/or academics with very peculiar research agendas. I can't see funding sources for the academics, so I'm left with developmental disorders for most of them.

As for what I'm holding, I just picked up some smooth Columbian over in Jersey. I usually more of a tea drinker, but this time of year, I need the caffeine to get the work done. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You know, I just came across Lyle the Kindly Viking again. There's something about seeing "Larry the Cucumber as himself" that makes me want to commit an act of harm. Like, do the people who submit this crap not know that there are actors doing the voices? That Larry the Cucumber isn't really an actor? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User rankings?

Please cite where it says Wikipedia does not use site user rankings. I find it pretty absurd that a tiny sample of 6 reviews of the film God's Not Dead are considered relevant enough to include as some kind of a critical consensus in an article about the movie, but 39,000+ crowdsourced ratings are not.

I have a feeling you might not be correctly understanding an actual Wikipedia policy, but if you are correctly understanding it that policy should be changed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbutler3331 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Rbutler3331: I believe MOS:FILM#Audience response is the relevant guideline. There are also numerous discussions I'm sure in the archives at WikiProject Film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Could you please do..."

I reported this guy (the linked account, not your account) to HJ Mitchell a while back, but I was told that the editor wasn't really doing anything wrong by being the recipient of these cryptic notes. But clearly there's something funky going on here, not only with the bizarre IPv6 edits, but also with the IPs who have sprung up and reverted these weird notes (IP users can't create watchlists, so are they constantly watching the page for some reason, or is this the regular user's IP and he's trying to throw people off the track?) And this all seems related to that whole stupid world of YouTube where people seem to get off on creating hoaxes in really weird, super-niche communities. Like, let's assume for a second that your major interest in life centered on cataloging the opening logos from all DVDs. Well, this is a really weird, specific and questionable interest, but it's your life and you gotta do right by you. But clearly the IPv6 editor is asking Nickelodeon745 to create prank content, i.e. disruption elsewhere, and wouldn't this be a basic TOS violation? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I wish I'd made a note of it a while back when I ran into the poster child for this. Someone was noting -- with a semi-reliable source -- that a "special edition" release of an older direct-to-video film was coming soon. After detailing what was known, they added speculation that it might restore a scene dropped in the first DVD release and "most importantly returning to the blue FBI warning". My theory on these types of edits again involves developmental disabilities. So long as we have anonymous editing, we will have this problem.

The violation seems to be using Wikipedia as a social network. Is N745 doing anything to encourage it? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That, I do not know. I'll have to snoop around a little later. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at N745's talk page comments, I do see where they seem to be addressing the IPs comments about liking X or hating Y, but I haven't seen any cases where there was any "Yeah, I'll do that." I haven't looked very closely.

If we don't have N745 doing anything wrong, the only thing I can think that we could do about it would be to semi-protect their talk page, but I don't think that's likely to fly. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not hastily remove sections

SummerPhd,

I noticed you removed my section on coconut oil. I understand that I did not give an explanation for removing some content, so let me explain:

First, I'm new to editing articles on Wikipedia and this was my first edit, so I missed the explaination section at the bottom of the page. I noticed that some significant modifications have been made to some pages regarding foods that you might find in health food stores, some of which are completely unfounded. For example, deleting information regarding nutritional composition, or studies linking foods to particular health effects, seems to be some kind of info war to me. If you or others who delete these sections feel that the issue is not so black and white, then additional content needs to placed to challenge those studies, rather than removing the content entirely.

The section I removed seemed to me to read as biased. The section reads:

"Many health organizations advise against the consumption of coconut oil due to its high levels of saturated fat, including ..." (and then a list of organizations are listed).

First of all, none of those references make any statements advising against the consumption of coconut oil, they only talk about limiting saturated fat. If you read the section on saturated fat, you would notice that the issue is not that cut and dry. In fact, some studies show that <7% SFA and TFA may have a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease. The actual picture may be more complicated, and ratios of saturated, mono and polyunsaturated fats may be more important than actual levels of these fats, but this is mere conjecture to me that I am not interested in defending. Although it is not that cut any dry, I still maintain that caution should be taken with the consumption of saturated fats. There is enough data to suggest that, although the picture is much more complex than we originally thought, there may be good reason to limit saturated fat intake. But completely removing a macronutrient from your diet may have unintended consequences, which is probably why none of these agencies advocate a complete elimination of saturated fat, but to maintain low levels of it.

I did not see listing all of those agencies as necessary. It appeared to read like a biased article, and in order to eliminate the feeling I had that it felt biased, I still kept the original argument but in a more succinct fashion with the references in tact:

"Since lauric acid is a saturated fat, moderation is recommended by many health organizations, which advise a higher ratio of monounsaturated fats and polyunsaturated fats." (I included all of the original citations at the end of this sentence).

Nevertheless, instead of restoring the old content in addition to mine, you completely removed my content, despite it containing a good amount of studies, some from notable journals. And the content I wrote was not particularly regarding saturated fat and it's controversy, but instead, it mentioned the antimicrobial effects of MCTs and monolaurin. If you feel that there is some debate in some of the findings that I presented, you should instead include those in the article, rather than completely removing my edit.

I hope this explains things for you, SummerPhd. Please be less hasty about deleting content on Wikipedia, many people rely on it to learn about complex issues. If you feel that the section is biased, please mention how. If you feel that it's more complicated, please explain and cite your reasons with sources from journals. Readers have a right to make up their own minds about these subjects, and wikipedia is all about shedding light on all the complex dimensions of our world, not merely maintaining a one-sided argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.61.2 (talk • contribs) 15:05, May 21, 2015‎

The article you are editing, coconut oil, has been through a few heated debates, including both edit warring and sockpuppetry. The edit you have made makes several substantial changes to the status quo that emerged after those debates (please see the article's talk page and edit history for more information). As such, edits which make numerous changes are probably not going to fly. You'll find much more success if you take on smaller portions of the changes you wish to make, using edit summaries to explain the basis of your changes and discussion on the article's talk page to clarify. Make smaller edits over several days, rather than one set of sweeping changes all at once.

Two more general issues: Sections of this article concern biomedical information. As a result, more strict sourcing requirements apply.

As a general rule, our editing flow follows a pattern described at WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. You boldly made the changes you felt were appropriate. I reverted that edit. At that point, it was time to discuss the issue. As the issue is the content, that discussion is best handled on the article's talk page, where other editors can weigh in. Unless there is a fairly straightforward misunderstanding, policy violation or similar issue, restoring the edit prior to discussion is generally frowned upon. With that in mind, I am reverting your edit again, and ask you to discuss the issues on the article's talk page.

(As an aside: Yes, people do come to Wikipedia to read about complex issues. People also come to Wikipedia to assert that their beliefs/opinions are correct (e.g., the only natural/healthy/moral/normal/reasonable human diet is low-fat/low-carb/all organic/all local/flexitarian/freegan/semi-vegetarian/pescatarian/vegetarian/vegan/raw vegan/fruitarian/paleolithic/Bible based/macrobiotic/based on your blood type/seasonal/whatever). As a result, many editors are vigilant about edits that seem to violate our core neutral point of view policy, especially regarding fringe claims and biomedical claims.) Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: another editor, Yobol, reverted the edit before I had the chance. You clearly will need to discuss the issues on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Talkback

Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. You have new messages at Talk:VeggieTales#Cast_list_renovations.
Message added 19:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Motion Picture Association of America film rating system

Hi Summer, I am wondering if you could do me a favor. You expressed an interest in Motion Picture Association of America film rating system a couple of months ago and I was wondering if you could take a look at a new dispute that has arisen at Talk:Motion Picture Association of America film rating system#Alterations to Motion Picture Association of America film rating system#Language. I believe a SPA is introducing original research and synthesis but I could do with a third opinion before I shop him (if you spot anything I missed then feel free to fix, you won't be stepping on my toes). Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Zoom (1999 Series) Edit

Hello Summer,

Could you please describe more as to why you undid my table edits? I would also like a source in Wikipedia as to what I didn't do correctly, or at least some guideline that I didn't follow. Wikipedia tables have the capability of using spans effectively and I think we should be encouraged to use them when needed. In this case, it makes sense to show the season ranges of each Zoom cast member. Having it in its current state is confusing and misleading for readers and I think it's important we show them how long each member lasted. Otherwise, what is the point of the table in the first place? If you could respond to this within a week, that would be great! I'm also up for taking this to a third person (WP:3) if we agree to just disagree.

Thanks! srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you might have the wrong editor. I reverted a nonsensical edit by a problematic editor.[1] I believe the revert you are asking about was the one made by Seston.[2] As they did not use an edit summary (and don't seem to like to communicate...), I don't see a reason for you not to restore your edit. Cheers. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

Extended content

Aimed Where did this 1991 G-rated romantic drama film Wild Hearts Can't Be Broken aimed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.16.208 (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Presumably it is aimed at people who like romantic dramas but don't miss graphic violence, nudity or "adult" language. If you feel that there are kids looking for romantic dramas, I'll need a source. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Bad Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever got a 0% on RottenTomatoes. Also, Herbie: Fully Loaded has a lot of protogaint's ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.16.208 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC) I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Ice Princess Is Ice Princess aimed at either kids, children, or teens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.16.208 (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Apparently you are another sock of the permanently blocked Troydevinny545.[3] Brilliant. Now go away. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC) And you apparently still haven't learned what the world "universally" means. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Undo Was FeardotCom and Battlefield Earth hold a 3% on RottenTomatoes? Also, was Herbie: Fully Loaded was aimed at either kids, children, or teens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.16.208 (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC) You are evading a block and your English is horrible. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

:D

∆∆∆ HI!!! ∆∆∆ omg ur awesome! <3s

(I am compelled to leave this here.)

Faux20 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Lyle the Kindly Viking

Hey there "formerly SummerPhD"! In this edit at Lyle the Kindly Viking I created a new cast list based on the film's credit roll. It was predictably reverted by a New Jersey-based IP. Just an FYI. I'm going to try to fix as many of these cast lists as I can, which will hopefully give us a good consistent base. I'm pretty sure that all of the character names like "Ma Carrot with Blue Purple Hat and Blue Purple Clothing" are entirely fabricated. I can't bring myself to watch an entire episodes, but I'd guess that maybe these are background characters that some kid decided to name. Obviously, it's garbage content and we'll need to be on top of that. Hope all's well. Bummer about your username...I have a hard time pronouncing Tefkasp. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I chose an unpronounceable symbol as my new user name to protest the record company using my name as a way to make money... or something like that. "Tefkasp"" is just something my fans came up with.

I'm continuing to slowly merge the individual articles. At my current pace, I should be done shortly before the heat death of the universe. It's vitally important work and must not be rushed. I savor every word I read about Great Aunt Rhubarb and the lessons she teaches about the importance of not skinning live puppies. As I can't bring myself to care, I'm not paying much attention to formatting. I'm mostly just copying what I find, with a little bit of clean up. The real fun -- finding sources for all this dreck -- will come around soon enough.

Incidentally, the who made the edit you pointed to has edited "Lyle the Kindly Viking" over a time frame when other IPs were making edits like this. So much for the [[single bullet theory|single editor theory]. - Tefkasp (The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD) (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Haha! Well written and I'm an idiot for not figuring out TEFKASP. Unrelated: The destructive destroyer vandal came back and has been blocked and stopped and prevented from editing once again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This IP you reverted at Snorks is also a VeggieTales vandal. The type of editing he did at Snorks reminds me of Avenger2015, a sockjobber who kept adding cast lists that duplicated the existing Character lists, only there were far more pointless roles, like "Dude #2" and "Man with towel" and crap like that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've run across other repeat problems on Snorks articles in the past. The only note I seem to still have is one tagging this edit as being reminiscent of The UPN Vandal's creation of fake future films for long dead kids'/family TV shows. At the moment, I'm starting a list of problems on the VT articles, looking for patterns. Mostly flyover states so far. More info will hopefully lead to something useful. - Tefkasp (The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD) (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Examine.com

Hello!

I had added a reference to Examine.com previously on coconut oil, and you had removed it as at the time it was not deemed a reliable source.

I was wondering if it would be now? If we go by mainstream, it's been plagarized and published in a journal with a legitimate impact factor, and even recognized by Fast Company as innovative.

ScienceandFitness (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you are talking to the wrong editor. The source was removed by WLU. I do not see any indication that Examine.com is a WP:MEDRS source. I'd suggest discussing it on the article's talk page. - Tefkasp (The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD) (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh - I was just writing to you based on my Talk page. ScienceandFitness (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That refers to material that was completely unsourced. - Tefkasp (The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD) (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability!

Hello!

I saw you marked Examine.com as possibly not notable enough. It is basically just like Natural Standard and ConsumerLab.com and big enough (they say 1 million hits per month) to warrant inclusion (their alexa ranking, while not perfect, is also higher than those two sites). Especially when smaller companies like nootrobox are in?

I'd be happy to dig into whatever I need to show they are large enough!

ScienceandFitness (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Their size and what other sites they may be similar to are moot points. Notability is based on substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. - Tefkasp (The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD) (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Aha okay! So I used the link that comes from your tagging and found this and this this (as the first few examples) - how do I add them to ensure notability? Thanks! - ScienceandFitness (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITE. - Tefkasp (The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD) (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I will read up and learn - a lot to read whew. Any urgency/deadline on me making sure it is (or isn't) notable before it gets deleted? ScienceandFitness (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced message

I removed a misplaced message from your user page. It can be found here. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Beavis and Butt-head imitators

Here's the evidence of Grandpa Simpson and Jasper imitating Beavis and Butt-head in the episode "D'Ohing in the Wind" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBDMXCChBvU). Technically, this may not qualify as a reliable source, but the visible evidence is obvious. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not about "evidence". Random mentions in popular culture are trivial. Please see WP:IPC. As this is a discussion about content, please take any further discussion about this to the article's talk page. - SummerPhD, v2.0 23:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You claimed this was original research. I simply showed you evidence that at least in one of those cases it isn't true. If you want to bring this discussion to the article's talk page, I won't object, though. I have to go offline temporarily though, because we're getting a storm, and I have to unplug my internet access until it's over. -------User:DanTD (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The link (a copyright violation, BTW) neither states that The Simpsons was referring to Beavis and Butt-head nor demonstrates that the material is notable. Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD, v2.0 00:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Tefkasp

I think edits on "List of 2000 box-office number one films" and "List of 2001 box-office number one films" will may revert you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.1.6 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

1) The material does not cite a reliable source. Please see WP:V and WP:SYN.

2) As a sock puppet of the indefinitely blocked editor Troydevinny545, any/all of your edits may be reverted by any editor without further explanation, per WP:EVADE. - SummerPhD, v2.0 11:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Signature

Hi SummerPhD, sorry for the lost password mishap. Could you adjust your signature such as to leave a link to this talkpage? Since your current one doesn't it is a sig violation and causing bots to see it as unsigned. That is why the bot attached unsigned in this thread and left the message above. Maybe you could try:

• Tefkasp (alias SummerPhD) • (talk)

...or something to that effect?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for the note, Berean Hunter. I think I've got it now. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Philadelphia

Hi. I'm going to wait a few days and see if we get any more comments. If there isn't any legitimate opposition by Monday, I'll make the cuts. Onel5969 (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Any chance you can take out the other Gallery while you're at it? - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup. And some of the non-pertinent photos you mentioned as well. Onel5969 (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Signature song

This link [4] for Glenn Miller says specifically "His signature tune"
This new link for Bing Crosby [5] says "Signature Song: White Christmas" (Utzdman55 (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC))

Not sure how I missed that first one. It does call it his signature song. Not sure the source is reliable. The about us page on the site makes it sound like a family is compiling databases. I don't see anything about the introductory write-ups, fact-checking, etc. Sounds like a self-published source.

IMDb is not a reliable source for much of anything. It is reliable for some scriptwriting credits and most editors will accept it as a source for undisputed credits on widely released films. Pretty much everything else is user submitted.

As this is a discussion of article content, please take any further issues to the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. You have new messages at Talk:Timeline of Philadelphia.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Destructive Destroyer Vandal?

