User talk:SummerPhD

Ye Olde Rules and Common Sense

1) Questions you ask here will be answered here. Unless they are remarkably rude. Then they go "elsewhere".
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). We probably just disagree.
8) I do not intend to waste time responding to remarkably bogus, hostile, and/or trolling remarks.
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.

Philadelphia Election Riot (1742)

On 26 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philadelphia Election Riot (1742), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. "...that the Philadelphia Election Riot of 1742 between the Anglicans and the Quakers of Philadelphia was caused because they were unable to agree on who would supervise the election?" - SummerPhD (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar. Unnecessary but much appreciated, especially coming from a tireless cruft-cleaner of your caliber. BTW, have you read WP:MUSIC#Albums lately? The current wording is pretty good, I think. Best —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Adminship?

I would like to nominate you for administrator status, based on my observations of your edits, your overall good nature toward other editors, and your experience here on Wikipedia. Are you interested? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks! I appreciate the offer. At the moment, I'd like to hold off on that. Check back in a couple of months or so! - SummerPhD (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lombard Street Riot

On 5 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lombard Street Riot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Arrowoftime

Thanks for doing this: I had assumed this to be the case and thought of making the accusation, but I hate WP process side of things (and am plain lazy). Let me know if I can help. T L Miles (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I know I went through scads of articles a few days ago and took out numerous references and links to copyvio videos and left several warnings. I put the user talk page on my watchlist but didn't any of the articles. Thanks for updating me. Are you sure there isn't also a possible sockpuppet issue with this? The newer account, the one who is talking, was registered about 4 minutes after I left my last warning on the older account. Coupled with the edit summary deceptions and similarities, it looks prime to me. Also there is this [1] and [2]. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is sockpuppetry. In addition to the shared editing of articles, the identical edit summary style and being the only sources for the link (with identical article usage), there is the timing. As you note the time of the newer registration, also note the timing of other edits: Markieboy1989 was on today at 9:20-9:22, then disappeared. Pulsetech dropped by for one edit at 9:28. 12 June, Markieboy1989 8:50-9:40; Pulsetech 10:00-11:57. If that's really two different people, they should at least meet for coffee sometime.

At the moment, though, I don't see any sock issues that are enforcable. Once the spamming thing shakes out a bit, something might pop up. Or ze/they might simply disappear. Time will tell. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Afd

		The Original Barnstar
		For being the next lesbian pope. Perhaps the next lesbian space pope. Actually this is for pulling up with nonsense attacks in an AfD. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Robotshop

I have added some comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robotshop. I think that notability is now established by the current version of Robotshop. --Eastmain (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mack 10 discography

I noticed you made these edits [3] on Mack 10 discography removing the boldfaced record charts. I have also been trying to removed this based on Wikipedia:Record charts. Could you please help me out on Talk:Mack 10 discography? Thank you in advance, Aspects (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that won't be needed at this point.[4] - SummerPhD (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Vexorg

Hi. Would you be willing to sign an RFC/U I filed on Vexorg and actions at Christianity by country? The edit warring against consensus and removal of common-sense reliable sources is not stopping. He's a smart kid, whoever he is; I think and RFC might actually do some good in this circumstance. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a current/recent RFC on this one. I see the 3RR, but that's not the main issue. I'll check in on the article in question in a bit. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Won't Hold Back (album)

The deletion tag has been removed. There is no reason for deletion when the page fails in order. Sources are sources and you need to check something other than billboards. Sheard has been putting up snippetts of what will be on the album on her myspace.Usercreate (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To meet notability requirements under WP:MUSIC, the aricle needs coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Currently, the article has none. I was unable to find any. If you have any, please add them to the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of part of Herbert Shelton bio

I noticed you deleted some information I added concerning Dr. Shelton. You did not leave much comment as to why this was done. Please forgive my ignorance but I am still learning the way of Wiki.

The information I posted was correct information in all details. I not only read about these details but actually spoke to those who knew Dr. Shelton while he was still alive. I am assuming I erred in not posting my sources. Please enlighten me as to what would be necessary for me to include so that I may resubmit the deleted information.

Some have laughed at Dr. Shelton's slow death as an example that his theories of health were in error. This is not correct. There were outside factors that affected his health. Also it seems the article is extremely unbalanced. It quotes from an unprofessional online article (which was in itself unbalenced and for some strange reason ommitted Dr. Shelton's greatest accomplishments)and lists all Dr. Shelton's arrests and hardships as opposed to the many good things he accomplished. Many things he taught were far ahead of his time and are now being proven in the laboratory.

Please advise.

Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My edit summaries were "-unsourced spin"[5] and "-unsourced POV"[6]. The minus sign is common wiki shorthand for "removing".

By "spin" I mean the section that detailed several theories about Shelton's declining health.

"POV" is in reference to "Point Of View" as detailed in WP:NPOV, one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles.

The core issue in both edits is that the information I removed did not meet our verifiability requirements by citing reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Disneymania

I saw your comment on Hello Control's page ... he seems to have been away for a few weeks. Your problem looks like pretty typical mouseketeer edits. I'm having similar problems with Oky103, and Triping has been a constant source of these things. Many of these editors are pre-teens and have no clue about how to contribute constructively. They fabricate articles based on the blogs they read, and, when they get blocked, just pop up with a new account. I've actually been accused of reverting edits to Ashley Tisdale's page because I wanted Vanessa Hudgens to have a better looking article. If you want to try to isolate a bad editor, you can try, but my instincts tell me that we are dealing with about a dozen.
Kww (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Clearly there is a youth issue in some cases. In any event, the real question (in my mind) is how to best deal with this. Some day there will (it seems) be an sourced DisneyMania 7 or Princess DisneyMania article. Until then, though, we seem to be stuck with an ever evolving mess. We can reign in all of the would-be girlfriends of Chris Brown as the article is high profile enough to be on a number of watchlists. We'll always have hundreds of non-notable (but dreamy) pop singers waiting for someone to delete them. The ones in the middle, like these, are a constant problem. Is this the best of all possible worlds or is it just what we happen to have? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If I had a better option than playing Whack-A-Mole, I'd use it. Look at the fun I've had with Sneakernight, Sneakernight (Vanessa Hudgens song), Sneakernight (Vanessa Hudegns song), Sneakernight (Single), Sneakernight (song), and Sneakernight(Song).
Kww (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. I watched Sneakernight mostly from the sidelines (maybe an AfD or two, I don't recall) and been down that road myself a few times. It's just that bopping moles on the head doesn't seem to get the job done very efficiently. My uncle always used a bit more force when dealing with distructive critters... - SummerPhD (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lostprophets' fourth studio album

Would you have any objections in changing the page into a redirect to Lostprophets#Fourth studio album & Future (2007—Present) until more information on the album is released? This way the information on writing and recording would not be lost, and it would be easy to resume editing once a title and track listing are released. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Seems like a reasonable approach.[7] - SummerPhD (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion/Happiness Is The Road

Not sure why Happiness Is the Road is being proposed for deletion, when future albums have been regularly given Wikipedia articles (q.v.: Death Magnetic) There are already several references in the article to Marillion's web site that mention the album - I don't think you can get a more authoritative source. gotroot801 • _talk 20:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Happiness Is the Road has 4 sources: a blog and three cites to Marillion's website. This demonstrates that the album exists and that someone with a blog and Marillion think Marillion's upcoming album is notable. Death Magnetic has 40 sources, and most of them are not primary sources. This demonstrates that Death Magnetic is notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Checking article history

Howdy. I suggest you check an article's history before prodding it. This one was prodded back in December.--Rockfang (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, missed that one. Thanks for adding the old prod info to the talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Album

Hi... when you have a sec, I'd like it if you could respond at Talk:The Warner Bros. Album. I agree that most bootlegs fail WP:MUSIC, but I don't think this one does, for the reasons outlined there.—Chowbok ☠ 17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Untitled Dance Gavin Dance album

Hi, thanks for your message regarding this article, you are quite right I did miss it but have deleted it now. Thanks again for bringing it to my attention. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Emarosa

Emarosa : Why did you remove my picture? thisisyourwayout

Assuming you mean this edit... Look carefully, I did not remove an image, I removed a caption for an image when there was no image shown. Looking further back, the image was removed here. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, SummerPhD. You have new messages at Hello Control's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Circular Link Question

I am a professional interventionist, and when I visited the page on "intervention (counseling)" I was pleased to see that another intervention referral service, a for-profit business, "The Intervention Center", along with another for-profit educational business had links there. "I'll put up my own," thought I.

Obviously it's a great boon for those in search of circular links for services such as we offer. Within a few hours my link had vanished, by way of your wand, not to any great surprise of mine. What was an remains a mystery to me though is why these other for-profit businesses were not deleted as well.

Isn't it the same rules for everyone? I mean, hey - more power to 'em if they can get away with it, but if you go to their websites, it's not hard to tell that these service sites are very much in the intervention "business," so what gives?

Curious and jealous. Am I able to get a link of my own? Thanks, (Gr8dna 13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC))— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8dna (talk • contribs) 13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your link does not meet guidelines laid out at WP:EL.

If you feel another link should be removed, do it yourself. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mshasho Mos!

u insisted that i delete the page, whats wrong wit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enots86 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not insisting that you delete the page. I am suggesting that the page should be deleted. The reason, as explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mshasho Mos! is this: "Unreleased album, fails WP:MUSIC; not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found."

I'll spell it out. Mshasho Mos! is an unreleased album. Per guidelines at Wikipedia:Music#Albums, "...unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." The article does not show "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" and I was unable to find such coverage to add to the article. If you feel the article should not be deleted, please discuss your reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mshasho Mos!. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Rock 2 (film)

Ran across this at AfD. How about we just redirect it to Camp Rock#Sequel? It could be restored, with sources, once filming begins. Cliff smith ^talk 18:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that in the AfD and that's probably what will happen. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Review Requested

I got a message pleading for help, but, when I looked into it, I found that the requestor was actually the problem ... inserting absolutely ridiculous figures and numbers into The Cheetah Girls (recording artists). I pulled her stuff out, and let her know my conclusions. A few minutes later, a new editor, Maimaiiihawaiii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gets created and tries to revert the same nonsense into the article. My suspicions are obvious, but I haven't written a SSP report yet. Looking over the articles, the whole area looks like it needs a cleanup. Single articles for singles that never charted anywhere, inflated chart figures, contradictory chart figures, etc.

I made my first major pass done TCG (album). Redirected Fuego (The Cheetah Girls song), TCG EP, and cleaned up the redirect on So Bring It On at the same time.
Any feedback you can give me on the quality of the merges, whether the merges were actually justified, etc. would be appreciated.
Kww (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest my typical approach:

1) Request semi protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection to prevent new editors from editing the article.

2) Demand sources for any numbers cited in the article and tag the talk pages of anyone who posts unsourced figures.

3) Request blocks for any editors who continue posting the bad info anyway.

4) Any articles where removing the redirect is a problem should go to AfD. (Sock puppets might make themselves obvious in debates.)

In the end, you might find that it (suprisingly) is not one editors and hir socks, but a bunch of single-minded editors discussing the issue on a forum somewhere. Or not. Either way, this approach usually sorts out the problem(s). - SummerPhD (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Radio Disney charts

Do you know of any source where these Radio Disney chart figures can be verified?Kww (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but I've never looked. Radio Disney charts are meaningless for any context I've seen. Review WP:CHARTS &ct and see if there is any indication that a single radio station/networks charts for its own artists have any merit at all. We don't take HBO's word for it that one of their shows is notable or successful, for example... - SummerPhD (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it fails charts, but it has that "common-sense exception" language in it, so I started a discussion here. It's clear to me that it doesn't convey notability ... I'm more worried about trying to maintain the column in articles where notability has already been established. If I could find a verifiable source, I wouldn't bother to push it, but my feeling is that I'm going to start taking it out of hundreds of articles. Before I do that, I like to have the feeling that there is support for that decision.Kww (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert O'Connor (singer)

Thank yo for your message. I didn't (or didn't mean to) start the article, User:MRUM08 wrote it onto the dab page 'Robert O'Connor', so I moved it to restore the dab. I'll leave a message on the user's page and certainly won't be challenging it. Thanks Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. This article has been deleted a number of times. Though MRUM08 is "new", I'm sure he won't be surprised that his article is being deleted again. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheetah Girl socking

This edit makes it pretty obvious that Cheetahbrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Brianyau323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same editor. If I tried, I could get them blocked for sock-puppeting, but I seem to have gotten the Cheetahbrian account to start at least trying to make useful contributions, so I'm not going to right now. Still, something to be aware of when working in that area. If he stays well-behaved, I think we should let the socking slide, but if I find that Cheetahbrian cooperates while Brianyau323 stays with his old ways, I'll file at WP:SSP.
Kww (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

rfc

As a frequent contributor to articles related to music, you are invited to review this RfC and comment, if you see fit! Best regards, --Winger84 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Apple cider

"NYTimes sells it". What do you mean? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignore that, I'm an idiot. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikayla12‎

I went ahead and reported her, she should be blocked any second now. Some people just can't take hint. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew it was coming. If her user page is at all acurate (and some of it clearly wasn't), she's pretty young and might just need some guidance to get a handle on wiki policies. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Skyler Samuels

Thanks for notifying me about the deletion tag, I'll try my best to improve the article. QuasyBoy 1:03 AM, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Vanguard Group

Is Vanguard's business model less common knowledge than I thought?

