User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 11

Undoing my edit
I get that you undid my edit on the list of tenors, and that it was done in this "good faith" baloney, but most of the range sites I've gone on to find ranges and add people onto those lists have been accurate, stating the entire range of their voices and their vocal type. News articles that I have seen in the references, in my opinion, are not accurate. Sorry if I made you angry by saying such a pretentious statement. Donny (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You agree with what "most of the range sites" you've gone to say. That's fine. Wikipedia, however, reports what independent reliable sources say.
 * If you feel a source you are using is a reliable source, please explain on the article's talk page how you feel it meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS or raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you feel that any sources cited in the article are not reliable, the same pages are good places to address the issue. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Favor
Hi Summer, could I trouble you to please add Justin and the Knights of Valour to your watchlist? It's an obscure film title that has been the subject of a lot of pernicious editing, some from Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand, the source of a lot of questionable editing lately. I had to go through today and pull out a ton of crap. It's still not great, but it's way better than in this version. Some of the kids had added Hindi and Korean cast, questionable, unsourced awards, claimed Ben Kingsley was in the film, blah blah. And any help you could provide with vetting some of the info like the Soundtrack and such, would be nice, but no pressure on that. I'd just be happy to get extra eyes for andi-vandal purposes. Thanks mucho, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. It has Antonia Banderas and an 8% on RT? Never mind watching it here, I'm watching this film tonight for sure...
 * Looks like there's still some garbage in there. I've killed the unsourced budget and box office figures as they are completely at odds with IMDb's numbers. Box Office Mojo has nothing. I'll take a look at the rest of the article later. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

How dare you interrupt my entertainment!
Aww man, you're throwing salt on one of the most provocative, action-packed, interesting Wikipedia conversations OF ALL TIME! What's wrong with you?! Outta curiosity, who's the sockmaster of the IP? Frankly it sounds a little like one person talking to himself...but I don't wanna speculate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This kid has been around for a while. This gives links to some of the more recent crap. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

You Keep Me Hangin' On
What exactly is the problem or issue? You demanded a source so I gave you one. Then you left a vague edit summary alleging:"Not in source cited". Are you serious? Everything is indeed cited in the ref I used for the article. So, I ask you again, what exactly is the problem here?  Caden  cool  00:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see the note I left on the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I replied to you on the talk page. Now, for the final time....exactly what is the problem???  Caden  cool  02:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

-- Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Gator
Puting citation needed on his basis dumb! Watch the show! Additionally if you say it's needed on his basis, than the same could be said for all them according to you. --ACase0000 (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone decided the character looks like a particular engine. They added it to a website. Good for them. THIS website has, as one of its core principles, the idea that information must be verifiable.
 * I am sorry that you feel that "puting (this) on his basis dumb!" - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * His section has always said that he is based on a Columbian Steam Motor. Please do me a favour. Watch Thomas & Friends Season 18 episode, Toads Bright Idea to see Gator. --ACase0000 (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, it has always been there? There have been articles on Wikipedia for years that were completely fabricated: EVERYTHING that had always been in them was completely wrong. I have seen images of the character.
 * I have seen images of the engine someone decided it is based on. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." (WP:NOR)
 * Please answer one simple question: If someone with no specialized knowledge of steam engines watches the show and sees the character, would they know the character is based on this obscure engine? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it has! Again the same could be said for all engines. --ACase0000 (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Without specialized knowledge of steam engines (i.e., being familiar with one obscure engine and knowing that it is in some way unique) there is absolutely no way an ordinary viewer would look at this minor character and say, "Oh, that is obviously a Columbian Steam Motor."
