User talk:SummerPhD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. :-)


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)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SummerPhD. You have new messages at
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)

Proposed deletions[edit]

I've found that the "Proposed deletions" tag pretty much goes nowhere. I agree that the Jon Jafari page is non-notable. If you think a page should be deleted you should have it nominated for a deletion discussion.


--Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Look at some of the related pages, I think most of them should be deleted too.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You can, of course, send them through PROD/AfD yourself. (Once the band is deleted, PRODs on the albums would be non-controversial and recreation would be unlikely. Otherwise, I'll check them myself if I have the time. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Chia Youyee Vang[edit]


Why did you delete the entry on Chia Youyee Vang?

2602:306:37C5:3E89:523:C7C4:E742:3BC1 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

When I removed Chia Youyee Vang from List of Hmong Americans, I explained why in the edit summary and on the talk page of the user who had made the addition. You may want to establish an account to allow other users to contact you (much as you are using my talk page to contact me) in the future. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Girlfriend in a Coma (TV series)[edit]

@Kitranda:: Both of your notes to my talk page[1][2] were removed by an administrator, likely because your tone was not civil.

I am not threatening you. My warnings are intended to remind you that you cannot add material to Wikipedia without citing a reliable source. You have done this several times, most recently here. (Your edits add that there are 16 episodes and that two of the characters have the last name "McNeil" -- neither of which are confirmed in any of the sources in the article. This information might be true, but it is not cited. Additionally, "list_episodes = 16" incorrectly creates a link to the article 16, as if that article were a list of Girlfriend in a Coma episodes.) You have also been repeatedly adding "The Intruders movie" to Cosgrove's filmography without a cite or an existing article for the film. If you are having trouble with how to cite sources, please provide a link to the source on the article's talk page. I or someone else would be more than willing to help you.

Additionally, you state that I added that "Miranda Cosgrove is suing her bus driver" and that this is not true. I did not add this information. It was added by User:Marty2Hotty[3]. It is quite well sourced.[4][5] If you believe these sources are not reliable or if you have other sources stating this is not true, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

- Damn right it was well sourced :) TMZ and Perez Hilton :) - Marty2Hotty (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

NBC order 16 episodes of girlfriend in a coma[edit]

NBC order 16 episodes of girlfriend in a coma here go the link <blockquoteclass="twitter-tweet" lang="en">

NBC has ordered 16 episodes for the first season

— Girlfriend in a Coma (@GirlfriendinCom) <a href="">January 7, 2014</a> <script asyncsrc="//" charset="utf-8"></script> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitranda (talkcontribs) 20:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added the info.[6] As the episodes haven't been produced yet, I have not added the "16" to the infobox. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Miranda Cosgrove New Movie[edit]

Here go Miranda's new character in The Intruders movie <blockquoteclass="twitter-tweet" lang="en">

<a href="">@KitCarsonHamm</a> Yes, <a href="">@MirandaCosgrove</a> is playing Rose in The Intruders and we're very excited

— Darius Films (@DariusFilms) <a href="">March 7, 2014</a> <script asyncsrc="//" charset="utf-8"></script> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitranda (talkcontribs) 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Add the info to the article (in your own words), followed by <ref>[the web address (URL)]</ref>
While that won't give you a complete cite, it will do for now. Bingo! No more unsourced additions. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents[edit]

Hi SummerPhD,

In my edit to Pan Am Flight 103 I changed the word “incident” to “accident” – see my diff.

In Aviation accidents and incidents, Wikipedia says:

An aviation accident is defined by the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13 as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft, ... ... where a person is fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure or the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

This statement is consistent with ICAO Annex 13 and is adequately sourced.

It also says:

An aviation incident is defined as an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operations.

My edit was entirely consistent with the above statements.

When you reverted my edit your summary said An incident is an occurance, an accident is unintentional. Your summary appears to be inconsistent with Aviation accidents and incidents and you haven’t identified any source for your statement.

Unless you can cite a source that is sufficient to overturn what is published in Aviation accidents and incidents it looks like my edit should be reinstated. Best regards. Dolphin (t) 23:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You are indeed correct as to the technical definitions, as used by the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13". That said, the article does not make it clear that these technical definitions are being used. As such, commonly used meanings for words probably come to mind. In ordinary English, an "incident" is merely "an event or occurrence".[7] An "accident", however, is "unexpected", "unintentional" and "without apparent or deliberate cause"[8] (clearly not what we are talking about here).
Normally, I would suggest merely rewriting the section to avoid using either of the terms, but I think that exacerbates another problem: the sentence in question is unsourced original research. "As of March 2014, it remains the deadliest aviation incident as well as the deadliest act of terrorism in the United Kingdom." As this is in the lede section, it should be merely summarizing material found later in the article. It doesn't, so far as I can tell. The closest thing I can find is the sourced claim that it is "the deadliest act of terror against the U.S. prior to 11 September 2001."
With this in mind, I'd suggest removing the sentence as unsourced. If it comes back with a source, we can borrow the bit of wording from the source. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. I think deleting the statement, or at least the unsourced part, would be a good outcome.
To those of us who have spent a career in the aviation industry, the expression deadliest aviation incident is an oxymoron - if it was deadly it was an accident not an incident; if it was an incident it wasn't deadly, at least not to humans. I have no objection to this oxymoron being erased. Dolphin (t) 05:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Roy Batty would not be civil[edit]


You should really eat your own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrand (talkcontribs) 00:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we're done here.[9][10]

If I were you, I would end my moderatorship of all Blade Runner Wikipedia articles. To be honest, I think you're a Blade Runner trying to kill Roy Batty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrand (talkcontribs) 00:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of case being declined[edit]

The Arbitration Case Request titled Ihardlythinkso has been declined and closed. If you would like to read the arbitrators' comments you can do so here. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rock Sugar (band), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Scorpions and Winger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

History of Plantar fasciitis[edit]

Hi SummerPhD, I have a question about the history of plantar fasciitis and I thought you might have some insight on the matter. I'm attempting to start a history section on the page and I am attempting to figure out who first described the condition. I've come across numerous references to someone named Wood, but I'm not certain who this Wood person was. I imagine he was a physician, but it's unclear to me at this point. Any idea who he is? I know he incorrectly believed plantar fasciitis to be the result of tuberculosis/an infectious etiology, but that's basically all I've been able to find so far. Please let me know if you know or find out. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Any ideas? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, not really my field. With the exception of broad topics (e.g., evolution) or particularly dramatic stories (e.g., the dinosaur wars, smallpox), a lot of the history of various science topics don't seem to show up as topics by themselves. There might be brief mentions in intro sections of journal articles where there's a change in thinking or a challenge to accepted wisdom. A specialist, reading would run across this info all the time. The rest of us have to hunt it down. I don't know of an easy way to do that. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Madchen Amick[edit]

Hi there!