WP:PROVEIT says:

editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}}

I agree that "Common knowledge" is not entitled to stay in Wikipedia forever, but unless it is affected by WP:BIO, it should be allowed a few weeks grace: after all, almost the entire Wikipedia from 2001 to 2005 was unreferenced.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No company's business model is common knowledge outside of that industry and its followers. People with no active involvment in mutual funds or residing outside of the U.S. may have little to no awareness of Vanguard at all, let alone its business model. The edit I made removed the claim that the change in leadership did not change their business model, which is a more extensive claim than what there model is, it is an unsupported claim that that model did not change. If this is a significant fact that is as widely known as you suppose, it should be equally easy to cite. (As an aside: That grass is green is general knowledge, easily cited to any number of sources explaining why grass is green.) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure: it is not as crucial to the article as it appeared to me to be from the diffs, though I suggest you consider conventional weapons to achieve your objective less contentiously. I am thick-skinned, but I know other editors react badly if you go nuclear when a dated fact tag will do the same job, particularly when they have asked you to give the article's watchers time to find a source. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this compares to this, but here are the basics: 17 days ago, I removed the claim that "Bogle retired from Vanguard as chairman in 1999 and was succeeded by Jack Brennan. Nevertheless, Vanguard has continued to follow Bogle's emphasis on index funds and low expenses to share owners." There are several problems with this statement. First, it assumes that Brennan would have been expected to change the emphasis on indexing and low expenses ("Nevertheless"). Next, the unsourced claim that VGI does and did emphasize indexing, despite continuing to create new actively managed funds on a regular basis. Heck, Gus even does some active management now (so much for the trained monkey hypothesis).

Yes, you have said this should be easily sourced. Then, saying you were going on a wikibreak, you asked that it be left in place in your absence... I'm not sure how much time you've spent restoring the claim and telling me how easy it will be to cite it, but it would seem to either be that it's not-so-easy to source or you've misspent your time. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

?? I spent less than 60 seconds in total. I spent another minute or two encouraging you to follow the spirit of WP:V, which seems to me to favour fact tags. To be honest, I don't care much about Brennan (as long as my retirement money is safe) but I would like to see someone research the business model of Vanguard. When I get 5 minutes I will have a stab at a first cut. As I attempted to say above, I am now convinced that the phrasing you deleted was problematic, and I won't restore it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

DTV

Hi, you have suggested the deletion of Deakin TV, the student tv-production society. You also said that I could remove something along the lines of the Template:Date:prod tags, as to remove a deletion notice, but I couldn't find them. I have explained why the article should not be deleted in the discussion page, and I have added some more information to the article to give you some perspective about the significance of Deakin TV. Thanks. Theradu123 (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Somehow my edits got lost. In any event, please see the talk page re this issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Article needing attention

I posted about an article in dire need of attention at WPP:MUSIC. Dunno if you'd be interested in working on it but I know you as a strong editor of music-related articles. I just can't find the energy or time myself. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Spammer

Can we get some sort of blocking effort started for user 78.15.170.84? Their spam efforts on the Michelle Rodriguez article are getting old. I'm not familiar with the process in doing such. Are you? 2012Dance (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not coming from one IP address. If it was, warnings and blocks would do the trick.

So far, They've made the same addition three or four times and we've reverted it in less than an hour each time. If it continues to be a problem, I'll put the article in for semi-protection until ze loses interest. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! 2012Dance (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hola. Same deal again, multiple times. I undid the edits, but this is getting annoying. 2012Dance (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I requested temporary semi-protection about a week ago at AIV and was denied because the vandalism wasn't frequent enough. I'll give it another shot, or you could. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty new here so I'm no familiar with that process, but I'll check into it for future use. Thanks! 2012Dance (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Brown (yo-yo player)

It really wasn't all that difficult to find sources on him, though looking through the history the article was admittedly a hot mess. All I did was plug "Steve Brown" (in quotation marks) and yo-yo into google news archives and voila. Not sure why I felt the need to save this article. I guess it was curiosity about why someone would actually create an article about someone as ridiculous as a professional yo-yo player, and I honestly did the search expecting nothing and thinking I would call for a WP:SNOW close. And when I saw a reference stating he was the "Elvis" of yo-yos... Anyway, searching google news archives is an excellent way to easily establish notability or at least verifiability, though a little more time intensive than removing everything unsourced from an article. AniMate 00:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the difference was between our searches, but I found virtually nothing, save the one site of some unknown organization tracking unofficial records and a blog or two. Oh well. All's well that ends well. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Marriageable age Old City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Girard Avenue Dangerous and Moving (song) Late trading Guillemot Humpers West Kensington, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Heidi Range Boston Market School District of Philadelphia Kama Sutra Records Ian Abercrombie Amoroso's Baking Company Gloria Dei (Old Swedes') Church National Historic Site Bell Atlantic Tower Roosevelt Boulevard (Philadelphia) O Dem Golden Slippers Simon Gratz High School

Cleanup Discounted cash flow El DeBarge Eloi Merge Benjamin Graham Submarine sandwich Scouting in Pennsylvania Add Sources WHHS Granoff School of Music Stoner film Wikify Shirley Caesar Robert R. McCammon Dude, Where's My Car? Expand Bank of Ireland Little Flower Catholic High School for Girls Family reunion

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

School of the Future

Thanks for the suggestion, question though, if I work at the school and am trying to correct the information on a page - is that considered a conflict of interest - or is it more of a guideline to not "promote" the school? Thanks I'm new at this!Schoolofthefuture (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of potential problems when editing an article on the school you work at. Yes, a possible tendancy to "promote" the school is one of them.

Another possibility is an unavoidable tendancy to read sources as saying more than they do. Since Wikipedia demands that all material be verifiable, editors close to a topic often know things not reflected in their source. If the topic is particle physics or 17th century weaving or such, it is likely that the editor is simply more knowledgable than the given source, but that a better source is available. In the present case, however, some information you have might be unpublished (and, therefore, unverifiable). While the Inquy might run a blurb on a significant change at the school, you might have some idea why the change is being made. Your understanding of the situation -- whether it be right, wrong or somewhere in between -- is not verifiable and does not belong in Wikipedia.

Additionally, there is some bias in anyone's writing about something they are particularly close to. Not all of it is simple "boosterism" ("promoting" the school). As the article we are discussing right now stands, for instance, there is a whole lot of useless trivia. Yes, the article should give basics about the school that we would expect to include about any school and yes, we should include info on what makes the school unusual. That said, we do not need to know the names of most of the companies and project managers in the building of the school. It is likely that this info was included by someone fairly close to the school (then or now). When you are close to a topic, trivial details look larger than they are.

In general, you should feel pretty comfortable correcting basic, factual errors in the article. If we had the first class graduating in 2012, for instance. The further you get from the bare bones basics on an article you are so closely connected with, the more caution is advisable. Wikipedia's full policy on COI is available at WP:COI.

If you're looking for something to really dig into, there are certainly gaps in Wikipedia in a number of areas. Depending on your interests, there is a lot of missing history re Memorial Hall, the Centenial Exhibition, East Parkside, etc. There are notable individuals working/who have worked in and around the area who do not have articles, and so forth.

Hope this helps clarify things a bit. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Xtreme Soccer League

The Xtreme Soccer League is a legitimate organization. It is notable as one of the successor leagues to the Major Indoor Soccer League. On outside reference from a third party newspaper was put in the article. There are many other sports leagues that have less information on their articles than does the XSL. KitHutch (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing the notability and primary sources tags twice did nothing to support your claim. Adding one reliable source helped. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Severed]

The NYTimes source actually IS a Reliable Source in this instance. It certainly does contain a review written by Jason Buchanan of All Movie Guide, but All Movie Guide does NOT contain that review. The NYT did not duplicate a review. AMG has their own concerns for COI and AMG reviewers often write outside reviews that will never be used by AMG themselves. This is such an instance. That makes this review independent and unique from AMG, and provided by someone independent of the film who has the knowledge, experience and ability to write that review. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, allmovie does host that review. Please keep the discussion on the AfD page. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a G

I have undeleted the page I'm a G, which you proposed for deletion and was deleted as a result. I did this because the deletion was contested after the fact. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The same issue applies to DJ DMD. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Methacton High School

Dear Nobody, leave my contributions alone!!! Who are you to judge what belongs and what does not. These two individuals are well known in our community and deserve to be on this crappy website. I expect you will do the right thing despite the lack of known sources and articles. love, your fellow warrior —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.14.10.22 (talk • contribs)

1. Refering to a user as "Nobody" seems to me to be quite uncivil. Please don't refer to other Wikipedians in this way.
2. In a section of school alumni, only notable alumni should be listed. SummerPhD was following the general standards of inclusion here on Wikipedia; she's been around for over 2 years, and she knows the rules. The "right thing" to do in this case was explicitly not to include these people on the list, precisely due to "the lack of known sources".

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Dennis Wolf

You might want to ask the person who wanted it restored (see User talk:Rjd0060#Request to restore Dennis Wolf article). - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Apple Cider article

Greetings, SummerPhD:

It is clear you have a great passion for pathogens in apple cider but your passion threatens to skew the article on that topic. If you would like to create a page on the subject, please do. But let's not get caught up any further than we already have been in an edit war on the matter. Though I did not agree with it, I accepted your edit of October 7th in the hopes that it would settle the matter and both of us could go on to better things with our lives than quibbling over the contamination potential of apple cider. May we not exchange olive branches and leave it as an acceptable peace? Thank you.Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You proposed for the Dallas Toler-Wade page to get deleted.

Tomorrow is the 5th day it's been tagged with that heading. However, please don't let an administrator delete it just yet. I've been working on the article today, trying to make it notable. I can't do anymore today, though, because it's the end of the day for me. I plan to work on it some more tomorrow. Thanks. BT^C 02:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just Getting Started (song)

I really hated pulling the speedy off of that thing. I warned the creator, and I'll put it up for AFD or prod in a couple of days if he can't source it.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the speedy was mine, but there is no signe of notability there that I can see. It's a shame we'll need to waste so much "process" to get rid of that thing, but at least it will probably go quietly. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Cash Money Records, YME, UTP, Juvenile, etc. Pages

SummerPhD,

Hey sorry about not adding new sources to each and everything I fix because most of our info at CMR never see's an article on the internet. I meant nothing against ya or non a that. I just got a membership not long ago and didn't notice the messages ya sent me. The thing with my info is that is it solid and I would like to continue my updates regularly. If I do get internet worthly sources they will be added to as soon as possible. Just understand I will continue to do the updates if it's ok. Otherwise everyone who knows nothing will constantly mess the pages up. Please let me know what you think so we can move forward and continue to make those pages reliable. Thanks for ya time.