 * This is unsourced trivia and very likely a guess by some fan somewhere along the way. Find a reliable source or it will be removed. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You never stop. Leave it alone! And find something better do than freak up my life and play around with a show you have no knowledge whatsoever of!!! --ACase0000 (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not about you. This is about Wikipedia's core policies. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is Not about you either. Now leave me alone and quit undoing my edits. Wikipedia is for everyone not just you. You must want to ruin peoples lives. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ruining lives?!?! Get some perspective. Violent crimes and diseases ruin lives. Encyclopedias provide verifiable information, nothing more, nothing less. If it isn't verifiable, it doesn't belong here. If a guess about the source for a minor character in a children's TV show is ruining your life, you're really too invested. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 06:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I said that. It is not a guess. How do we know really what an engines the rest are based on? They are all just guesses. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If they are guesses, they do not belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources have to say about a topic. If sources do not discuss a topic (or a detail about a topic), Wikipedia does not discuss the topic (or detail). - Sum mer PhD v2.0 06:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just delete the entire article. However the Reverend Wilbert Awdry and his son Christopher have said that all the characters they created are all based on an engine. Also check out "the real lives of Thomas the tank engine." --ACase0000 (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to delete the entire article.If they said they based the characters on existing engines, they probably did. That doesn't mean various guesses are correct or belong on Wikipedia. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 07:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * HiT also basis their engines on real engines too. Could we say that: "Name appears to be based on blank" _? Also I watch the show regularly. --ACase0000 (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Who says "________ appears to be based on __________"? If some random person (you, the author of a blog, etc.) says it, who cares? I might as well add that "Chocolate seems to be the best flavor of ice cream" or "bison meat tastes a lot like over-cooked beef." - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm??? --ACase0000 (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ACase, you seem confused, so I'll attempt to clarify: You are proposing that we allow you to add your personal opinion to an article. We can't do that. By saying "Character A looks like Train B", you are making an interpretive judgment. That's an opinion. If we were watching a cartoon about SUVs, you might think that one of them looks like a Tahoe, but to me, it might look like an Explorer. If we were watching a cartoon and you thought one of the characters sounded like they had a Spanish accent, but to my ear the accent sounded Cuban, who's right? Nobody, because it's interpretive, and neither statement belongs in the article. Only when reliable sources start to analyze the designs would we attempt to match the characters to the real-life trains. If you can find an interview where the show producers say, "We based the design of Character A on Train B" then we could consider including that piece of information. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, then. Thank you for clarification. :-) Additionally they are not my personal opinions. But what's the use arguing? --ACase0000 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They are someone 's opinions or facts. If they are facts, we need reliable sources stating they are facts. If they are someone's opinion, they likely do not belong here at all. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wisconsin-based US Holiday vandal
Hey Summer, re: this reversion of yours, this guy is a repeat vandal I've loosely dubbed the Wisconsin Holiday Vandal or Wisconsin US Holiday Vandal. He's come up a few times since June 2015. Articles related to Bump in the Night tend to be popular with him and he chiefly tends to add US holidays (even non-holidays like April Fool's Day) near dates. Ta-ta! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I ran across them a few years back. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryan
It does "Confirm the material". Click on the blog Sodor's Legend of the lost Treasure and scroll down. It is plainly stated: "Series 20 will see Ryan and Daisy working together." --ACase0000 (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see... it under the section titleed "Ryan", it's under the second section titled "Ryan". Having read the rest of the blog, it is still, as I said, a blog. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr. Ryan who wrote that about Ryan. Works with HiT. But I understand if you feel the blog isn't reliable enough. :-) --ACase0000 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Pattie Boyd
John Lennon's first wife Cynthia died in April. Paul McCartney's first wife Linda died in 1998. Ringo Starr's first wife Maureen died in 1998. A person can only have one first wife, therefore Pattie Boyd is irrefutably the sole surviving first Beatle wife. Why no one else can understand that, I'll never know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.131.81 (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As this issue involves several editors and the content of an article, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"direct"
Do you we really need to list "direct-to-video?" If we do "have" to do so, then it should be added to every character of the entire series that appeared in the film. Which would just clutter up the article more. In my opinion. Additionally the film was shown in select theaters in England and Australia. --ACase0000 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As this is discussion of article content, please take the discussion to the article's talk page. (Long story short: The article largely discusses a TV show, titles of anything else probably don't make immediate sense, similar to if we were discussing the Beatles and suddenly threw in lesser-known film and TV show titles in with the album titles.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This completely off topic, but it falls within our discussions. Why are you messing around with Thomas related articles? Have you ever watched Thomas & Friends? --ACase0000 (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , your question, with its accusatory tone, doesn't warrant an answer. Any editor can edit any article regardless of any familiarity with the subject matter. Editors who have never seen a particular show or movie might actually be better suited to edit those articles than fans, because fandom doesn't get in the way for them. Worry about content, not the contributor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How rude you are. I do a lot here and you treat me like I committed murder because I am fan. Have you know,. I have stopped a lot of vandals from destroying the pages. I disagree with Wikipedia and it's polices. And this stuff about Gator is so stupid. He is based on the engine that Summer says he's not. --ACase0000 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not said that Gator is or is not based on a particular engine. (More on that in a second.) If you disagree with Wikipedia and its polices, it would seem conflict would be inevitable for you here. I have repeatedly stated that stating something that cannot be verified violates one of our core policies. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources. You disagree, which is fine (in isolation). You cannot, however, expect the entire project to change to fit you.