Heya TefSum, does this sound like the DDV to you? [6] "the stepsisters viciously destroy the gown in a fit of rage and jealously." "Mesmerized by her beauty and grace, the two fall in love at first sight and romantically dance alone" "After sharing the kiss of true love," Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like it. If the two had fallen "romantically in love", danced "alone together" or perhaps "viciously destroyed the gown by malevolently tearing it apart" I'd be completely sold. - SummerPhD^v2.0

Regarding Wishbone (TV series)

Just wanted to tell you that my edit was not regarding the dates, I was just fixing a broken wikilink. :) Sn1per ^{(talk)(edits)} 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I reverted the wrong edit. Fixed it now, thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

League City, Texas IP

In case your ears are burning, I mentioned you briefly at this ANI report. You are in trouble! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I just noticed you posting on another talk page and realized I hadn't seen you post for a while. Then read your story on this page. What a shame to lose the SummerPhD account, I'm glad you still use the name on your signature or I wouldn't have known it was you. I'll try to come up with some mnemonic device in order to remember Tefkasp. Hope you are well this summer! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably change the name to clarfy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/17cmiller.
Message added 20:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Your new username

I just saw you here and noticed your new username. It obviously sucks that you've lost your old account. Is there nothing you can do to get back into your old account or have that account merged with your new one? I could vouch that the old account is yours, based on your editing style. Flyer22 (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No way to get the old one back (my fault) and no way to merge to two (technical limitation). I'll survive. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I remember talk of merging accounts in more than one place on Wikipedia, and I wondered if technical advancements had been made in that regard. Anyway, at least User talk:SummerPhD redirects to your new talk page. User:SummerPhD currently doesn't redirect to your new user page, though. Flyer22 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that the way the merging would work in this case is if the SummerPhD account was moved to SummerPhDv2.0. Then the SummerPhD link would simply be a redirect. Or maybe vice versa instead (moving the SummerPhDv2.0 account to SummerPhD). This is similar to, or is what was done, when Doc James moved away from Jmh649 (talk · contribs). But, yeah, you'll survive if a merging doesn't happen. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I just had User:Jmh649 renamed to User:Doc James. Nothing fancy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

I added the rollback flag, since you had it with your previous account. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, kelapstick. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Trolling

Trolling

Hey Summer How are you doing ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:C501:7919:C413:C770:4F1A:B1E0 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC) My Apologizes I'm sorry for what my kids has done ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:C501:7919:C413:C770:4F1A:B1E0 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Your kids You have been problematic for quite a while now. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC) It was my 7 years old Nicolas was the one who a trouble maker. you Know Don't block me part. this will never happened again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:C501:7919:9CF8:8FE0:D012:33F0 (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Same internet connection, same grammar problems = same person.[7] - SummerPhDv2.0 13:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC) what are you talking about ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:C501:7919:480B:6414:696:69DA (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Teardrop tattoo edits

Teardrop Tattoo

I did explain; please see my edit summary for yourself.

If you properly read the article http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/3624-four-days-in-the-oaxaca-state-prison it does not say the number of drops represents the number of times the prisoner is raped. It only states that the tattoo represents the prisoner was raped. The article is from Mexico but it happens in prisons all over the world.

Also; how does a teardrop tattoo represent 'the number of years in prison' and which reference cites this? Did you even do a check?

Another edit I did was because the meaning section repeats what is already in the definition; why does this need to be repeated on such a short article?

My version has a short description of what a teardrop tattoo is and then in the meaning section all the meanings are explained with passages taken directly from references.

Perhaps because the article is so short it doesn't need both a definition and meaning section and both can be lumped into the definition but there is no need to repeat what is in the meaning section in the definition heading section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.82.40 (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC) 122.148.82.40 (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Three of your five attempts to make this change gave no explanation of any kind. Attempts four and five gave an edit summary that did not explain why you were removing information. Other editors are under no obligation to guess why you are doing what you are doing and investigate to see if that possible motivation might be plausible. When your bold edit was reverted, you should have discussed the issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'd like to edit the page to properly represent the references. How do I do it so that someone can check it and not keep reverting my edits back to the current incorrect version? 122.148.82.40 (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit is at least three edits:

• removing the unsourced Mexico
• removing the unsourced United States
• moving text and removing redundancy

Make three separate edits. Use an explanatory edit summary each time. If you are reverted, start a talk page discussion. If no one responds in a couple of days, restore the edit. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.82.40 (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

St. Vincent

Why is it wrong to credit St. Vincent as LBGT when it's confirmed she is dating Cara Delevingne, and it mentioned on both profiles, with Cara's profile also indicating LBGT? Corabal (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPCAT. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That's all well and good but it's sourced on St. Vincent's page. Corabal (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT says, "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." At St. Vincent (musician), we do not have public self-identification and there is no indication her identity has anything to do with her public life or notability. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Very well, I see what you're getting at now, also sorry for the late response.Corabal (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Carnism again

You had some choice comments last time around. Perhaps you'd be interested in the current AfD. FourViolas (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Between

I see that you've had a persistent problem over the past few days dealing with the editwarring on Between over whether the age the disease hits is 21 or 22. Since the edits have been coming from anonymous IPs, I just wanted to let you know that I've put the article under "autoconfirmed users only" semi for the time being, so that any discussion about it can be contained to the talk page. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a fairly detailed discussion to the talk page in the futile hopes of building a consensus. Well see. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Have left a description of why I edited the age, as it's that given on the Netflix official intro to the program, but will leave as it's a minor detail - D Ball 24/7/15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidball999 (talk • contribs) 04:00, July 24, 2015‎

The source you cited does not seem to say what you think it says. Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Lamb Chop's Play Along edit

Why did you remove my edits? I put sources this time. Several in fact. --Websurfer246 (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see discussion on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

How dare you interrupt my entertainment!

Aww man, you're throwing salt on one of the most provocative, action-packed, interesting Wikipedia conversations OF ALL TIME! What's wrong with you?! Outta curiosity, who's the sockmaster of the IP? Frankly it sounds a little like one person talking to himself...but I don't wanna speculate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This kid has been around for a while. This gives links to some of the more recent crap. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I was wondering what was going on here. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This Communication has expire of this IP Trash talk for several months almost a year. Summer did the right thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:C501:16F7:4EC:756F:8E95:65 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon

Hi can you help me flesh out Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon? Joanne and Kirste are all too often relegated to a footnote to Beaumont children disappearance articles and pages. They deserve better. Sadly the newspapers from the time are not digitised as they are still under copyright (and God knows who owns the copyright to The News, Adelaide's old afternoon newspaper). Paul Austin (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I came up on your radar for this.

In any case, the applicable criteria here is Wikipedia:Notability_(events). For the article to remain, that is your hurdle to clear.

Short answer: You will need to show substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.

Common problem areas in this type of article are:

• Brief spikes in coverage are common for news stories that are otherwise not notable (so include coverage from sources published well after the events).
• Coverage in newspapers alone is typically seen as a problem (so include other sources: books, magazines and such).
• Local coverage is not a sign of a notable story (so include sources from locations far removed from the events).

Beyond that, I think you are laboring under a false assumption. We are not restricted to online sources. Sources need only be reasonably available. While an online archive would be great, the existence of library archives is sufficient. Copyright is not an issue as we do not directly copy text.

A couple of sources to start you off: Daily Mail, 17 July 2015, The Advertiser, 12 March 2015, ABC News 17 September 2014. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Paul Benjamin Austin, you might also consider asking for assistance at the Reference Desk. There are helpful people there who have access to library materials. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

hei there im ryder

wanna say that you work hard for wiki man Ryder bashanako (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

MarioandSonicFan0718

Hi Summer, re: MarioandSonicFan0718, every time I see this pairing I'm reminded of KuhnstylePro. He was into Mario and Sonic. And that's one to grow on. I haven't, however, looked into their edits. Just a quick note. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Juana la Iguana

Hi SummerPHD. I see that you removed Juana la Iguana from the list of Venezuelan children's TV shows. Is there a particular reason? CharlesWalter (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see the notice on your talk page and the article's talk page.- SummerPhD^v2.0 01:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood. The page for Juana la Iguana is now live. It is a very well known show in Venezuela. During its run from 1996 to 2003, it achieved some of the highest TV ratings for young kids, and sold some of the top grossing home videos. The page does make reference to the character and the TV show, so I understand if you have concerns with that. Can I add the show to the list, or would there be other concerns? CharlesWalter (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have gone back and added Juana la Iguana. Happy to address any other concerns.CharlesWalter (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You made me laugh

Came across this while looking for certified conflicted financial planners. It considerably brightened my mood, so thanks. Brianhe (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Glad you found something enjoyable in that mess. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Mike Nawrocki

Hi, you PRODded this article and it got deleted, but the deletion has now been contested so I've restored it. You may wish to nominate it for AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll take a look. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User name

I see you've upgraded your user name as well. ;) You went digital, I went medieval. Hope you're doing well! Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm binary-ish. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Mark Wahlberg

Your recent editing history at Mark Wahlberg shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please discuss before you revert or change.--A21sauce (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A21sauce: This is a contentious claim about a living person. Under WP:BLP, removal of such material is exempt from WP:3RR. Please establish a consensus before restoring the material. If you believe that the material is sufficiently sourced or is not contentious, please take the issue to the BLP noticeboard. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a few problems with this template, A21sauce. Firstly, it's not good form to template the regulars, but more importantly, Summer's concerns are legitimate. You've stated as fact that Wahlberg was "known for his homophobia". That is potentially libelous and Summer is correct to err well on the side of caution. The bio.com article doesn't say that he was "known for his homophobia". The Independent article says "Watching his powerful sponsor squirm helped Marky Mark to grasp that - ironically for a rap star - a reputation for homophobia and racism could spell the end of his career." He made some dumb comments, but that's not the same thing as "Marky Mark is known for being a homophobe". He was known for being an underwear model and a rapper. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Very selective reading of my reference. Well-known within the gay community: He was a Southie for chrissakes; don't play dumb. And SummerPhDv2.0 erased my edit twice, I don't see how that's not edit warring especially with selective reading of my source. Brought it up on a noticeboard, thanks--A21sauce (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources do not unequivocally state he was homophobic (or, for that matter, anything about his opinions on same sex marriage "evolving"). In cases where there is a dispute over a controversial statement about a living person, our policy is quite clear: "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." In support of this policy, such removals are not subject to the 3 revert rule for edit-warring; the material is removed from the article unless and until a consensus is established that either WP:BLP does not apply for some reason or that cited reliable sources clearly support the material.

You are certainly correct that edit warring is a serious problem on Wikipedia, which is why we have the 3 reverts "bright line" rule. That said, potentially defamatory statements about living persons potentially expose Wikipedia to significant legal issues that eclipse those concerns. BLP does not allow edit warring, though, as the exception merely allows for removal of the contentious material and editors adding the material are still limited by 3RR. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

What is well-known in the gay community, unfortunately, cannot be printed as fact, largely because it constitutes original research. As for the edit-warring thing, per WP:BRD, once you were reverted, A21, it was your responsibility to seek consensus via discussion for the inclusion of the content. Slapping an edit-warring template on another user's page doesn't mean that your own edit warring will escape scrutiny. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

List of films considered the worst

Hi, just wanted to note, List of films considered the worst includes the Adam Sandler movie Jack and Jill (2011 film), which has the term "widely panned" in the lead section without sourcing - it is appropriate for lead sections to include a brief summary of reviews. I believe it's consistent to summarise the Pixels movie as "panned" in the lead section. -- Callinus (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

We have sources showing the percentage of critics who gave it a "positive" or "negative" review. Some of the critics gave it positive reviews (which is clearly not "panned"). The rest gave it negative reviews which may or may not have individually qualified as "pannings". We have another source which gives a numerical score which digests several hundred reviews into a number which does not indicate what the individual critics said and whether or not they "panned" the film.

• In the critical response section, we give both of those sources. What those two sources say individually is verifiable and can be objectively worded to report what the sources say. Combining those two sources -- with or without others -- to come up with "was panned by critics" is WP:SYN implying that all critics hated it. Some of the 82% did. Some might or might not have. Some (the 18%) clearly did not.

Yes, there are other articles on Wikipedia. Some of them are shining beacons of objectivity that we should strive to emulate. Others are turds that should be flushed away as soon as possible. Most are somewhere in the middle. Rather than identifying articles that do what you would prefer and assuming it is correct, please refer to our policies and guidelines which represent broadly held consensuses, rather than what the editors at one particular article tolerate or prefer. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jane Milmore, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Martin and People's Choice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Garfield: The Movie may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [Roger Ebert]] gave the film a "thumbs up," saying the movie was "charming."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://rogerebert.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it thanks. No need for concern, not a breech of privacy, no connection to me. Thanks again. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Relation to edit's in Fruitarianism article .

My objection's to your edit's are : Objection 1 . 1. You provided no references to the classification system you state as fact. 2. With out that classification system , you provide no logic to make the statement . 3. You do not link to any other article failing the first two objections .

Objection 2. 1. Removal of the statement ; this type of diet is a frugivor diet . This would imply it is not . Your logic seems to be ; it is a dietary choice and thus the statement made should be remove based on your statement . The problem i see here is your definition of the word fruitarianism and it automatically excludes the world from being in the category of frugivor . Do you also think meat eating be excluded automatically from carnivore category .

Can you explain your logic for your edit's ?

As this is discussion of article content, I have discussed the issue on the article's talk page. Long story short: Homo sapiens, without regard for what individuals eat or do not eat, are omnivores. Individual H. sapiens follow various diets, including/excluding various foods. As the fruitarian diet (variously defined) excludes all animal products, it is also a vegan diet (though a more restrictive one). - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That explanation is a faith based on modern human evolutionary theory and still does not address the objections . As for having no meat in the diet at all of a frugivor , this is the statement you are making by the statement above , that would be impossible in the wild . The scientific classification is primarily and above . Your statement does nothing to address the objections , instead begs more questions and discussions , which belong on the frugivor article and human evolutionary DNA results . They are the scientific studies you have objection's too . Please address the original objections as per wikipedia guide lines .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk • contribs) 22:30, September 2, 2015‎

As this is discussion of article content, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

Per our guideline, WP:BRD, when you Boldly changed the article from originally and I Reverted your edit, it was time to Discuss the issue. Rather than repeatedly reverting to your preferred version, the guideline asks that you discuss the issue and attempt to build a consensus before restoring your edit. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the talk page wikipedia links me to . As for your statement Boldly changed , you have my objections above which you still refuse to address and to use your language Boldly change . Your latest comment is you have provided reference , some where on the page , with out linking to it . Tho even if you did so , that still would not address the objections . Yes you will need to provide the reference source link next to your statement . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The article's talk page is at Talk:Fruitarianism. As this is discussion of article content, please discuss the issue there. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"World Civil Class & Race War on a Selection of Drug Users"

Hello! I answered on my talk page but I don't know if you'll see it. I only re-edited the one bit, for the reasons I disclosed in the re-edit info. The other ones you reverted I left as is, though I think that according to WP:BRD you went too far— "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary." Had you refined by changing them to simply the (less accurate) vernacular "War on Drugs" rather than removing the links, then we would be in agreement. But as it is, all of those articles are related to the "War on Drugs" and therefore should link to the article. Kaecyy (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It is your opinion that the "war on drugs", which you believe is known as the "World Civil Class & Race War on a Selection of Drug Users", should be raised as the cause of all conflict regarding drugs. That the so-called war is relevant is your opinion. While the soap-ish title you used is a problem, there is no indication the links belong in those contexts at all. - 21:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't "believe" it is known by that name; it is simply the truth that, historically and contemporarily, this is what the "War on Drugs" is— a race and class war, on a selection of the people who use drugs. And all drug prohibition is demonstrably a part of the "War on Drugs". Kaecyy (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. This is why we link to the Guy Who Murdered Native Americans and Owned Slaves in the "Land of the Free". That's not what I "believe", that is simply the truth. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha, touché! Thanks for the pointers, my friend. Kaecyy (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Prince (musician)

I'm still confused about one thing. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Got it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you remove my facts about the Little Einstein's names? I looked it up, and those names were chosen by the creators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambitx18 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Gambitx18, Summer explained her edit in this edit summary. The content is unsourced. We're not interested in editors' personal interpretations, as they constitute original research. In the future, please click "View history" at the top right of your screen if you have questions about why something was removed. Most good editors tend to add clear edit summaries. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(I use edit summaries too. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC))

Personal religious categories

Hello, how are you? I wanted to ask you about some of the issues in Wikipedia? In the past , I am objected to put an article (Chloë Sevigny) in (American Roman Catholic) category and you responded to me in this issue

I want to know what is the basic condition to put a personal religious categories such as (American Roman Catholic) category in one of the articles in Wikipedia

I learned through instruction, that the primary condition is that there be a personal confession as well, but one of the members differed with me and said that artists and athletes should not be placed in the religious categories , and this category special for priests, clergy, religious missionaries

I wanted to ask you because you are prominent and ancient member in English Wikipedia

If you are also confused the issue ask rest Members in wikipedia

thanks to listen me --Muhib mansour (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:American Roman Catholics does a pretty good job explaining this: "...persons from United States who self-identify as members of the Roman Catholic Church, and their beliefs are relevant to their notability."

To the best of my knowledge, Sevigny's notability is not particularly relevant to her notability. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sevigny's notability is not particularly relevant to her notability Typo? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to split hairs, I should point out that I'm not really "ancient". - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please review

""It is considered good practice..." Not a must.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not say it was a must. It is, however, unquestionably helpful for other editors. If you aren't interested in being helpful, well that's swell. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Cebr1979 I am in agreement with Summer. All things, from consensus to policy, are determined through discussion. Lack of decent communication only causes confusion since no editor is in your mind but you. "Not a must" doesn't reflect the reality of daily editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC

You can't be in agreement with Summer because you have no idea what we're discussing (and neither do I because she refused to tell me when I asked). In the future, please don't enter conversations mid-way.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, "Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make...". That is not my wording, that is the consensus notice. Your response was to call it "random nonsense" and to not post on your talk page again, then came here to argue that it was only good practice, not required. An uninvolved third editor agreed that yes, edit summaries are a good idea. You are now arguing that Cyphoidbomb can't know this without knowing the particular situation.

You've helpfully linked o H:ES. Yes, it does say it is "good practice", not "you must". A bit further down it says, "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit".