MoneyMack™ (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia demands information that is verifiable and from reliable sources. They need not be on the internet, but they do need to be reasonably easy to verify. What you know to be "solid" is immaterial. Also, keep in mind that, because of your clear conflict of interest, your edits are suspect. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I'll give better info when I can. Thanks for the time. MoneyMack™ (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated chart guideline

Your input is welcome at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Deprecated_charts.—Kww(talk) 01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Julie Gonzalo bio

Hey,

I noticed that you deleted the biography section for that article for being unsourced and possible copyvio. Your intuition is right; I came across the article about a week ago and the section in place at the time was plagiarized from somewhere (I never did figure out where—there was another site with the same wording, but that site had been copied from this article, not vice versa...it was just obvious, because of formatting and quotations, that it had been copied and pasted from somewhere). I rewrote the section, basically summarizing the plagiarized content, and tagged it as unreferenced. Would it be ok to re-insert the section (without the quote—I should have taken that out on the first go, and you were right to have removed it) with the {{unreferencedsection}} tag, as there is no controversial or potentially defamatory content there (at least, as far as I can tell) and the rewriting has hopefully taken care of plagiarism concerns? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has been home to a whole pile of unsourced cruft since I first hit it. Rather than adding material summarized from unsourced, possibly plagiarized content, please find a source before adding it. Otherwise, you are simply adding unsourced material from who knows where. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		I hereby award this Barnstar to SummerPhD for her dedicated and skillful work cleaning up the innovations section of the Philadelphia article. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You made a serious improvement to the article with a series of skillful, relatively minor edits, and I just wanted to recognize you for it. Thank you! Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Lip Service

I am grateful for your vigilance and contributions to Wikipedia. The external link to the Lip Service website was added as a convenience. I have no issue with the website link being removed; however removing the disambiguation reference seems to be somewhat extreme. As Lip Service, referring to the clothing brand, is referenced at least twice on Wikipedia (Hot Topic and Torrid), it needs to be distinguished from other uses. The disambiguation reference will be re-inserted, pending further discussion on the talk page. I will not re-insert the website link.

Also, for future communication, I prefer to not have templates pushed on my personal user talk page, unless it is posted by an administrator. I find personalized communication to be much more productive.

--Digitalmischief (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Lip_service#Non-article listings - SummerPhD (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Philly edits

Ah, I just realized that the South Philadelphia page is under construction - I'll hold off on editing after I add one more thing WhisperToMe (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm only working on the Famous Residents, at the moment. The TM doesn't allow for specifying just the section. I have a lengthy, sourced list (sowewhere!). For now, I'll just restore what I can find sources for close at hand. Cheers. :) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Templating regulars

I noticed your comment here. In the future, you may want to not template long-time contributors, because in my experience they often take it to mean you think they're a novice. So to avoid offending, I prefer to write a customized note to them (like this) unless I'm sure they're new. Just some unsolicited advice, hope you don't mind. -kotra (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Milestone?

I take it some kind of personal educational milestone has been achieved?—Kww(talk) 11:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. Actually, I'm an ABD at the moment, but an admin was uncomfortable with a (hopefully) short-term change. My defense is actually in two months, but I'm fairly confident. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Death Metal (Possessed demo)

Could you please create the afd subpage. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm not sure where that went wrong. 2nd noms are kinda messy. In any event, the page is there now. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Kaya Scodelario

Hi, thanks for your recent edit per WP:MoS. You changed the name of the magazine in question, I presume by accident, from SuperSuper(website) to Superstar. I thought I would let you know I've changed this back. Many thanks. Pretzels^Talk! 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Concept album

If you have a chance and the inclination, could you stop by concept album and drop some suggestions on the talk page? The article is an unholy mess and I don't even know where to start. Thanks in advance! —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Live at Donnington 1980

Hi! To me you can delete that page, but as far as I'm concerned that album is not technically a bootleg album. It was launched by two Saxon former members, Graham Oliver and Steve Dawson, under the label of their current band Oliver/Dawson Saxon. So we have a complicate situation due to the fact the album came out under the Saxon monicker (because it includes a performance by Saxon in 1980, when Oliver and Dawson were part of the band), but it is not part of the official Saxon discography because it wasn't pubblished by any current or former Saxon label and with present Saxon members consent. Cheers. --Furyo Mori (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Live at Donnington 1980 is "an unofficial live album", while a bootleg is a "recording...not officially released by the artist". Live at Donnington 1980 is not official, thus it is a bootleg. Q.E.D. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alleyezonme.jpg

I added to the fair-usage for one of the articles and removed it from 2 others (I may have acted too quickly with that, but the articles i removed it from were a mess anyways). Good enough? -Wakamusha (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't fair use for Ambitionz az a Ridah either, as it is the cover of the single, not the album (which is the topic of the article). So I've removed that use too. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to use for Ambitionz az a Ridah then; its not a single with its own album cover, its a song off of the album. -Wakamusha (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is unlikely there is an appropriate image for that article. In fact, it is likely the article shouldn't exist as it does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Goddammit I Love America!

Could you please create the afd subpage with your reason for deletion. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was briefly side-tracked. It's up now. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Black Dynamite

Thanks for the notice, but seeing as I did not copy and paste text from an outside source and did in fact rephrase the plot outline, I am going to revert your edit and put my work back in. As an admin it might be a good idea for you to do actual research first before randomly removing information. Kuralyov (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I had twice previously removed direct cut-and-paste jobs from that section. The in-universe term "Honky House" and unencyclopedic wording of the last part of the plot summary threw me. I've adjusted same and added a cite.

As follow up, please note that I am not an admin, I did do research, do not remove things randomly and request that you limit your comments to content rather than editors. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war..?

What do I put on the page? Id rather some else resolve this because its across two pages NISL and PASL-Pro and this will not end with just us two. (Bes2224 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

Either discuss the issue on one of the talk pages (such as Talk:Professional_Arena_Soccer_League) or put the issue up for a third opinion here. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Good day, SummerPhD. I was wondering if you could give your opinion at Talk:Hoagie so I'll have a better view of the keepers & the mergers. It would really help ;) --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Adairsville High School

see talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.29.208 (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What's Up

You are wrong about the acussations you told me about me being a "puppet" of the user "verecetticarl". I don't even know this guy, the reason i'm only erasing those deletion tags from vercetticarl's articles is because i admire his work, and all that he writes is true not false, so the articles he writes should not be deleted, thank you have a good day SummerPhd Vercettiboy (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The coincidences are beyond remarkable. In addition to showing up a mere four minutes after his last edit to repeatedly remove AfD tags from three of his articles, you've also no recreated Baby Ranks, an article he has created twice. (Incidentally, how did you happen to notice this particular article of his was gone?) - SummerPhD (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 in music

Thanks! Ros0709 (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

El Patrón

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from El Patrón, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please note that I have brought the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Patrón - feel free to comment there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Mummer's Parade

You forgot to include the reference for why the 2009 parade will be "shorter". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mummers_Parade&diff=258166625&oldid=258165753 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.252.248 (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. The source was there, I just had the wrong ref name. Fixed, thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fun alternate sayings

Here are some alternate sayings to use instead of "Bless you" or "God bless you."

"Godzilla."

"You are so good looking." (From the 38th Seinfeld episode, "The Good Samaritan")

"Scat, scat, pussy cat, your tail is in the gravy." (After practicing this several times, it becomes easy and fast to say.)

"Scat (there) Tom, your tail is in the gravy."

"Choo, bezzoo."

"Dog bless you."

"Congratulations."

"Are you okay?"

"Can I go through your pockets?"0

"Cover your mouth."

"May your personal deity enhance your well-being."

"Hey...clean that up, will ya?"

"Need a tissue?"

"Science bless you."

/////

Yesterday, December 28, 2008, I added (the above) to what I thought would be a valid addition to the Wikipedia web page “Bless you.” I added alternate responses which I found online or friends of mine use. These alternate sayings were removed from Wikipedia with lighting flash speed by “Deor”.

No email was sent to me explaining why it was removed. As a printer, graphic designer, web designer and activist for equal rights, I certainly did not intend to offend anyone with my entry. I'm trying to say, that I did not enter this addition to Wikipedia as a flippant entry.

However, the person who deleted my entry gave no reason why it was deleted. I then posted a question in the discussion area of the “Bless you” page (with the entry I added, so others would know what my entry was) and my discussion entry was deleted—without discussion—from “SummerPhD”. No email was sent to me as to why my discussion was not discussed and why it was removed.

The only message concerning what I did wrong from you, “SummerPhD” was: “However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to ‘Bless you,’ are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted.”

Vandalism? Geez, I think the word “inappropriate” or “does not meet Wikipedia submission guidelines” would be a better word choice/phrase, don’t you agree?

As a potential new editor for Wikipedia, I would have preferred a direct answer to my entry. Or at least the discussion by several people.

After having searched more topics about “sneezing” on Wikipedia, I see you have a “Sneeze” page and “Bless you” page. Both pages list common responses to people sneezing in many different countries around the world. In some countries people don’t respond when someone sneezes.

I have found in the U.S. there are many sneeze responses such as “Bless you,” or a funny phrase (or not so funny phrase) will be stated or some people say nothing. There are multiple responses to sneezing in the United States. This is verifiable by simply interacting with people.

As the phrase “Bless you” was derived from the lack of scientific knowledge over one thousand years ago (which is noted in the “Bless you” Wikipedia web page) and as science has advanced--the number of various responses to sneezing has been changing for years (20, 30, 40 years or more?). I find it hard to see how alternate sneeze responses would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. A friend of mine in the 1970’s used to always say, “Bless me” when someone else sneezed.

The responses I wrote about are either ones that myself and friends use, or ones which others have written about online. Who knew that some people say, “Scat, scat pussy cat, your tail is in the gravy”? I found this response online and now it’s part of my sneeze response to others. I say this to people at work and in public and most people laugh when I say this. People get it.

With that said, is there any possible way my additions would be considered in the Wikipedia "Bless you" or "Sneeze" web page? Or is this just beyond the scope of Wikipedia? As another suggestion, is it possible that a separate Wikipedia page be created for alternate phrases when someone sneezes?

I would appreciate a response concerning this matter.

Added by Mikecoruscant (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)mikecoruscant (Here is my email address: (blanked by SummerPhD). I live in San Diego, California, USA.)

There are several problems with your entry. But before we get to those, let's deal with your assertions of being wronged.

The alternate suggestions you (as "Mikecoruscant") say you researched and are used by your friends were first added by "Mikewestmikewest" on 28 December at 18:15[8]. This was reverted by Dekisugi and resulted in a warning that it was original research at 18:16[9]. As "Mikewestmikewest" you ignored the warning, and re-added the material at 18:19[10]. That same minute, BarretBonden reverted the entry[11] and at 18:19 warned you that ignoring the concern and re-adding the material was vandalism[12]. Apparently to try to get around the warnings, at 21:19 you registered a new account (see WP:SOCK), "Mikecoruscant"[13]. At 21:32, you re-re-added the problematic material[14]. Deor reverted this. You re-re-re-added it and Deor reverted it again.

Yes, Deor should have warned this new user name after the first (really, 3rd) revert. After the second (really, 4th) revert, "Mikecoruscant" should have been permenantly blocked and "Mikewestmikewest" should have been blocked for a couple of days. That didn't happen. I think it should have. I have now given you final warnings under both names. The next step is up to you.

If you were supporting your own protestations on the talk page[15] that isn't particularly endearing, either. (Without a check user, though, I won't know if that's you. One of your amended edits said you're in California, but the IP address for that edit is in Western Pennsylvania.)

As for the material, as the first warning made clear, the addition was unverifiable and/or original research. Wikipedia cannot simply accept whatever material anyone and everyone wants to add. We insist that material be verifiable, based on citations from reliable sources. To the extent that you can provide citations from reliable sources, I think a brief mention would be appropriate in the Bless you article. If you need any further assistance on this, I would be happy to help. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I now doubt the IP edit was yours, as you did make this edit from San Diego. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Geez... you people are so paranoid. No offense, but this was my first reaction to your above response to me.

I added a user name of mikewestmikewest without including an email address for the simple reason I would rather not include an email address when logging into a new web site. I then proceeded to edit the "Bless you" section (as I thought my material was appropriate); however, my edits would not take. In other words, after I tried to edit the "Bless you" page (And I tried this several times because I thought I was doing something wrong.) and I did not see any of my additions uploaded to the "Bless you" web page. I thought the edits did not take because I had not included an email address when I created an account using the logon name: mikewestmikewest.