 * There are several Thomas wikis. I don't pretend to know their individual policies, but you might be more at home with one of them. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just like your irrational suggestion to Summer that she "must want to ruin peoples lives", your suggestion that I'm treating you "like [you] committed murder" is an absurd emotional leap. You have twice targeted another editor at a personal level, and I'm telling you that that's not appropriate here. Nobody's said that you are bad, nobody's accused you of ruining people's lives, nobody's accused you of murder. The entirety of the discussions with you that revolve around a children's cartoon about a train has been calm, cool, and collected. Take a step back, maybe take the five-day holiday to chill, and maybe you'll gain some perspective. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to both of you. Summer, I am sorry for bothering you. Those Thomas wiki's are just as bad. Sorry for everything.   I just want to be helpful and I sometimes come off the wrong way. --ACase0000 (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Just wanted to send you a kitten.
Because why wouldn't I???

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

Stitches (song)
Can you reverted to the New York Times article source "pop" (though I'm an IP). Musicnotes.com is reliable for music arrangement related details (keys, tempo etc., but not reliable for genre). 115.164.53.84 (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Please address the issue (whatever it is) on the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Thomas and Friends (series 19)
All of the episodes you have removed have been released on DVD. Now leave them alone. Their other "unsourced" things to mess with. --ACase0000 (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We've been through this before. Please cite sources. Future episodes are VERY LIKELY to be challenged (because of vandals adding completely false future episodes of kids' TV shows). Wikipedia has a policy (not a "guideline" or "suggestion") on this: "... any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." WP:V
 * I am adding tags requesting inline citations for the material. If citations are not added, I will remove the material again shortly (if no one else does). If you restore the material without citing sources at that point, you will likely be blocked from editing. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not a vandal. I have these episodes on official DVD's that I can prove that I purchased at Walmart. --ACase0000 (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to understand. This is not about whether or not you are a vandal. The only way anyone can tell if the material in the article is correct or not is by whether or not there is a citation to a reliable source. Stating on a talk page or in an edit summary where you got the material is not a substitute.
 * Anything in an article that does not cite a reliable source can be removed by any editor. As there are numerous vandals adding false future episodes to articles relating to kids' TV shows, unsourced future episodes will be removed. The only way to prevent this is to include cites when you add such material.
 * "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Add inline citations to sources or the material will be removed. If you restore it, you will likely be blocked from editing. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do understand. I was just stating that I was not. Can you site DVD's? --ACase0000 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CITE and Template:Cite AV media. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :-) Also does the AV media thing have to be listed on all of the episodes? --ACase0000 (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So that anyone reading the article will be able to verify the information. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you why, it had to be done. I asked if it had to be done. --ACase0000 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, so that anyone reading the article will be able to verify the information. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

National Railway Museum entry
== January 2016 == Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a change to an article, National Railway Museum, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Have added two citations to confirm that the restoration work for the Flying Scotsman was taken away from the Museum after an independent review, citing serious failures. The principal restoration work, now completed, was carried out by the independent firm Riley and Son. The train is now back on the mainline.
