User talk:SummerPhD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Mdsummermsw)
Jump to: navigation, search


Ye Olde Rules and Common Sense


1) Questions you ask here will be answered here, unless they are remarkably rude, pointless, pig-headed, etc.
2) Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things: ~~~~
3) I did not delete "your" page or block you. I am not an admin. I may have suggested that the page should be deleted or that you earned a block.
4) I cannot undelete "your" page or unblock you. I am still not an admin (see #3, above).
5) I don't care if you did hear it from your best friend that her next-door neighbor's cousin knows this guy who once dated someone who went to high school with a roadie for the band, we still need a reliable, verifiable source.
6) The possibility that the blog/myspace/youtube/sign on a telephone pole you read is a reliable source is roughly equal to the chance that I will be the next Pope. I'm a lesbian. You do the math.
7) Please do not assume I am stupid, lazy or "out to get you" (or your favorite non-notable whatever). (Assume whatever you want.) We probably just disagree.
8) I do not intend to waste time responding to remarkably bogus, hostile, and/or trolling remarks. (Actually, it's kinda fun. I'll respond if I feel like it.)
9) Your First Amendment rights state that the U.S. Government will not restrict your speech. Wikipedia is not the U.S. Government.
10) No shirt, no shoes, no dice. Meh.




Andrea Mitchell[edit]

Berklee Alisa Edit[edit]

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

~usmarinesjz

Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Ancient astronauts[edit]

See Talk:Ancient astronauts#Nation of Islam - you may wish to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk)

talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SummerPhD. You have new messages at Talk:Wonga.com.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Perri Reid[edit]

Barbie Cancelled Film[edit]

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

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

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

Posting with sources[edit]

Hello! I appreciate your feedback on the Jackie Burns Wikipedia page, I am obviously new at this thing. However, I know the date of her birth because she says it on a youtube interview, and the year because I personally asked her on twitter. Is that reliable enough? Also, I'm having a very hard time understanding all of this Wiki editing... Forgive me. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieburns0707 (talkcontribs) 03:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot to learn. A decent place to start is Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset. There are a lot of other rules ("policies") and suggestions ("guidelines") that apply to specific situations, but you don't have to worry about those right away.
The youtube interview is one of those specific situations. We cannot use it unless it was posted to youtube by the copyright holder. If, for example, the interview is with a television program, we can use it only if it was added to youtube by the show or the show's production company. If the twitter account is her official account, I'd recommend using that. Simply re-add the information to the article and cite it: immediately after the first use of the date, add <ref>[www.example.com]</ref>. I'll watch for it and fill in the more detailed cite (which you can read more about when you have a chance]]. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Kes and use of the word "fuck"[edit]

Hi. I see that you've reverted my edit.

First, so that you know what I mean, you can hear it if you listen closely at 1:47:00 on here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU3fSRUCMdU It's not very clear as there's so much arguing going on. I think that this fact meant that it got through with a U certificate for so long.

The article on Fuck doesn't seem to have many citations, which I felt safe to add this. I thought that I'd act in the old spirit of WP:IAR and add this bit of information, which I find very interesting. The film Kes must have been one of the first British films to have so much profanity, yet it got a U certificate. I wonder whether this was because the film was in Yorkshire dialect, which the BBFC would probably not have been familiar with, and they weren't always following what was being said.

Is there any way that I can get some reference to Kes into this article?

Thanks. Epa101 (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that the information is trivial synthesis. We do not have reliable sources discussing the whole situation, we have reliable sources discussing various bits and pieces that you have added together to form the whole situation. Your conclusions may or may not be true. Let's assume for the moment they are. Is this a significant piece of the history of the word "fuck"? If it is, why haven't reliable sources discussing the word "fuck"? If it is not significant to the history of the word, it does not belong in the article. (In fact, it is possible that if you do find a source discussing the whole situation, it might not be significantly about the word and therefore would not belong in the article.) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I understand your reasons.
On the one hand, I don't see why my edit was any more trivial than the rest of the section on films in the article. You might not be aware that Kes is a famous and well-regarded film in Britain, but it is obscure in the rest of the world and never had a national release in the USA. The swearing in the film (mostly swear words peculiar to Britain) has caused some discussion, given that the film is used in schools as part of the syllabus. On the other hand, I don't have an independent source for my claim and I think that the odds of finding one are negligible, so I'll leave the article as it is. I can understand that, in the long history of the word fuck, this wasn't a big occasion.
Have a nice weekend. Epa101 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Procter & Gamble brands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jif. 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) 09:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill Lichtenstein article[edit]