I'm new to Wiki, and am a new rep for the lovely Madchen Amick. Would it be possible to swap out the existing photo on her page for a new one? Here's the direct link for her page:

I had a bit of difficulty trying to attach the new photo, and am happy to email it if necessary. If you're not too terribly busy would you mind letting me know what the best method would be for swapping it?

Thanks so much!

Best regards,

K KASEYJPR (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia.
Before getting into how to upload a photo, a few things. First, while I have worked a bit on Amick's article, no one really has "authority" to say we will or will not change the image. Personally, I am not a fan of the current one and would probably be in favor of swapping it for anything reasonable you might submit. That said, it is possible that other editors might prefer the existing photo or might swap anything added for another one. consensus will have the final say.
Next, as Amick is a living person, any image you submit must be freely licensed. (We generally do not use "fair use" images for living people.) After that, please see Wikipedia:Uploading images for detailed directions.
Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


I do not recall a single incarnation of the caped crusader without the Batmobile. He uses the Batmobile more than the Batplane and he is currently listed as an aviator. In fairness either he should be both an aviator and driver; or neither; either way would be fine. James Bond is listed as a fiction driver because he drives a cool car in every adventure; the same as Batman. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Iit is not a defining characteristic of Batman. Do you understand what we mean by "defining characteristic"? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(Censored Scribe has been blocked indefinitely.)

Twin Twin Transfusion Syndrome Wiki Page edits.[edit]

Hi SummerPHD. I see that you have a very wide range of topics upon which you write. Twin Twin Transfusion Syndrome TTTS is one of them. I would like to see what your source is for the statement that "Three quarters of Stage One cases self-resolve." I am involved in several support groups that provide counseling for mothers diagnosed with TTTS, for the past 3 years. I talk to several different TTTS mothers every day. 75% of Stage One cases don't self-resolve. That's not even close. I'm not about to go Talking At You. I would like to talk to you about your objective in these edits. I appreciate your attention to this. TTTS is a very serious issue, with most OB's quite ignorant as to it's nature. Losses result from this ignorance. TTTS Laser is not nearly as established a technique as some would label it, for example. This is the first point of contact for most mothers diagnosed.

Michael Ray Overby. Twinstrumentality (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where that statement is or was and I do not know that I added it anywhere. Can you point me to the statement? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

SummerPHD, that may have been put there by someone else, check my previous edit... Thank you for responding... Twinstrumentality (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The actual text was "The natural history of stage I TTTS is that more than three-fourths of cases remain stable or regress without invasive intervention, with perinatal survival of about 86%. Therefore, many patients with stage I TTTS may be managed expectantly." It was part of the copyright violation from [11]. As a review article in a peer-reviewed journal, it is pretty much the gold standard for WP:MEDRS articles. We should certainly be using the source, but copying text, of course, is not acceptable. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought we'd agree on the Technical Point there regarding Attribution. Dr Simpson appears to have made a highly Contentious Point regarding the Progression of TTTS Stage One cases part of it's "Natural History", thus in no need of supporting documentation. I appreciate your efforts in tracing that one & i'll make sure that any material from that paper gets the required Attribution. Thanks again SummerPHD Twinstrumentality (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what contentious point you mean. I removed the material because it was a copy-paste from a copyrighted source. I see no indication that any of it was contentious. The source is exactly what we look for in medical related articles. If other reliable sources come to different conclusions we can include both. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Precisely, SummerPhD. We will include "both", actually "all" as you'll find the statistics on this, the progression of Diagnosed Stage One TTTS cases, are quite wide-ranging. The contentious point I am referring to is the assertion that "The natural history of stage I TTTS is that more than three-fourths of cases remain stable or regress without invasive intervention, with perinatal survival of about 86%. Therefore, many patients with stage I TTTS may be managed expectantly." This is a highly questionable point, competing figures exist. Also these "non-progressing Stage Ones" still have a 14% rate of mortality, so I guess something other than TTTS killed One in Six of them? The papers are not clear on this point. the overall "Feeling" given is that it wasn't TTTS. It no doubt was, the monitoring interval that most OB's use is insufficient to catch TTTS Progression. What other answer can be derived from the cited works? (Dr. Simpson IS referring to that "About Three Quarters" when she assigns a "Perinatal Survival of about 86%" to them, correct?) Again I thank you for your time on this, it is appreciated that there is a person of your academic caliber working on this page. Twinstrumentality (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an example, from MEDLINE: I intend to bring about another 4 to 6 for your perusal regarding Stage One TTTS Progression. Where is the most appropriate place to post these? Again your efforts to bring Excellence to the TTTS page are appreciated. Twinstrumentality (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Minor Edits done, I'll be putting TAMBA where it belongs, in Foundations, presently. They're not a Treatment Centre. Dr Quintero is in fact World Renowned but doesn't like the Accolade. This page is appearing to leave the envelope of Human Readability. I would ask that you find a Compendium of Subjective Case Histories from a Familial perspective that Supplants Erin Bruch's nonfiction work. If you can't, it should be re-added to Further Reading. The Michael J Fox book is a Joke as far as informing mothers on TTTS, yet it was kept in the Famous People section. Where then is BD Wong? His is an interesting & Modern story which involves Surrogacy. The books you Approve of, while being Fully 100% Conformant with your Criteria, are for physicians & are not going to do anything for the newly diagnosed mom. Except scare her. Thank you again for assisting in the development of this page Twinstrumentality (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be careful with single studies. WP:MEDRS strongly favors literature reviews and systematic reviews, for very good reason. The books simply cannot be included. They are primary sources of subjective experiences. Wikipedia is not here to scare people. But it isn't here to comfort them either. We are here to summarize what independent reliable sources say about notable subjects. The two books that are there work toward that goal. The other two do not. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood clearly, SummerPhD. The Michael J Fox book is also a subjective experience, that barely touches upon TTTS in it's subject matter anyways. What about Following Foo: (the electronic adventures of The Chestnut Man)? Does that qualify, & if so, where? Understand that I am not looking to provide Comfort for anybody, this is the job of support groups. I was looking for Accessible text documenting real world experiences with TTTS that can be understood by a mom without a college degree. Recommending Advanced MFM Studies texts as Further Reading (that each cost $150 by the way) is not a productive way to introduce TTTS to a family that has been newly diagnosed with it, thus severely limiting the usability of it by a large segment of this page's Audience. At the moment it reads like something from a Medical Classroom. Bruch's work especially goes much farther towards presenting ACCESSIBLE information for the family that has been newly diagnosed with TTTS. The 2 books you are allowing as Further Reading offer No Help in that area. I again thank you for your assistance in developing this page. Twinstrumentality (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

