User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Miles Ahead, Metacritic

Metacritic explicitly states the film received "generally favorable reviews" ([1]). 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.[2]

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 ([3]) 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)

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. 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 oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. 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)

Talk:Cheap Thrills (song)

I've noticed that you've removed an entire discussion section in Talk:Cheap Thrills (song): [4], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Awe, thanks. What section of my CV do I include this in? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Congratulations. Thanks for all you do. Buster Seven Talk 13:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Sock tags

Hi SummerPhDv2.0. Could you please stop tagging the talk pages of MariaJaydHicky socks? The tags are already (correctly) placed on the user pages, and the tags you are adding are sometimes contradictory to the actual CU findings. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the tags you added to user talk pages as all of the ones I checked are incorrect. Although your intentions are good, adding "suspected sock" tags to the talk page when the accounts are already correctly tagged as "CU confirmed" on the user page only confuses the issue and is unhelpful from a Checkuser/SPI standpoint.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought I had this right for once! Good to see someone knows how it really works... - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I got them all. I left the ones that you tagged as suspected if they were also blocked as suspected. The extra tag is redundant but does no harm. You can save yourself time (and potential carpal tunnel syndrome!) by checking the user page to see if they've already been tagged.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverted edits

What happened to my edits?

DrawnTogether2007 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You've been RBIed again, Barry. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Blake Fitzpatrick

Hi! I thought you would like to know that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Fitzpatrick was deleted and is currently under deletion review after an arguably unreliable second Afd. Filmfan655321 (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Comeback Balloons, Novelty Balloons, Balloonicles and Floats at 90th Anniversary Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade

Resolved

Official Website, They are Return of Comeback Giant Helium Balloons, Novelty Balloons, Balloonicles and Spectacular Floats in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in Thursday, November 24, 2016, in New York City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.214.69.181 (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Balloons comeback in this year's Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, return comeback balloons: Sonic the Hedgehog (2nd version), Po (Kung Fu Panda), Kermit the Frog (2nd version), Julius the Sock Monkey, Raggedy Ann, Dexter's Laboratory, Jeeves, Garfield (2nd version), Dora the Explorer, Kaws, Horton the Elephant, Papa Smurf, Abby Cadabby, Buzz Lightyear, 75th Anniversary Tuxedo Honey Nut Cheerios Bee, Healthy Mr. Potato Head and Mighty Mouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.137.89 (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The Novelty Balloons comeback in this year's Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, return comeback novelty balloons: Cloe the Holiday Clown, Flying Fish, Happy Dragon (2nd version), Uncle Sam (2nd version), Daushound, Ice Cream Cone, Gorgeous Gobbler, Gold Stars, Beach Ball Clusters, Green Candy Cane, Green Believe Star, Macy's White Star, Macy's Blue Stars, Basketball, Football, Baseball and Geometrics.

The Balloonicles comeback in this year's Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, return comeback balloonicles: Dreidel, Green Dog and SnowBo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B419:3796:60D7:AE87:C19B:42E2 (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The Floats comeback in this year's Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, return comeback floats: Goldfish on Parade, History Channel New York Tin Toy Christmas, M&M's Chocolate Candies at 75, Smurf's Mushroom House, Animal Planet (2nd version), Hamburger Helper Locals Heroes Halping Everyday, Hess Corporation Bridge to the Future, Zhu Zhu Pets, Dora and Friends: Into the City!, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Care Bears Winter Fun-Derland and Oneida Indian Nation True Spirit of Thanksgiving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.214.65.8 (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like you have some problems to address before there is any possibility your edits will be taken seriously. Until you do, your edits will continue to be reverted. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Question.

What part of the film Autism Every Day isn't propaganda? Mage Resu (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Your POV is quite obvious in your editing. That is a not good thing.

To make a strong derogatory claim, the burden is on you to provide independent reliable sources to support the claim, not on me to prove the neutral statement. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

MegaMan1988, editing as "Mage Resu", has been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

I was attempting to add a bullet point to your page, but you reverted me. Is there a reason? Mage Resu (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not edit other editors' user pages without their permission. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

MegaMan1988, editing as "Mage Resu", has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation (on me not on you)

I received a notice from you mentioning a sockpuppet investigation involving my account. What behavior led you to believe that I might be a sockpuppet? Smallness88 (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying it's a mere coincidence that you turned up after the IP's were blocked from posting the same quackery garbage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:DBQ Smallness88 (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