 * Best
 * Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anments (talk • contribs) 11:10, January 12, 2016‎
 * I've tweaked the formatting of your comment to clarify that you were quoting me (as opposed to me sending myself a note...) and to add your signature. I haven't reviewed your edit. If I have any issues with the edit, I will note it there. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cite
Hi, Summer! I added a cite Av media thing on the Thomas & Friends (series 19) page. I may not have did it right. Also I'm not sure about "publisher" or "medium" --ACase0000 (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Check Template:Cite_AV_media again, specifically Template:Cite_AV_media and Template:Cite_AV_media.
 * Additionally, you have restored three titles, but provided a cite for only one of them. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank You! Don't worry I'll get to it. :-) --ACase0000 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Would the publisher be Universal (who distributes the series) or HiT Entertainment? --ACase0000 (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume HiT is the studio and Universal is the distributor of the show. You will need to look at the disc and/or the disc's case. You are looking for the home video distributor, which might be Universal Pictures Home Entertainment or one of its subsidiaries. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * HiT and Arc Productions produce the show. Universial Pictures Home Entertainment is the distributor. Thanks, Summer! --ACase0000 (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply.
Hi there. I did find this ref on Cyrus's vocal range being alto. . Its in the article somewhere. Is it good enough? --XenaDance-- (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC) --XenaDance--
 * Given the fact that you are replacing one source that disagrees with you with a source that you agree with, I'd ask that you add a note to the article's talk page as to why you feel your source is more reliable than the one you are removing. In addition to the article you are editing (Miley Cyrus), it's an issue at List of contraltos in non-classical music. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that you are replacing one source that disagrees with you with a source that you agree with, I'd ask that you add a note to the article's talk page as to why you feel your source is more reliable than the one you are removing. In addition to the article you are editing (Miley Cyrus), it's an issue at List of contraltos in non-classical music. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Also the List of Thomas & Friends voice actors article sees alot of vandalism. --ACase0000 (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is one of our core principles. "This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
 * ANY material about an as yet unaired TV show that does not cite a reliable source is very likely to be challenged. Always cite a source.
 * ANY material removed with an edit summary of "unsourced" and/or a warning on your talk page that the material was unsourced has been challenged. Always cite a source.
 * ANY time you revert the removal of unsourced material without explaining, you are edit warring. Do not do this.
 * ANY time you say something negative about another editor, you are making a personal attack. Do not do this.
 * You really don't seem to be getting this. Please make a note of this message. I will be referring to it until you stop your disruption or are blocked from editing. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand, 100%. I am very sorry. I am not going to be disruptive again. I am truly sorry for everything rude I've said to you. --ACase0000 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand you are very sorry and will never do it again. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I won't do it again. No need to post all that. I have learned my lesson. ;-) --ACase0000 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ANY time you say something negative about another editor, you are making a personal attack. Do not do this.
 * You really don't seem to be getting this. Please make a note of this message. I will be referring to it until you stop your disruption or are blocked from editing. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand, 100%. I am very sorry. I am not going to be disruptive again. I am truly sorry for everything rude I've said to you. --ACase0000 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand you are very sorry and will never do it again. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I won't do it again. No need to post all that. I have learned my lesson. ;-) --ACase0000 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I won't do it again. No need to post all that. I have learned my lesson. ;-) --ACase0000 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Be Cool Scooby Doo
That is a rich comment that you leave on my talk page about 'disrupting' things when YOU are the one constantly removing contributors 'sourced' I may add, additions. Maybe you should stop deleting people's work. I presume you have a copy of the book that I sourced, and I might add, have read it from cover to cover, therefore you can 100% confirm that the information is not in there as I stated! As the answer to this is most definitely no I suggest you stop disrupting my contributions. Jb666 (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You added a lump of opinions on a Scooby-Doo series that ran for one season, citing "Hollywood's America: Understanding History Through Film", which is scheduled to publish a new edition in March. To be clear: The 4th edition came out a year ago, so it does not say anything about the show (which premiered 3 months ago). The 5th edition is not out yet. You said what you wanted to say and, apparently, added a wholly unrelated source (covering the history of American films) that you haven't seen.
 * Another editor removed your addition, stating the source has "nothing to do with Scooby-Do!"