List of All Grown Up! episodes[edit]

Let me know if (talk · contribs · WHOIS) returns to their pattern in a month's time once their block expires. A long-term block may be necessary. Mkdwtalk 00:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Logging-in[edit]

Perhaps we can petition wikipedia to end it's auto-log-out so that wont appear to be an inadequate website?Presidentbalut (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can petition ourselves to add a "remain logged in" check box to the log-in screen... oh, wait, there it is. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(Presidentbalut has been blocked indefinitely for personal attacks and WP:NOTHERE.)

Lisa Jakub[edit]

The reason i added the birthdate for Lisa Jakub was because it was already listed in the pages infobox, so i didn't see a problem with adding it to the article itself. Vincelord (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that. I've removed that as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Girlfriend in a coma now filming[edit]

Here go the link to there twitter account <blockquoteclass="twitter-tweet" lang="en">

Today the filming took place on the streets of Los Angeles

— Girlfriend in a Coma (@GirlfriendinCom) <a href="">March 27, 2014</a> <script asyncsrc="//" charset="utf-8"></script> here go another one <blockquoteclass="twitter-tweet" lang="en">

We just finished filming the seventh episode!

— Girlfriend in a Coma (@GirlfriendinCom) <a href="">March 27, 2014</a> <script asyncsrc="//" charset="utf-8"></script>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitranda (talkcontribs) 01:16, March 28, 2014‎

@Kitranda:: Feel free to add the info with the cite. Please see my previous comment to you for help on how to do this. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Franklin episodes[edit]

Your last revert on that article wasn't strictly necessary. I did a check on references for all the air dates and corrected them, then left the old info struck through. Edits after that just removed the struck through dates that I had left. I thought that was reasonable for someone to do. Your revert just added the struck through dates back. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The editor I was reverting is a recurrent vandal making numerous changes to date on kids' shows and music articles. Feel free to make the change if it is correct, though. Just can't trust edits from that particular editor. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I know the editor, I've been following him too which is why I got looking at this article in the first place. I'll put the article back to the last version I made then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits to "Food Combining"[edit]

Hi Summer. Thank you for your corrections of my unsupported additions. I have made additions to Wikipedia every five years, so please excuse my lack of good procedure. If you have no objections, I would like to ask you reinstate the material I placed in this article with these sources. I was clumsy in the ref format, so does not match up with the single previously posted reference; I tried!

Some sources, although perhaps not the most accepted by the Food and Drug Administration are these pages that hark back to older, traditional, and more healthy cultures, as listed on the page directly. You will note that these are not medical journals, because------- "food combining" is not a diet that sells any highly priced potions . . . food combining is merely advice about how to avoid common digestive complaints.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogazeal (talkcontribs) 20:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a biomedical related article. Sources must conform to WP:MEDRS. Food combining claims are a non-mainstream belief. Explanations of what people who believe this woo think may only be included to the extent they are discussed by WP:MEDRS sources.
Fun fact about those "more healthier cultures". They aren't. At the beginning of the modern medical era (circa 1900) life expectancy at birth in the U.S. was 40. Today it's approaching 80. Smallpox, for example, was a horrible way to die. Modern medicine wiped it off the face of the Earth. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Too hard basket. I do hope you check the sources of the sources, too, as there is much junk mislabeled as science paid for by Big Pharma. On a Personal Note, a little less snide would make Widipedia editing a more healthy culture as it was in the old days. Yogazeal (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS > woo. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove text from my talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I wrote "older, traditional, and more healthy cultures" so that you would sit up and pay attention, but the previous article is not correct about the purpose of the topic! Note the existing page was written with a peculiar slant, discussing the weight loss aspects, rather than more subjective measures of digestive health. Wikipedia should point out the difference between the two reasons for food choices, and how food combining ties directly into the popular culture of Paleo_diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogazeal (talkcontribs) 02:42, March 30, 2014‎
The earlier article is about the food combining fad diets that predate the paleolithic fad diet. Yes, you cited a doctor. That is not a WP:MEDRS source. Dr. Kaslow selling his services is not a "reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." It's a guy selling a diet (though free from the corrupting influence of money from big pharma's money). - SummerPhD (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Michele Thomas article[edit]

I've been to her grave in Rosedale Cemetery when visiting my best friend's grave. It is in Orange, NJ, not Montclair. Change my edit back, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan128 (talkcontribs) 14:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors are responsible for information they add to an article. I do not have any information as to where she is buried other than the reliable source cited in the article which says Montclair. If you can find a reliable source saying Orange, NJ, feel free to restore the information yourself, being sure to cite that source. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a reason we require sources. Sometimes people are simply wrong:
Rosedale Cemetary
408 Orange Road
SummerPhD (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

agian ?[edit]

you agian ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been asked to explain your apparent vandalism on your talk page.[[13]] Please discuss the issue there. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I already put a source on the articles and you deleted it. you just broken my heart. I don't feel to good right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You still have not answered the questions on your talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the easy way ? please i am not here to cause trouble. Please tell me why you deleted my source ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As other editors are interested in the situation, please address the questions on your talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I miss the old days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please address the questions on your talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. but please stop changing edit from the articles. than i will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please address the questions on your talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Temporarily blocked for repeated addition of unsourced info. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SummerPhD. You have new messages at Frank Niro's talk page.
Message added 20:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The user didn't ping you and I doubt you check userpages that you templated for Conflict of Interest. Newyorkadam (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert on pescetarianism[edit]

It appears that you reverted the wrong person on this article. I was not the one who added "many Christian groups" wording. Your revert did not remove that wording anyway, although it seems by your edit summary that that was what you intended. My edit was to clarify the wording about abstinence rules worldwide, because the assertions were USA-centric. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Female ejaculation[edit]