If you'd like to be helpful, provide a summary for every edit. If you don't care to be helpful, I can't force you. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends (series 19)

Please do not remove episodes from said page. All episodes listed have been confirmed by HiT Entertainment. Wild Water Rescue and Toad and the Whale have been released on DVD in the US. Thank You. :) --ACase0000 (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

ACase0000: There is absolutely nothing in the article to verify these forthcoming episodes. If they have "been confirmed", please provide a source for that. If the confirmation for an episode is that it has been released on DVD in the US, please provide a source for that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Amazon and other sites do not list episodes. There are far worse things on Wikipedia to be worried about than those episodes. Some them have confirmed by HiT Entertainment (the owners of Thomas & Friends) by email. Two DVDs will be coming out next month and in November and the sources are provided for one. I am going to add source for the second. --ACase0000 (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There's something worse on Wikipedia to worry about, with one exception. I'm not prepared to let everything else go until I find that one problem.

Someone on the Internet (you) says these are right. Meanwhile, we have other editors changing dates at random, adding fake shows, claiming reboots of various shows, adding fake cast info, etc. Sometimes these are honest mistakes. Other times, they are pure vandalism. The way we weed these out is by WP:V, one of our core policies.

There are two possibilities here:

• You have and are providing correct information. If we add this WP:unverifiable material, we are changing the very nature of Wikipedia. Currently, our content "is determined by previously published information...Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." If we don't add it, we don't have the information before anyone else does, which is exactly what our readers should expect. Wikipedia is not a news source.
• You are not providing correct information (whether by accident or design is immaterial). If we add this, we have provided incorrect information with no way of verifying that you got it right or wrong. If we do not add this material, we did not provide incorrect information.

Given the extensive vandalism I have been seeing in kids' media and train-related articles, I can see not particular reason that this article should be exempted from one of our three core content policies. You'll need to find a source for the material or establish a WP:CONSENSUS to ignore WP:V in this case. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Summer, I can assure you, I am not a vandal. I am associated with Thomas & Friends and I work my tail off keeping the articles clean. Do you think Amazon is a reliable source? --ACase0000 (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If the material has not been published in secondary sources, it simple does not belong on Wikipedia. You'll need to find a source for the material or establish a WP:CONSENSUS to ignore WP:V in this case. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Will this work? --ACase0000 (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any of the information there. What part of your edit does that support? - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The Summary's. --ACase0000 (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same page? I don't see any summaries. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Scroll down to the editorial reviews section on that link. --ACase0000 (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I see three sentances that don't seem to confirm your additions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"Percy's sheep Escape" is the episode "Very Important Sheep." "Den and Dart fear working apart" is Den and Dart." --ACase0000 (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The source says that one of the things that happens on the video is "Percy's sheep escape". It does not say there will be an episode titled "Very Important Sheep". That "Den and Dart fear working apart" does not indicate there is an episode called "Den and Dart" Heck, we could also pretend that "Percy loses control" means there is an episode called "Percy Freaks Out". The source does not support any portion of your addition. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? Are you an administrator? --ACase0000 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

1) Really. It does not say ANYTHING close to what you added.

2) No, not that it matters. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't worry about any on that page. I have connections with HiT Entertainment. And I will NOT added any false information. Thank You and Have a good day! :) --ACase0000 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That you have a conflict of interest does not exempt the page from our core policies. The information is not verifiable. As a result, it does not belong on Wikipedia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have left you a message on my talk page please respond there. Thank you. --ACase0000 (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Journalist trying to get in touch

Hey there, my name's Ethan Chiel and I'm trying to get in touch about the Meek Mill vandal. If you'd be willing to talk to me for a bit can you email me at [email protected] or bug me on twitter @ethanchiel? thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.37.206 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I just spent a precious five seconds of my life trying to imagine how me discussing a random Wikipedia editor with someone else I don't know would be beneficial to me, you, them or anyone else. I didn't come up with anything. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Holiday vandal

Hi Summer, re: your revert here, this is a Wisconsin-based vandal who keeps adding inappropriate holiday flags to articles. The IPs I've noticed are 69.29.251.143, 174.125.247.124, 174.125.244.73, 72.160.231.200, 69.29.252.110. Have a fun weekend! :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Fan-freakin-tastic! I just love cleaning up messes created by obsessive vandals! - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sharon Leal

The reason why I put 07 because that's was the end of her marriage and she is no longer married to him. Pmaster12 (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Here's an example on what my edit of Kevin Hart infobox. Pmaster12 (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The first time, you added the date with no source at all and indicated it was a minor edit. I reverted the edit, stating it was unsourced and not a minor edit. I also sent you a note explaining that I had reverted it as unsourced.

Now, you have restored the edit saying they divorced in 2007, citing a source that does not mention the marriage, divorce or 2007. Additionally, the source you cited is a blog. Your next edit adds the unsourced claim that she has a child. You have marked this as a minor edit as well.

This article is about a living person. Our policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) is very clear. You will need to cite reliable sources for both pieces of information.

Please be sure that you mark truly minor changes as minor. Such changes would include correcting typos, changing spacing, etc. If your edit adds, removes or changes information in any way, it is not minor.

Due to the extra level of caution expected in WP:BLP articles, I would strongly recommend that you discuss any further changes and your sources on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I've rangeblocked 2601:2C5:C501:16F7:0:0:0:0/65 for two weeks, which may provide some relief.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please Help

Hi, Summer! Can you please add those episodes and refs, I posted on Cyphoidbomb's talk page? --ACase0000 (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure why I didn't see that ping, please see my note at User_talk:Cyphoidbomb#Thomas_.26_Friends_.28series_19.29 - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I seen your note. But I can't add the information on this tablet. I would if I could. :-) --ACase0000 (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Lost and Found is not an episode. PBS combines two episodes together and gives the combo episode some funky name. The real episode titles are listed on the link. --ACase0000 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read the descriptions in the link you added you will notice that What I mentioned above. --ACase0000 (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Notifying you, as you previously placed a WP:PROD on this article. — Cirt (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

StormExpert = HarryPotterFan4747

Hi Summer, not sure if you saw the to-do at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HarryPotterFan4747/Archive, but the short story is that HarryPotterFan4747 has been confirmed as the master of the StormExpert socks. (In case you want to update your notes.) Happy weekending, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I saw that. Kinda surprised me, but I can't argue with a CU! - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Your AIV

Weird. Looks like Huggle didn't detect that the previous warning was a Level 4, so it automatically started over? Not 100% sure why it did that. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Extremely positive reviews

Re: [8]

"I really, really, really, really, really, like Spider-Man 2 very, very, super duper much!"

— Leonard Maltin

"Oh my actual Christ. Spider-Man 2 has totally knocked my socks off. I'm literally walking around the theater right now with no socks, through the sticky soda residue—I think there's a popcorn stuck between the pinky toe and ring toe of my left foot—because of how great this movie is. A teenage theater employee is trying to kick me back into my chair, but Spider-Man 2 is too great to watch while seated. Omigod, what a fantastic film. I think I'm having a heart attack from the action-packed excitement—my left arm is definitely numb—it's definitely a heart attack! what a perfect way to go!

— Roger Ebert

Are these what extremely positive reviews looks like? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are just generally positive. Or maybe mixed-to-positive or mostly positive. We'll need to establish a consensus point-of-view on the talk page.

Extremely positive is more like this: "I loved this movie. Loved loved loved loved loved this movie. Loved it. Loved every poetic intelligent deep audience-appreciating moment of it. Loved the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Loved the implied compliment to the audience by its belief that anyone would grasp its depths." - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the Maltin one might be extremely slightly positive. Confusing, because he does end with "super duper much", but it was just sort a very high "like", not a "love" for most of the way until we got there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you pick Maltin at random and just get really lucky? His review is, decidedly "Meh." - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't like to draw a lot of attention to myself, but let's just say that through some smart investing, I successfully acquired an extensively valuable tome of unpublished content from Maltin, titled, Maltin's Real Opinions About Shitty Movies. I'm planning a short run in hardcover. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Submit the text as an article and International Business Publications will publish it for you. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Police brutality list

Can we make some progress There's another editor making a point there and the lack of criteria isn't helping. Hasn't enough time waiting for more interested parties passed? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for your welcome, although I've been here a while. As to your comment on my talk page suggesting that I should stick to comments improving the article, I admit that my comment on Talk: Argument from poor design was merely questioning the qualifications of those people making such broad judgements. However, I didn't feel as I was out of place, as more than half of the comments on the page appeared to be from people debating the general subject and the finer points of atheism. Few of the comments appeared to deal directly with improving the page.

However, my comments on Talk: Fruitarianism were, in my opinion, aimed at "improving the page". It stated in the article that "some Fruitarians don't eat fruit with seeds", which is impossible, as by nature, all fruits have seeds. If some fruitarians are simply mistaken in their notions about fruit, then the article should reflect this. If there is, in fact, some way to only eat fruit without seeds, it should say how. In my mind the mere suggestion that some people "only eat fruit without seeds" suggests that there ARE fruit without seeds, which false, and therefore propagating incorrect information. If the statement is indeed true, and not just some confused persons contributions, the statement should be qualified to make sure no-one gets the wrong idea. I would do the same if it said on Vegetarian that "some people only eat organisms that don't reproduce". Such a thing is an impossibility, as all organisms reproduce in some fashion..45Colt 04:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That a problem (off-topic chat on a particular page) is common does not mean it is not a problem.

In my reply at Talk:Fruitarianism, I said I could not find the text you were referring to. I still can't. Can you please directly quote the problematic section? - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You know...

If we just made you an administrator, it would save a lot of people a lot of work... Well maybe not save you work, but a lot of other people. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd support that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Meh. It's not that I prefer to get on the intercom and call for a mop on aisle 3 compared to walking over to aisle 3 with a mop. It's more that one is not simply handed a mop, there would need to be a lot of dramatic weeping and gnashing of teeth about the damage I've done, the vandals/socks/annoying _________s I've offended, etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be much simpler that way. Having gone through the ritual, twice, I can understand the reluctance to want to go through the process. Having said that, I have always said, if people are complaining about you, calling you names, and vandalizing your userpage, you are probably doing something right. Should you change your mind, let me know. It comes with a 25% pay increase. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming the tool is working correctly, (which is a questionable assumption on my part), I don't see much article creation, and many editors get pissy with admin candidates who don't have *many* GAs and FAs under their belts. To me, that's nuts, because it makes adminship a far more exclusive group than it needs to be, and it effectively requires all admin prospects to have mastery of English at a professional level, which is completely unrealistic and unimportant for being able to block vandals and protect pages. Frankly, it's on the cusp of xenophobia, if you ask me. (Which you didn't.) It also needlessly discriminates against ADD editors like myself, who volunteer just as much time and are far better suited to gnoming and managing tons of small edits across a shitload of articles than building an entire FA from scratch. Some of these people view adminship as a promotion instead of what it really is, a lateral movement into a trust position. In re kelapstick's 25% joke above, you can't be promoted if there's no pay. Anyhow, I don't know why I chose your talk page to ramble. Sorry! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I had one GA and about 20+ DYKs, maybe 100 shoddy articles started. People seem to take article creation as more important than article expansion. The community is funny on what the expect, and it seems like everyone wants the exact opposite of everyone else. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"I know what you're thinking: "Summer, you've make like 14 bazillion edits (15 bazillion if we include "discussions" with editors begging to be blocked). Why only 25-30 new articles?" Well, the way I look at it, if we had 10,000 editors just like me, we'd have close to 300,000 articles about semi-obscure basketball/tennis stars, vaguely mobbed up restauranteurs and defunct aquariums. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?" In any case, it's not a "problem" I intend to "fix" any time soon. It's one of the many sins of mine that would be grist for the mill at an RfA. Like I said, "Meh." - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, somehow I made it, and I've only created a few articles, mostly from content already in existence. Take that non-underdogs! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:V and your bias

Actually not everything has to meet WP:V and you know that to be the case. As the policy states, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable", it does not state as you stated on my talk page, have to have a reference just because anons have been adding content to articles. If that were the case, I want you to spend a good few weeks removing all unsourced content and content that may have been added by anon editors across all of main space. You're singling this article out for special treatment and that smacks of bias and censorship. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Censorship? Wow, that's a rather loaded term. Do I have a "bias" here? Sure, I don't like unverifiable material. Yes, Paris is in France. That is not in the same category as Film X is scheduled to be released on February 30, 2101. Here's some more of my "bias" at work:[9][10][11][12][13] Let's see, that's a random song's genre, a video game's "landmark" status, the ethnic population of a region in Iran, another film's supposed dates, a whole bunch of alumni with false source cites, etc. That's a small bit of my bias today. There's plenty more. Feel free to bring up my "bias" and "censorship" at whatever forum you find appropriate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

List of box office bombs

I know you have expressed concerns about List of box office bombs in the past. Anyway, with the help of an IP I have put forward a proposal for over-hauling the article. Obviously there is quite a bit of work involved which I honestly don't mind doing, but I'm not prepared to undertake it just to have it vetoed at a later stage, so I'd like to get a bit of input, and maybe formulate a consensus for moving forward. Following the discussion at Talk:List_of_box_office_bombs#The_problem_with_original_research I put forward a proposal at Talk:List_of_box_office_bombs#Prototype (which would effectively replace the current tables) and would like to know if it is something you could get behind. I'll flesh it out but I just need some support for it now the IP has gone AWOL. Betty Logan (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert?

Really? Most of those "voices" are sourced with unreliable sources and I post a singer with a source from an online paper and I get reverted? Ok then let's clean up the whole list. — Tom^(T2ME) 16:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel free. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever met-?-

When you remove a factual statement from an article, is that ever on the basis of contrary knowledge?-MaynardClark (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Rarely. Usually if I am removing a factual statement, it is typically because the statement is:

• controversial/unlikely and unsourced
• an opinion
• unsourced and contrary to sourced info
• trivial/inappropriate
• redundant
• incomprehensible

There are other reasons, but that's pretty much it. If there is well-sourced information that I somehow know is wrong, I need to look closely at the source. (Does it really say what we are saying it says? Is it really reliable?) Failing that, I need to find a source for what I believe to be true.

Is there a particular reason you ask? - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank You!

I appreciate your help with the Thomas & Friends articles. It is a lot for one person to do all the work alone. Thank you so much. :-D --ACase0000 (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Five Nights at Freddy's

This is in response to the "Five nights at Freddy's" revert, after I tried to put in a review from users and parents. I don't think it was a "bold" change, and I do think it was an important addition. The Wikipedia page reads like an advertisement, and after your comments to me I wonder who you are.

I am a concerned parent. My 10 year old just spent a week in bed with my husband and me because she watched the game (she didn't even play it). A friend of hers showed it to her, and told her "I couldn't sleep for three days" after playing the game. The friend heard about it from another little boy in the neighborhood who said he couldn't sleep for a week. It is clearly NOT a children's game.

I looked on the internet quickly just to find out more about the game, and in short order had many citations stating that this is not a children's game. One teen user even referred other users to the youTube site "How to make five nights at freddy's not scary" - which I thought was helpful.

I will try to find more citations for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara Prueitt (talk • contribs) 02:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue on the article talk page as there are at least two other editors involved.

Wikipedia is based on what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject. Mine and your personal lives and opinions of the subjects of articles are not relevant here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, based on verifiable information from reliable sources. Opinions and original research are antithetical to this mission. If your goal is to warn parents about this game (or anything else), Wikipedia is simply not the appropriate venue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. You asked me to respond to you, so I did. I will go to the Five nights at Freddy's page and respond there too. I agree that independent and reliable sources should be involved, and I wonder if how independent of Five nights at Freddy's you are. I gave no opinions on the page - I cited parental reviews, and noted that others had created videos whose purpose was to help children recover from the video game. Both are verifiable. I think the parental reviews are just a important as the rock-star reviews and bragging rights of the creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara Prueitt (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Sara Prueitt, I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia speaking informally. Your musing about "I wonder how independent of Five nights at Freddy's you are" is somewhat attacky and not helpful, although I can understand your frustration. You added content and another editor rejected it. Your recourse is to open a discussion on the article's talk page to seek consensus for inclusion. Granted, you are a relatively new editor, so you are unfamiliar with established protocols. No biggie! But let's please move forward if we can. :) For some perspective, I've crossed paths thousands of times with Summer across hundreds of articles, an I can assure you that her integrity is top notch and when she finds content she believes to be unencylopedic in any article, she removes it as she did here. Sometimes the community agrees with her, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the community agrees with me, sometimes it doesn't. Discussion is how we make sure the community editing system is working. Hope this helps! Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not an administrator on the English Wikipedia (I'm too ornery for that).

I am not in any way that I am aware of connected to the video game Five Nights at Freddy's.[14] The closest thing to this issue I can come up with is co-authoring an article that was published alongside an unrelated article the mentioned Common Sense Media and several similar sites. I have used the site on several occasions since then when choosing a movie to take my niece to.