 * This didn't cause you to stop and reconsider. Instead, you re-added the claim, citing a self-published "Guide to Series Books: Movie & TV Tie-ins from Star Wars to Star Trek". The series in question began airing in October 2015 and this pseudo-book was "published" two months later, giving reasons for the otherwise unsourced cancellation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Be_Cool,_Scooby-Doo!&diff=prev&oldid=702197412
 * Normally, I'd hope for a page number to help readers hoping to verify the claims. It's no matter, though, as the supposed source seems to be lists of books that tie in to various movies and TV shows, with no relationship to the claims being made. Incidentally, self-published sources are not reliable sources. To summarize: It seems to be very unlikely that the information you gave is in the source you cited. Additionally, the source is not reliable.
 * I removed your addition, stating that the source is not reliable.
 * Let me be a bit more direct. If either source says anything close to what you are claiming, please cite an edition number and page number. I have convenient access to an Ivy League university library and can easily check. If you are correct, I will apologize for this:
 * You are adding your personal opinions and unsourced (perhaps false) claims to the article, citing sources you know have nothing whatsoever to do with your claim. Stop. - 15:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Explanation
Here there is the page List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series which, as the title of the pages it, mentions the nominations and wins of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.Moreover, in the Content Accolades of the page The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey it is said just the link which is the page List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series. That is why I removed all these wins and nominatios of the third Hobbit film from that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.212.188 (talk • contribs) 19:38, February 1, 2016‎
 * Please use edit summaries to make it clear why you are doing what you are doing. In the present case, without an edit summary it looks like someone simply blanked a large section of the article for no reason, which is a common form of vandalism. I'll add a note to your talk page giving a full explanation. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Also, in case you don't know, I already gave an edit summary about the editings in the page The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.Look it here .The edit summary is this one: I removed the wikitable about the wins and nominations of the third Hobbit film because there is a Special page about it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.212.188 (talk • contribs) 14:30, February 3, 2016‎
 * You removed the material once without an edit summary. restored it. You removed it again without an edit summary. I restored it. Then you removed it with an edit summary. Mlpearc restored it again. Why? You'd have to ask Mlpearc.  blocked you. Why? You'd have to ask 78.26. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Do some actual work
In regards to this I'm not the one who added the info. Instead of removing content why don't you do some actual work for a change? You never add content, you never add sources, you never do any copy edits, you never add images, and you never create any articles. Do some real work.  Caden  cool  19:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do watch the personal attacks. If you are unsatisfied with the type of work I do, please raise the issue at whatever noticeboard you would think would address the issue or bring it up at my next performance appraisal. Your blanket statement that I never add content, sources, etc. would be immaterial if true, which is clearly is not.
 * You restored unsourced material. That makes it your WP:BURDEN. You stated that it would be very easy to find a reliable source for the material. It was not. Rather than doing so yourself, you've spent a nice bit of time complaining about me not doing it for you. Ironic. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You bet I'm unsatisfied with your lack of work. If you have the time to remove content from multiple articles well then you have the time to find the sources. It's called being productive by doing what is called work. Try it.  Caden  cool  19:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Doubling down on the personal attacks is a bad idea. Consider this a second warning.
 * In case you would like to address the issue (I'm guessing AIV, but make your own call), here are several more things I removed today:, , , , , , , , , , , , . Take it to a noticeboard and cite policies/guidelines and I'll hear you out. Otherwise, you can talk to my manager about my "work" not being the particular work you want me to do and see if you can get me fired. Good luck and goodbye.
 * (Incidentally, I see you still haven't done the "very easy" task of citing that material. The world loss: we'll miss hearing the presidential candidates' opinions on the breaking news that there will be extras on that Chipmunks DVD.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , you have been here long enough to know that 1. Personal attacks are not acceptable. And saying that Summer never does any "real work" is a personal attack. It's also with some degree of irony that you are getting after Summer for not sourcing the material, when you can just as easily as she could. 2. The burden of proof lies with the editor adding the material. It is not expected that when someone adds unsourced information to an article, that the referencing will be added later by another user. It is expected that the material will be sourced by the editor adding the information in question. Further to this, it should be noted, that just as not every fart is notable, not every DVD extra included in the home video release is notable enough for inclusion. The statement Another noteworthy bonus feature is a collection of musical performances from all three films., is hardly noteworth, or necessary. Summer, while I am not your manager, I do authorize a 10% raise. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi.