Hi, I understand what you are citing in WP policy as your justification for reverting my addition, but I don't understand your objection. The overall section is called Social significance and the opening paragraph of the section talks about the stigma and medical issues associated and with this activity. I posted content in relation to that. Do I need to reword or rework the content or do you have some other objection to the material? Furthermore, if you have an issue with the section on pornography, why haven't you removed it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The content you added is one of numerous instances where the subject occurs in TV/film/books/plays/paintings/comic books/sculpture (...maybe...)/billboards/Oscar acceptance speeches/etc. I see nothing particularly special about that one episode of Californication. So, let's add all of the other ones as well. We'll create an exhaustive list of every occurrence of female ejaculation. It will be a comprehensive list of occurrences, citing primary sources. Who could object to that?
The porn section, meanwhile, claims that several apparently notable women are notable because of female ejaculation. That is entirely different in my mind. If you feel this one particular occurrence in pop culture somehow escapes WP:IPC or that the guideline does not apply, please take it to the article's talk page.
If you feel all or a portion of the porn section should be removed under WP:IPC or any other guideline, that is a separate issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
So you're apparently taking the content to extremes and using the idea that "if we have one, we must have them all". As well as you are using your personal understanding (versus how others may understand or interpret) of the issue to determine what is acceptable in the article or not. WP:IPC does not say this nor does it say that the inclusion of material like this against the guideline. If there are so many instances of this, please inform me. The episode in Californication is the only instance of it in that particular series, hence why I started a section with it. Again, if there are others, please tell me what they are. Again, the the section is called "Social significance" and thus far no one has made a credible argument against its inclusion, but yet you are challenging the addition of related content. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Whatever you would like to call the "section", it "exclusively contain(ed) references to the subject in popular culture." That clearly falls under WP:IPC. Heck, the guideline even notes the efforts to circumvent the guideline by calling a horse something other than a "horse": "some wikipedians look for alternative titles, such as 'Cultural influence' or 'Cultural impact'" If you are saying it should not contain every reference to female ejaculation in popular culture, you have not shown anything that would make this particular instance more noteworthy than any other. Yes, you are familiar with that one (which is why you included it). As inclusion criteria go, that would fall under WP:IPC's "indiscriminate collections". Which one or ones do we list? The ones anyone who happens by can think of. "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject."
In practice, such sections invite the {{inpopularculture}} tag which reads, in part, "Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances". We cannot "reorganize this content" to do any such thing as it is merely a primary source to the fictional occurrence, completely lacking any indication of "impact on popular culture". My go to example here is Saturday Night Live skits. Every week there's a new batch. Most are good for a chuckle or two and are quickly forgotten. Others have real world impact. Gerald Ford, for example, cited Chevy Chase's clumsy Ford routines as a meaningful issue in his reelection campaign. (Gerald Ford covers this, citing the New York Times.) While I'm not saying we need the president of the United States to discuss it in a major newspaper, you clearly need something other than "(Subject) was in an episode of (TV show).<ref>TV show, season X, episode Y</ref>"
"However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources....Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference....If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources."
Look up the lyrics to the REM song "It's the End of the World as WE Know It". Should we be adding "Social significance" sections to Lenny Bruce, Lester Bangs, hurricane, earthquake, Leonard Bernstein...? Hell, there are, by my calculations, 3.2 sex acts per episode of Californication. What of intercourse, felatio, statutory rape, sadomasochism, 69...? What of all the episodes of Sex and the City, Saturday Night Live, MadTV...? What makes this one different? From the independent reliable sources, the answer seems to be "nothing". - SummerPhD (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, then... (see below)

Female ejaculation, Porn section[edit]

So what is your problem/objection/issue with it? If you can provide a reasonable stance for why it should be deleted or heavily reduced, I'll support your efforts. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't really looked at the section and do not have a problem/objection/issue with it. It doesn't seem to be simply a list of IPC occurrences. Other than that, I'd wonder if the sources presented are reliable sources and actually verify the content presented. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
So let me state that while I don't consider pornography to be as mainstream some media, I do consider it to be a part of popular culture. That said, either the section I'm attempting to start (albeit, maybe the Californication example is a bad one) is acceptable or significant content in the porn section is just as bad in my opinion for the same reasons you're stating above. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, I haven't really looked closely at the section, but it seems to be quite a different story. I see neither cites to the individual works, nor a simple listing of "(Subject) was in (media)." - SummerPhD (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The first paragraph is a list (and to use your point, not a complete one) of porn actors who can "allegedly" ejaculate. The rest is "this person was the first in Britain" and the next item has to do with a guy who can make women ejaculate. You're really still convinced its worth inclusion? What do you think of just mentioning that its a sub-genre of the porn industry and leave it at that?
By the way, on a completely different subject, as someone who used to work for Warner Bros. Animation I found the exchange about the Batmobile (above) hilarious... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, I haven't really looked at the section. If you feel justified in removing it, remove it. If someone reverts you, discuss it on the article's talk page. WP:BRD. I have no opinion. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, its been a pleasure doing business with you... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Chagall/ Guillain-Barre[edit]


The sources for Rachel Chagall Guillain-Barre syndrome are numerous and already sourced at the external links section in the article, athough they have the year wrong (1992). I have alerted IMDB as well. More sources are at:

Regards, Aloha27 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical information. More troubling, I am not finding any reliable sources for Chagall. At the moment, she does not appear to meet WP:ENT, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. For now, I am clearing out the unsourced/IMDb sourced info and marking the article for improvement, with notability concerns. If significant coverage in independent reliable sources is not added, the article will be a candidate for deletion. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Chris Harris (journalist) page deletion proposal[edit]

Hi, as a contributor to Wikipedia I'm fairly new and I must be missing something but this individual deserves his own page, he is one of the most popular and well known motoring journalists of our generation, he's been on a variety of motoring venues such as Evo magazine, Drivers Republic and now he currently hosts a show on YouTube on the Drive Network called '/CHRIS HARRIS ON CARS'. I would propose Chris Harris' article on Wikipedia is of equal value and importance as Jeremy Clarkson's so if you could guide me into what this article is missing so I could add that, I'd appreciate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conza89 (talkcontribs) 07:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Subjects receive (and keep) articles if and only if they are "notable", a term for which we have our own specific meaning explained at WP:N.
What makes a subject notable? The short answer is coverage in independent reliable sources. In dependent sources would be those that do not connect to the subject: A New York Times article about someone is independent unless that person works or worked for the New York Times, for example. A "reliable source" is one with an established reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Most major market newspapers are reliable sources, for example, because they have professional fact-checkers and editors who review content prior to publication. If the New York Times says someone was convicted of DUI on April 1, 2014, you can be pretty sure that that person said so in an interview or two and/or the Times has strong evidence to back up the claim. If Joe's Celebosphere on wordpress says it, all you can really say is that Joe probably thinks it's true. A fuller explanation of reliable sources can be found at WP:IRS.
The basic problem with this article is that I was unable to find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to write a reasonably detailed article about the person. If you can find such sources, please add them to the article and mention them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Harris (journalist). If the article is deleted before you find such sources, the article can be reestablished later. Good luck and happy editing! - SummerPhD (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Miriam McDonald[edit]