I will respond to the rest on the article's talk page, as needed. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Railway engines (Thomas & Friends)

I am reverting your re-addition of the incorrect and guideline and policy violating advice about images on this article. WP:NFCC #3 and WP:NFLISTS are very clear about this and directly contradict this advice. It was added more than eight years ago, and the editor who added it (incorrectly) has been gone from the project for seven years. Please do not restore this bad advice again without seeking consensus, that such mass overuse of images is permitted. I assure you it isn't, but you're welcome to attempt to change the standing consensus as expressed at WP:NFLISTS. You might try to do so at WT:NFC. You may also wish to review this. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You are saying the editor's advice was incorrect. I am not arguing that point. I am saying do not edit or remove another editor's comments without good reason. "They are wrong" is not a good reason. Good reasons -- acceptable reasons -- are outlined at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. Please note that none of the reasons are "They are wrong". Yes, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed". That said, "but normally you should stop if there is any objection." You have no policy based reason to remove the comment, there has been an objection. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• The advice reads as how to add various things to the article, including images. This incorrect advice was being adhered to as recently as this month. WP:IAR exists for a reason, and this is one of them. The advice section is set out as what is supposed to happen to the article, as if it is local policy on the page. That 'policy' is flat wrong, and led to the article being one of the highest users of non-free content on the project. If you object to the removal, try testing the waters at WT:NFC if you think it should be included. I assure you it won't be acceptable. You are, however, welcome to try. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to be hearing what I am saying. You continue to argue that the editor was wrong. I am not saying they are right or wrong. I am saying "talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." You disagree with the editor. right or wrong, their comments are legitimate. If you disagree with them, reply to their comments and say so. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think we're talking past each other, because I feel as you do. The 'advice' is directly against policy and guideline. It has no place being on the talk page giving people bad advice about how to improve the article by way of images. Refuting it isn't the point. The person who placed it left the project years ago. There is no ongoing discussion. How about this compromise? I've archived all the old content, restoring the policy violating advice, leaving the current talk page with just 2015 content. Fair enough? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I was waiting for your response before suggesting doing exactly that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm very sorry

Won't happen again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.153.134.97 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Shocking though it may be, it did happen again and again and again. 187.153.134.97 was blocked for 31 hours on 20 November 2015. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Why did you re-add something unsourced to List of fictional antiheroes?[15] Edward321 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I was trying to revert the addition of that material, not the removal of it. My bad. Fixed it. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on Looney Tunes pages

The user with IP 108.30.154.16 appears to be systematically vandalizing pages related to Looney Tunes inserting false edits such as ending songs and adding episodes that never occurred. I feel it might be prudent to prevent the user from making any edits. Thanks for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kane Hell (talk • contribs) 12:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Kane Hell, I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I've issued the IP a warning and have reverted many of their recent disruptions. If you spot more vandalism from them, please drop me a line on my talk page, just please remind me that the discussion started on SummerPhDv2.0's page because I'm easily confused and forgetful. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What Cyphoid said. Thanks all. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

About my edit on TROTF

I think it is necessary to include info about the film's negative reviews on the heading of the page.112.210.252.223 (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

(Refers to [16] and [17].)

Your edit is not supported by reliable sources. You state it "received generally extreme negative reviews". This would seem to be yourinterpretation of 19% of reviews being "positive". Your summation apparently believes the remaining 81% (which were "negative") were extremely negative. Additionally, you dismiss one fifth of the reviews with "generally". Additionally, you have decided that the 81% noted "its lacking a sufficient plot and its insults to the intelligence of its audience" (opinions which you are stating as objective facts.

If you disagree with my assessment, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Undoing my edit

I get that you undid my edit on the list of tenors, and that it was done in this "good faith" baloney, but most of the range sites I've gone on to find ranges and add people onto those lists have been accurate, stating the entire range of their voices and their vocal type. News articles that I have seen in the references, in my opinion, are not accurate. Sorry if I made you angry by saying such a pretentious statement. Donny (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

DAZ14LPA: You agree with what "most of the range sites" you've gone to say. That's fine. Wikipedia, however, reports what independent reliable sources say.

If you feel a source you are using is a reliable source, please explain on the article's talk page how you feel it meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS or raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you feel that any sources cited in the article are not reliable, the same pages are good places to address the issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Honey

Thank you for your activity in my thread. Your nick looks a bit mysterious, your user page too. I like it :-)
PS. On your user page you wrote: "Apparent refusal to provide a source". But the word "apparent" is highly ambiguous. It means "obvious" or "seeming". Which of these meanings did you mean? 85.193.232.158 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Courtship disorder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Courtship disorder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtship disorder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — James Cantor (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Favor

Hi Summer, could I trouble you to please add Justin and the Knights of Valour to your watchlist? It's an obscure film title that has been the subject of a lot of pernicious editing, some from Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand, the source of a lot of questionable editing lately. I had to go through today and pull out a ton of crap. It's still not great, but it's way better than in this version. Some of the kids had added Hindi and Korean cast, questionable, unsourced awards, claimed Ben Kingsley was in the film, blah blah. And any help you could provide with vetting some of the info like the Soundtrack and such, would be nice, but no pressure on that. I'd just be happy to get extra eyes for andi-vandal purposes. Thanks mucho, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. It has Antonia Banderas and an 8% on RT? Never mind watching it here, I'm watching this film tonight for sure...

Looks like there's still some garbage in there. I've killed the unsourced budget and box office figures as they are completely at odds with IMDb's numbers. Box Office Mojo has nothing. I'll take a look at the rest of the article later. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your efforts to reduce the scourge of vandalism. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You Keep Me Hangin' On

What exactly is the problem or issue? You demanded a source so I gave you one. Then you left a vague edit summary alleging:"Not in source cited". Are you serious? Everything is indeed cited in the ref I used for the article. So, I ask you again, what exactly is the problem here? Caden ^cool 00:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see the note I left on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I replied to you on the talk page. Now, for the final time....exactly what is the problem??? Caden ^cool 02:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

--SummerPhD^v2.0 02:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Gator

Puting citation needed on his basis dumb! Watch the show! Additionally if you say it's needed on his basis, than the same could be said for all them according to you. --ACase0000 (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone decided the character looks like a particular engine. They added it to a website. Good for them. THIS website has, as one of its core principles, the idea that information must be verifiable.

I am sorry that you feel that "puting (this) on his basis dumb!" - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

His section has always said that he is based on a Columbian Steam Motor. Please do me a favour. Watch Thomas & Friends Season 18 episode, Toads Bright Idea to see Gator. --ACase0000 (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it has always been there? There have been articles on Wikipedia for years that were completely fabricated: EVERYTHING that had always been in them was completely wrong. I have seen images of the character.

I have seen images of the engine someone decided it is based on. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." (WP:NOR)

Please answer one simple question: If someone with no specialized knowledge of steam engines watches the show and sees the character, would they know the character is based on this obscure engine? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it has! Again the same could be said for all engines. --ACase0000 (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Without specialized knowledge of steam engines (i.e., being familiar with one obscure engine and knowing that it is in some way unique) there is absolutely no way an ordinary viewer would look at this minor character and say, "Oh, that is obviously a Columbian Steam Motor."

This is unsourced trivia and very likely a guess by some fan somewhere along the way. Find a reliable source or it will be removed. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You never stop. Leave it alone! And find something better do than freak up my life and play around with a show you have no knowledge whatsoever of!!! --ACase0000 (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not about you. This is about Wikipedia's core policies. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It is Not about you either. Now leave me alone and quit undoing my edits. Wikipedia is for everyone not just you. You must want to ruin peoples lives. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ruining lives?!?! Get some perspective. Violent crimes and diseases ruin lives. Encyclopedias provide verifiable information, nothing more, nothing less. If it isn't verifiable, it doesn't belong here. If a guess about the source for a minor character in a children's TV show is ruining your life, you're really too invested. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry I said that. It is not a guess. How do we know really what an engines the rest are based on? They are all just guesses. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

If they are guesses, they do not belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources have to say about a topic. If sources do not discuss a topic (or a detail about a topic), Wikipedia does not discuss the topic (or detail). - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Just delete the entire article. However the Reverend Wilbert Awdry and his son Christopher have said that all the characters they created are all based on an engine. Also check out "the real lives of Thomas the tank engine." --ACase0000 (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete the entire article.If they said they based the characters on existing engines, they probably did. That doesn't mean various guesses are correct or belong on Wikipedia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 07:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

HiT also basis their engines on real engines too. Could we say that: "Name appears to be based on blank" _? Also I watch the show regularly. --ACase0000 (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Who says "________ appears to be based on __________"? If some random person (you, the author of a blog, etc.) says it, who cares? I might as well add that "Chocolate seems to be the best flavor of ice cream" or "bison meat tastes a lot like over-cooked beef." - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Umm??? --ACase0000 (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

ACase, you seem confused, so I'll attempt to clarify: You are proposing that we allow you to add your personal opinion to an article. We can't do that. By saying "Character A looks like Train B", you are making an interpretive judgment. That's an opinion. If we were watching a cartoon about SUVs, you might think that one of them looks like a Tahoe, but to me, it might look like an Explorer. If we were watching a cartoon and you thought one of the characters sounded like they had a Spanish accent, but to my ear the accent sounded Cuban, who's right? Nobody, because it's interpretive, and neither statement belongs in the article. Only when reliable sources start to analyze the designs would we attempt to match the characters to the real-life trains. If you can find an interview where the show producers say, "We based the design of Character A on Train B" then we could consider including that piece of information. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Alright, then. Thank you for clarification. :-) Additionally they are not my personal opinions. But what's the use arguing? --ACase0000 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

They are someone's opinions or facts. If they are facts, we need reliable sources stating they are facts. If they are someone's opinion, they likely do not belong here at all. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wisconsin-based US Holiday vandal

Hey Summer, re: this reversion of yours, this guy is a repeat vandal I've loosely dubbed the Wisconsin Holiday Vandal or Wisconsin US Holiday Vandal. He's come up a few times since June 2015. Articles related to Bump in the Night tend to be popular with him and he chiefly tends to add US holidays (even non-holidays like April Fool's Day) near dates. Ta-ta! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I ran across them a few years back. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryan

It does "Confirm the material". Click on the blog Sodor's Legend of the lost Treasure and scroll down. It is plainly stated: "Series 20 will see Ryan and Daisy working together." --ACase0000 (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I see... it under the section titleed "Ryan", it's under the second section titled "Ryan". Having read the rest of the blog, it is still, as I said, a blog. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Ryan who wrote that about Ryan. Works with HiT. But I understand if you feel the blog isn't reliable enough. :-) --ACase0000 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Pattie Boyd

John Lennon's first wife Cynthia died in April. Paul McCartney's first wife Linda died in 1998. Ringo Starr's first wife Maureen died in 1998. A person can only have one first wife, therefore Pattie Boyd is irrefutably the sole surviving first Beatle wife. Why no one else can understand that, I'll never know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.131.81 (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As this issue involves several editors and the content of an article, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"direct"

Do you we really need to list "direct-to-video?" If we do "have" to do so, then it should be added to every character of the entire series that appeared in the film. Which would just clutter up the article more. In my opinion. Additionally the film was shown in select theaters in England and Australia. --ACase0000 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As this is discussion of article content, please take the discussion to the article's talk page. (Long story short: The article largely discusses a TV show, titles of anything else probably don't make immediate sense, similar to if we were discussing the Beatles and suddenly threw in lesser-known film and TV show titles in with the album titles.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This completely off topic, but it falls within our discussions. Why are you messing around with Thomas related articles? Have you ever watched Thomas & Friends? --ACase0000 (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ACase0000, your question, with its accusatory tone, doesn't warrant an answer. Any editor can edit any article regardless of any familiarity with the subject matter. Editors who have never seen a particular show or movie might actually be better suited to edit those articles than fans, because fandom doesn't get in the way for them. Worry about content, not the contributor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: How rude you are. I do a lot here and you treat me like I committed murder because I am fan. Have you know,. I have stopped a lot of vandals from destroying the pages. I disagree with Wikipedia and it's polices. And this stuff about Gator is so stupid. He is based on the engine that Summer says he's not. --ACase0000 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not said that Gator is or is not based on a particular engine. (More on that in a second.) If you disagree with Wikipedia and its polices, it would seem conflict would be inevitable for you here. I have repeatedly stated that stating something that cannot be verified violates one of our core policies. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources. You disagree, which is fine (in isolation). You cannot, however, expect the entire project to change to fit you.

There are several Thomas wikis. I don't pretend to know their individual policies, but you might be more at home with one of them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

ACase0000 Just like your irrational suggestion to Summer that she "must want to ruin peoples lives", your suggestion that I'm treating you "like [you] committed murder" is an absurd emotional leap. You have twice targeted another editor at a personal level, and I'm telling you that that's not appropriate here. Nobody's said that you are bad, nobody's accused you of ruining people's lives, nobody's accused you of murder. The entirety of the discussions with you that revolve around a children's cartoon about a train has been calm, cool, and collected. Take a step back, maybe take the five-day holiday to chill, and maybe you'll gain some perspective. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to both of you. Summer, I am sorry for bothering you. Those Thomas wiki's are just as bad. @Cyphoidbomb: Sorry for everything. I just want to be helpful and I sometimes come off the wrong way. --ACase0000 (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, SummerPhD! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to send you a kitten.

Because why wouldn't I???

Iowamutt (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Stitches (song)

Can you reverted to the New York Times article source "pop" (though I'm an IP). Musicnotes.com is reliable for music arrangement related details (keys, tempo etc., but not reliable for genre). 115.164.53.84 (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Please address the issue (whatever it is) on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Ashmore Group

Hi - I notice you have proposed Ashmore Group for deletion. WP:LISTED suggests that in the case of listed companies "sufficient independent sources [demonstrating notability] almost always exist for such companies." In this case it is a FTSE 250 Index company so it is one of the largest companies on the London Stock Exchange. The article already makes it clear that it is a FTSE 250 company. I have also now added an edit (suitably cited to a national newspaper) explaining that it has $63.7 billion under management. I hope this helps you lift the tag. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thomas and Friends (series 19)

All of the episodes you have removed have been released on DVD. Now leave them alone. Their other "unsourced" things to mess with. --ACase0000 (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We've been through this before. Please cite sources. Future episodes are VERY LIKELY to be challenged (because of vandals adding completely false future episodes of kids' TV shows). Wikipedia has a policy (not a "guideline" or "suggestion") on this: "... 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." WP:V

I am adding tags requesting inline citations for the material. If citations are not added, I will remove the material again shortly (if no one else does). If you restore the material without citing sources at that point, you will likely be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not a vandal. I have these episodes on official DVD's that I can prove that I purchased at Walmart. --ACase0000 (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand. This is not about whether or not you are a vandal. The only way anyone can tell if the material in the article is correct or not is by whether or not there is a citation to a reliable source. Stating on a talk page or in an edit summary where you got the material is not a substitute.

Anything in an article that does not cite a reliable source can be removed by any editor. As there are numerous vandals adding false future episodes to articles relating to kids' TV shows, unsourced future episodes will be removed. The only way to prevent this is to include cites when you add such material.

"Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Add inline citations to sources or the material will be removed. If you restore it, you will likely be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I do understand. I was just stating that I was not. Can you site DVD's? --ACase0000 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITE and Template:Cite AV media. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) Also does the AV media thing have to be listed on all of the episodes? --ACase0000 (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

So that anyone reading the article will be able to verify the information. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ask you why, it had to be done. I asked if it had to be done. --ACase0000 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, so that anyone reading the article will be able to verify the information. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

National Railway Museum entry

== January 2016 == [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:SummerPhDv2.0|SummerPhDv2.0]]. I noticed that you made a change to an article, [[:National Railway Museum]], but you didn't provide a [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable source]]. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|include a citation]] and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the [[Help:Referencing for beginners|referencing for beginners]] tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:SummerPhDv2.0|my talk page]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-unsourced1 --> SummerPhD^v2.0 03:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Have added two citations to confirm that the restoration work for the Flying Scotsman was taken away from the Museum after an independent review, citing serious failures. The principal restoration work, now completed, was carried out by the independent firm Riley and Son. The train is now back on the mainline.

Best

Neil— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anments (talk • contribs) 11:10, January 12, 2016‎

I've tweaked the formatting of your comment to clarify that you were quoting me (as opposed to me sending myself a note...) and to add your signature. I haven't reviewed your edit. If I have any issues with the edit, I will note it there. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cite

Hi, Summer! I added a cite Av media thing on the Thomas & Friends (series 19) page. I may not have did it right. Also I'm not sure about "publisher" or "medium" --ACase0000 (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Check Template:Cite_AV_media again, specifically Template:Cite_AV_media#Publisher and Template:Cite_AV_media#Title.

Additionally, you have restored three titles, but provided a cite for only one of them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank You! Don't worry I'll get to it. :-) --ACase0000 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Would the publisher be Universal (who distributes the series) or HiT Entertainment? --ACase0000 (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume HiT is the studio and Universal is the distributor of the show. You will need to look at the disc and/or the disc's case. You are looking for the home video distributor, which might be Universal Pictures Home Entertainment or one of its subsidiaries. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

HiT and Arc Productions produce the show. Universial Pictures Home Entertainment is the distributor. Thanks, Summer! --ACase0000 (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply.

Hi there. I did find this ref on Cyrus's vocal range being alto. [18]. Its in the article somewhere. Is it good enough? --XenaDance-- (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC) --XenaDance--

Given the fact that you are replacing one source that disagrees with you with a source that you agree with, I'd ask that you add a note to the article's talk page as to why you feel your source is more reliable than the one you are removing. In addition to the article you are editing (Miley Cyrus), it's an issue at List of contraltos in non-classical music. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Norm of the North

Sorry about that, I did not believe that is was original research.--70Jack90 (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, Summer! I just wanted to apologize for being rude to you. I am very sorry. :) It just gets frustrating when someone removes an edit, maybe you can relate?

Also the List of Thomas & Friends voice actors article sees alot of vandalism. --ACase0000 (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of our core principles. "This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

ANY material about an as yet unaired TV show that does not cite a reliable source is very likely to be challenged. Always cite a source.