Hi SummerPhD. I just rolled back seven IP edits at Bill Lichtenstein that appear to be motivated by hostility to the subject. I have invited the IP to discuss them on the talk page and have also initiated discussion at the article. I see you have expressed the same concerns I have on the article talk page, with additional research that indicates a possible series of editors that are possibly the same editor with a hostile agenda going back years. I have never heard of Lichtenstein and have no connection to anyone who does, but this case stood out as I rarely am motivated to roll back so many edits. If you get a chance, take a look at the article and see what you think. Thanks. Jusdafax 07:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Applejuicefool / Diet Coke and Mentos article talk[edit]

There was some comment on the talk page regarding whether Diet Coke should be specified in the title of the article, since any carbonated beverage seems to have some efficacy in this sort of exercise. I was not simply discussing the topic, but responding specifically to those concerns. Diet Coke is appropriate as a title because it seems to spew the best with Mentos, in part for the reason I offered. I recognize that I may not have clearly expounded that reason for my comments, but that was the intent. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The possibility of a name change last died out over 3 years ago. If you would like to resurrect the issue on the talk page, you'll likely have problems re WP:COMMONNAME. The majority of reliable sources cited specify Diet Coke. (Additionally, there is some indication that diet sodas in general -- and Diet Coke in particular -- work better. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

So how was my comment less worthy of the talk page than the "Glucose" comment you commented on but did not consign to "Off-Topic Chat"? Mine was at least scientifically valid, and relevant to the title discussion I mentioned before. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comment offers your personal speculation regarding the reaction. As we certainly cannot cite your speculation (<ref>Applejuicefool, "Talk:Diet Coke and Mentos eruption".</ref>?), there is nothing that contributes in any way toward improving the article. Yes, I handled a comment from a one-off IP editor differently in 2013 than I handled a comment from a returning editor today. I'm guessing in December 2013 I didn't think the IP was likely to see a warning and responded by quickly killing the idea. With your edit, I wanted to be sure you were aware that your comment strayed from the purpose of the talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Batman and robin[edit]

The information I added, I got from box office mojo.com. So I'll just add that when I restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.152.251 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As you are editing in defiance of a block, all of your edits are being reverted as vandalism, per WP:EVADE. When your block expires, feel free to discuss the disputed issue on the article's talk page. Please note you will need to cite sources that actually say what you are adding to the article. The source gives numbers, it does not say "box office bomb" or "underperformed overseas". - SummerPhD (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(174.101.152.251 has been blocked for evasion. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC))

Foodfight! Edit[edit]

Hi. I've noticed you've reverted my edits of Foodfight! The error seems to be that you don't consider Den of Geek an acceptable source. I can begrudgingly agree with your first edit (although New York Times also seems to hold similar sentiments for the production, so I might use that instead)

The second usage of the source is where I take issue however. I was mainly quoting time magazine, and used Den of Geek for a secondary source. The main reason I used Den of Geek was that I found the quote through them, and I found the article through them. I feel that they deserve some credit for the source since the Times article wasn't even about the movie in question. --Deathawk (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In reverting your edits, I missed the Time cite. I've restored that portion, along with a bit more. I still don't like the blog cite. If you feel it should remain, please take it up on the article's talk page so that we can get some input from additional editors. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

re: January 2014 (One More Night (Maroon 5 song) and One More Night (Phil Collins song))[edit]

Hello! You've reverted my information adding [1] in [One More Night (Maroon 5 song)]] because didn't provide a reliable source. As I've that information came from One More Night (Phil Collins song) (as I've pointed out in edit summary), e should remove it from that article too?

And even more the statement that One More Night (Phil Collins song) hit number has no source, should we clean it out? (Maroon 5 song has source). --Perrry Mason Paul Della (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. The unsourced statements from January 2014 for the Phil Collins song have been removed. Have a nice day. --Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 20:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, that was easy. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on the admin noticeboard about 'Best known for IP'[edit]

I've started a discussion on the admin noticeboard about the Best known for IP, which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Applejack[edit]

Why did you erase Applejack on the tattletale frog? --24.170.75.206 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

After making numerous disruptive edits, you added a character from "My Little Pony" in place of a named character in an episode of "Arthur". This seems extremely unlikely and -- as with all of your edits -- lacked a source. I assume it is vandalism. If you can provide a source for this highly unlikely crossover, feel free to re-add it. Otherwise, realize you are on your final warning before a block. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
You'll blocked me for infinite? --24.170.75.206 (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you trying to get blocked? If not, knock off the nonsense. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't do anything bad. --24.170.75.206 (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Adding nonsense is "bad". - SummerPhD (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll stop. --24.170.75.206 (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh well. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