I've reverted the edit you did. And this I've cite my sources that she's a yoga guru. You lost your bet. Spencer H. Karter (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "bet" you are referring to. In any case, please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted back the edit you done while ago, and this time you lost your bet. I don't trust so-called Wikibots too there like my rivals or rival Wikipedian's henchmen. I get upset when rival Wikipedians remove my edits and references. You should be a shamed of yourself for editing it. So as I told you, I've reverted back to the previous. I love Wikipedia, but I also don't like various pages that are protected by the moderators and denying other Wikipedians to edit it because so called "Edit War", also you don't understand it's supposed to be "The Free Encyclopedia" not the Un-Free, get it? Me playing the protagonist and you the antagonist (and Wikibots) of this issue. Well, I love Wikipedia, I'm trying to be nice about it, end of story. Spencer H. Karter (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I still have no idea what "bet" you are referring to. Again, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Last time, I gave you a week and a half to comment. When you had nothing to say, I reverted. This time, I won't wait quite so long. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay you win. End of story! Spencer H. Karter (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Why ?[edit]


Why it happended agian ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Answer the questions on your talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What did you came from ? so i could meet you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Time for another block. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll stop that. I want to take the easy way. I don't want you to cuss at me. Please I don't want any trouble. Please don't get mad at me. I an trully sorry. I am not coming back here agian. take a good care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Goodbye. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I came back because my computer has a virus. I will be here until 2077. I was just kidding for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me be more direct: Please go away. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

(Blocked for 1 month.[14])

Be Warned[edit]

Do not troll, stalk, or vandalize pages on wikipedia, or you will be banned. Presidentbalut (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please watch the personal attacks.[15] - SummerPhD (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(Presidentbalut has been indefinitely blocked for personal attacks and WP:NOTHERE.)

You are actually censuring me?[edit]

And not that crazy asshat who thinks Jimmy Wales receives bribes from the Pope in order to spread Christian propaganda in its articles? Swollib (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Swollib (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't care who the other person is or what they said. Your personal attacks are not acceptable. Additionally, you've used the word "censuring" in a way that implies you do not understand its meaning. Finally, as you are attempting to influence others with your posting, you are engaged in propaganda.) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well everything is out in the open now. You are one of the Pope's propaganda representatives on Wikipedia. Aren't you? At least have the courage to admit to it. How much did he give you? Swollib (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

(Swollib has been indefinitely block for exposing the truth. I will file my report with the pope shortly.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhD (talkcontribs) 15:33, 24 April 2014‎ (UTC)
Can I be one of your minions? I have a lot of experience as a henchman, and want to move up. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure! What size shirt do you wear? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


SummerPhD, There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents which may interest you. The thread is Vandalism at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.[16] - SummerPhD (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Cassandra Truth must be deleted[edit]

This is a confirmed sock puppet of Censored Scribe and all the edits need to be deleted; unless the PhD in your name is just a gimmick. It sends a bad message if blocked users are adding information on the number of starving children in the world; homeless veterans, and Jesus being immortal in Islam. Have you seen the stupid shit she added to Stalin and Edward Teller? Since when was Joseph Stalin a bank robber? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:13, April 28, 2014‎

Cassandra Truth Was indeffed 2 weeks ago. I'm not sure who is using, but I have a few guesses. If you're bothered by the few edits remaining up, feel free to revert them, preferably after logging in. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
What happened? User added similar categories? I can't say that it was censoredscribe right now. You know many people wants to give Undue weight to Jesus' position in those islamic-subjects. OccultZone (Talk) 02:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not involved and don't intend to be pulled in by the IP, whoever it might be. All I know is that Cassandra Truth was blocked as an admitted sock of CensoredScribe.[17][18] - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for providing those diffs. Feel bad for him :( ... His topic ban wasn't even critical. But as we know, when community spends more time in declining user's edits than accepting, it cannot be overlooked. OccultZone (Talk) 03:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

LGBT episodes of the 1970s[edit]

Hello, could you take a look,at the talk page for LGBT episodes of the 1970s? I have explained myself clearly, cited the sources and was hoping you'd agree with my additions to the page. Keep in mind, I have had those episodes listing on that page for quite some time now and JerryPepsi removed them suddenly by stating that they did not apply to the page. Hoping for your input. Thanks. (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 May[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Dinosaur Train[edit]

Thank you for clarifying the user about his/her edit on Dinosaur Train on the Talk Page. Unfortunately, the user is at it again. He/She asked on the talk page if there is a way to verify its edit and I kept saying No there isn't. It would appear that this user is not giving up on adding her unsourced edit about this whole romance subplot to the article. Would you mind clarifying the user again, please? - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Look, first of all, I am a male, and second of all, I'm not being persistent about adding an unsourced topic. I'm siincerely trying to get it sourced and proven, but I din't know where to look. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Keith Ferrazzi[edit]

Hi Summer,

You recently reverted an edit I made to Keith's page to a different version because of a possible conflict of interest I might have since I work for Keith. While I do work for Keith, I wasn't making "flattering" edits, I was just trying to undo several edits that removed the "Early Life" section of his bio and added a fairly amateurish looking sidebar featuring an image of Keith and someone named "Kekulov" who made the edit to his page. Keith doesn't know who that is and asked that it be removed. I understand that you want to keep the page as neutral as possible and as we are having difficulty finding third-party validation to several statements within his page so I appreciate that it needs to be reviewed, but how can I get amateurish edits that are meant to promote the person making the edit removed if I can't do it myself since my user page is flagged as only making "flattering" edits to my employer? Please let me know how I can have the edits made to Keith's page, or if possible, an earlier version reinstated that includes his "Early Life" section and removes that sidebar.