I decided to forget the old logon name and start fresh. I decided to create a new logon name and included an email address with my new logon name. I wanted to choose a logon name that was similar to my email address. After I made a new logon name, password and included my email address, Wikipedia gave me a link to confirm the email address was mine. Then I uploaded my additions to the "Bless you" page and at least for a minute or so, the edit took. I thought, ah ha, the only way an edit can take place with Wikipedia is if you start an account with an email address and then once the email address is verified, editing can begin. Then, my edit was deleted. I thought that I did something wrong again and I thought that Wikipedia software was deleting my edits. I probably reposted again, thinking that I did something wrong. I really can't remember. Then looked around Wikipedia (As I am completely new to editing to Wikipedia.) and then I realized that it was probably a person deleting my addition.

This is why the two logon names and why I uploaded multiple times to Wikipedia.

Now, you say, that my sources are not verifiable. To quote you, "We insist that material be verifiable, based on citations from reliable sources." Okay. So be it.

My question to you and others who are part of Wikipedia: How does Wikipedia verify that people in the United States say "Bless you" when someone sneezes? It is my guess that people have heard other people sneeze and then hear someone else say, "Bless you." Is this how Wikipedia verified the phrase "Bless you" for a sneeze response?

I can give you my work phone number and you can talk to my managers and co-workers and they can verify that when people sneeze, that I respond and say, "Scat, scat, pussy cat, your tail is in the gravy." It's true. And I'm not being flippant about this.

Are you and other Wikipedia editors saying that you have never, ever heard the following sneeze responses from people in the United States: Cover your mouth.; Need a tissue?; Are you okay?; And you have never seen people ignoring someone else's sneeze and not saying anything to them?

It's a fact there are multiple types of responses to people in the United States, when they sneeze. Am I incorrect?

My question boils down to this. What do you consider a verifiable source for information on word or phrase usage in the United States concerning how people respond to a sneeze?

For example, do you consider blogs, websites or news articles a verifiable source? The reason I ask this last question is that word usage or slang people use is ever changing. I mean, how many articles in the news state that someone sneezed and the response from so-and-so was, "Bless you?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.205.108 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

75.3.205.108 (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)mikecoruscant or (blanked by SummerPhD) on December 30, 2008

If I was too quick to judge, I am sorry. To clarify the situation, you may want to address the first account, as explained here.

If you would like assistance in becoming better aquainted with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, you can read some of the links in this note to you or you might consider having me or another experienced user help you out through the Adopt-a-user program, explained here.

Whenever anyone posts to your talk page, every page you view on Wikipedia will have a note at the top telling you that you have new messages.

This only works, however, if you are logged on (you weren't when you added your most recent note to this page. Logging on connects all of your edits to your user name and allows other users to contact you.

Wikipedia is a fairly high exposure site. Posting your email address here is probably a bad idea in terms of generating spam to that address. I've removed your address above for this reason.

When you post to a talk page, end your posts with ~~~~ and the system will automatically sign your post with your user name (assuming you are signed on) and the time you posted.

What Wikipedia finds acceptable in terms of article content depends on a few key factors. First is notability. Notability determines what topics should have an article. George Washington was notable. My elementary school gym teacher was not. It also determines what should be in an article. What George Washington ate for breakfast on December 25, 1776 is probably not notable. We determine if it was primarily through verifiable substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. If no one (other than, say, Washington or his cook) wrote about what he ate that day, it wasn't notable. Numerous sources, however, discuss his crossing the Delaware.

Verifiability is very important. Lots of people want to put up information supporting their views (band x is the greatest/worst band ever, eating a particular diet is great/horrible, political party y is evil/the savior of humanity, whatever). Saying a reliable source exists isn't enough. Cite it.

Reliable sources are important for similar reasons. Ignoring the quality of the sources, I can document that George W. Bush is an alien lizard, we live on the inside of a hollow Earth and Nazis escaped the end of WWII by flying to Antarctica in a flying saucer. Wikipedia's policy requiring reliable sources allows me to show that a significant number of people believe such crap, but that mainstream society does not. So what is a reliable source? It's a bit of a slippery concept. Some sources are pretty much always considered reliable: major, independent newspapers (New York Times yes, Pravda not as much); respected, peer-reviewed journals (Science, NEJM, etc.) and such. Others are generally reliable in their field: Rolling Stone can be trusted for their reporting on when a new album is scheduled for release, but not quite as much for reporting on issues outside of pop culture. Others are case-by-case. Blogs generally are not reliable sources: I can start a blog and say anything I want quite easily. The only major exceptions are when the blog is notable, in which case the blog's statements can be used to document what the author says. So, an actress's blog giving the name of her hometown or stating her reaction to a story about her is fine. Stating her new movie is the best film ever because her blog says so is not.

What this means in the present case is pretty straight forward. What you say when you sneeze is not notable. (And a phone call to whomever is neither a verifiable nor a reliable source. That people do say "Do you need a tissue?" or some such is not notable as it is plainly obvious why they say it. Why someone says "Bless you" is not as obvious. How do we know (other than our own experience) that lots of people in Western countries say "Bless you"? We have reliable sources discussing the phenomina. If you or anyone else doubts a particular claim in Bless you or any other article, they are free to remove unsourced material, challenge the reliability of a cited source or request better sources by adding {{fact}} immediately after the challenged material. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I do appreciate it.

After reading your note, the first thing I did was log-in. (I will delete my mikewestmikewest account sometime this weekend.) And... I have two (2) questions for you.

1) I feel that I would like to make additions to Wikipedia on a part-time basis, that is, if I feel a Wikipedia page is lacking information. Can I send a possible addition directly to a Wikipedia editor to see if they feel my additions would be appropriate for Wikipedia?

2) Concerning the "Bless you" and "Sneeze" web pages. As I feel that people in the United States have multiple responses to sneezes, would adding several of these sneeze responses be something an editor for Wikipedia would deem as a valuable addition?

(Obviously, I feel this addition would be valuable as I go to Wikipedia and find its information valuable. In other words, I was looking online for a list of alternate responses to sneezes and I went to the Wikipedia web page first--for this information--before I tried other web sites. As a reader of Wikipedia, I expect [possibly incorrectly] that a vast amount of information will be available from Wikipedia for me to digest.)

Mikecoruscant (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)mikecoruscant

1) Generally, you would need to make your own edits to pages. Other editors would then review the edits. If an edit is likely to be controversial, you might want to discuss it on the article's talk page first. Additions that don't cite reliable sources are just a flat out bad idea.

2) Again, if you can source those alternate responses to reliable sources, there might be a place for the info on Wikipedia. Without such sources, you're wasting your time. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

My personal accusations towards you were because you personally attacked me and accused me of being a "sock puppet", whatever that means. You've listed a number of different people JUST ON THE sock puppet website you created, which was denied by the administrator. Add another atleast 1 more person named JamieS who also deleted the information and you have atleast 8 people right there. These 8 users are located in over 4 states as you would find out if you did the research (Mack Money, Denny Hits, My IP, JamieS, the other IP's etc etc down the line). The people you listed on the sock puppet site are different people, they are not 1 person, the administrator agreed with me. The people you listed on the sock puppet site and the people who have removed the information you and your other sock puppet names have been putting in there are different people, atleast 8 different people, it doesn't matter whether your "imagination" is being "stretched" it is a fact, they are different IP's and different Usernames and the administrator agreed that even the dialect was different. I am not going to do your work for you, I'm not here to argue with you I'm simply here to keep the integrity of Kevin Rudolf's wikipedia page, which the whole world reads, at the highest it can be. That means absolutely NO unverifiable and extremely weak and poorly sourced material on there which you have repeatedly listed and which has been repeatedly removed by 8 different users (most of which are listed on the sock puppet site you created).

Finally, YOU were the one who created the sock puppet site about ME. You accused me of being a fake a phony and not legit. You initiated all of this, I couldn't care less about banning you, it won't bother me either way as I am not concerned with any other wikipedia pages which you dabble in. The only reason I simply just asked the administrator you be banned is to protect other wikipedia pages which you might end up putting illegitimate information on and to protect the integriy of wikipedia as a whole by people who persist to look beyond given facts and create their own realitys while they put other peoples lives and hard work on the line for their own self interests.

Please just stick to the given facts as the whole world goes to his wikipedia page to find out more about him, they should be given the correct and same information as listed by not only his Multiple Record Labels but also by his publicist, agent, manager, and personal website.

The website address is www.KevinRudolf.com if you would like to know his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.78.190 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

chart guide

You might find User:Kww/goodcharts a useful reference. I'm interested in getting feedback before I start trying to make it a component of WP:Record charts.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Let It Rock (Kevin Rudolf song)

Your source is outdated, I won't allow it. THe single is well over 2,500,000 downloads.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.78.190 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiablilty is one of the pilars of Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, a song is certified double platinum when an independent, reliable source says it is. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what I'm going to discuss, I'm going to discuss the fact that you should be banned from anything having to do with Kevin Rudolf on myspace, you have repeatedly attempted to put in false information ranging from your theoretical idea of what his past is to listing the wrong singles etc. Almost none of the information that you have attempted to put in his combined pages is still up there, considering your horrible history in editing his wikipedia please do not keep putting bad information in there as journalists from around the world check these pages and might actually use your bad and outdated information as facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.78.190 (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with myspace (?) or Rudolf's past recordings under the name "Binocular". This is about one of Wikipedia's core content policies: Verifiability. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." That the album has been certified double platinum has been challenged repeatedly. You have continued to restore the information without a citation. This is in direct violation of one of Wikipedia's core policies. Do not restore this claim without citing a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm finished talking with you, for good, just know that any bad editing of any of Kevin Rudolf's wikipedia pages will be deleted within 5 minutes of its posting. I suggest you find a new page to tinker. Good luck & Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.78.190 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the talk pages for the approriate articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yoo the singles almost 3,000,000 Downloads in the US alone so it is without a doubt Certified atleast Double Platinum (which is 2,000,000 downloads incase you didn know). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CashMoney09 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've been telling you all along, you need a reliable source showing that it was certified by the RIAA. You saying it sold 567 trillion copies will not replace a reliable source showing the certification. A reliable source saying it sold 3.9 quintillion copies won't allow us to say it was certified. Only a reliable source saying it was certified will allow us to say it was certified. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stock Puppetry

I only have one account and have yet to edit a single thing since November 2008. So this false accusation can be removed from my persons. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks MoneyMack™ (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC) MoneyMack™

J. Kim Sessums

Thanks for creating the article and nice job. Jmerchant29 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It can certainly use a bit of work. Anything you might have to add would be great! - SummerPhD (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Kilgarvan

Can I get your help to make the Kilgarvan article more wikified and get the tags you added previosuly removed?, I have written alot on it recently and if you can highlight what you think needs fixing on the article that would be great --Dodge1884 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added some tags, yanked some POV, etc. Take a look. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have overhauled the article and provided more references, perhaps you could edit as necessary and remove the tags. It is hard to provide citations for the history as not much was written on it and practically nothing exists on the internet. Thanks for your help --Dodge1884 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad AIV report and BITE

You issued two final uw-4 warnings to 86.135.1.202 (talk · contribs) without any previous interaction. Then you reported the editor to AIV. I have yet to find any WP:Vandalism. This looks like a serious case of WP:BITE and needs to stop immediately. I've removed your illegitimate uw-4 warnings and replaced them with a welcome. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I understand your concern as my AIV report was not very clear about the history. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/81.159.62.194 and my notification of the case on that IP talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes much more sense. While on the surface, it looked like a serious case of WP:BITE, I wouldn't have come to that conclusion if I had the rest of that info. I've struck my comments above that imply that you acted inappropriately, I've restored your (very legitimate) warnings and blocked that IP. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, my bad for not being clearer on the AIV. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing help

You cleaned up the Balance Consulting article - thanks for your objective edits. I'd appreciate any direction on sourcing the Business Areas of the company. Thanks Rsmcphail (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

With reference to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/81.159.62.194 person....