24.170.75.206 has been blocked for one week for vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to blocked me again? --24.170.75.206 (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to get blocked? If not, knock off the nonsense. If you are trying to get blocked, please say so and we can give you a nice, long block this time. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francis Anthony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen Elizabeth. 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) 12:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

IP now best known for personal attacks[edit]

Hi: Before this anon reappears, if he does, regardless of our difference of opinion regarding whether he/she should be considered to be banned, I felt someone should apologize to you for that particularly nasty insult, and the continuing badmouthing. So I will. I'm very sorry you had to read such things. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate your intent here. There is a disconnect: I am not angered so much by the vile personal attacks as I am by the sense that nothing can or should be done about it. This twerp has made it very clear that he feels he is the victim, his actions are completely appropriate and that he will continue edit warring, making personal attacks and evading any blocks.
Gee, let's see how we can accommodate him? No. Blocks are intended to change behavior. His behavior is unacceptable. For the good of the project, he needs to be effectively blocked until such time as the community feels he is worth another chance. He is not heading in that direction, much less there. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I have now taught him to ping and he's now pinging you and others with insults. I am so sorry :-( Working on getting him to stop. Someone said a range block had been placed. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
He enjoys making personal attacks. He gets "more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same". Like remarriage, expecting something different from him is the triumph of hope over experience. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
For the record, @Yngvadottir:, I am not basing anything on a belief that he is banned, only that he is editing in defiance of several active blocks. As he has repeatedly ignored over 50 separate blocks, I fulling intend to revert any edit that I find even slightly questionable. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks both for the consideration of his edits on the merits and for your latest calm edit to his talk page. (I keep wondering whether I'm being biased assuming it's a man.) FWIW I looked for a recent (2014) source on Tracy Spiridakos' marital status, and in the absence of one, I agree with your reinstating "as of", and you gave a good edit summary there. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The EVIL List[edit]

You know being on that list is not good, right? I know you were involved in trying to delete a page that shouldn't be deleted....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt200055 (talkcontribs) 23:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh? I thought it was an honor of some kind. You didn't mean it as a personal attack, did you? THAT wouldn't be good. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
See also WP:POLEMIC.--00:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If possible, please take a look at this AfD discussion[edit]

Hello,

You most likely remember the Michéal Castaldo article. I have nominated one of Castaldo's album articles (Aceto (album)) for deletion. The article doesn't require much analysis, as it is short and has only three references, so I'd very much appreciate it if you expressed your opinion on whether or not the album article should be kept. Also, as I state in the AfD, other articles about Castaldo's albums have the same characteristics, so I don't know how to properly have several articles discussed for preservation or deletion while in theory discussing only one article. I hope that makes sense. Many thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Contact[edit]

Don't see an explanation for reversion of edits to Contact (novel) article Section labelled Physics uncontroversial and merely links concepts in book to articles on Wikipedia But happy to learn from an older hand! Jid (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry my edit summary wasn't clearer.
It isn't that the material is in any way controversial, it's simply that it isn't particularly notable. I don't doubt that the concepts are covered in the novel, it's more that their inclusion is trivial, as evidenced by the fact that there are not independent reliable sources listing them. For comparison, consider where a list of historical figures mentioned in War and Peace would belong in that article. Certainly any concepts (or, in War and Peace, people) that are an important part of a brief summary of the plot should be in the plot summary. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose notability is in the "in the eye of the noter". I am presenting a paper on "Wormholes in Science Fiction" to a symposium on wormholes at BIS, organised by the i4is and this was part of my research for that. So this material will appear when the symposium is published by i4is. So I'll just cross reference from my paper and leave it to others to make the detailed links to the concepts in Wikipedia. Jid (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Tooth fairy[edit]

Dear SummerPhD,

Thank you for your revision of the tooth fairy article. In your revision you have removed the image inserted by me earlier this day. I have reviewed your reasons for image removal, and agree that the image was indeed mistakenly placed in a wrong section. I shall therefore shift it to the section "Belief". I hope this revision will be accepted by you and the community.