Dina del Valle— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dina del Valle (talkcontribs) 23:49, May 7, 2014‎

At the moment, I am trying to fix some basic problems with the article. The core problems at the moment are verifiability and notability.
All material in Wikipedia must be verifiable: It must be taken from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Anything from Ferrazzi or a company he is/was working with is not independent. Reliable sources are published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Common examples are major magazines, large newspapers, etc. If we don't have significant coverage from independent reliable sources on a subject, the subject is not notable and is subject to deletion for that reason.
I bring all of this up because I hesitate to put much effort into perfecting the photo, sidebar, etc. when I haven't been able to find the coverage we need. At the moment, I'm clearing out the unsourced fluff (where every article headline is an "honor", a local network affiliate is mislabeled as being the network, etc. When I'm done with that, I'll be looking for independent reliable sources. If I am unable to find sufficient coverage for a reasonably detailed biography, I will nominate the article for deletion.
If you have specific concerns with anything I am removing or adding or have suggestions for the article, please address them on the article's talk page so that any other editors who might become involved with the article can review the information. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Princess and the Pea[edit]

Thank you for catching this :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


On Talk:1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, you can remove anything that is off topic. OccultZone (Talk) 07:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. However, in my estimation this particular editor is likely to see it (incorrectly) as suppression of "The Truth" or similar, especially since they've been running around unwarned for a while. I'm taking it slow. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

Hello there, this is CharlieBrown25, the only reason I keep reverting this, is because FilmandTVfan28 is being very uncooperative about reaching a new concensus. I don't know what else to do - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

1) Stop adding the material.
2) Attempt to build a consensus on the article's talk page. Saying you do not understand what you are being asked for -- especially when it is one of our core policies -- does not mean you can ignore the request.
3) If you are unable to build a consensus, consider that you might be wrong: You might be mistaken about the "crush" and/or you might be mistaken about what should or should not be in the article.
4) If you still believe you are correct, review your options at WP:DISPUTE. Of the options spelled out there, the most likely next step (in my opinion) is Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, though I honestly don't think you're going to get a different answer there. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Dinosaur Train". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 05:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


This is CharlieBrown25 here, I just wanted to inform you that I hve made a proposal to the dispute resolution noticeboard - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That is already noted directly above this. I have responded there. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi Summer,

My name's Arjuna. I'm new to editing, am afraid.

Please don't discard my edit though, as I'd like to discuss it. I feel it was legitimate & redressed an imbalance in the article. The two topics in question were out-standing (in terms of not really fitting into the body of the article seamlessly; they were quite 'jarring').

Also they were quite sensationalist. I've used the words defamatory & libellous, and I think they're apt.

I think my edit integrated the topics in question better, into the corpus of the article.

With regards,

Arjuna (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edit to Rajneesh is problematic in a number of ways. As two editors have challenged you on this, you will need to discuss them on the article's talk page to explain what you feel should be changed and why.
In the meantime, if you feel there is poorly sourced libelous information about living persons, feel free to remove that immediately. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Email Suggestion[edit]

Hello there, this is CharlieBrown25 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC). Since you are the most recent member of the Dinosaur Train dispute, I would like to propose an idea. Because there is no reliable source that states the crush, could you or someone you know email The Jim Henson Company and ask them if it is true or false. If you can get an administrator to do it, it would probably be answered. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

An email is not a reliable source. Additionally, any information you have to track someone down to ask is trivial. Please drop the stick, step away from the vaguely horse shaped pile of fetid remains and move along. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's All Over, Phew![edit]

Hello, this is CharlieBrown25 (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC) here, I'd like to say that I've decided to forfeit my attempts to put the Shiny/Gilbert romance plot on the Dinosaur Train page. I still hold a firm belief that it's true, however, Mz7 has convinced me that the tidbit is not neccesary to the article, because they should be written from a real-world perspective. In fact, once the block is lifted, I'd like to change the article and remove all of the fiction elements. Sincerly - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A note on[edit]

Hi SummerPHD,

I noticed your reversions of's edits, and I saw that you said on their talk page, "I am assuming all of them are vandalism and reverting everything as vandalism." Assuming that this user's edits were all vandalism doesn't seem to be in accordance with WP:AGF. In addition, none of the reverts you did actually constituted vandalism, but were just unsourced additions. This means that this IP did not vandalize after the 4th warning, but merely added unsourced content after a 4th vandalism warning. This is not grounds for reporting this IP and my suggestion is that the report be removed (unless of course the IP does do something that actually constitutes vandalism). I would be happy to hear your thoughts on this issue.


TheCascadian 02:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit - Never mind, just saw the edit war by this IP. TheCascadian 02:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
All of the material I personally checked was easily verifiable. There is no question, for example, that the IP's repeated claim that Al Pacino did the voice of Jacques in "Finding Nemo" is incorrect. That could be a mistake. However, making similar "mistakes" across 18 articles in under an hour is extraordinarily unlikely. Additionally, the IP is ignoring talk requests regarding these obviously incorrect edits. Two possibilities: This IP editor has stumbled upon a rich vein of incorrect easily verifiable basic information somewhere and is changing sourced material at a rapid clip to match that source or they are vandalizing articles. The first of those possibilities doesn't pass the sniff test. It's not assuming good faith, it's asking to be swindled. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, good point. Keep up the good work! TheCascadian 20:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Cynthia Nixon[edit]

Summer, I added a comment about Cynthia Nixon always talking with her mouth full of food. You removed the comment as it was not constructive and I agree with you; it wasn't. I was just sick of seeing her in almost every episode of SATC saying something with food in her mouth and I wish she knew that it's TIRING. Then I saw her on an episode of House doing the same thing. Why must she put food in her mouth and then start talking??? She must think it's some kind of good acting technique and it's simply annoying. I figure she reads her own wiki page once in a while and that's the only way I can get through to tell her: STOP TALKING WITH YOUR MOUTH FULL OF FOOD!!! I'm not Miss Manners and I sometimes talk with food in my mouth too; I'm just SICK of her doing it in EVERY episode and when she's being filmed she's obviously planned it. It's not that she has to respond to something and doesn't want to keep the person waiting while she chews: she puts food in her mouth and then promptly brings up a protest against whatever the person she's talking to is saying. If anyone reading this post knows Cynthia Nixon, please TELL HER!! I appreciate that you don't want it on her wikipedia page (though I don't understand why you'd care) and I'll leave it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, um, good luck with your vital campaign. I wish you all of the best in this earth shatteringly important endeavor. You have restored my faith in humanity and inspired me immeasurably. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; and all the best to you removing comments you don't like from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
My concern certainly pales in comparison to your mission. In retrospect, I cannot justify my actions. You clearly have the best interests of the project in mind. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SummerPhD. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Baby Jesus (film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As I found sources dated 5 months after the supposed cancellation that gave us information on casting and production,and while almost tempted to improve the darn thing and argue a keep under WP:NFF (paragraph 3, I do feel enough sources are available to justify it being written of somewhere within these pages even if not in its own article. I thus added a well-sourced short paragraph at Peter Hewitt (director)#Career, and ask that you support a redirect. Best regards, Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