ANY material removed with an edit summary of "unsourced" and/or a warning on your talk page that the material was unsourced has been challenged. Always cite a source.

ANY time you revert the removal of unsourced material without explaining, you are edit warring. Do not do this.

ANY time you say something negative about another editor, you are making a personal attack. Do not do this.

You really don't seem to be getting this. Please make a note of this message. I will be referring to it until you stop your disruption or are blocked from editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand, 100%. I am very sorry. I am not going to be disruptive again. I am truly sorry for everything rude I've said to you. --ACase0000 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand you are very sorry and will never do it again.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I won't do it again. No need to post all that. I have learned my lesson. ;-) --ACase0000 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Be Cool Scooby Doo

That is a rich comment that you leave on my talk page about 'disrupting' things when YOU are the one constantly removing contributors 'sourced' I may add, additions. Maybe you should stop deleting people's work. I presume you have a copy of the book that I sourced, and I might add, have read it from cover to cover, therefore you can 100% confirm that the information is not in there as I stated! As the answer to this is most definitely no I suggest you stop disrupting my contributions. Jb666 (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You added a lump of opinions on a Scooby-Doo series that ran for one season, citing "Hollywood's America: Understanding History Through Film", which is scheduled to publish a new edition in March. To be clear: The 4th edition came out a year ago, so it does not say anything about the show (which premiered 3 months ago). The 5th edition is not out yet. You said what you wanted to say and, apparently, added a wholly unrelated source (covering the history of American films) that you haven't seen.

Another editor removed your addition, stating the source has "nothing to do with Scooby-Do!"[27]

This didn't cause you to stop and reconsider. Instead, you re-added the claim, citing a self-published "Guide to Series Books: Movie & TV Tie-ins from Star Wars to Star Trek". The series in question began airing in October 2015 and this pseudo-book was "published" two months later, giving reasons for the otherwise unsourced cancellation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Be_Cool,_Scooby-Doo!&diff=prev&oldid=702197412

Normally, I'd hope for a page number to help readers hoping to verify the claims. It's no matter, though, as the supposed source seems to be lists of books that tie in to various movies and TV shows, with no relationship to the claims being made.[28] Incidentally, self-published sources are not reliable sources. To summarize: It seems to be very unlikely that the information you gave is in the source you cited. Additionally, the source is not reliable.

I removed your addition, stating that the source is not reliable.[29]

Let me be a bit more direct. If either source says anything close to what you are claiming, please cite an edition number and page number. I have convenient access to an Ivy League university library and can easily check. If you are correct, I will apologize for this:

You are adding your personal opinions and unsourced (perhaps false) claims to the article, citing sources you know have nothing whatsoever to do with your claim. Stop. - 15:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Explanation

Here there is the page List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series which, as the title of the pages it, mentions the nominations and wins of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.Moreover, in the Content Accolades of the page The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey it is said just the link which is the page List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series. That is why I removed all these wins and nominatios of the third Hobbit film from that page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.212.188 (talk • contribs) 19:38, February 1, 2016‎

Please use edit summaries to make it clear why you are doing what you are doing. In the present case, without an edit summary it looks like someone simply blanked a large section of the article for no reason, which is a common form of vandalism. I'll add a note to your talk page giving a full explanation. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Explanation

I would like to explain something about the page The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.What's the point the existence of wikitable in this Content called Accolades; This wikitable says the wins and nominations of the third Hobbit film. What is the reason of the existence of this wikitable in the page The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies;There is a special page (this page is a wikitable generally) about the Accolades of the entire Hobbit film trilogy named List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series.Also, there is no wikitable about the wins and nominations OF the two previous Hobbit films in both pages, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.There is no reason the existence of wikitable about the wins and nominations of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies in the specific page.That is why I removed it.

Also, in case you don't know, I already gave an edit summary about the editings in the page The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.Look it here [30].The edit summary is this one: I removed the wikitable about the wins and nominations of the third Hobbit film because there is a Special page about it.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.212.188 (talk • contribs) 14:30, February 3, 2016‎

You removed the material once without an edit summary. Mlpearc restored it. You removed it again without an edit summary. I restored it. Then you removed it with an edit summary. Mlpearc restored it again. Why? You'd have to ask Mlpearc. 78.26 blocked you. Why? You'd have to ask 78.26. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In case you don't know, I have already spoken with 78.26.

Do some actual work

In regards to this [31] I'm not the one who added the info. Instead of removing content why don't you do some actual work for a change? You never add content, you never add sources, you never do any copy edits, you never add images, and you never create any articles. Do some real work. Caden ^cool 19:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Do watch the personal attacks. If you are unsatisfied with the type of work I do, please raise the issue at whatever noticeboard you would think would address the issue or bring it up at my next performance appraisal. Your blanket statement that I never add content, sources, etc. would be immaterial if true, which is clearly is not.

You restored unsourced material. That makes it your WP:BURDEN. You stated that it would be very easy to find a reliable source for the material. It was not. Rather than doing so yourself, you've spent a nice bit of time complaining about me not doing it for you. Ironic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You bet I'm unsatisfied with your lack of work. If you have the time to remove content from multiple articles well then you have the time to find the sources. It's called being productive by doing what is called work. Try it. Caden ^cool 19:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Doubling down on the personal attacks is a bad idea. Consider this a second warning.

In case you would like to address the issue (I'm guessing AIV, but make your own call), here are several more things I removed today: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. Take it to a noticeboard and cite policies/guidelines and I'll hear you out. Otherwise, you can talk to my manager about my "work" not being the particular work you want me to do and see if you can get me fired. Good luck and goodbye.

(Incidentally, I see you still haven't done the "very easy" task of citing that material. The world loss: we'll miss hearing the presidential candidates' opinions on the breaking news that there will be extras on that Chipmunks DVD.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Caden, you have been here long enough to know that 1. Personal attacks are not acceptable. And saying that Summer never does any "real work" is a personal attack. It's also with some degree of irony that you are getting after Summer for not sourcing the material, when you can just as easily as she could. 2. The burden of proof lies with the editor adding the material. It is not expected that when someone adds unsourced information to an article, that the referencing will be added later by another user. It is expected that the material will be sourced by the editor adding the information in question. Further to this, it should be noted, that just as not every fart is notable, not every DVD extra included in the home video release is notable enough for inclusion. The statement Another noteworthy bonus feature is a collection of musical performances from all three films., is hardly noteworth, or necessary. Summer, while I am not your manager, I do authorize a 10% raise. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

Regarding "The Great Race" characters. Go on Amazon and search the engines' names and you will see proof of them. --ACase0000 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See User_talk:SummerPhDv2.0#Hello_2. Search engine results are not a reliable source. Mentioning something in an edit summary is not citing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You've misunderstood what I said. Go on Amazon (Btw, Amazon is not a search engine, is an online shopping site) type in the said the characters name and you will be given a link with the characters' information. --ACase0000 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You must cite a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I know all about that. Let me try this again in different wording: Is the Amazon links reliabe? --ACase0000 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Dustin

Hi, Summer! I found an article about Dustin's basis, if it helps. Here --ACase0000 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

To be a source for something about a character in the Thomas kids' show, the source must discuss the character. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Why though? That's ridiculous. (Btw, it's not just a kid show.) --ACase0000 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Your guess is original research. A source must give the information it is being cited to support.

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. This is one of the pillars of the project. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I was just trying to help out. --ACase0000 (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Some help

Hey! Could you please help me with Tale of the Brave and the 2010 to 2012 Thomas films pages? some IP removed the wikitables and US cast on those pages. I've fixed the Sodor's Legend of the Lost Treasure and The Adventure Begins pages. --ACase0000 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Pac-Man update

I noticed you left Special:Diff/611103038 some time ago.

I thought you might be interested to know about Special:Diff/704303724 and Special:Diff/704304436 in case you had better tools for dealing with problem users than I do. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

the nut job

The sequel remains unrealised. Please stop undoing edits about the fact that its release was canceled (I'm not harrasing you.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.69.107 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You will need to find a reliable source that says the release was postponed, rescheduled, cancelled, etc. Anything you add on this point without a source is unverifiable and will be reverted. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was quietly cancelled.

EXTRA:go on you local movie theater's web site and look at their showtimes. Trust me,you won't find anything realated to the nut job 2.68.12.69.107 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

OH one more thing,I'm not adding unsorced content,I'll just remove vandalism and fix typos.68.12.69.107 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You might be "pretty sure", but we need a source, not just your hunch.

That I don't see it at my "local theater" tells me one thing: It is not at my local theater right now. Was it cancelled? Changed to direct-to-video? Came and went quickly? Will now be broadcast on some cable channel? Maybe it was delayed a week, a month, a year... We don't know. We need a source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A fan?

Bad faith attack, I am a vastly more established editor that you are. Have someone else revert the edit to your version is they agree such as Northamerica1000 whose judgment I trust. Removing NYTimes citation as puff? Gimme a break. I've ignored you in the past, but not this time. I was going to be civil, but accusing me of being a fan is pure bad faith. Look at my edit history I work on everything. I've also done considerablely more work on this encyclopedia that you. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not "attack" anyone, in bad faith or otherwise. I said the article seemed to have been written by a fan. Without digging into who wrote it, I called you a "fan". Harsh. I'd encourage you to assume good faith, discuss the article, etc., but you obviously know that's what you should do.

Look, I get it. You, I assume, wrote the article. I said it has problems. You feel that is an attack on "your" article and, by extension, you. I boldly made some changes. You reverted or intend to revert all or some of them. Fine. Now we should discuss ways to improve the article on the article's talk page. That you have been editing since 2005 and I since 2006 is immaterial. Who has more edits is immaterial. Whether or not you trust my judgement is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly an attack when you accuse an established editor of writing a puff piece and being a a fan, essential saying I am not here to build an eycyclopedia. You did this two other times with John's Roast Pork and Jim's Steaks, but I ignored it as I had better thing to do, third time is a charm so they say. It is abnormal to leave such bitey remarks in the comments field, not to mention you'd be a much better editor if you spent half the time on the main space instead of talk pages trolling people. All things you should know better. My god, you wrote a 3 paragraph attack comment on the talk page, you okay there buddy? I am confident that if the two versions are compared, mine most likely stands. Have someone else revert. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I said the article is a mess (it is) and seemed to me to have been written by a fan (it still seems that way). I did not say you are WP:NOTHERE or say you wrote a puff piece. You did call me a troll. I made some changes that I feel need to be made. Please discuss that on the article's talk page. If we can arrive at a consensus there, we're good. If not, we can use one of various methods to bring in other opinions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)

The album was recorded between February and September 1982, it says so right in it's own article... Why would Sweet Dreams have been recorded in 1981? Put it back. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.89.22.47 (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the album article did include unsourced dates for when it was recorded. I've removed that as well. We are currently having problems with one or more vandals going through various song articles adding and changing information at random. If you can cite a reliable source for a date, feel free to make the change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The Baby Einstein accusing

Ok so apparently you told me i vandalized the baby Einstein page for changing the the year of one of the videos sold. Im sorry i did that. But, that was because the information was invalid. It said it came out in 2004. On the back of my dvd at my house, it says 2003. I was trying to fix invalid information. You told me it was not constructive. I dont see why i should get accused of something that im actually helping. If you still don't believe me just look at this http://www.freecovers.net/preview/2/bcbd06ab15d593797501eaec2627cdd2/big.jpg just read under babyeinstein.com and you should get the proof. thank you for your notification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.115.22 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please understand: This article and numerous other articles related to kids' TV shows (and some kids' movies and train-related articles) have been subjected to repeated date (and other number) changes without explanation or sources by various anonymous editors. Many of those changes conflict with what reliable sources say. As a result, ALL numerical changes to these types of articles will require reliable sources. This on-going problem is outlined at WP:KIDSTVDATES.

Unfortunately:

1) The source you have provided does not say it was released in 2003. It says it was copyrighted in 2003.

2) The title on the disc is "Baby MacDonald". The date you are changing is for "Baby MacDonald - A Day on the Farm".[45]

3) The source you are citing is both user-created (see WP:SPS) and, presumably, full of copyright violations.

I've started adding sources to the article as items have been challenged. In the next few minutes, I will add "Baby MacDonald" with a sourced date and a source for the 2004 date for "Baby MacDonald - A Day on the Farm".

Finally, your edit also changed "Baby Einstein - Numbers Nursery" to "Baby Numbers Nursery".[46] I'll add a source for the title and date here as well. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made the changes.[47] If you have better sources for the release dates, we can certainly use them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

adding an alumni

hello, my name is ti chun huang (berklee id 219662), I graduated in year 2004 and i am an actress, singer-songwriter currently working in taiwan and china, i was wondering if my name can be on the alumni's page? as my wikipedia is only in chinese (https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BB%83%E8%8D%BB%E9%88%9E) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.107.177 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, as discussed on that article's talk page, only graduates who have articles on the English Wikipedia are eligible for inclusion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Teeth gnashing goodness!

Diff: [48] "She has the same skin color as him like what Kaya has." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

That's what she said.

Sorry, wrong joke.

Incidentally, Marasol is a cyan monsterette with pink polka dots in her body. She has the indigo and pink horn. like Meg. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I hate that frickin' article so much. Crap like that is why I'm straying from TV articles and focusing more on my fruitless fight with the entire nation of India over rampant financial vandalism in film articles and the absurd fascination with phrases like "Film was declared all time super-hit status." FML... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So you have a problem with my List of films with all time super-hit status? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"In the film and media industry, if a film released in theatres fails to break even at the box office by a large amount..." Doesn't breaking even mean breaking even? And how do we know what breaking even is if "figures of losses are usually rough estimates at best". Anyhow, now I'm just looking for things to be pissy about, which is a good sign it's time to do something else. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

To determine all time super-hit status, you simply take the box office gross from one source and the production budget from another source and plug them in to a formula from a third source. Then, you assume you've done this for every film ever made and make a list of the highest numbers you found and Bob's your uncle. It's not synthesis, you see, it's just a calculation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

99 Red Balloons

Hi, Re: Wikipedia entry "99 Red Balloons". My edit/addition about the comments made by Uwe Fahrenkrog Petersen being disingenuous were described as an opinion. Yet what he says in the Wiki entry is precisely that. I must make my position clear here. I am the writer of the English lyric. The band and their manager Jim Rakete had tried many sources for an English lyric before receiving mine and when they received it they immediately recorded and released it. This makes a nonsense of the claim by Uwe Fahrenkrog Petersen about them being not happy etc. THEY choose my lyric and there is no way they would have recorded the song unless they were happy with it. I work in the same business and it is laughable to claim they would accept the lyric, record the song with that lyric and simultaneously disapprove of it. In fact they were so happy about it they invited me to Austria where they were working on an album. They had been so eager to record the song with the English lyric they (or more precisely their manager) failed to check who owned the copyright (my publisher). They assumed the copyright would be theirs and thus have control over allocation of royalties. By then it was too late as the record was released. The reason they now say what they say is this. An attempt was made to pay me a translator's royalty which initiated a dispute in court between the publishers. The attempt to credit me with a translation royalty (much less that a writer's royalty) was thrown out of court . (The High Court in London). The outcome of that court case was that they agreed to pay me a writer's royalty percentage of whatever version was used or sold- German or English. You must see the inconsistency here. On the one hand they tried to assert that the English lyric was a translation and on the other try to assert what Uwe Fahrenkrog Petersen says in the Wiki entry. Those remarks are simply a reflection of the fact that they were not happy having to assign me the rights bestowed to me by the court settlement. In light of this I think my edit was very reasonable and I would further suggest that the Wiki entry comment by Uwe Fahrenkrog Petersen be removed as it is false, ungracious and bad manners to boot. Thank you, Oisindubh (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

As a user edited encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not in a position to judge your claims about the situation, nor whether anything anyone said is "false, ungracious and bad manners".

We do not know -- nor do we pretend to know -- whether you are who you say you are or how you may have been involved in the situation. Instead, we report what independent reliable sources say on the matter. If you believe we are taking what someone said (e.g., Petersen) as fact, you may wish to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. An appropriate change might involve clarifying that someone said something. Such a change would be similar to changing "Richard Nixon was not a crook" to "Richard Nixon said he was not a crook". We cannot, however, add your personal analysis that their statements are disingenuous. If you are aware of independent reliable sources that discuss the issue, you may wish to bring them up on the talk page as well.

I have suggested that you bring these issues up on the talk page for two reasons:

1) Other editors looking at the changes you wish to make may have other suggestions to improve the section and/or may be tempted to revert your changes for reasons similar to mine.

2) As an editor with a strong conflict of interest here, you are much more likely to make lasting changes here by presenting your case on the talk page than by editing the article yourself. With this in mind, I am placing a standard comment regarding conflict of interest editing on your talk page to (hopefully) avoid some of the more common problems that sometimes arise in such situations. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Pia Zadora

Sorry for the messed up comment but, the way it is now is what I meant :) Mlpearc (open channel) 01:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It did strike me as odd, but it doesn't really change my opinion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

My reply

Go ahead and delete it. If I do find sources for it, I'll re-create it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Tomboys: Lara Croft?

I didn't think it needed a citation, as it was common knowledge. --Studio 126 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Reading through Tomboy, you will certainly find some characteristics that fit Croft. You will find others that do not. If we open up the list to characters that various editors feel are "common knowledge", the list would quickly balloon to an extensive, unsourced list of various editors' guesses and assumptions.