With best regards, Alexei Antipov (by coincidence also a summer PhD :) )

Antipoff (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page for further discussion. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain your reasons, I didn't quite understand from the comment you left on the article's talk Antipoff (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Secret Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problem[edit]

Hi, a couple of months back you reverted my edit of a superfluous link in the "Secret Gospel of Mark" page; the link was to The Secret Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problem and as I noted in my edit, the article was clearly original research. As I see now, the article in question has been removed. I just wanted to say, I told you so! I had nothing at all to do with the deletion of the article in question, as far as I know. But I too have a Ph.D., in New Testament Studies, and I can spot an "original research" article from a mile away. That's why I removed the link; and now the link appears to be broken on the article. Can I now fix it without your interference? Matthew Baldwin (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh... never mind... someone else already fixed it. Matthew Baldwin (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

AND... I want to give you credit for proposing the article for deletion. I guess I did have something to do with that! I edit Wikipedia rarely, and use it frequently. I didn't understand your comment "AfD will take care of it," but having looked a bit deeper, I see you reverted my change, went to AfD, nominated the article ("shotgun wedding," nice one), and the community acted correctly. Kudos. Man I love wikipedia. Matthew Baldwin (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd been sitting on the The Secret Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problem article for a while, fairly certain it was a delete, but I waited: It's pretty far outside of my wheelhouse and, as the topic is pretty specialized, I wanted to be sure it got a fair hearing. Keeping the link in the article was an effort to get knowledgeable eyes on it. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Matt200055[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The previously archived ANI indicated above has been continued at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Matt200055.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop harassing[edit]

Your needling and pestering in various forums is highly disruptive. Kindly stop. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry I have annoyed you. I have not been trying to provoke you.
I have abandoned trying to give you friendly advice on your talk page. Oh well.
I was invited to the page discussing "allision" and intend to follow the issue through.
I have been working on the [[Michelle Thomas page for several years. If you don't want to work with me on that page, you can certainly abandon the page. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You certainly have been trying to provoke me. Pretending otherwise now is infantile. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and discuss content, not editors. Assuming another editor is being "deliberately unreasonable"[2] is a personal attack. Assuming that I am "try(ing) to disrupt" is a personal attack. Calling me "infantile" is a personal attack.
You have spent several years edit warring, making vile personal attacks and evading numerous blocks for your behavior. I am not trying to anger you. Take one piece of advice: Discuss content, not editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't ask me to assume good faith after you have clearly demonstrated bad faith. Stop harassing me. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
That is a personal attack, a blockable offense. Please review WP:NPA, assume good faith and discuss content, not editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


IP editor above[edit]

Hi SummerPhD. Whilst I'm quite sure that you can 'fight your own battles', I noticed the above as your Talk page is on my watchlist as a result of recent actions by another editor. Since this IP editor is engaged in the same behaviour as I dealt with previously, I felt it would not be fair to the earlier editor to not also advise this editor of the same problem. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As previously advised at User_talk:Jeffro77#Careful, much of your User page (the first eight sections) appear to fall within the scope of WP:POLEMIC. If you need to maintain these lists, you should probably do so in a separate document on your own computer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Initially happified by your effort to rectify the first section, the kittens are still saddened by the several sections of 'laundry lists' of perceived wrongs on your User page. Alas, they cannot yet frolic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Gee, I'm really happy to hear that you are pleased with my efforts. Stay tuned and I will ensure that nothing asinine remains. I want the kittens to be so happy their fucking heads explode. To do otherwise would be asinine. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Very amewsing. It's all fun and games until kittens' heads start exploding.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

IP editor yet again[edit]

Hi: I am of course perfectly ok with you following the IP around for a while and engaging with him/her on talk pages, and you're right, s/he has acquired a bad reputation and will be under extra scrutiny for a while - including the problem of being automatically reverted by people who don't realize s/he's not still blocked. But having told him/her to step back from the personal attacks, it would be unfair of me not to also ask you to stop rubbing his/her nose in that reputation, particularly on other users' talk pages. Assuming someone is vandalizing is pretty bad, even when it may arise from confusion between vandalism and block evasion. Thanks for spending the time to discuss the "best known for" and allision issues; Wikipedia will be better off for these disagreements having been aired and different solutions considered, even if we don't get a consensus on either; even if all we achieve is a useful new definitional link and a reduced incidence of churning by people of differing viewpoints on the two issues. But please keep it as un-snide and un-goading as possible, since sitting down together with cups of tea and coffee is not actually available as a calm-down option. (I suspect the three of us might get along pretty well if it were.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"...Please back away from the attacks." - Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I invite you to review his comments since then. He seems to be either unwilling or unable to resist commenting on me and other editors. These in particular seem to merit attention:[3],[4].
Yes, as he said, "someone" asked me to back off. Actually, it was him.[5] As a result, I have discontinued any attempts to make suggestions on his talk page.[6] His response was another personal attack.[7] Since then, he has made repeated additional attacks and has told several editors they are editing in bad faith.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SummerPhD&diff=next&oldid=633049892
He enjoys personal attacks.Saying he gets "more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same". As he has never been effectively blocked for behavior he enjoys, he will continue. If we were to sit down for coffee, he'd call me an idiot for asking if he has tea instead. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you thought this was hilarious. It wasn't. Stop harassing me. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You made a personal attack. I removed the personal attack and warned you. If there was any portion of that which you did not understand, please ask an administrator for assistance. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You carried out yet another act of petty harassment. The best thing you can do, for all of us, is to stay away from this editor and their edits 03:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.240.11 (talk)
WP:NPA - SummerPhD (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh crap.[edit]