Regarding "The Great Race" characters. Go on Amazon and search the engines' names and you will see proof of them. --ACase0000 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:SummerPhDv2.0. Search engine results are not a reliable source. Mentioning something in an edit summary is not citing. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood what I said. Go on Amazon (Btw, Amazon is not a search engine, is an online shopping site) type in the said the characters name and you will be given a link with the characters' information. --ACase0000 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You must cite a reliable source. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I know all about that. Let me try this again in different wording: Is the Amazon links reliabe? --ACase0000 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Dustin
Hi, Summer! I found an article about Dustin's basis, if it helps. Here --ACase0000 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To be a source for something about a character in the Thomas kids' show, the source must discuss the character. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why though? That's ridiculous. (Btw, it's not just a kid show.) --ACase0000 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your guess is original research. A source must give the information it is being cited to support.
 * Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. This is one of the pillars of the project. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 06:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. I was just trying to help out. --ACase0000 (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Pac-Man update
I noticed you left Special:Diff/611103038 some time ago.

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

the nut job
The sequel remains unrealised. Please stop undoing edits about the fact that its release was canceled (I'm not harrasing you.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.69.107 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You will need to find a reliable source that says the release was postponed, rescheduled, cancelled, etc. Anything you add on this point without a source is unverifiable and will be reverted. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure it was quietly cancelled.
 * EXTRA:go on you local movie theater's web site and look at their showtimes. Trust me,you won't find anything realated to the nut job 2.68.12.69.107 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OH one more thing,I'm not adding unsorced content,I'll just remove vandalism and fix typos.68.12.69.107 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be "pretty sure", but we need a source, not just your hunch.
 * That I don't see it at my "local theater" tells me one thing: It is not at my local theater right now. Was it cancelled? Changed to direct-to-video? Came and went quickly? Will now be broadcast on some cable channel? Maybe it was delayed a week, a month, a year... We don't know. We need a source. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be "pretty sure", but we need a source, not just your hunch.
 * That I don't see it at my "local theater" tells me one thing: It is not at my local theater right now. Was it cancelled? Changed to direct-to-video? Came and went quickly? Will now be broadcast on some cable channel? Maybe it was delayed a week, a month, a year... We don't know. We need a source. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A fan?
Bad faith attack, I am a vastly more established editor that you are. Have someone else revert the edit to your version is they agree such as Northamerica1000 whose judgment I trust. Removing NYTimes citation as puff? Gimme a break. I've ignored you in the past, but not this time. I was going to be civil, but accusing me of being a fan is pure bad faith. Look at my edit history I work on everything. I've also done considerablely more work on this encyclopedia that you. Valoem  talk   contrib  17:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not "attack" anyone, in bad faith or otherwise. I said the article seemed to have been written by a fan. Without digging into who wrote it, I called you a "fan". Harsh. I'd encourage you to assume good faith, discuss the article, etc., but you obviously know that's what you should do.