Does Mr.s86 (talk · contribs) look like another one to you? I'm hearing some suspicious quacking... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Some of it fits, but the new article seems to be a first. This issue started at AN/I, was moved to SPI, resubmitted at SPI and is now back at AN/I. I've added Mr.s86 there. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Homeland Security (Mixtape)

The article probably needs to be locked. The article's creator and subsequent IP address have been deleting the PROD. JamesBurns (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A favor to ask

Could you cast your finely tuned bogus reference eyes upon Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie and see what you can do with the article. An AfD might be indicated. I got into a bit of an edit conflict with the article creator and would like another opinion. Thanks. --NrDg 20:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)

Your prod was removed, you might like to take it to AfD. Best. — R² 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Glad to Be Live, Volume 1

Delete if you want because I can care less about the page. From what I see, nothing going to happen with that page, so delete it. I think it shouldn't wait five days, go ahead and delete when you have the chance. Tarysky (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I help reduced the problems of removing the links from the page. The rest is up to you. Tarysky (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WGW

Information was taken directly from the site. Deleting it was premature, a simple {{fact}} would have sufficed. Restored with reference (permalink to the announcement). Exxolon (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Somali female models

Hi. Thanks for contacting me. I understand your point. However, in this particular case, I don't think it applies. You see, all of these women are not just high profile Somali models. They also know each other. Iman is a mentor to Waris Dirie, who are both idols and inspirations for Yasmin Warsame and Hawa Ahmed. Yasmin, Waris, and Iman have also worked together on several occasions. They're not just passing acquaintances. There's even a commonly held belief that Waris is Iman's cousin. That's what I meant by they're related.

Having their names listed under "See also" does not explain any of that. If Iman is a mentor to Waris Dirie, that should be mentioned in their articles with sources and an in-line link to the other article. Instead, we have a "see also" section that lists seemingly random people. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)(restored after following edit)

Here's the official WP:SEEALSO policy:

A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical "perfect article" are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one.[5] Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. A "perfect" article then may not have a "See also" section at all, though some links may not naturally fit into the body of text and others may not be included due to size constraints. Links that would be included if the article were not kept relatively short for other reasons may thus be appropriate, though should be used in moderation, as always. These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links).

As you can see, the links are relevant. It's also a matter of personal judgement, not a hard and fast rule. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your argument. That said, I do not see any sense in including the name of a model that another model knows/has worked with/is thought to be the cousin of/etc. as an unexplained link in their article. Suppose, for whatever reason, I wanted to include Alice Cooper under the "See also for Iman. At present, there would be no apparent differentiation in the article between including him and Waris Dirie. The inclusion of Mononymous persons, on the other hand, is self-evident. If you would like to include them, I would suggest either including them in the text or inclucing something to explain the connection in the "See also" section, as the guideline you cited above recommends: "Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent."Wikipedia:See_also#.22See_also.22_section - SummerPhD (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think I'll add an explanatory "Other Somali models"-type phrase in the See Also sections. Thanks for the advice, Middayexpress (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is just that they are all Somali models, it is redundant with the category. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion on this, to be addressed under Talk:Iman_(model)#See_also. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigrid Åhs

• For some unknown reason you have informed me rather than the author of your PROD on the above. I would agree with your action completely. Regards--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the confusion. The author of the article was indefinitely blocked a long time ago. Rather than notify no one, I notified the second person to edit the article. I know your edit was a minor clean-up kinda deal ages ago, but I felt I should notify someone involved with the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

Please do not misuse rollback, as you did here. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 20:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I was rolling back the random fansite links added by an editor who was recently indefinitely blocked for similar problems. To me, that is vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Perfect Symmetry (Song)

Hey, I don't find the notability article very clear when it comes to singles. Anyway the single was on the Radio 1 A Playlist at its release and a video was made. It didn't manage to chart of course, but I personally think this single is as notable as the previous singles from the album. I understand if you think otherwise though since you're on here quite a bit more than me. - Andymc1989 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The essence of WP:MUSIC#SONGS is:

1) Most songs are not notable

2) Songs ranked on national music charts, that have won significant awards or have been performed by several notable artists might be notable

3) A separate article is not appropriate unless there is reasonably detailed material

4) All articles require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"

This song doesn't cut it, nor does Better Than This. The Lovers Are Losing doesn't really have much detail to it, but many tend to ignore #3 when a song has charted. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa White

Hi there. Do you mind explaining why you continue to delete and redirect the article for Vanessa White of The Saturdays? Are there specific guidelines that would support it's deletion? She has, in a sense, separated herself from the group with her voice, has gain notoriety as a theater performer (child star) prior to entry into the group, and there is sufficient information in the article, with sources. Plus, all other members have articles. Orane (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Vanessa White#Notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pretzky

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pretzky. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jemma McKenzie-Brown

Hi, I noticed that you tagged the date of birth as requiring a citation. I recently added it back after checking the GRO Index - details of the entry are on the talk page in response to your request for information. Keith D (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Explaining it on the talk page is not the same as [[WP:CITE|citing}} it. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pretzky

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pretzky. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

sources on Arias

Hello SummerPhD and thank you for give me a welcome to Wikipedia (nobody has told me that since three years, ten months and 24 days ago). In that case, I feel the duty to say the same for you :) "Welcome to Wikipedia, SummerPhD". As for Moises Arias, I put the references. Just a curiosity: you removed the information I placed arguing it was not consistent with our policy of verifiability. The facts you removed were that his parents were Colombians, he was born in New York on 18th April 1994, he was a Colombian-American and he was a 1994 births (these two last the categories). However, you did not remove other data that was lacking references like he participated in television programs like Hannah Montana and the other productions, one by one. Fortunately, the interview he gave to Caracol Radio on 22 March 2009 from Guadalajara in a perfect Spanish (that evidence was also removed), clarified our doubts about the Colombian origin of the Arias' parents and his Colombian-American identity (he himself said to Caracol he feels such.) Thank you for your recommendations about reading again our policies. I would like to make a friendly and humble recommendation as well: in dealing with content that at first hand does not provide a reliable source, the best would be to make it notice to the editor before taking any definitive action as deleting, so he will take time to provide the results of the research and work and time will be saved. Great to have this opportunity to meet you, SummerPhD and I hope we can work together in our dear Wikipedia. Yours, --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano 14:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for templating you like a newbie! In any event, the edits in question are yours: [16][17]. Together, they give his birth name, birth date, place of birth, state his parents are from Columbia, state he is fluent in Spanish and state that his fluency in Spanish is because his parents are from Columbia. None of this was cited to a reliable source. Yes, I could have simply littered the page with "cite needed" templates. However, this article is a biography of a living person, so I elected not to. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List of collective nouns by collective term L-Z

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 18:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at a few questions here. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bel Powley

Hi. I restored some of the changes which you had deleted wholesale in rv to your prior version. I accept your point re the tagging and the invalidity of using a blogsite as a link, but I believe you were a tad reckless in simply deleting my constructive edits. I believe the page as it stands now adequately reflects your concerns. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ill Na Na 2: The Fever

Just to let you know that this article, which was deleted after a PROD which you previously added, has been restored after a request from Andrewlp1991. You may wish to nominate it for AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Iman

Maybe I've missed something, but the username suggesting on the Talk: page that "Iman Abdulmajid" is the correct name for the article isn't the same username that actually moved it...? No need to reply, just a heads up... 58.8.211.110 (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Charlotte Arnold

Please do not remove the date of birth and her birthplace from the article Charlotte Arnold. That's from the information on the Internet Movie Database, I went to the Internet Movie Datase on Charlotte Arnold, and there is information on it's date of birth and birthplace, you remove editing information from the article, I edited back it's date of birth and birthplace of Charlotte Arnold. I am not going to be mean to you. Please do not continue to remove it's information on Charlotte Arnold (i.e., birthplace or date of birth). Steam5 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source for this information. Please see the article's talk page for further discussion. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I check Charlotte Arnold's page on IMDb one more time and she was still born in 1989 and she was born and raised in Toronto, that's what the information says from IMDb, Once again do not remove it's date of birth and birthplace only. Steam5 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I check the the German Wikipedia article of Charlotte Arnold and the German Wikipedia article says she was still born in 1989, that's what the German Wikipedia article says and you remove it's information, Do not remove it's date of birth from the English Wikipedia article, I have it's biography sources. If you continue it's information you will be blocked by editing so please stop! Steam5 (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Let me make you a deal go talk to a user that could speak German and English or a user speaks Finnish and English to check it's Finnish or German articles of Charlotte Arnold of Wikipedia and stop saying "Please see the article's talk page." many times, repeating comments bothers me. Steam5 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I continually refer you to the article's talk page because that's where this discussion belongs. Please see my response there. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • I check on TV.com and there is her date of birth that she was still born in 1989 and so does IMDb, the date of birth and birthplace is important to the Wikipedia article of Charlotte Arnold, if not leave it or go to IMDb page, TV.com page, German Wikipedia Article or Finnish Wikipedia Article. Steam5 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, this discussion belongs on the article's talk page. Please see Talk:Charlotte_Arnold. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You're repeating you're comment's over and over again! You are the meanest user and worst user history! You remove it's information from Charlotte Arnold do not remove it's date of birth and birthplace! TV.com, German Wikipedia, Finnish Wikipedia and IMDb says July 27, 1989 and Toronto, Ontario Do not made up comments from Charlotte Arnold's talk page You said "February 23, 2019" and "Mars" there is no such thing do not talk me and do not remove it's date of birth and birthplace ever again! Steam5 (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the talk page for the article in question. I will answer questions there, NOT HERE. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawyeruniversal2

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawyeruniversal2. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fruitarianism

SummerPHD, on some edits you have been making to the Fruitarian article:

1. I provided the source on thicker enamel for fruit-eaters. Okay, I'll accept that it doesn't specifically state that the thicker enamel is for fruit, however that's what I read. In fact, orangutans eat almost 90% fruit and I read it was the chimpanzees and especially gorillas who had harder and different-shaped teeth for eating more herbs and vegetables. I was surprised looking at that as well. My understanding is that thicker bones and structure are required for hard foods while thicker enamel is for acidy food such as fruit, it makes sense doesn't it?

2. Given that vitamin b12 isn't available in any fruit or vegetables OR animal products: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_Vitamin_B12_in_fruit_or_vegetables I severely doubt anyone is going to be sick eating a fruitarian diet. It's not easy to find good sources in a reasonable time and any sources provided of course you will probably say don't count. That's what primates prefer. As has been the case with vitamins such as calcium, zinc, and others, it's often NOT that we need to intake huge quantaties that our ancestors never had, it's that we're missing the other nutrients to help them work together. I think some people have something against the entire concept of fruitarianism and I can sort of understand that, it can sound a bit ridiculous/idealistic. But if you were a paleo person and fruit was available all over, that's what you'd eat, that's what all primates prefer. Happy editing, but it is annoying when you have to use time to provide sources for everything and suddenly the sources are often dismissed. Anonywiki (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1) The cite you provided specificly compared orangutans and chimpanzees, clearly stating that both had high fruit diets and differing levels of enamel. The article specifically stated that the thicker enamel correlated with tougher foods in the diet when fruits were not available. The cite in no way supported the claim you made. If you "read it somewhere", go ahead and re-add it with a citation to a reliable source that actually supports the claim.

2) Even the unreliable wikianswers cite you just gave clearly states that B12 is found in "...liver. It can also be found in soymilk, soybeans, eggs, clams, salmon, crab, milk, dairy products, and more." Your source says that B12 is "is a microbe -- a bacteria", which is simply wrong. B12 is a chemical compound produced by bacteria, not the bacteria itself. The fruitarian article contains a links to several reliable sources explaining that B12 is produced by bacteria in many animals (and, as recently misconstrued) low in the human gut. As a result, B12 is found in many animal foods: eggs, meats, milks, etc.

In fringish topics like this, there are often "true believers" who take minor and/or irrelivant details as proof that they are right and the majority of the world is wrong. Vegans and fruitarians have a few of these making arguments that B12 is completely unnecessary for human health OR produced by the human body in a useful way OR found in various fruits/veggies in complete violation of test results. Some vegan/fruitarian sources do a reasonable job of debunking these claims and urging caution. Too many others pass along poorly documented "evidence" leading to potentially serious health problems among their readers. As a result, I am demanding reliable sources for all such claims. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

For your hard work...

I thank you for the (apparent) vote of confidence. However, I do not wish to take on a mop and bucket at the moment. Maybe later. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDb

If you'd like to try getting articles that are referenced only to IMDb entirely deleted, I'd most likely support that, but we can't say that IMDb is valid as a source for the person's basic notability as an actor, and then reject it as an unreliable source for absolutely everything it actually says about the actor. Breaking the category diffusion rule just because the IMDb page isn't supplemented by additional references isn't the appropriate approach — for a significant number of the actors in question, the IMDb page is the only source that will ever be available to indicate what country they were ever actually born in, because many actors never become famous enough to get in-depth profiles in newspapers and magazines.