I saw the commercial of the new season of "Pac-man and the ghostly adventures" coming on June 9, 2014. So that means that page talking about season 2 coming in spring 2014 is wrong. If you don't believe me, then see the commercial yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLS3rd (talkcontribs) 05:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

June 9, 2014 is "Spring 2014" (in the Northern Hemisphere), so it isn't "wrong", it just isn't as exact. This is not about whether or not I believe you, this is about verifiability, one of our core policies. I cannot simply "see the commercial" myself, commercials don't work that way.
Incidentally, you seem to have popped up out of nowhere when another user name was blocked. I'd suggest you reconsider your current approach on this. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just saying was I didn't mean to mess it up, I was just trying to correct it and make it true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLS3rd (talkcontribs) 14:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edits were not sourced. You refused to discuss the issue. You are currently blocked. Your next edit to any page will lead to a sock puppetry case. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Explain pt II[edit]

I didn't mean to mess up, all I wanted to do is to bring the real truth of when season 2 of pac-man and the ghostly adventures shows up. Also, do you need proof to make the edit permanent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLS3rd (talkcontribs) 07:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

While editing as, you repeatedly changed the date for season 2 from "Spring 2014" (which is what the source says) to a date in June without citing a reliable source for the change. The edit summaries each time I reverted your change explained why, both at Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures and List of Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures episodes. Your were repeatedly warned on your IP's talk page and asked to discuss the issue on the Talk:Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures and Talk:List of Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures episodes. You ignored all of the warnings and talk requests and continued to make the change. You were then blocked from editing. After all of that, you have no idea what the problem is or how to fix it? Really? Take a look at the links in this posting and see if you can't figure it out. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


The budget for this film really was 65 million, so saying that my edit was 'unconstructive' was a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The source cited says $45 million. There is a warning not to change it without a source. Changing it was a mistake. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


I do not understand your objection to my lack of a 'reliable source'. I cited the Corporate page, and I referenced the USDA approved food label (now removed). Dobbs (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Versions of Blade Runner[edit]

I could hug you, I swear. It looked easier for you than I suspect it would have been for me, so thanks for beating me to it. Millahnna (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but actually it was much easier than I thought it would be. Half listening to two friends discuss it a year or so ago probably helped. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted BLP recreated[edit]

Copy User:Cirt, FYI Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Benson recreated at Dan Benson (actor). IP removing delete template. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for that. I was trying to think of whether I can revert it as vandalism, or if they had just not completed their editing session. I was surprised not to see you participate on the Talk page when I was working on it in a COI role given that you probably had frustrating experiences on the page previously, but I thought you might like to know (if you didn't notice) that it is GA-ranked now, so it's in pretty decent shape. I might get some better photos for it soon. Thanks for keeping an eye out and cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 06:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm Sorry[edit]

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant to compliment you for adhering to the principles of wikipedia, especially how you worked with me. - Sjrsimac (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


I am dying to know---do you get paid to edit Wikipedia?? Please indulge me, I am seriously curious. I can't imagine that anyone would care about someone listing a few local businesses in their neighborhood in order to promote (yes, promote) their community. For the record, I do not have any affiliation with the businesses I've listed under "notable places" in Mayfair. They have no idea I even did this. I was simply enhancing a page about my own neighborhood by listing some "notable places" (a category I did not even create--it was there already, with a poorly constructed sentence about Chickie's and Pete's and the police precinct. Boring. I cleaned it up and added some more places--and got rid of the police precinct as it is not, in my opinion, a notable place). No one knows more than I do about citing sources, by the way. I actually hold what you use in your username, sans "summer." The way my entry for Mayfair reads follows two accepted citation guidelines: primary source and common knowledge. E.g. you do not have to cite a source for the date of Michelangelo's birth year since it has been cited in several places and is considered "common knowledge." Also, if I know something to be true because I saw or experienced it personally, it is considered a primary source when I myself write about it. I look forward to hearing your response. 2601:B:B500:33D:AC9B:1848:C141:41B7 (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

After this, I have no interest in indulging your curiosity. Learn to live with disappointment, pumpkin.
If you believe fluffing your neighborhood is inline with our core principles, I invite you to take the issue to the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


Also, the "history" section of the Mayfair page does not cite any sources, even though everyone knows that Mayfair used to be nothing but orchards, so why didn't you mess with that section? My contribution stated that a few business exist on a particular street. This is fact. How exactly would you like me to cite a reference for the fact that something exists. It simply does. It's provable by looking them up in the phone book. Shall I cite the Yellow Pages as my reference? 2601:B:B500:33D:AC9B:1848:C141:41B7 (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just some asshole messing with "your" page. I'd probably just want to saturate the page with the serial rapist, teachers molesting students and bombs in vending machines. Take it to the talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

And after "this" I see that I was right with my comment. So disappointed. I was hoping for a more intelligent reply. Nothing relevant to my comment in any if that. And it seems ironic that someone who has proclaimed themselves as one of the accuracy police could be so misinformed. And unprofessional. Seems you've chosen me to pick on. I'd kill to have that much time on my hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:B500:33D:AC9B:1848:C141:41B7 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I see another editor reverted your promotion before I had the chance. If you'd care to defend the piece, I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. Other than that, I believe we're done here. (If you'd like to promote your neighborhood, I'd suggest that adding bluster to Wikipedia should rank lower than ridding the area of rapists, pedophiles, racists and terrorists. Seriously, even Swiss cheese isn't safe from the crazies.) - SummerPhD (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the rules yourself[edit]

"[Certain edits are] generally frowned upon because it tends to irritate..."? Now who's not following Wikipedia guidelines? It's cute though, I have to say. You have no idea how much entertainment you've provided for so many people in the last 12 hours. Thanks! And surprise surprise, look who has feelings! Awww, I've hurt them. To quote you, learn to live with disappointment pumpkin. Geez, obsessed much? I had no idea I was this interesting. Whatever will you do when I leave this Ping-Pong match, which I'm doing now? All the best weirdo, whoever you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:B500:33D:AC9B:1848:C141:41B7 (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your whitewashing and gave you a standard warning. In that warning, you found my feelings. That's interesting. I won't harp on it though. You've chosen a tough row to hoe. Being the press agent for Mayfair is akin to working to popularize acne. Good luck with that. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(2601:B:B500:33D:AC9B:1848:C141:41B7 has been blocked for personal attacks and disruption.)