This would be no different than opening other articles up to "common knowledge". It is common knowledge that Fahrenheit 451 is about censorship. It isn't. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)!

Non constructive removed

I wish to address (General note: Unconstructive editing on Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan. (TW))

My edits was that saying that in the UK, they own two airports and the UK national lottery to which has seen some controversy. You cannot have happy happy joy joy joy editions to certain pages, otherwise you might as well delete pages about the Kennedy assassination, and other World problems.

You are removing facts, especially facts that people outside of a certain Country may not know, it adds to people's knowledge.

Regards

Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.187.197 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

1) Please be sure to sign in when you edit, Mark Norville. When you have an account but edit while logged out, it can come across as an attempt to avoid scrutiny.

2) I removed your additions for several reasons:

2a) You did not cite a reliable source for your addition.

2b) Clearly, the investments of the Plan change over time.Your addition does not state when the Plan held those investments.

2c) Your "incomplete list" of UK investments would be the only three investments listed. Why list these three? Why IK investments specifically?

2d) Your heavily opinionated commentary on the lottery is completely inappropriate because it is your opinion and it is off topic. This artcile is about the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, not the lottery.

Moreover, your edits immediately before this were essentially an advertisement for your blog. Yes, Lustig is selling a book based on the absurd idea that playing the lottery is an "investment" rather than a way for governments to take advantage whose dreams override their common sense. Reliable sources cited in the article touch on this. Your blog is not a reliable source. Your opinion that a 3 in 1,000,000 chance is "near enough very easy", BTW, is laughable.)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise your blog. Wikipedia is not a place for you to call attention to your displeasure with changes to a lottery. Wikipedia is not a place for you to wonder why a phrase means what it means.[49] If you would like to do any of these things, the Internet has countless forums and blog sites designed for purposes like these.

Wikipedia, OTOH, is an encyclopedia that reports what independent reliable sources have to say about: an author selling a book, a teachers' pension system, a slogan used by racists and countless other topics. Editors' opinions on these topics do not have a place on Wikipedia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Cartoons

Since you edit on cartoon pages and have that WP:KIDSTVDATES, thought I'd alert you to User:EvergreenFir/sandbox#IP_vandals_.28mostly_cartoons.2FTV.29, esp. the Fireman Sam one. Just FYI EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus

Sorry about the "Trump vandalism." I must have accidentally deletion that section by mistake. Thanks for leaving it open for me to add my original edit back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruffduff62 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It was neither "vandalism" nor accidental deletion. In your first edit, you added material that seems to be OK, but also changed one "Trump" to "Drumpf". Your second try, supposedly "withoutthe deletion", re-added the material and changed "Trump" to "Drumpf" three times. There was no deletion. There was nothing accidental. There was no mistake. This was not "vandalism" it was vandalism. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A gentle body check

Resolved

Hi sweetie! Ya got me 👵 I'm referring to your gentle body check on the Sea Breeze (cocktail) Talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sea_Breeze_(cocktail)&diff=711027837&oldid=692999015

It was sweet of you to call it a revert of a good faith edit. I didn't expect it to be caught so soon. I'm such a big fan of that Angel TV show, I watch it over and over on the Netflix. I love watching that young man Andy Hallett and his beautiful singing, so tragic he was taken from us so young. I truly do go out on the anniversary of his passing to drink a Sea Breeze in his honour. I was hoping my shout out to his fans to join me would stick on that page at least until March 29, that tragic date. But from looking over your User and Talk pages, old and new, I see you're an erstwhile young editor with a robust sense of rightness and a beltful of handy power tools, as well as a fair command of Wiki law. And over 90 thousand edits! Gracious! I hope diligence is its own reward, because you are going above and beyond in my opinion. And I also noticed you don't go in for those tons of Wiki merit badges that adorn the User pages of some of the maniacal Wiki editors, who seem to have lost their way. I'm curious what your PhD is in, I was guessing Philadelphia History, but since I'm here I might as well ask you. So please, if you don't mind, what is your PhD area or discipline?

On another small note, I'm sorry you lost your password to your old Wiki account, the good Lord knows I have been there and done that sort of thing a few times. They tell you to hide your passwords and keep them secret, but then your computer dies, or they move you, and your access to old accounts just disappears over night. Forgetful. I'll tell you my little secret. I now write down all my passwords and pin numbers, and I keep that piece of paper pinned to the inside of my bra.

One more small thing: you misspelled "roughly" on your new User page. I thought you would want to know. Spell check dear!

Ornery Lesbian Space Pope is a nice touch. Oh, and don't worry about my Toast thing, I will find blogs and twitters I can post it on. I always do. When I do, I will leave you a note on here so you can go and check it out. Oh, and links too. If you're an Angel or Lorne fan, perhaps you will join me on March 29? At least in spirit, at your favorite bar or club or pub. Take care of yourself sweetie, and good future editing!

75.62.134.221 (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of "ornery" makes this guy think I'm his "sweetie" or "dear". - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea that you could get a PhD in Philadelphia History. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. To get into the program, though, you have to draw Timmy the Turtle. The same fine school offers TV/VCR repair and gun smithing. In September, I'm starting work on my MD in Cheesesteakology. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't be haters. Check it out:

http://www.cla.temple.edu/history/graduate-program/dissertations-in-progress/

Dissertation Title: “PHLadelphia: The Economy, Geography, and Politics of Flight in (and above) Philadelphia, 1980-2010”

Dissertation Title: “The Franklin Women: Kinship, Gender Roles, and Public Culture in Philadelphia and Beyond, 1720-1900”

Dissertation Title: “In the Jaws of the Lion: The British Possession of Philadelphia”

Apology accepted. 75.62.134.221 (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling it "sarcastic elitism" is a personal attack.

Yes, for a PhD in history, your dissertation might involve Philadelphia. Much as my Draw Me! dissertation were on Timmy the Turtle and "Why I'm afraid of foreigners", my PhDs from Federal School of Applied Cartooning and Trump University Entrepreneur Initiative are in Applied Cartooning and Racist Pandering.

With your apparent degreeing Googleology, you could probably actually make legitimate contributions to the project instead of throwaway jokes on talk pages. Oh well. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you and kelapstick were disparaging those who get degrees in the Humanities, something I see all too often in those with degrees in the hard sciences and technical fields. I won't stand for that and call it out whenever I encounter it. If on the other hand you and kelapstick were making fun of me and not my academic brethren and sistren, then so be it. I will accept your jesting at my expense. As for editing, I make anonymous simple edits to fix typos and grammar errors on Wikipedia, a neverending task as more foreigners edit here (i.e. those for whom English is obviously a second language). I have been doing this for as long or longer than you have, albeit with far fewer notches on my editing gun. Ninety-thousand is impressive. I'm sure I have far fewer than a thousand, but then I don't keep track. I occasionally revert obvious vandalism. I almost never edit content. I rarely engage with other editors. I sometimes weigh in on article deletion votes. Commenting on others' Talk pages is not anathema to me, but mostly I find it pointless, for a variety of reasons. Commenting here is over. 75.62.134.221 (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Final warning

You discussion are not valid and are clearly WP:IDONTLIKE. If you feel you're reverts are in good faith please request your changes at Third opinion and see if any other editor agrees with you. Oh yeah, I saw you removed sources from Jim's Steaks, but that one is fine. It is fine to be BOLD, but I've already disagreed with fire needle (so did AfD) and Dale's and reverted which means you cannot revert without third party approval, better to have them remove it. I can't be more civil than this. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I cannot request a third opinion without having a second opinion. Please answer the question I asked here. You may also access the question at Talk:Dalessandro's_Steaks#Misused_source and scroll to the bottom of that section. Perhaps you feel you have already answered the question. If so, please take a moment to restate your response. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't revert the edits, I've requested third party opinion already. If they agree ANI is next for you. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

So, by "request third party opinion" you don't mean a WP:3O, you mean you asked someone to come to bat for you. Nice. Did you tell them you have repeatedly refused to discuss the issues, blindly revert and have created rules for editing your articles? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This one is a rather strange way to get a third opinion. Hmm, let's see. Where can I find an unbiased third opinion? I know; I'll pick someone who argued with them, lost and is probably bitter about it. Who could possibly be more objective? - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

As usual, I have asked for discussion of the issue on the article's talk page. Please discuss the issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Nut Job

Hey, listen, I know what I did seemed inappropriated, but the officer's name is F. O'Malley. I know it seems unlikey but when I watched the movie, I read his name tag. See it for yourself.

24.190.31.12 (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

For actors/roles, Wikipedia uses screen credits. Those credits do not include a name. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

thriller sale

Thank you for your message. I'm 126.15.70.10. I'm sorry that I didn't provide a reliable source.But it is right that Thriller sold correctly 1,792,000 million copies in Japan. According to Oricon(Japanese chart magazine), the real sales figure of the album is between 1,747,000 and 1,792,000.

This is the most reliable sourse. A Japanese chart enthusiast has been keeping the site.

http://slms.sakuraweb.com/million/millionalbum.html

スリラー:thriller

マイケル・ジャクソン:Michael Jackson

売上(万枚):sales(10 thousands)

He is afraid of infringing the copyright of Oricon, so I provide no reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.15.70.10 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a blog or other type of self-published source. As such, it is not a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your responing soon.That isn't a blog.If you doubt of that sourse,I provide another sourse.

http://entamedata.web.fc2.com/music/all_album.html

I would like you to see 98位(rankig no.98) of the list.The sales figure is 179.2(万枚:10 thousands). Correctly it's a type of self-published sourse, but the site is used as references of "Year-end charts(1983 and 1984)" in Japan now. http://entamedata.web.fc2.com/music/music_a1983.html

http://entamedata.web.fc2.com/music/music_a1984.html

March 2016

Do not post on my talk page. I warned you before about this. Let me be very clear to you yet again since you have problems understanding. You are not welcome on my page. That means I do not want to hear from you at all. I am not interested in communicating with you. I do not like you. Is this understood? Stay off my talk page. Caden ^cool 20:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Consider this your second warning for personal attacks. Yeah, I know, you only implied it. I assume, of course, that there will be a third warning as you seem to want to "prove" something. Knock yourself out. That's discussing contributors.

You got upset when I removed your synthesis (see "You Keep Me Hangin' On", above). So, you came back to "get" me (see "Do some actual work"), demanding that I do the "simple" task of finding a source for someone else: I couldn't find it; you either couldn't or didn't bother trying (disproving your supposed point). Now someone canvassed you as an attack dog when discussing content didn't seem to be doing the trick. You took the bait. You threatened AN/I over a maintenance tag, then had absolutely nothing to say about the actual issue. It seems you were there as a petty act of revenge. Now your feelings were hurt by a warning to knock of the personal attacks.

Boo. Hoo. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends: The Great Race

Hi, Summer! I was just curious if we had enough coverage for a separate article for Thomas & Friends: The Great Race? --ACase0000 (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Future films are not notable until there s substantial coverage in independent reliable sources and independent reliable sources confirm that principle photography has begun. I haven't seen that. There certainly no rush. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you! Btw, what about all the international news coverage from NY Times, NBC News etc.? --ACase0000 (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Here are some links: NY Times, NBC News and here is a link for theatrical release in England --ACase0000 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The NYT and NBC links say precious little about the film, as they are focused on the expansion of the toy line. The primary source (a theater chain promoting a screaning date nearly two months out) doesn't add much. I personally don't see material that can't be included in the redirect target. (Actually, I don't see much that isn't there already.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Watch the trailers on the official Thomas & Friends YouTube channel and you will see who speaks in the movie with the YouTube videos as proof. --ACase0000 (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dalessandro's

Edits which help expanded articles are highly approved by me. Thanks, I intend to write one Joe's Steaks next. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

what do we do

with reviews such as this? [[50]Carptrash (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Critical response" sections are typically limited to professional reviews. That said, the film style guide does say "Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged. Individual critics can also be referenced to detail various aspects of the film. Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, though reputable commentators and experts—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—may also be cited."

So, I guess it's two questions: Is this a "reputable source" and, as always, WP:WEIGHT. For weight, we have several "reputable commentators and experts" comments in the article. Other than the claims that this film is the absolute unvarnished Truth, I'm not sure what this would add

More concerning is the "reputable" question. The Chalcedon Foundation has been listed as a hate group. I don't doubt that the KKK or Stormfront (website) might have had something to say about 12 Years a Slave or similar films. I rather doubt, though, that we'd include their opinions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I found the film in a discount bin somewhere and bought it because (1.) I am an amateur sculpture historian and (2.) I have an interest in religious propaganda and revisionist history, (3.) I'm a history-in-general sort and (4.) it was dirt cheap. The movie was dreadful, to call it a joke would be to suggest that inhere might be something funny and there is not. That its advocates turn out to be hate groups seems about right. I was not changeling you with my question, just interested in your opinion. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Caillou has cancer.

I think he has cancer. I get that he was a baby in the original books, but I call bullshit on that. Why would his parents shave his head if he wasn't undergoing chemo? I think the most likely explanation is that he died, and the entire show is told through flashbacks. That's why it is narrated by the grandma, and the entire show is shown in a dream cloud. We need to gather sources to support this theory. Edmodo23 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The most likely explanation is that you are here to have some fun and will end up being blocked again. Feel free to prove me wrong. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Check out my edits to East Noble High School, Wayne High School (Indiana) and Donald Trump. All constructive. Thanks for making that assumption though. I'm just a 54-year-old web design teacher trying to edit in his spare time. Edmodo23 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Edmondo23 was indefinitely blocked on April 12, 2016. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

oak park

like, oak park bloods is the full name of the specific bloods gang i was speaking of in mozzy so leaving just the oak park part was kind of confusing. im not gonna fix it cause i don't words, but if you want to go back and proper english the thing, than that'd be cool. oh and there's another article in ref. about the oak park bloods, but i don't remember how much it said about the rappy rappy shooty shooty so... it'd be cool if you just fixed that too.JonCruz14 is fluent in valley girl 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Before my change, the article said "...of an Oak Park Bloods Member, and Mozzy associate...". The source, however, does not mention the Oak Park Bloods set. In fact, there is no mention of Bloods whatsoever. The section of the source that mentions Mozzy says, "...a reported member of Oak Park rapper Mozzy’s crew...". So, I changed the text to reflect the source: "...an Oak Park Mozzy associate...". I suppose we could say "...an associate of Mozzy's from Oak Park...". Would that be better? - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

that's better than anything i could figure.JonCruz14 is fluent in valley girl 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Done.[51] - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Disneyland Monorail Refurb

I just made an account with Wikipedia. I've been updating some of the Disneyland attractions refurbishment statuses before making an account. The Disneyland Monorail, for example, will be closed for refurbishment according to the following website, starting from today until April 19. You can tell by going through the calendar. It may change but as of now the re-opening date is April 19 if you check this calendar. I have re-updated the refurbishment status of this attraction. Wedfan10 (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Wedfan10: Regularly schedule maintenance, such as this, is not something we include. Please see WP:NOT. As a rule of thumb, if it isn't covered in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it simply does not belong here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

References

it's neighbourhood

it's also colour, and centre JonCruz14 is fluent in valley girl 21:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENGVAR. As he was born and lives in the U.S., this article uses American English: neighborhood, color and center, along with capitalization and punctuation which are standard across varieties of English. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You may be right in this sense, but american english is wrong. Seeing as I'm powerless to the sitch, whatevs you cool.JonCruz14 is fluent in valley girl 21:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Presumably, you feel American English is "wrong" because it is a variant of another variety. What variety? Isn't that variant also "wrong" as it is a variant of numerous earlier languages? Is Italian "wrong" as a variant of Latin?

Whether you prefer to fill your car or auto's tank (near the trunk or boot) with petrol or gas by the gallon, liter or litre is entirely your business. For articles, we have a guideline, WP:ENGVAR, to help prevent disputes. Long story short: Articles with strong ties to one particular nation (such as Mozzy's country of birth and residence) will use that country's variety of English.

(Translation: yo, i gets u man but stay cool arright? american english be mos def on the upright at the wiki. check it: WP:ENGVAR. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

ummm... okay...? i think my fav part was the mocking slang, but then again, there was that inaccurate metaphor, i keep trying to end my comments with 'you chill', but i was really offended by that, you damaged ma feels breh.JonCruz14 is fluent in valley girl 15:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Listen

Listen!

How come VeggieTales: The Gink, the Prince and the Princess hasn't been yet?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceb1031 (talk • contribs) 1:47, April 18, 2016‎

Because, like all of your additions, it does not exist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Ceb1031 has been indefinitely blocked. In addition to some connection to Special:Contributions/2602:301:77A0:90:30B0:BE38:C2DA:5A37, he has socked at Special:Contributions/5.28.164.103. Likely The UPN Vandal again. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything: A VeggieTales Movie

Could you please weigh-in at The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything: A VeggieTales Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? It appears that an anon who insisted on shorting the plot, and got blocked for it, has created an account and is now shorting the plot. If I'm wrong, feel free to tell me. If the other editor is wrong, feel free to mention it. If it's just a stupid thing to have a protracted edit ware over, please let us know that as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

184 times?!