So if it's not a valid source, then articles that have no other references can certainly be deleted outright — but given that in many cases it's the only source that even exists, we can't pick and choose and say it's valid for some things and not for others. If IMDb isn't a good enough source for categorizing someone as Canadian, then it isn't a good enough source for categorizing them as an actor, either. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, other stuff exists. Some of that other stuff should be deleted. Back to the issue at hand.

Wikipedia should not have articles for which no independent reliable sources exist. Period. There is currently a discussion underway considering the eventual mass deletion of 'all unsourced BLP articles. IMDb is not a reliable source. Discuss. - SummerPhD (talk)

But, we're not talking about other stuff. We're talking about you selective removing certain facts, while keeping all the rest, in the *same* article, which are no more or less "contentious". As said, if you want to delete an article, then AFD it, or seek changes in policy to delete them (which I might support). But, you can't do an end run around a failure in deletion, by remove facts in no particular order. What was so special about the Canadian status? Also, by taking these people out of these categories, these articles are much less likely to be seen by somebody familiar with them. I supported a new speedy criteria against BLPs made without any source. It was resoundingly defeated. We can't each decide to implement our own personal preferred policies. Can you please explain/justify how you select certain specific facts to remove. What's so good about the facts your keeping? I'm just trying to understand your criteria. --Rob (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I added this discussion to WP:BLPN. --Rob (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that IMDB is a reliable source for some things. Some parts of IMDB are created by a verified editing process. This includes movies etc. that an actor has worked on, and the parts they played. Those parts of IMDB are reliable sources. Other parts are not check. This includes trivia, bios and quotes. Those parts are not reliable. So you can use IMDB as a reference for what works an actor appeared in; also for what production company pr9duced a film and similar matters. You can't use it as a reference for what an actor's favourite colour is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful...

when making your deletions of material, so that others don't need to clean up after your edits. LadyofShalott 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

TuxGuitar deletion

Hi, I got a message telling me about the inminent deletion of the TuxGuitar entry, and when I checked it, it was already deleted. I don't know where to comment on it now, so I'll let you know here: I think the reasons for the deletion of the old article were not valid (I'll elaborate). I didn't know about the old article when I wrote it, and after your comment, I read thru the reasons of the old deletion, which seem to be basically "not notable". I disagree, because it is a quite complete program that is for instance "important enough" for the standard Debian distribution to have several packages related to it. I actually wrote the article after looking in wikipedia for the program (it was referenced from GNU_LilyPond) and seeing that it was not there yet, and then checking the web page of the program to get the basic ideas about it that I wanted to know, which is what I feel most people would want to find.

I agree that "it was already deleted" is a valid criteria, but I do strongly disagree that the "not notable" original criteria was correct.

Please let me know if this is not the appropiate place to comment, where it is. --jbc (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The original discussion focused on notability. You state the product is "important enough" to have several packages related to it. Basically, the notability problems hinge on the criteria for web-related content. In short, notability is best established through substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. For such programs, this would usually mean reviews of the program in reliable sources that are independent of the product. Editors commenting on the original discussion found none.

If you believe TuxGuitar is notable, please take the issue to Wikipedia:Deletion review. If an admin is reasonably convinced that you have a case, ze may restore the article, reopen the deletion discussion or restore the article to a user sub-page for improvement before reposting. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's Zach Benjamin, Now listen

You keep on deleting my references because "imdb is not a reliable source". On Jason Earles, when there was a feud about his birth date. An article in birthday's said he had his birthday and he was 32 as of April 26 and it turned out imdb was right because they said he was born in 1977. And as for Drew Roy you keep taking away his birthdate because you can't rely on imdb. Well he was born in Clanton, Alabama! Even his roy myspace says that!!! If you want to take away when people were born because it doesn't have a source well fine!! Then here. Look at Damon Wayans Jr.. It says he was born in 1982 but THAT isn't referenced. And in external links for Damon Wayans Jr. it says "Damon Wayans Jr. at the Internet Movie Database". If you click on it his birthdate is 1982 but we can't use it because it's not a reliable source as you say. So take 1982 away from Damon Wayans Jr. And as for Stephen Dunham it says he was born in 1964 but that's not referenced either so why don't you just take that away too. You know what I'll team up with you. If anyone has a birthdate and it isn't sourced we take it away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Benjamin (talk • contribs) 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Most information in IMDb is not reliable because it is user generated content. The only exception I am currently aware of is some writing credits. As a result, any information on Wikipedia that cites IMDb is, essentially, unsourced. Generally, I will remove such information in a biography of a living person. This is also true for information in such articles that does not cite a source at all. If you have a reliable source for any of the information I have removed, be sure to cite it when you restore the info or I will remove it again. As you seem to have ignored my prior messages, you are getting close to being blocked for this. You may wish to review the links I have included here before you edit any more. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I'm quite familiar with how to add a citation to an article. Repeating it in the edit summary wasn't meant as my citation; it was meant as a personal "a legitimate source was present in the article already" message to you, given the fact that you're skirting the edge of editstalking. And by the way, it isn't necessary to repeat a source as both an inline citation and an external link, either; one or the other is sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I removed the content, challenging its veracity. You restored it. The burden is on you to provide an in-line cite: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Yes, there was an external link for the hockeyDB. It was an external link, though, not a reference: "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not 'external links"'". (Wikipedia:El#References_and_citation) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's every bit as much onus on you to check the external link to see if it supports the data in the article before deciding that certain statements in the article can simply be removed as "unsourced". Yes, inline referencing is preferred — but while an external link that supports the data in question is an outdated form of referencing, that doesn't make it okay to remove statements that are fully supported by the link just because the article creator didn't manually footnote each and every sentence in the article. At one time, listing one's references as external links was actually the standard practice on here, before it became technically possible to footnote — so the correct procedure in a case like that is to add {{Citations missing}}, so that the links can be reformatted to current referencing standards. But if the external link supports the statement, then the statement simply isn't removable from the article whether it's been individually footnoted or not. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sites that have been used as sources...are not 'external links'."; "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed...using an inline citation." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, that does not make it acceptable to remove material that was sourced in that way before that became the standard. There was once, like it or not, a time when "list your sources as external links" was the standard on here. The standard has since evolved, but not all articles have caught up with that yet — and thus, when you encounter an article that is still written in the old style, it's every bit as much your responsibility to convert the referencing to the current standard as it is mine. It does not mean that the material is removable just because somebody else hasn't already upgraded the references to proper footnotes — if you can't be bothered to actually make the switchover yourself, then slap a {{cn}} after the statement you're questioning if necessary, but it doesn't make the statement automatically removable, and it doesn't make it my responsibility to do the reformatting you can't be bothered to do either. Material has to actually be controversial to be removed just because it doesn't have a footnote on it already. You can convert the link into a proper footnote just as easily as anybody else can — and if you don't actually possess concrete evidence that the material is actually wrong or in dispute somehow, then the {{cn}} tag is available for that purpose. But it's not appropriate to remove a statement that is supported by the external link just because somebody else hasn't already converted the link into a proper footnote, when you can just as easily convert the link into a footnote yourself. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:REF — specifically, the part which states that If a claim is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the {{fact}} tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. The policy specifically states that to actually remove an unfootnoted statement from an article immediately, it needs to be either in actual dispute, or actively harmful to the subject. If neither of those circumstances apply, the policy explicitly obliges us to tag the statement, and then give it a reasonable amount of time for the citation improvement to happen, before the statement can be removed. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That "policy" that specifically "obliges" us to follow a course of action is actually a "style guideline" that asks us to "consider" doing that. I did consider doing that. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Susan Tolsky

Hi. I'm just wondering what information in the Susan Tolsky article that you think requires sources. Is it her filmography? ραncακemisτακe (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the article has no sources whatsoever. There is an effort underway to potentially delete all biographies of living persons that are unsourced. Susan Tolsky is one of those articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. The only "biography" in the article is her roles in television series and movies. ραncακemisτακe (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources in the article. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." If you don't wish to remedy that, the article will likely be deleted. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added a reliable source to the article. Lack of sources is still an issue, so I'm tagging it as such. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Now I've added some sources to the article. - ραncακemisτακe (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any "lack of sources" now? - ραncακemisτακe (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's better than none, but it's still just AMG (lots of sites are "powered by" AMG, meaning they merely mirror AMG's content). I've removed the unreliable IMDb and the AMG mirror, Fandango. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But now when there are sources, can the templates be removed? - ραncακemisτακe (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There is one source. I have changed the BLPunsourced tag to BLPrefimprove as a result. I have left the notability tag intact because we still do not have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But there are sources for every information in the article. So nothing is unsourced. And I'm afraid better sources than AMG don't exist. ραncακemisτακe (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem. There is very little information in the article. A name, a birthdate and a credits list is not a biography. That may very well doom the article. If there isn't significant coverage in independent reliable sources, we shouldn't have an article on it. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SummerPhD. You have new messages at Next-Genn-Gamer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--(NGG) 01:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for welcomming me, but I'm not new on Wikipedia, so no need to welcome me.... Sitethief (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IPs can remove warnings

BTW, I saw this revert/edit, and wanted to point you at this: Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings. It's actually okay for an IP to remove warnings from their page. For one, it is an implication they've "responded" or at least read the warnings.

It's probably not a big deal- I tend to dislike when IPs do that- but it is allowed.

Cheers, tedder (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya Boy

Hello, SummerPhD. You have new messages at Talk:Ya Boy.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Image removal?

Any particular reason you removed the photo of Anna Maria Perez de Taglé? --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I reverted a whole pile of unsourced additions and failed to restore the image. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Filmreference

Filmreference.com is a reliable source. It is not user generated, and Tim Russ uses it as a reference. Also, it is called filmreference.com, don't you think that means something. It means that the information can't be edited by anybody and can be used as a reference. PeterGriffin11298 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A source that is user generated is not reliable. However, because a source is not user generated does not mean it is reliable. That another article uses it does not make it reliable, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The name of the website is something it's creators chose. They might name it: TheWordOfGod.com and fill it with their opinions of what the best potato chips are. What is a reliable source? Please read WP:RS. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sea Beast

I have removed the AfD tag from this article because the process appeared to be incomplete; you tagged the article, but there was no corresponding deletion discussion. If you still feel that the article should be deleted, please renominate the article. Regards. PC78 (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge/Separate song articles

I note that you are sometimes interested in songs, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separate different version of the same song. Please make known your feelings on the matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Jarron Vosburg

Hello SummerPhD, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Jarron Vosburg has been removed. It was removed by GreenBayPackersfan09 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with GreenBayPackersfan09 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Wotcha

Noticed this on the Animals in the Womb Afd "(Is it just me, or NickelodeonFan = SpongeBobFan = GreenBayPackersfan09 = Zach Benjamin = all the rest?)" and I'm thinking maybe but add them if you like to this SPI case and see what comes of it as there is a CU request attached. treelo _radda 15:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at things, I think I'm tying more and more threads together but it seems you have some I don't so I'm really going to push you to add your suspect accounts to the SPI case so something can be done. treelo _radda 15:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Umkay, so not one of the users listed at the SPI were linked though all are idiots of some form. Anyway, NickelodeonFan is once again on a tireless search to fill Wikipedia with mindless tween junk and not the stuff which is actually worth something and I think that whilst their penchant for the fictional is getting to a point where it's not the done thing to maintain a fictional band and their discography in userspace, they do some decent edits inbetween which is why I think shoving this over to ANI might be a good idea, we can either get some kind of block which I don't think would be best as that'd instantly lead to socking or get them a mentor. Given their lack of response to everything I don't know how receptive they'd be to mentorship but it's worth a shot anyway. treelo _radda 10:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know you're handling NF too but you're not talking to me here, what's wrong? treelo _radda 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'd been gone for a bit and wanted to get back up to speed on hir editing. I don't know what NF's deal is: maybe a Mouseketeer style editor who just wants to add what they want to add with no concern for policies and such, maybe someone who just doesn't "get it". I don't know. In any case, I've been trying to squash the worst offenses, notify the user and hope that ze will either start to catch on or simply go away. In limited cases, ze seems to be catching on: no longer re-adding categories that I remove from user pages. Creating lots of articles for non-notables is an annoyance that I feel the whole project needs to address. There was a proposal a while ago to start deleting unreferenced BLPs. I think this will eventually come to pass (and I think it should). This will "resolve" the issue en masse. No sources = no article. I'm open to your suggestions: yes, we could push to have hir blocked or suggest mentoring. If you are up for the mentoring yourself, by all means: help yourself. Personally, I think I've been too much on hir case to make an acceptance of mentoring from me likely. Any thoughts on how we might strongly encourage the user accept mentoring?