It seems I really stepped in it at User talk:Matt200055 and User talk:AntiMatt200055. Upon seeing the new User:AntiMatt200055 I hastily created a sock investigation, under the mistaken impression that Matt200055. Yikes. In trying to put this right, I CSD'ed the sock case and asked for an explanation on the user's talk pages. He has given a rather strange response, which might require a brief explanation to the user. Not too horrible yet.

Unfortunately, another user has removed the CSD from the sock case and the discussion at User talk:Matt200055 seems to be going south. Can someone step in? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(Matt200055 and AntiMatt200055 have been indefinitely blocked.)

"Water ice"[edit]

this poster is also harrasing me and wont give me an actual reason for why, he says its for discussion about the topic, well it is, and he keeps saying the same thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsfly (talkcontribs) 15:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, article talk pages are not for discussing the topic, which is what you were doing: "The term 'water ice does not make any sense, you might as well just call it ice. I would punch someone in the face if they said 'water ice' to me in real life. It should not be on this page, and it should actually be nowhere."[8]
Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. You think the term does not make sense. This conflict is too much for you to handle and makes you violent. Whatever. These are things you want to say about the term "water ice".
Your new version: "The term 'water ice' does not make any sense, you might as well just call it ice. and it should actually be nowhere. How can water and ice ever be one term, they are 2 different physical states of water. You can clearly improve this article by removing all references to 'water ice'."[9] actually makes a suggestion to change the article. I have responded to that. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:DanQuigley. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. For templating someone when a google search would have proved notability. ...William 12:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to feel that using a consensus automated notice for adding a non-notable person to a list isn't assuming good faith. You are clearly incorrect. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
(See also| Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#What_a_mess. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC))

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello SummerPhD. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved from your user page[edit]

we really need your help to add Levon Telian to the list of notable Armenians named Levon.... sorry we're not tech savy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendsofstretch (talkcontribs)

Levon Telian does not have an article on Wikipedia. As a result, we cannot add him to Levon. If you feel he meets our [[WP:N|notability requirements, you might want to request an article about him at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Eton College.[edit]

Thanks, I am struggling here because I rarely edit a wiki page. I am confused as to why you have twice removed the link that I added to the Eton College page. It seems to me to be a reasonable link to an alternative view of Eton College. I am perplexed as to why you have taken so much trouble to repeatedly remove the link. Do you have an association with Eton or are you paid to monitor the site?. If not why do you think you have a greater right than me to censor an open source encyclopedia. I have been a long time financial supporter of wiki and I always assumed it was open and unbiased. Why are you doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delsmith444 (talkcontribs) 15:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a conflict of interest involving this article or the link you are attempting to add. I am not paid to edit. I do not have a greater right than you or anyone else to edit the article. Removing inappropriate links is not "censorship". I have removed the link because I feel it fails our guidelines, specifically WP:ELNO#EL11. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page to establish a consensus on this issue. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Gregory House[edit]

Hi SummerPhD,

You recently reverted one of my edits on the 'Gregory House' page and cited "Needs coverage from an independent source". Can you please clarify to what you mean by this comment?

Thanks,

SR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickroger (talkcontribs) 22:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Reviews for a fictional doctor to a site like Ratemds.com ‎are essentially forum postings. That someone added a review to the site tells us nothing encyclopedic about the site (or the fictional doctor). Anyone can add anything to the site. I could add a notice to craigslist offering the Brooklyn Bridge for sale or a review of Dr. Frankenstein to Ratemds.com... Any of these would be trivial in the associated articles unless an independent reliable source discusses them. Then there might be something to add. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Veganarchism[edit]

I recently updated a reference that is showing as a dead link on the Veganarchism reference 16 that you are stating is not a dead link. After checking the link again I am directed to a page not found. Is this not a dead link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscctx (talkcontribs) 01:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. The fruitarian link you swapped is still working. I don't know what happened with the other, which is showing as not found for me now. I've replaced it with a working archived version as I feel the Vegan Society is a better source than "ringringpromotions.com". - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)