User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

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. 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 ethan.chiel@fusion.net 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)

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)

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: [1]

"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)

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:[2][3][4][5][6] 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)

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)

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.[7] 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)

Question

Why did you re-add something unsourced to List of fictional antiheroes?[8] 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)

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)

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 [9] and [10].)

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)