I know the type of editor this is, edits in flurries of edits, some constructive whilst the bulk are bad, probable mental issue or simply some kid who thinks it works like Facebook. They work on their own terms and usually if they're ignorant of the rules, be it willingly or through incapacity, they usually get blocked. I can't think of a means by which to advise them to accept mentoring given how unresponsive they are to issues, even a blanking each time a warning comes along is at least some acknowledgement of the issues for better or worse. I suggested mentoring on the basis that some of their edits do seem helpful, getting a mentor though is highly unlikely to occur and would prefer they stick around under some watchful eyes than get blocked and come back under another guise and start over. Given no amount of warnings (even the two final warnings I gave) has stopped them, admin intervention I feel is required at this point as I'm not seeing that this user is competent enough to edit. Either of us need to make a post at WP:ANI as no admin would give a block via WP:AIV and their non-communication doesn't make it easy to handle the issue ourselves. treelo _radda 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you unprotect articles?

On the article Michelle Thomas there is a debate whether she died at 29 or 30; with independent reliable sources stating both. And because of this, we can't list her birth as September 23, 1968 because of the controversy. But, I have found a reliable source which states she was born September 23, 1968. Here's the link: http://www.kellie-williams.com/michellethomas.htm#Family%20Matters I want to unprotect the article so I can add this and provide the source. How do I do that. GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Before unprotecting an article to make such a change, you'll need a reliable source. The lack of a birthdate in the article is due to the lack of a relaible source for same. The two ages are given because there are numerous reliable sources for each. There is nothing to indicate that the website you are linking to is a reliable source, nor is its claim that it is reporting "from AP wired [sic] reports" credible. Under your various names, you have made it clear that you do not understand what constitutes a reliable source. If you haven't been blocked again by the time you read this, expect to be soon. I promise to do a better job having any new name you create blocked as soon as possible from here on out. Bye! - SummerPhD (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Peter Stone

I removed the notability tag from Peter Stone (Degrassi), because I have added some references. GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Another editor re-added the notability tag as fictional characters are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The character is in the show, so references to the show are not independent of the the character.

Incidentally, thank you for FINALLY starting to use the talk pages. Ignoring the numerous warnings on your talk pages has gotten you very close to being blocked from editing... - 17:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth on Cody Linley

It seems as if you have a history of removing dates of birth that are unsourced, so I won't bother you with the old "why did you do this omg?!" shtick. Rather, I'd like to know what you would consider a decent source for something like a birth date. I mean, I wasn't aware that something like that needed to be sourced. I could find a plethora of otherwise well-sourced articles that don't bother sourcing the birth date. It's kind of annoying there isn't a standard, actually. (If there is, my bad. I've been out of touch for a while.)

I brought this same subject up on the talk page, but I wasn't sure if you'd check it, so I brought it up here, as well. I suppose you can discuss it wherever you see fit. --clpo13_(talk) 17:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankie Jonas

Please stop putting Franklin Nathaniel Jonas on his birth name. Because that's not his real name. You can put Franklin Nathaniel Jonas by using the sandbox Ricky3374 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2009

Actually, until we have a reliable source for it, the article won't show anything (especially given the heated back-and-forth that's been going on. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A question...

Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Nancy Meyers Project (2nd nomination): The title has been moved to It's Complicated (film) and the article has now been expanded and sourced to show meeting WP:NFF, as filming had commenced, completed, and the film has a slated release date. Any thoughts on modifying your delete opinion to a keep? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from The Typewriter Tape

Hello SummerPhD, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Typewriter Tape has been removed. It was removed by Lifebaka with the following edit summary '(rm PROD; previously PRODed)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Lifebaka before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Frankie Jonas

Please tell me why did you removed Frankie Jonas birth date. Ricky3374 (talk)

As explained in my edit summary, the article's talk page and my warning to you, there is no reliable source provided for the birth date. Please address any concerns regarding this on the article's talk page. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Moore

I submitted the term "Italian ice" to the Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in September of 2007- It was accepeted on November 8, 2007. I did this because the term "italian Ice" was not being recognized in contracts (national and state) as an actual product for sale in their government concession stands and national parks. The only other term there was prior to my suggestion was ice cream and sherbet which was ambiguous since both of these items contain dairy and were not water based. You can call me with any further questions regarding this at 908 352 0666. Thanks- [[[Special:Contributions/69.125.36.243|69.125.36.243]] (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)]

Notability is a core principle of Wikipedia. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be clogged with articles about random gym teachers. Who submitted the term is meaningless unless and until it is discussed in independent reliable sources. You or your business publishing the information (here or anywhere else) is not an independent source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Your repeated addition of this miscellaneous fact in two separate articles -- with several editors repeatedly telling that it does not belong there -- indicates that your interest is not helping build an encyclopedia, but an attempt to promote your business. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Poppy Dada

Hello SummerPhD, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Poppy Dada has been removed. It was removed by FayneMarvinDrewGruen123 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with FayneMarvinDrewGruen123 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Removal of PROD from Jack Blessing

Hello SummerPhD, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Jack Blessing has been removed. It was removed by GreenBayPackersfan09 with the following edit summary '(His filmography makes him notable.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with GreenBayPackersfan09 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Question

What's a reliable source? Ricky3374 (talk) 12:35 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Wikipedia:Reliable sources - SummerPhD (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Making Someday (Rob Thomas song) a notable song

Hey I tried everything and I still didn't understand. Plus how do you make Someday (Rob Thomas song) a notable song? Ricky3374 (talk) 16:30, 19 September 20

You can't control whether or not a subject is notable. A song is usually notable if it: has been ranked on national or significant music charts or has won significant awards or honors or has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. Additionally, the song must be the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This song does not meet those standards. As a result, the song, IMO, does not merit its own article. As the subject of an Articles for Deletion discussion, other editors agreed. Please do not recreate this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I Agree sir. If I can't make the song notable then nobody can. Ricky3374 (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Hey I just wanted to say I'm sorry for recreating Someday (Rob Thomas song). I know that it's not a notable song but I just wanted to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia website there ever is. As a result for that I will not return to Someday (Rob Thomas song) to recreate that page. I understand that it's already been set to a redirect to Cradlesong. And another thing, I am also sorry for recreating Staring Down. I know that it's not a notable song but I just wanted to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia website there ever is. As a result for that I will not return to Staring Down to recreate that page. I understand that it's already been set to a redirect to Rabbit (album). Anyways that's all I wanted to say. I hope you get this message. Thanks. Ricky3374 (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD Discussion

I disagree with the AfD thing for Someday (Rob Thomas song). I have nothing else to do but disagree with it. Mario.brosfan (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you disagree. The fact remains, the song is not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied messaged from SummerPhD about OK, It's Alright with Me

Fine. Then let me say that you are the worst user I've ever seen. I hate you. Now leave me alone with my articles that I created about songs. Ricky3374 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Non Notable songs

I've created non notable song because I don't know anything else about a song. That's why I pasted this

to every non notable song I've created so all Wikipedia Users can give more details about a song. Ricky3374 (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding details to an article about a non-notable song merely creates a more detailed article about a non-notable song. The song, however, remains non-notable. Please review WP:NSONGS and stop creating articles about non-notable songs. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is I don't understand what the WP:NSONGS says. It says All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. Most songs Whether an artifact of recentism or otherwise, most song articles on Wikipedia are for modern (20th or 21st century) popular music songs. A minority of song articles refer to ones that are not modern popular music songs, that weren't published in albums, that aren't part of one specific discography, and that in some cases even lack identifiable authors or performers. Redirection of such song titles if they are non-notable has thus to be to some other, appropriate target. However, note that many such songs, within that specific category, have long-documented histories of their origins, spread, performances, meanings, and lyrical variations. See "Johnny's So Long At The Fair", for example.</ref> do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. If the artist associated with the work does not have an article, or if the artist's article has already been deleted, an article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9. Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it. (See also TenPoundHammer's Law.) In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects—generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. And that's all it said. Ricky3374 (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In short "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article". If you don't understand the exceptions, just don't create articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Ricky3374 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edits

Your edits are so predictable it's hilarious. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)]

Thanks for the input. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page says you edited Cheese Steak and King of Steak. What did you contribute besides editing? The Fruitarian article needs to be edited by somebody who is neither pro fruitarian or pro steakarian. Zanze123 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You are laboring under a number of false assumptions. First, Wikipedia does not make a distinction between what you are calling "editing" and "contributing". Adding, removing and rearranging material is editing, all edits are contributions.

All subjects are not created equal. Cheesesteaks and Pat's King of Steaks are not fringe subjects as there are not substantial issues about the subject that run counter to the scientific consensus. Fruitarianism is a fringe subject. The belief that humans were created to and/or evolved to live solely on fruit runs counter to the findings of science.

In any event, here is a complete list of all of the edits I have ever made to Wikipedia. I don't know of an easy way to point to a list of all of the articles I have ever edited. Here is a list of articles I've created, it's somewhat out-of-date. Here is a list of articles I believe I have significantly improved, with links showing the changes I made. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Things are fringe but not in perpetuity. Vegetarianism was a fringe issue but not anymore. What is it about steak that counters scientific consensus. I thought you only believed in science. Science is a man-made system of thought, based on a false methodology. Unfortunately, even though this can be proven to be the case, those imbued with the scientific worldview can't cope so wouldn't believe it to be the case even if they did read about it. Worse still, the scientific worldview is consistent with itself and so appears to be true, especially in a world of people imbued with the scientific worldview. Therefore discussing matters with people who only believe in science, despite its fatal flaws, is like trying to talk about colours with a man born blind. With reference to: Verifiablity, No original research and Neutral point of view. Indeed, Yet things cannot always be be verified, in terms of references, references are not always reliable, original research can be put into 'reliable' sources, and a neutral point of view is impossible, because humans are not rational animals but self-rationalizing. Moreover, the scientific process of verification involves a new observation which is just as subjective as the original hypothesis, and hence no more objective. On top of this, the peer review process has more holes than a piece of Swiss Cheese. Many things counter science but are still true. Not everything can be or has yet been explained by science. Science cannot explain everything. The review process depends on double bind/blind experiments, but not everything in the universe (i.e. experiments) can always be replicated, but that doesn't invalidate what originally occured. Zanze123 (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fruitarianism as currently a fringe topic. As a result, WP:FRINGE applies. Your dislike/distrust of science is moot.

Verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia. Anything that cannot be verified by reference to a reliable source does not belong in Wikipedia. Please read WP:V.

Whether or not a reliable source is "reliable" in the sense of being correct is a moot point. Please read WP:RS.

Wikipedia's core policy, No original research applies to those editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Reliable sources obviously contain original research. Please read WP:NOR. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You removed the Tony Wright paragraph, without any explanation except some unintelligible comment that only you and you alone could possibly understand. Please stop deleting things without providing a proper explanation for all to know. Zanze123 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed Tony Wright because "-non-notable vanity press book". Tony Wright is not notable. The book is not notable. The publisher, Lulu.com, is a vanity publisher: they will publish absolutely anything by anyone so long as you pay for it. I could have them publish a book saying the moon is actually a goat's head. This would not merit mention in Moon, Goat, Head or anywhere else on Wikipedia unless I were notable or the publisher made it a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If the basis for validating a book is on the name of the publisher, this is hilarous given that many commercially published books are vacuous. Furthermore, what matters is not who published the book, but its referenced content and those who have endorsed the book, which in this case, are notable people from the 'academic community'. However, since your agenda is to slant the frutiarian article, there is no point contributing to it, or indeed, any point to it. You have already decided in advance that the fruitarian diet is not possible, and should not be endorsed, and that is why your approach to editing such as 'Claimed scientific basis' is what it is. Anything labelled 'scientific basis' could be relabelled 'Claimed scientific basis' since anything claimed by science is only what is known up until the day it was claimed. Zanze123 (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What is it about steaks that you believe counters scientific consensus? Zanze123 (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think I believe that? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of "many commercially published books" is moot. Referenced content in the book is moot. You claiming academic support is moot. Scientific consensus from relevent academic communities is key. Please see WP:FRINGE. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of unusual personal names

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of unusual personal names. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This horrible article needs to die. I will be adding my !vote to that effect. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

SummerPhD on vandalism

Hi there, you recently left a vandalism warning at User_talk:121.209.235.20#December_2009

For someone as experienced on Wikipedia as yourself, you really ought to more closely read Wikipedia:Verifiability. As per Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism, my contribution consisted entirely of 'unintentional misinformation', not intention to vandalise. Internet sources I had encountered had indicated that Nick Jonas passed, though from now checking more reputable sources I can see that is not the case. To further this, the fact that I contributed to the talk page was to encourage further verification of the fact rather than actually editing an actual article as fact.