Hello :-)[edit]

Normally I don't do this, but "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." made me giggle. With your permission I'd like to use that on my talk page :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, I should point out I meant it to express that I can't be Pope. Then there was this. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I took this "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." too, I just love your wit! <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 07:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Dear SummerPhD,

I have received your notification about the Wikipedia article about the fictional 1970s character Archie Bunker about adding misinformation to his article earlier today. Part of the message that you left at my talk page said the following;

...if you think I made a mistake, you can leave a message on my talk page.

I appreciate your invitation to correct you and I am going to take it.

I believe the edit that you are referring to is that of the section of the spouse of Archie Bunker. The edit I made to his page is listed below;

| spouse = Edith Bunker (1949-1980), her death (note: my edit is in parenthesis).

The reason I put that there was because I saw that you put that the two were married from 1948-1980. On the first aired pilot episode of "All in the Family" entitled "Meet the Bunkers" which aired on January 12, 1971, there is a scene where Gloria has a conversation with her husband Michael before Archie and Edith return from church. Gloria says to Mike, "Now Mike, please, for their twenty-second wedding anniversary...". This means that Archie and Edith were married on or around January 12, 1949.

There was also a part of your message that said the following; didn't provide a reliable source.

Could you please tell me what would be the proper way to cite my reference as that reference I have in mind is the name of a "All in the Family" episode. How would I put that in reference form. Please reply back. Mr. Yondris Ferguson (Leave a Comment) 14:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

The dialogue in that episode does place their wedding 22 years (give or take a few days or so) from the date portrayed in that episode. There are several problems, though. In the days before the Internet, shows were a bit less cautious about continuity (without legions of fans poring over every detail of every episode from their collections on VCR/DVD/DVR/Netflix, it wasn't as much of a concern). several years later, they were said to have dated for about 2 years "in the mid 40s". 1947-1949 the "mid 40s"? Additionally, your calculation relies on the episode occurring on the date it was aired. The episode has them coming home from church. January 12, 1971 was a Tuesday. Further, we have no indication what the assumed air date was when the episode was written. I don't know what their production schedule was like (how far in advance the first episode was filmed). I don't know if the Bunkers went to church on Tuesdays (seems unlikely). I don't know that the writers generally considered the Bunkers to have married in any particular year. So far, we don't seem to have a source that knows either. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

John Philbin[edit]

I deleted your PROD - it has then been disputed, so it had to be restored - I suggest a candidate for WP:AfD  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I'm curious and don't understand the reason you gave: Reverted good faith edits by Denisarona (talk): Off topic; not a minor edit for reverting my edit to the above article on 25 June. Regards Denisarona (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry, my mistake. Your edit was fine, correcting a spelling error to the IP's addition. The additon by another editor was off-topic (a WP:POV comparison to another game). I've corrected it. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Initially I thought that maybe they were referred to as something different. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Michelle Thomas[edit]

I'm so sorry. I didn't know about reliable source needed to be cited. Please forgive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animefan35 (talkcontribs) 02:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting reading[edit]

I just wanted to tell you that your talk page is one of the most interesting reads on Wikipedia. I think I may have been here before over some disagreement we may have had, but I'm not sure. You sure attract some strange comments and I like your responses. The reference to Clue was especially entertaining. Hope this makes you smile, as I did. John from Idegon (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing: People have accused me of having a sense of humor. I'm pretty sure they are mistaken. As an example, I don't recall making a reference to Clue. I can't imagine why I would. The only thing I can think of is that little incident at the library. One of my esteemed colleagues was slow to understand my position, needed clarification and I used the library's resources to support my conjecture. Sorry for the confusion. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Contrary to what vandals may say, SummerPHD is quite funny. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

AN/I "SummerPhD's behavior on Jasmuheen talk page"[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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Jenilee Harrison[edit]

Well, it shows above the birth year, but someone forgot the birth year category, and I was being useful. Do we have to exclude that category or what? -- (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing at what you are specifically talking about. I've verified the source for the birth date, but the birth place is still unsourced. I've updated the article throughout to reflect this.[19] If you were referring to something else, you'll need to be more specific. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You're guess would be right, and perhaps I should've said "the one that provided the date of birth forgot the birth year category." --2600:1005:B00A:68A0:C8D9:5515:1BF8:5C83 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Alvinnn!!! and the Chipmunks[edit]

I got the plot from a reliabe sourace and the same goes for the cast, I'd like to re add the info, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatintell (talkcontribs) 22:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source, not just tell me that you have one. This is called "verifiability". It is one of our core principles. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Mi_chael Pe. Woro_niecki page[edit]

Good luck trying to win the edits you made on this page ( newly registered editor JesHelp_in revised them), especially the blog citation deletion. I believe the Woro_niecki's watch this page like a hawk and very probably covertly involve themselves in edit wars to protect their father's religious image. The W's usually reside in S America or Central America in the summer evangelizing, and I would bet the farm the location of JesH_elpin which is Chile according to the IP edit before he registered to properly make the revision, says a lot about who this person is and why they refuse to let go of the positive blog characterization of this person in the citation you tried to remove. The Woron_iecki's have very few positive marks in their favor since ABC, NBC, the Houston Chronicle, The Grand Rapids Press, Dallas Morning News and authors Suzanne O'Ma_lley and Suzy Spe_ncer exposed Woro_niecki's nature and role in the And_rea Yates tragedy of 2001. User Jos_huaWor_oniecki was already advised to stop editing this page, and I believe he continues to do so to protect that positive blog citation. You can see in the former edit war last fall (2013), the edits against removing that blog citation were tenaciously defended by someone mobile moving south across the east coast, just as the Woro_niekci's were doing at the time of these edits. There used to be a lot of firmly and well documented negative information about Woronie_cki's past from 1980-83 articles of the Grand Rapids Press. Those were deleted by Joshua's admin helpers, people who have lost their positions as admins because of other improper behaviors across wikipedia in general. These admins pretty much let JW have free reign on revising the article anyway he saw fit. It's interesting that when JW was stopped and told to stop editing the article because of his clear bias, an anonymous edit shortly thereafter added the illegal blog citation and comment. That citation suffered an edit war in fall of 2013 with the W's once again winning due to someone protecting them (I believe to be one of the former admins who lost their position and had watched this article for some time after the major revisions.) If you want to read what I believe is a more accurate characterization of this person, google apologetics index dot org and the father's full name and wife's name and you will see they have been involved in a net censorship campaign on the net since early 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)