I was just clicking "random page", and I ran into your user page. I looked at it and I need to ask: How on earth did you manage to get your user page vandalized 184 times? I personally would never do something like that, I'm just curious. Dude00007, Ph. D., Sc. D. (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

In a word: Volume. If you tell enough people "you need a source for that", "the source doesn't say that" or "don't edit war over unsourced divorces/plot details/genres/etc." you're bound to run into people who figure "Oh yeah? I'll make an easily reverted change to your user page. That'll teach ya." - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A Farewell to Kings

The edit to A Farewell to Kings regarding Robert Charistgau's dislike of progressive rock is not original research or vandalism in any sense. A reliable source was included (a source also cited in the Robert Christgau page). That the source does not refer to this specific album is irrelevant, the edit and source point to the information that he generally does not like progressive rock, the music genre in which this band performs, and that is relevant to his review of the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.137.241 (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a fairly common misunderstanding. The source says Charistgau does not like prog rock. If the source is reliable, it might be relevant to add to an article on the critic or (less likely) progressive rock. However, that statement by itself is not relevant to this album until it is connected to the album in some way.

The source you provided says he does not like prog rock. Let's call that source A. Other sources say the album is progressive rock. That's source B. The statement you wish to make is, essentially, "Of course he didn't like it; it's progressive rock and he doesn't like progressive rock!" That's C. A + B = C. That is WP:SYN. The claim is not verifiable unless you provide an independent reliable source that directly supports the statement.

If you disagree, please raise the issue on the article's talk page or on the NOR noticeboard. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Rapid date changes

Hi SummerPhDv2.0, I just noticed the comments you had left here and I wanted to let you know about a couple of similar edits I've seen recently. Edit series such as this and this do not target 80s songs, but they seem to be very similar sorts of rapid unsourced date changes. This is a long-running problem at Wikipedia and actually just this morning I requested some help with this issue here (at the Edit filter noticeboard). I'd be interested in your thoughts on my request. -Thibbs (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I know virtually nothing about our edit filters. FWIW, I've offered up some of the data that I've collected. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. And I like your idea about manually tagging problematic accounts like this to keep track of them. I may look into doing something similar. -Thibbs (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well I've been inspired to create WP:VIDEOGAMEDATES. Basically it's a straight copy of your KIDSTVDATES, but focused instead on video games. Let me know what you think and please feel free to add a "See WP:VIDEOGAMEDATES" note to anyone's page who you think fits the pattern. Also I know of a few Children's TV editors who fit the pattern and I'm wondering if it's OK with you if I were to add a "See WP:KIDSTVDATES" note to their talk pages. At the top of my list are 24.4.254.10 and 76.103.171.69 both of whom I reported to ANI back in 2012, but there are others. I'm interested in digging a bit to see what I can find. -Thibbs (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I've made a mental note to use WP:VIDEOGAMEDATES. I didn't really review it, but if it's a copy of mine, I'm sure it's brilliant. As for applying WP:KIDSTVDATES where it applies: please do.

Let me know if you find any patterns. I haven't really spent much time on it,but nothing is leaping out at me. I was expecting something obvious to scream an answer at me. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Mark blocked

Hi Summer, do you have this tool installed?

It's awesome! It marks blocked users with a strikethrough in edit histories. This is immensely valuable for spotting sock operators and other patterns of disruptive behavior across articles. For example, if you install the tool and then look at this edit history your mind will be blown by how many people are stricken through for socking. I thought of mentioning it to you as I was looking at the edit history of Dink, the Little Dinosaur. If you use it, lemme know if you wind up liking it. Have a good rest of the weekend! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that is a useful little tool. Thanks! - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Complete Peanuts

You recently undid an edit over at Complete Peanuts, changing who was going to be featured on the spine of Volume 25 from Rerun to Truffles. Thing is, whoever had made that change turns out to have been correct; I've got a copy in my hands, and it has Truffles on the spine. So you may want to undo your undo; use the book itself (ISBN 978-1-60699-913-4) as a reference if one is needed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a forthcoming book so I can't see it to cite it. Please see the related topic I've added to the talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Meghan Trainor, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. If you (or others) are planning on adding articles for the red links, feel free to undo my edit. Thanks. Amccann421 (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you may have reverted the wrong edit.[52] - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Must've been something with Twinkle, or maybe just my stupidity. It's been fixed. Sorry for the trouble. Amccann421 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thompson Valley High School

Hello, We recently updated the Thompson Valley High School page. we are current students and the information we added was accurate. We would appreciate it if you would cease your editing of this page. Thank you. Bjjohnson96 (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Bjjohnson96

Your edits are very basic vandalism. People who grew up in other parts of the country did not commute to Nowhere, Colorado to go to your school. There was not an outbreak of bubonic plague. Feel free to go back and provide a reliable source for your claims or find something useful to do with your time. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Bjjohnson96 has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

My edit to "I Wanna Go Back" (in the "Eddie Money version" subsection)

Hey SummerPhDv2.0,

Fair enough, regarding my edit to "I Wanna Go Back." I could have referenced the "More Images" link in the Can't Hold Back entry on Discogs, which shows the liner notes and where no drummer is credited on "I Wanna Go Back," but even then, I realize that doesn't necessarily mean Mike Baird is indeed that uncredited drummer (although the drums in this song have the same basic sound as the other tracks on the album, all of which credit Baird). Anyway, part of my adding that content into the Wiki entry was to show another element that distinguishes the sound of Eddie Money's version from the synthpop style of the original. Perhaps I could just add back the part about how there is a rolling drum intro, without even mentioning/getting into who actually performed it (uncredited) on the album? Please let me know. Thanks!--RockNWrite82 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab

What are you doing with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab? Im open to a change if it needs to happen, but the version you are reverting to doesnt even make sense. The sentence "His movement is today often known as "Wahhabism", although many adherents see this as a derogatory term coined by his opponents, and prefer it to be known as the Salafi movement' becomes "Although many adherents see this as a derogatory term coined by his opponents, and prefer it to be known as the Salafi movement." without the reference to Wahhabism, the first portion of the sentence is a fragment, with the 'this' referring to nothing. Also, why take out the movement = Wahhabi movement section? There is no doubt he founded that movement, no matter what it is called. Bonewah (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure. I don't know much about the topic and only got there in the first place as part of an on-going project to remove a bad source (see WP:IBP).

It looks like I had the page open to review the most recent edit and accidentally hit the rollback button. Sorry! - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the explanation! Bonewah (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Millie the Helper on The Electric Company and Millie Helper on Dick Van Dyke

You deleted my edit on The Electric Company (TV Series) where I noted that Millie the Helper was named after Millie Helper, the neighbor character on The Dick Van Dyke Show, claiming I didn't add a reference. I don't have any articles with quotes from Electric Company's production staff to support the claim they were referencing the Van Dyke show. I think the Electric Company character's name is too unusual and too close to be a coincidence (kinda like J. Arthur Crank). If you simply meant some acknowledgment of the original Millie, I've added a link to Wikipedia's list of the Van Dyke show characters.Just1thing (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

You "think (it is) too close to be a coincidence". One possibility is that it is a coincidence. Another possibility is your guess. A third possibility is that they are both named after a third source. Consider two movies made 15 years apart with very similar plots and identical character names. Is one clearly based on the other? Couldn't they both be based on the same book or a third earlier movie?

Additionally, as a general rule, if reliable sources don't discuss a fact, it is generally trivial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

SalemHanna sock

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SalemHanna. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

=== intentional vandalism of stats with resources ===

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at [[53]].

Mandarin050 (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

=== constant vandalism of info for no reason. ===

=== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ===

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mandarin050 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Mandarin050 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of SalemHanna. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Jamesjoekok

Hiya. I saw that you noticed Jamesjoekok's vandalism and reverted quite a bit of it. See the latest report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Никита-Родин-2002 for the context. ~ Rob^Talk 05:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User talk:188.223.187.130

Resolved

Users, even IPs, are allowed to blank their own talk pages - it's taken as confirmation that they've read it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: "Same ornery Lesbian Space Pope_TM, new user name." genuinely made me LOL ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not about them being an IP. This is about them being a confirmed sock. Any edit they make may be reverted without further explanation. They are certainly welcome to log back in to the master account and ask for their block to be lifted. Other than that, they are not welcome here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not a way I've ever seen policy implemented. Anyone blocked (sock or not) but with talk page access not revoked is still allowed to edit their talk page, so editing their talk page (eg by blanking) is not in itself block evasion. If it were the case that block evaders were not even allowed to edit their talk pages, they would surely have talk page access revoked automatically, wouldn't they? I can seek clarification at AN if you'd prefer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

There's sometimes a question of the "spirit" of a law/rule and the wording. Here, I see no conflict. The spirit of the rule allows the indefinitely blocked user to discuss the block and request an unblock on the master's talk page, which is not what is happening here. Instead, they are continuing to use the IP (as the end of the shared IP block approaches) to expunge the ipsock notice.

Another reason for talk page access is to allow collateral damage editors using that IP to ask what's going on and how to handle it. (The ipsock notice also helps here.) Were it not for them, the IP would be indefed along with the master.

Next up is the wording. WP:USERTALK and WP:EVADE would seem to apply. Yes, IP editors are generally allowed to remove content from the IP talk page, except for "templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered, although very old content may be removed." It seems to me that ipsock|MariaJaydHicky is similar (on an IP which may be shared or reassigned) to a school block notice. "Hey, why can't I edit? Oh, it says this IP has been used by someone who is blocked."

This brings us to EVADE: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert."

The prolific block evader seems to have no problem changing IPs and having the ipsock notice on an extensive list of user names and IPs (at least 60, though there are certainly more). Why is this one different? Well, it would seem they are sticking with this one. If they intend to stay on the IP long term and want to keep that as "their" talk page, I imagine we could do them the favor of extending the block.

This talk page should not have been needed. It was created to further track this prolific block evasion and ensure that this editor is not allowed to further disrupt the project. They used the IP in direct defiance of their de facto ban. They are continuing to edit in a way that makes it more difficult to enforce their ban. That is helpful to their on-going desire to evade the ban. It is detrimental to the project. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The ipsock template provides useful information to anyone else who may use that IP.

You seem to be investing a lot of effort in justifying your edit warring to prevent an editor from blanking their own talk page based on your unconventional interpretation of policy (and I see nothing in the EW exceptions that allows you do to that). I'm not going to join you any further in this waste of time, but I just ask you that if you wish to continue to interpret Wikipedia policy in this unique manner after it has been disputed, you please get a consensus for it rather than edit warring over it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"Edit warring" is a rather strong term for something that cannot run afoul of 3RR. What's to discuss? If you are saying it is unambiguous that I should not be reverting, your wording is curious. If it is ambiguous, "the presumption...should be to revert." - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The resolution is just add the {{ow}} template, but someone may remove it. I don't want to conduct edit wars and end up being blocked for the secound time. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 15:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It is, of course, the sock's non-right right to edit the talk page they shouldn't have in any way they please. This non-right is sacred, so as to protect their right to continue socking. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

[54]. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Miles Ahead, Metacritic

Metacritic explicitly states the film received "generally favorable reviews" ([55]). Stop reverting my edits. No sources are being combined to reach a conclusion not stated in any of the sources, which is what synthesis is; this is not synthesis. Dan56 (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

As written, it reads as a summarizing sentence for the paragraph: It had generally favorable reviews. RT reported this. MC reported this. If you aren't trying to combine the two, the wording needs a bit of clarification. - - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I don't think you have an adequate comprehension of WP:SYNTH; I literally explained it to you in my last comment but I'll add emphasis: "No sources are being combined to reach a conclusion not stated in any of the sources". Rotten Tomatoes doesn't explicitly say the film received positive reviews, but Metacritic does (check the source!), and I placed an in-text citation to Metacritic at the end of the sentence "Miles Ahead received generally positive reviews from critics." Even if you were correct in your assumption that both sources report the film as having received positive reviews (which is completely irrelevant, that they both confirm this), then the summarizing sentence you continue to remove is NOT SYNTH (Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary). Your edits are really quite confusing. Dan56 (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that my edits confuse you.

I get that you are not synthesizing sources. However, they way it is written it sounds like you are. You say "generally positive reviews", citing MC. Then it discussed RT. Then MC. Separating the two references to MC is a bit odd, but easily remedied.

As for saying the film received generally positive reviews, following that up with two statements on reviews, to me, implies that the first sentence is the "main idea". If you are interpreting the RT score to be "generally positive" and combining that with MC's summary statement to summarize the summaries, that's a fine main idea, but it's synthesis. If that isn't what you are intending, it should be clarified.

You link to an essay saying that a summary may be necessary to "reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources." You are not reducing the length. MC says "Generally favorable reviews"; "generally positive reviews" is not shorter. Further, we continue the paragraph with all of the information from the two sources. The sources say what they say. Splitting the information up, rewording it and losing the attribution makes it less clear and longer.[56]

MC says they found "generally favorable reviews", based on a 64/100 from 21 reviews. If the slight rewording is an obvious, non-controversial, non-synthetic summary of the two sources, you aren't adding anything by splitting it up, rewording it and shifting it around. If it does add something, it is the judgement that both sources mean "generally positive". - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is being combined. You're overthinking things in a ridiculous way, and since nothing you say seems to be from WP:SYNTH, it sounds like you're applying your own views on what synthesis is. According to the actual policy, "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." What is the "A + B = C" in this case?? And what in this case is "conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources"? Dan56 (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Each sentence in that section is attributed to a single source, not multiple sources. Metacritic clearly says it received "generally favorable reviews", and it is being used to cite the sentence "Miles Ahead received generally positive reviews from critics." No other source is being used to cite that sentence, because there's already a source that explicitly says it. Dan56 (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

To repeat: I get that you are not synthesizing sources. The way the paragraph is written, however, make it sound like you are. I am suggesting:

• putting the two sentences based on MC together rather than splitting them and
• directly quoting "generally favorable reviews" rather than changing one word and putting it in Wikipedia's voice.

The first part of this seems pretty basic. Why split MC's analysis like that?

The second part is a commonly used solution to similar situations: When there is a conflict over summarizing, quoting the source removes all ambiguity.

I have a problem with the wording you prefer and I have stated why. What is gained by "summarizing" MC's statement "generally favorable reviews" as "generally positive reviews"? What is gained by splitting MC's analysis? What is lost by making the change I am suggesting? - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a clumsy introductory sentence and jarring to readers to have RT leading off the paragraph. The main idea of the paragraph is the film having received positive reviews. And just because you are of the opinion that it "sounds like" the current wording is synthesizing sources doesn't mean others would agree, or that it should be changed. If I am not synthesizing sources, then I am not synthesizing sources. Period. No harm in leaving it the way it is. Dan56 (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the Metacritic score/analysis, since it's the same average score as RT (6.4/64), while adding review summaries ([57]) Dan56 (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

We generally cite both. I don't see the fact that -- using entirely different methodologies -- have arrived at the same number is a reason to remove one. Further, one or both of those numbers is likely to change in time. Finally, you've no0w removed the only support you had for "generally positive reviews". I am restoring the MC rating. If you disagree, please take it to the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Metacritic was clearly cited at the end of the "generally positive reviews" sentence, so I don't know what you're on about with regards to removing Metacritic's score; the citation still exists in the article. Dan56 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

My edit (and revert) to your old talk page

Hello Summer! I made an edit to your old talk page, which was an attempt to alleviate an issue which I will explain (I reverted because it didn't work).

The redirect at the top of User talk:SummerPhD causes (I think) unintended behavior in the "What links here" area for all articles links on that talk page. For example, spin-off should have only about 295 incoming links from all namespaces. Instead, it has over 13,000 incoming links because of the 12,845 pages that have a link to User talk:SummerPhD (all of the various pages that you left your signature on before changing accounts). The issue is that for those of us that use semi-automated tools, all of those extra incoming links cause the page to load much slower than it normally would.

Since my one attempt to fix this didn't work, I'm now going to ask at the Village pump for assistance. Hopefully someone there will have an answer. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 06:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I've commented there. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Could you resubmit your request please. I had to do a big revert after Cyberbot I messed up the formatting. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Resubmitted]. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Occam's razor

Could you please look at the talk page comments Talk:Occam's_razor#Too_many_philosophers. Being that I am a philosopher, my actions would seem self-serving or that in some way I approve of that article. I see nothing constructive there. Thanks, BlueMist (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! BlueMist (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

GoGos Beauty and the Beat page.

Thanks for the message. Yes, I corrected a title, but forgot to change the order of the release of the two singles. The previous entry listed a single not actually from this album ("We Got the Beat" recorded for Stiff Records). The song was re-recorded for this album, and it was that version that was released by I.R.S. Records. The Stiff Records version should not be listed as a single from this album as it pre-dates it and is not the same.

I'll try to get over there and clean it up.

Kyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.252.137.205 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Super Bass

Can you keep an eye of the page? 115.164.215.103 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Your edit at Talk:Reiki did maketh me chuckle thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

User 186.176.150.163

Hi, I can't speak for all of user 186.176.150.163's recent edits, but two of them that I've checked into hold correct (the release month for Bananarama's 'Drama' album, and Whitney Houston's 'I Wanna Dance With Somebody (Who Loves Me)' single). Granted, they were unsourced edits, but release dates on articles (for decades-old releases) seldom have a reference cited for their release dates. I've fixed the release month up for the Bananarama album on their discography page.Nqr9 (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

On average, that user changed one date every 45 seconds or so. This has been an on-going problem. The few I've vetted have -- at best -- a mixed record. Some of them checked out. Some were apparently random. With one exception, none of the editors have responded in any way. No talk page comments, no change in behavior. (The exception insisted that every song was recorded 2 months before its release. Why? Because "it's obvious". They made repeated bizarre comments, were blocked and began socking.) I have no reasonable way to separate the wheat from the chaff. We might be losing some valid dates. We're definitely losing some invalid dates. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Releases of Broken Wings (Mr. Mister song)

I don't like using the overseas image. I want to use the US side label instead. I know that cover is preferable, but I don't want to mislead readers into thinking that the US had a picture sleeve. Also, the band was American, so the song must be American also. Because the rules normally does not allow us to use more than one non-free image making similar identities, I want to replace the European/South African picture sleeve with the side label, though the label doesn't look pretty. I just want to make readers see how songs were individually released before CDs became hits. I want to contact the uploader, but that person is blocked. I figure that you might allow me to replace it. Can you? --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what difficulties you are having, but I honestly have no special tools to allow anything beyond what you can do. Probably a good topic for the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cheap Thrills (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Voice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Railway engines (Thomas & Friends). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the template. The other editor added material, I removed a portion, stating it was redundant. They restored it saying, "No it isn't". I figured they did not understand and removed it a second time with a fuller explanation. If that is edit warring, I'm the pope.

So yeah, now they've added it back a third time saying it isn't redundant. Then they "reworded" it, removing the material they had restored twice. Just to be sure, I've spelled it out on the talk page, thus ending the non-edit war edit war over redundant text that wasn't redundant except that it was. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hammersoft, I gotta defend Summer on this, though it's not meant as a jab at you at all, just a bit of background: Summer has been patiently dealing with a user that has been needlessly demanding her time by requiring constant supervision. I'm going to decide in the next few minutes whether or not I'm going to sanction ACase, because it's getting really obnoxious. This edit is clearly just wrong and seems more like a petulant knee-jerk response to Summer's correct correction. Anyhow, no criticism of you intended, H, you did the right thing. A good weekend to ya, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow me to be clear; I will continue to template the regulars since the templates do a bang up job of explaining policy and the ramifications of violating them. That's why we have them. Being a regular doesn't excuse people from policy; rather the opposite. I'm not going to engage in trying to develop a custom worded message every time someone is obviously involved in an edit war. As to the specific case, sorry no sympathies. This is obviously a content dispute, and edit warring is NOT allowed in content disputes. Both of you are engaged in an edit war. Don't like it? Tough. End it. I see no attempt from either of you to discuss the issue. I see nothing at Talk:Railway engines (Thomas & Friends) regarding the content. I see no attempt to discuss the issue on User talk:ACase0000. I see no attempt to discuss the issue here on your talk page. If anyone is not willing to follow Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party, then they most adamantly should not be conducting reverts. What I do see is a slow burn edit war between the two of you, while making a ridiculous attempt at proving how right you both are via edit summaries. From WP:AVOIDEDITWAR; "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page", yet that is precisely what both of you are doing. From the same policy; being right is no defense. There is no justification for this behavior. None. Cyphoidbomb, if you sanction ACase, then sanction then sanction SummerPhDv2.0. Both have engaged in this edit war, and it matters not who is right and who is wrong. There is no quarter for this behavior. It ends. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to have upset you. I feel the second revert with a more in depth edit summary would have solved the issue in most cases. When the other editor restored the obviously redundant material with "no, it's not" (or similar) I couldn't imagine it was a "content dispute". The apparent explanation, to me, was that they hadn't noticed the earlier sentence and I figured a fuller edit summary would do the trick. I did, of course, violate WP:1RR and, had this been an edit dealing with something subject to discretionary sanctions, I'd either be sitting out a block right now or at AN/I defending myself. I'd propose that there is a reason 3RR is not 1RR and that this situation might fit that reason. I figured 9 out of 10 editors seeing the second edit summary would have said, "Oh, I see it now." 90% of the time is good enough for me.

Cyphoidbomb's explanation seems to be based on thinking the other editor was not editing based on content, but based on a personal dispute. The suggestion of possibly blocking the other editor is not, it would seem, based on this one event. IMO, a block based on this one occurrence would be, IMO, kinda crazy. I think Cyphoidbomb is looking at a substantially longer pattern here. I am not taking either side on that. If, however, you feel that I should be blocked or otherwise sanctioned for a second revert, I don't get the impression that Cyphoidbomb is anywhere close to agreeing with you. Perhaps others would agree with you, but I don't think those others are here at the moment. Unless I'm wrong about Cyphoidbomb here, you'll likely need to find another venue (AN/I or whatever).

In any case, *I* am done here. I did what I did and I've said why. Unless there are direct questions from you or anyone else, here or anywhere else, I have nothing more to say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Summer

Hi Summer,

This is CandyHat. I would like to please ask that you stop publishing my IP address by changing the message in some other way that still makes sense. I share it with other people and I have been hacked since you restored the deletion of my accidentally posted IP address. My account too has been hacked and I can no longer access the CandyHat account and I was wondering if you know of any way to get all of the posts I made retracted...can you delete them by chance? Any help in this matter would be beyond greatly appreciated.

Sincere thanks,

CandyHat — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotSummerNightsHot (talk • contribs) 07:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear of your troubles. I have restored the note, omitting your specific address. The note is necessary as it otherwise appears that several editors responded to your post before it was made.

I know of no way to retract all of the contributions you have made, though I doubt it would help you in any case. The IP address you connect from is available to every website you visit. Though hacking can be accomplished by hijacking your connection, it seems that most hacks are accomplished in other ways: bad data security by websites, using the same password on multiple sites, etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

HotSummerNightsHot, if you are worried that you have accidentally exposed your IP, see Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT to request suppression of this information. There's a form you can fill out, or you can email the oversight team directly at [email protected]. The issue of you being "hacked" is an odd one, since just knowing your IP address wouldn't necessarily result in "being hacked". There are probably hundreds of thousands of people who edit from IPs every day. If you can't access the CandyHat account, you should try resetting your password. Should be a link on the login screen. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Here I Go Again

I just always knew there was one, but here is a source.

http://bottom-of-the-glass.blogspot.com/2011/02/tawny-breast.html

Thanks for the guidance Scott6173 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott6173 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but to keep the material in the article we would need discussion of it in a reliable source. The site you've found is a blog, which falls under the category of self-published sources which we really cannot use as a source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Jaws: The Revenge

I wasn't vandalizing it. I read there was talk of a sequel if Jaws the revenge did good. I couldn't remember the site. WenDMAKN (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"If Jaws the Revenge was successful or was at least as good as Jaws 2, a Jaws 5 would have been made sometime in the early 1990s." Well, if it wasn't vandalism, let's consider it very poorly written, subjective and unsourced. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Code word (figure of speech)

Thanks for the edit re "Vatican Cameos." Thanks also for the positive, welcoming tone! (I am not a regular editor.) It's interesting: I'm trying to help stamp out a false claim, so it's proving a negative. There are zero etymologies to the supposed code-word "Vatican Cameos" until the phrase was used in the BBC Sherlock, as a warning from Holmes to Watson. Some fan site then claimed it dates back to World War II, without any attribution of a source. I was watching an old English TV version of "Hound of the Baskervilles" with Peter Cushing. He used the same words. I poked around, and I found an American University professor of linguistics explaining what I put into Wikipedia. I'm not sure that's the best source. But there isn't likely to be better, because it's an effort to show that a claim made by others lacks attribution. (The actual short story has the phrase, so I suppose another reference would be to the original Arthur Conan Doyle work.) Anyway, thanks again! (If you don't feel this is sufficient and edit it out, no hard feelings -- you are at a much higher level in Wikipedia standards). YalePollack (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)YalePollock

Welcome to Wikipedia. I had reverted your original addition as it basically was someone on the Internet saying other people on the Internet were wrong.

Yes, the source you've added is a bit weak. Our source guidelines generally prefer sources with some level of fact-checking. In the present case, you were building on an unsourced statement and have now added a somewhat reliable source: an academic speaking in their area of expertise. Long story short, that's an improvement over what was there before we came along.

As for citing the original short story, that would be an inappropriate use of a primary source. While it would show that the phrase is used in the story, its relevance to the topic would fall under our policy on original research. Instead of pointing to the story and you saying the phrase is a "code word" in the story. you would need to find a reliable source saying it is a code word in the story.

All of the policies and guidelines here can be intimidating. When in doubt, discussion solves pretty much everything. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Buckeridge

May I suggest that you remove everting else that is unsourced from that article...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You may suggest anything you'd like.

If you'd like to suggest that I should remove other unsourced material from the article, I'd probably point out that you are certainly free to remove it.

If you'd like to suggest that unsourced material added to the article should be left there because there is other unsourced material there, I'd suggest that is an illogical course of action, especially considering the material in question was added by an editor with a substantial history of adding unsourced material of questionable veracity to biographical articles. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither of which suggestions I made. Perhaps you could consider my question an exercise in precision. Many thanks. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, then let me be more precise: Yes, you may suggest that I remove everting else that is unsourced from the article. If you would like to suggest that, please do so. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: June 2016

Hello, Summer. I apologize for not explaining the reasons I removed some content from Habits (Tove Lo song). I did it because there was a mistake with the charts and release history sections, as you can see here and here.--Paparazzzi (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Off topic?

How was my listing of signature songs on the page "off-topic"? I have seen signature song suggestions and you fire back by asking about reliable sources. Enlighten me about this please, I want to know. Donny (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their related articles. Your opinion of what a band's signature song is cannot be included in the article as we would need a reliable source for the claim. Thus, you are not suggesting an improvement to the article, you are discussing the article's topic. It would be similar to going to the talk page of a politician and stating you think they are great or horrible. It is your opinion about the topic and nothing else. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SalemHanna

I'm not sure if there's a backlog at SPI, if this one somehow went off-track or if more details are needed. Can someone let me know? - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure, but you might try a gentle poke at a CU with one of the checkue at Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting_a_CheckUser, very few admins are active at SPI. Probably contact an individual checkuser you see active on the SPI page or something. Not sure if there's a better central resources for people working at SPI. --joe decker^talk 16:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest IP blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Aglet external link to Ian's Shoelace Site

On the "Aglet" page, you removed the external link pointing to Ian's Shoelace Site, calling it "not a reliable source". Ian's Shoelace Site is the Internet's #1 ranked website for just about anything to do with shoelaces, including aglets. It has been on the Internet for the past 16 years. Is that not sufficiently reliable?

It wasn't me who originally added that external link. Whoever did so considered that my website was useful enough to those wanting further information about aglets. My site doesn't rely on Wikipedia links for SEO or anything, there are thousands of other websites linking to it.

Normally I simply revert uninformed edits to the "Aglets" page, but because this would reinstate a link to my website, it could be seen as a conflict of interest. I trust that you'll reconsider your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Fieggen (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia identifies reliable sources based on the source having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Your site seems to be a self-published site. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact that my website is self-published doesn't mean that I don't care about fact-checking or accuracy. On WP:SPS, Wikipedia states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." My work has been published as the 2007 book, "Laces", by Barnes & Noble. I've also been interviewed by and had my work published by the National Geographic Channel, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Der Spiegel, Runner's World, GQ, Esquire, to name but a few of the more "reliable third-party publications".

If you nonetheless feel that I really don't rate as a "reliable source" on a subject so trivial as AGLETS, for which you'd be hard pressed to find any other "expert", then fine, remove the link. As I said, I really don't care whether Wikipedia links to my website or not. I do, however, care about Wikipedia. The fact that we are here arguing such a trivial point when instead we could both be contributing something worthwhile is pretty sad. Ian Fieggen (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cheap Thrills (song)

I've noticed that you've removed an entire discussion section in Talk:Cheap Thrills (song): [58], with "-trolling duck sock" as the summery

Should troll discussion be removed, or just ignored per the troll policy? I don't think that discussions should be removed, even if trolling. ¬Hexafluoride ^(talk) 16:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

On a side note; consider archiving the old discussions here on your talk page... it's really lengthy! ¬Hexafluoride ^(talk) 16:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It was not removed per our policy on trolling. It was removed per our policy on block evasion. The IP, now blocked as one of the socks of SalemHanna has had their discussion of the topic. No one supported their POV.

My talk page, surprisingly enough, does have archiving. I'll tweak the settings to shorten this mess up. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Cartoon Trivia

I only added the re-releases and reaction of Hatch Up Your Troubles and censorship of Mouse Cleaning. I didn't add anything like "Tom and Jerry" both lose, "Where Tom triumphs". I don't think there's any other page I restored trivia. Also Ritvik12 added in Hatch Up Your Troubles, the baby woodpecker thinks Jerry is his mom, just like Quacker thinks Tom is his mom in That's My Mommy, but I didn't add that. And I wanted the images from Old Rockin' Chair Tom to be restored. Marole3 (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Why Are

Why are people with Assburgers so goshdarn sensitive? Why is is the responsibility of non-Asspie people to adjust to them? Why don't they adjust to normal people? You wrote:

"User talk:AS.BUR.GER.S From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You have a new message from another user (last change). July 2016[edit] Stop icon This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Talk:The Final Cut (album), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SummerPhDv2.0 15:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)"

Sorry, Sugartits, I made a generic comment about "Assburgers-riddled Wikipedia editors" I never effing harassed you or anyone else. Your twitchy reaction proved my generic remark correct. Of course I'm Jewish so maybe you don't like Jews. You certainly had no conceivable reason to send me this stern warning.

"If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. I have also removed your comments at Talk:The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking and Talk:List of Sherlock characters. If you wish to discuss how to improve any of these articles, you will need to do so by discussing the articles' content without personally attacking other editors. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.166.249 (talk)

Classy. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

At least they didn't say "fucking". That would have been offensive.- SummerPhD^v2.0 03:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I was also unaware that you had the clairvoyance to determine one's religion by IP address. Although I am not sure if that is a marketable skill. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It was an all-around remarkable exchange. In addition to my detecting his religion/ethnicity through magical powers, the paranormal connection seems to be two way and they deduced that I have "Assburgers" and that my breasts are really quite sweet. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

SmithN41V's Sockpuppet investigation

The claims you made on my talk page are not completely without suspicion due to this user having similar edits to me, but I can certify that this user is not me as I make all my edits signed in and have no reason to sign out and I believe (while I may disagree with some users) there is nothing that cannot be solved without discussion on an articles talk page e.g. Elephunk's talk page where other users give their explainations on edits, personally believed the IP address to belong to Joesob however I am not sure weather this is true or not, I was very surprised to see you open a sockpuppet investigation into me as this is not true, I hope we can resolve this issue in a mutually beneficial manner, Thank You. ----SmithN41V 09:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick note

Some good progress on something we spoke about a few months ago: here. No need to comment unless you feel the need, but I thought you'd be interested in the progress. -Thibbs (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

You don't know what sources I use, so, why don't you look on it yourself. This is just ridicules giving the public the wrong information. So, have a look at every episode of Thomas & Friends (series 10) on http://ttte.wikia.com/ or this source: http://ttte.wikia.com/wiki/Season_10 And see what you find.

Thank you. MariusEllingsen47 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't know what sources you use, because you have not provided reliable sources for your changes. We have lots of editors changing lots of dates for various reasons. Some are trying to correct the dates and are using reliable sources. Some are trying to correct the dates and are using bad sources. Some are kids changing dates based on when they think they first saw the show. Some are fans using the date it recorded on their DVR. Some are vandals knowingly changing the dates to incorrect dates. This is outlined at WP:KIDSTVDATES.

In your case, it seems you are trying to correct the dates, but are using unreliable sources. Both of the sites you mention are user edited. For all we know, the information there is based on what was on Wikipedia before it was corrected here! You will need to provide reliable sources to change episode dates (and, by the way, to add birth dates in articles about people). Thanks - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Please do not tell me (my pin number is 2.51.94.68) that I added or changed content that is very specific as you did with Pratt & Whitney PW4000. I can put reliable sources if you want me to do so. Please re-review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article, before telling me that you didn't provide reliable sources. Thank you. --Ramy5077 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:KIDSTVDATES. We have numerous editors making unsourced and unexplained changes to dates in kids' media and transportation related articles. Some of those changes are intended to correct errors and come from reliable sources. Some are intended to correct errors but are themselves incorrect. Some are vandalism, intended to add incorrect information to the article. If you do not cite a source or explain where the information came from, your edits are likely to be reverted.

The guideline you cite specifically states, "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged..." Please consider all such unsourced changes challenged. As our Verifiability policy details, it is your responsibility to provide sources for change you make. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Space Western/Science Fiction

I just logged in and got your ping.--Taeyebar 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I did it because an editor suggested on the talk page that if the lead says it, the infobox should say it.--Taeyebar 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

I replied to a comment of yours on Talk:Autism Speaks#eugenics, genocide! Check it out! Mage Resu (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

New reply on the Autism $peaks talk page.

Check it out! Mage Resu (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Smegma article

Regarding Smegma I just don't see what relevance does "soap" have in the pronounciation of the word itself.

The Greek word "smēgma" is the origin of the English word "smegma". "Smēgma" is the Greek word for "soap". - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week [23 July 2016]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for being a discussion catalyst. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Carptrash submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I gladly nominate SummerPhDv2.0[.] I just went searching for info on 4 editors to nominate and Summer was the first I ran into, and perhaps the most controversial of them (the three others are slamdunks)[,] but who are we (you) to avoid someone this dedicated to creating the best possible wikipedia that can be while sometimes functioning as a lightning rod[?] A good thing.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)