See Non-denial denial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

He be gone now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Smallness88 has been indefinitely blocked as one of several socks of MegaMan 1988. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a Megablock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Marieville, Quebec

Hey Summer, re: this person, I just noticed the geolocation of IP 74.58.110.250 is Marieville, Quebec, and that rang a bell with me. Looks like in 2015 they were a bit of a pain at various Disney event articles, including Disney on Ice. If they continue, let me know and I'll block/protect as necessary. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. (Pretty nice tool, BTW.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of defunct retailers of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Harris. 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) 09:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Elvis and TCB

Thank you for your feedback in regards to Takin' Care of Business (song) and how it relates to the Elvis Presley motto of the same name. In my original post, my source was admittedly soft, however I have found a respected book on Elvis referencing the creation date of the slogan "TCB." I have also come across other sources that date "TCB" to a time before the release of the song, and can supply them if necessary. I have posted the info in the talk section for Takin' Care of Business (song), and was hoping you could give me your input from there.

Thanks. Rrakoczy (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Don't Phunk with My Heart

added a link pointing to Pop

My Humps

added a link pointing to Pop

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Finding Dory

Hey, thanks for your comments. However, two more users have chimed in, convinced it's a spin-off. I am suspecting sockpuppetry between the IP and the two users, though I am not sure. Is there anyway to close this? I am getting tired of the disruptive editing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, I am sorry for being bothersome, but it's important. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Question: What evidence do you see of socking? I see that they apparently agree, but nothing more. They aren't new accounts. I don't see common patterns in time of day or areas of interest... Other than that, I commented once. At that point, it seemed to be one editor (you) basing a decision on policy and an IP basing theirs on OR. Now there seems to be meaningful discussion with sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

For socking: I just find it mainly odd that both accounts have either edited very little on the article or not all. They just randomly show up and continue the same argument. Maybe it's just me? I'll look into the sources. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Re:September 2016

In Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!, I haven't inserted NONE unsourced material to Wikipedia because THEY ALREADY WERE. I simply shrunk brackets. Luigi1090 (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Want to help test advanced new tools planned for Recent Changes?

Hi SummerPhD! I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re a very active Twinkle user (top 25, actually!). The WMF Collaboration team is working on new tools that we hope will be useful to people engaged in reviewing recent changes, fighting vandalism or supporting new users. We want to test them for usability with editors who are experienced with relevant wiki work. If you’re interested in helping to shape this new technology—we’d like to hear from you.

The testing should take about an hour, will be conducted online, and will take place during the next few weeks. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org with the subject line Twinkle User. Include the following information:

• Username
• Email where we can reach you
• Your city or time zone
• Best time to talk to you
• Your primary use of Twinkle or Recent Changes (e.g., reviewing recent changes, reviewing with a particular focus (specify), anti-vandalism, new-page review, welcoming new users, etc.)

Thanks! Dchen (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Somebody is quite easily upset. Or is that libel too? Alleging a group has portrayed something in a negative light is NOT equivalent with criminal charges. I'm sorry. It doesn't work that way. What must be done is see if it does or does not. Does the videos routinely produced by Autism Speaks portray autism in a negative light or not? I think sufficient evidence qualifies them as doing so. Further, the edition of Life I own does NOT include such things, I do not rush to the store to pick up mediocre children's games when a new edition is released. Make a new edition to Twilight Struggle and my Credit Card is out. I maintain that Tiny Tim's illness is far more objective than Craggit being underpaid. Underpaid is not a value that can be objectively determined. Ill, is a bit more concrete. Frankly, I don't care what your opinions of me are. I have made helpful edits, some vandalism, and some honest mistakes. At the end of the day it is a wash, no matter how intent you are on defending Autism Speaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.221.41 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Accusing living individuals of hate speech and "murderous" feelings are controversial claims about living persons.

Your WP:OR about Life is WP:OR without regard to what edition your addition was meant to apply.

Re Cratchit ("Craggit"): You are either trolling or simply out of your depth. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Crystal Healing

Hi there,

I see you deleted my additions on the Crystal Healing wiki. I think there needs to be a clarification on why I added those pieces of information. However if you believe that my citations are not credible sources, I will look for more bibliographical sources to verify the statements I have added. Please note that the links that I provided also came from books, and esoteric material such as Crystal Healing will have sources that may be made of legends or made of facts.

For correspondence kindly add a section to my talk page.

Thanks!

Onechiccosmetics (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Onechiccosmetics

As this discussion is related to article content, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you, and you enjoy! HollandLop (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)