 * Look, I get it. You, I assume, wrote the article. I said it has problems. You feel that is an attack on "your" article and, by extension, you. I boldly made some changes. You reverted or intend to revert all or some of them. Fine. Now we should discuss ways to improve the article on the article's talk page. That you have been editing since 2005 and I since 2006 is immaterial. Who has more edits is immaterial. Whether or not you trust my judgement is immaterial. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is certainly an attack when you accuse an established editor of writing a puff piece and being a a fan, essential saying I am not here to build an eycyclopedia. You did this two other times with John's Roast Pork and Jim's Steaks, but I ignored it as I had better thing to do, third time is a charm so they say. It is abnormal to leave such bitey remarks in the comments field, not to mention you'd be a much better editor if you spent half the time on the main space instead of talk pages trolling people. All things you should know better. My god, you wrote a 3 paragraph attack comment on the talk page, you okay there buddy? I am confident that if the two versions are compared, mine most likely stands. Have someone else revert. Valoem   talk   contrib  18:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I said the article is a mess (it is) and seemed to me to have been written by a fan (it still seems that way). I did not say you are WP:NOTHERE or say you wrote a puff piece. You did call me a troll. I made some changes that I feel need to be made. Please discuss that on the article's talk page. If we can arrive at a consensus there, we're good. If not, we can use one of various methods to bring in other opinions. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)
The album was recorded between February and September 1982, it says so right in it's own article... Why would Sweet Dreams have been recorded in 1981? Put it back. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.89.22.47 (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the album article did include unsourced dates for when it was recorded. I've removed that as well. We are currently having problems with one or more vandals going through various song articles adding and changing information at random. If you can cite a reliable source for a date, feel free to make the change. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The Baby Einstein accusing
Ok so apparently you told me i vandalized the baby Einstein page for changing the the year of one of the videos sold. Im sorry i did that. But, that was because the information was invalid. It said it came out in 2004. On the back of my dvd at my house, it says 2003. I was trying to fix invalid information. You told me it was not constructive. I dont see why i should get accused of something that im actually helping. If you still don't believe me just look at this http://www.freecovers.net/preview/2/bcbd06ab15d593797501eaec2627cdd2/big.jpg just read under babyeinstein.com and you should get the proof. thank you for your notification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.115.22 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please understand: This article and numerous other articles related to kids' TV shows (and some kids' movies and train-related articles) have been subjected to repeated date (and other number) changes without explanation or sources by various anonymous editors. Many of those changes conflict with what reliable sources say. As a result, ALL numerical changes to these types of articles will require reliable sources. This on-going problem is outlined at WP:KIDSTVDATES.
 * Unfortunately:
 * 1) The source you have provided does not say it was released in 2003. It says it was copyrighted in 2003.
 * 2) The title on the disc is "Baby MacDonald". The date you are changing is for "Baby MacDonald - A Day on the Farm".
 * 3) The source you are citing is both user-created (see WP:SPS) and, presumably, full of copyright violations.
 * I've started adding sources to the article as items have been challenged. In the next few minutes, I will add "Baby MacDonald" with a sourced date and a source for the 2004 date for "Baby MacDonald - A Day on the Farm".
 * Finally, your edit also changed "Baby Einstein - Numbers Nursery" to "Baby Numbers Nursery". I'll add a source for the title and date here as well. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes. If you have better sources for the release dates, we can certainly use them. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

adding an alumni
hello, my name is ti chun huang (berklee id 219662), I graduated in year 2004 and i am an actress, singer-songwriter currently working in taiwan and china, i was wondering if my name can be on the alumni's page? as my wikipedia is only in chinese (https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BB%83%E8%8D%BB%E9%88%9E) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.107.177 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, as discussed on that article's talk page, only graduates who have articles on the English Wikipedia are eligible for inclusion. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Teeth gnashing goodness!
Diff: "She has the same skin color as him like what Kaya has." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what she said.
 * Sorry, wrong joke.
 * Incidentally, Marasol is a cyan monsterette with pink polka dots in her body. She has the indigo and pink horn. like Meg. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate that frickin' article so much. Crap like that is why I'm straying from TV articles and focusing more on my fruitless fight with the entire nation of India over rampant financial vandalism in film articles and the absurd fascination with phrases like "Film was declared all time super-hit status." FML... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So you have a problem with my List of films with all time super-hit status? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "In the film and media industry, if a film released in theatres fails to break even at the box office by a large amount..." Doesn't breaking even mean breaking even? And how do we know what breaking even is if "figures of losses are usually rough estimates at best". Anyhow, now I'm just looking for things to be pissy about, which is a good sign it's time to do something else. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To determine all time super-hit status, you simply take the box office gross from one source and the production budget from another source and plug them in to a formula from a third source. Then, you assume you've done this for every film ever made and make a list of the highest numbers you found and Bob's your uncle. It's not synthesis, you see, it's just a calculation. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)