In this instance you have failed one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your usage of {uw-vandalism4} whilst skipping {uw-vandalism3} for an edit that can not be seen as overly disruptive is largely inappropriate

I would appreciate it if you could now redact such warning from my talk page.

Many thanks for your understanding, 121.209.235.20 (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone as experienced on Wikipedia as yourself (including a block for disruption) should certainly understand that saying "He Dead" does not indicate that you had "encountered...Internet sources". Your complaint about being labeled a vandal is far more fluent and descriptive than your actual edit. You seem to have been looking for a response. You got one. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm underselling you here. In addition to your activity under the IP shown, you claim to be the blocked user Jazzper. Your wounded narrative above strikes me as simple trolling. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that everything I said isn't correct. Thank you though. 121.209.235.20 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Return of the Dozen Vol. 1

Speedy was declined on it, but I nominated it again as a G4 because it is a revival of an article already deleted via AfD. Also, your AfD nomination is messed up. Since there was a previous AfD, you need to use the other template. Currently everything is directing to the previous AfD discussion. Maybe you want to hold off on the AfD to see if the speedy G4 gets accepted? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I took the AfD off when I saw it had gone through before and put on the dp-repost. Anyway, thanks. Yes, let's wait for it. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• It was speedy deleted. As it turns out, it was deleted via prod once, then by AfD, now speedy. BTW, you prodded Forrest Fyres. I looked at the artist responsible for it and put his article up for AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lovechild (Irish Band)

Hi, can you help me understand what the problem is with this article? Perhaps not every statement is cited with a source at the moment but I would've thought a "citation needed" would suffice for the moment? The criteria by which I'm trying to include the band include 3rd party, published sources.
1) the use of the bands song in a famous ad campaign by the British government, and the supporting album released by EMI are cited by source, (VisitBritain.ca).
2)The inclusion in various BBC documentaries are cited on the production companies website and independent retail sites for the DVD release.
3) One of the bands appearances on a national chat show is proven by a photo on Wikipedia Commons, in the main article.

I appreciate you have much more experience with Wikipedia than I, but I suggest this band's notability is substantial, and anything in the article can be proven by a credible 3rd part. Can you help me understand specifically which aspect of the article needs to be improved?

I've taken my lead for this article from another Irish band, who are similarly notable, and whose article has remained intact, despite less citation. I'm wondering the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay*ola_(band)

Thanks much.

Answer please

Hello. You have reverted my edit on the page for Drake Bell and called it vandalism. What the hell did I do wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.177.182 (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. I was correcting part of this edit and mistook edits by you for the vandalism by another unregistered editor. Sorry about that. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

The next time you do your job, please do so without being so patronizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HushSound (talk • contribs) 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify what you are having a problem with. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources

Hi SummerPhD. In the Szekely article, I have added back a variation of a definitive sentence attributing a list of translations to Purcell Weaver. I checked your amendment to this, and note (a) the insertion of a citation, but (b) the removal of the definitive sentence giving the citation, and the listing context. In re-adding the definitive sentence, I of course left the inline citation, which makes sense.

I saw also your link to WP:NOT. I wasn't too sure to what you were referring, unless it was a concern of some sort of soapbox advertising.

Rest assured, the information placed there by me is intended soley to inform. I have long been aware of some controversy pertaining to later directions of Szekely's ideas, pertaining to both the latter part of his own life, and promotional exercises of his followers. Indeed I have a letter in my possession from someone (now deceased), who studied in depth Szekely's earlier works (1936, 1937, 1951 and that era), and who expressed dismay at the later directions of Szekely and his followers. I have no opinion on them, and have no wish to defend or attack them in any way. I have therefore deliberately steered clear of anything at all related to the more controversial aspects of Szekely's life and works, as I have no desire to be drawn into these areas.

My own contribution has, as best I could, been limited entirely to providing information for readers which can be verified (the books may be rare, but can still be located, as I did), but which they may not otherwise be aware of. In particular, the comments pertaining Szekely's earlier works, and subsequent use of the 1936 title Cosmos Man and Society for an unrelated 1973 work which actually contains chapters from the 1938/1951 book Medicine Tomorrow. This too was brought to my attention in the above-mentioned letter, and of course I have since verified this for myself from the books in my possession, hence the mention of relevant chapters in the annotated bibliography. As I understand it, Szekely was alive and in possession of his faculties at time of re-publication of his earlier works under different titles, so it would have been done with his consent.

Nevertheless, later researchers could easily be confused unless informed, which was the point of this fellow's letter to me, and the point of my own contribution. As a researcher, I care only that I can find the information I seek, and not follow too many false trails along the way. To be consistent, I do my best to allow others the same ability, should they wish to do so. I have scanned the title pages of both the 1936 Cosmos Man and Society, and the 1951 Medicine Tomorrow, with both scans showing the lists of other publications in English and other languages. My thought here is that it may be helpful to insert thumbnails of these into the relevant section.

The upshot is that there is no need for either you, or anyone reading this, to be concerned regarding any agenda on my part, and I would much prefer not to be inadvertently drawn into the vortex of those dynamics. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of I Am Carlos

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is I Am Carlos. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am Carlos. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorsed. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2010

AfD nomination of Savannah Outen

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Savannah Outen. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savannah Outen. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Endorsed. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Young Artist Award

Would you care to help me sort through these news hits? There seems to be all sorts of "young artist awards" around the world that are not connected to this article. Or what might you think about an article on the Hollywood Young Artists Foundation that the YAA article might be merged to? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a good bit of searching before nominating the article and found nothing. Not "almost nothing". Nothing. If you think you can find reliable sources with substantial coverage of this apparently non-notable award, I stand ready to be impressed. As for merging it into a proposed Young Artists Foundation article, I really can't see what would be merged, as none of it is independently sourced, making all of it trivia, in my mind. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... as even the various RS I have found only mention the receiving of something called a "young artist award" and then go on to deal with the various recipients and not the background or history of any of the particular young artist awards. How about an article with the same name but a different foucus? There are various "young artists awards" all over the world, recognizing young artists in all different genre... music, stage, writing, or acting... created by different groups for different reasons in different US cities and in other countries. Or would a definition of what comprises a "young artists award" be better in wiktionary? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For an article on Young artist awards, you'll need reliable sources discussing the concept of young artist awards, showing that the idea of young artist awards is notable. For example, we might propose an article called Red foods. We certainly have reliable sources discussing tomatoes, cherries, red licorice, raw beef, etc. But we do not have an article Red foods because, presumably, we don't have significant coverage about the idea "red foods" to merit an article. I'm not an expert on Wikitionary, but I would assume you would need sources defining what "young artist awards" are, rather than articles mentioning various awards for artists who are young. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes... and avoiding any OR in the bargain. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Victor Lindlahr

Hello SummerPhD, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Victor Lindlahr has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(contest deletion - contrary to the rationale given, hundreds of reliable sources are found by basic searches)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike Watt

I saw an old message of yours (May 2009)on the talk page of the Mike Watt article--you may recall that the prime contributor to that article called you "fuckface." ;) One way or another I ran into that article and started to remove trivia and unverified claims of relevance and grandiosity, and I'm kind of expecting a lashing-out from that same editor. I guess this is an invitation to watch the fireworks, although it may, of course, be a disappointment. Either way, I was pleased to see that I wasn't the only one who had problems with any kind of claim to "encyclopedicness" in regards to that article. All the best, Drmies (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Gackt Singles

Next time you decide to go on a deletion rampage, make sure what you're deleting is really not notable. In regards to the many singles by Gackt that you redirected to the albums they're in, this can be done with a very simple and quick search. For future reference, here is Gackt's discography on Oricon, Japan's national music chart, with charting information for every single. Sorafune +1 01:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Donna Douglas

Your'e absolutely sure that she didn't have an off screen romance with elvis? as soon as i find an online source that matches the countless books that talk about it, it will go back up and you will not delete it...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfbinc (talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit? I did not say I was "absolutely sure" of anything. I said Douglas is a living person and a controversial claim would need a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP unsourced tag is for actually unsourced articles

I noticed you added BLP unsourced tag in this edit. I removed it. The BLP unsourced issue is a huge enough issue for Wikipedia without adding articles that have a source, such as the IMDB link in this one, to the apparent size of the issue. An external link can be a source. Probably there are other tags which you could add instead, to call for in-line referencing. But there is a source in the article. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical info. The article is unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a different point to make that IMDB is not reliable for some kinds of information. I do believe IMDB is regarded as acceptable for some purposes, by the way, but I don't want to quibble. It's not as bad as some "sources" which should outright be deleted from the articles (none present AFAIK in the David Tom article). In this article, the IMDB link is relevant, just not reliable for all that one might want it to be, and it would be wp:POINTY or otherwise bad to delete it altogether from the article. So, please, use a different tag addressing that. The BLP unsourced issue is about completely unsourced articles, and your tagging this one inflates the count of how big that issue is. I'll change the tag in this case to "BLP refimprove" and you can add tags about reliable sources if you wish. --doncram (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IMDb is certainly reliable for some writing credits. Everything else is user submitted, though I doubt you'd find many arguments against using it for roles in released films. The article was completely unsourced. Another editor, however, has since added one source, so the refimprove is now correct. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Two sources. :-) --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry: one source with substantial coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You're too kind - both are rather skimpy. :-) But they are WP:RS. --GRuban (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not re-add PROD to an article it has been previously removed from

Hi, You added back a prod to robosapien - rebooted. I had to remove it again because as per WP:PROD

"If anyone, including the article creator, removes a prod tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."

As it has been removed previously, This now needs to go to AFD if you feel it needs to be deleted. thanks -Tracer9999 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I've AfD'ed it now. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Help me!

{{helpme}} Re Kelly O'Donnell. I do not want to violate 3RR, but there is clear vandalism (personal attack) and a BLP issue. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of obvious vandalism is an exception to 3RR.  Chzz  ►  19:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:70.116.134.247; I added a final warning. I hope they will discuss it on Talk:Kelly O'Donnell. If they do persist in adding it, please report them on WP:AIV. I will also try to monitor it myself. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification; The following actions are (some of the) exceptions to the three-revert rule.

• Obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language.

• Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates Biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

From WP:3RR#Exceptions_to_3RR.

Incidentally, I like 'Ye Olde Rules'. If you haven't seen it before, I thought you might quite like the pic. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Please see Talk:Kelly O'Donnell#Controversy but please also note my comments on User_talk:70.116.134.247. Whilst personal attacks are absolutely not tolerated, I hope that we can get this back on track. Thanks for your cooperation in this.  Chzz  ►  20:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

wtf

When did i attack anyone?? STAT- Verse 04:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

[18] - SummerPhD (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to write a whole but i shortined the whole to hole and accidently didnt hit the space bar that resulted in ahole accident sorry if i accidenally hurt your feelings STAT- Verse 04:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Rob Pascoe

You removed my placement of Professor Rob Pascoe from Victoria University because he is non-notable. He is one of the very few professors at that insitution who is notable. He is listed in Who's Who in Australia 2006 with his Melbourne High School status clearly listed, together with a long list of achievements. I haven't got a copy of Who's Who in Australia published since as it's too expensive (I bought the 2006 edition secondhand for less than ten per cent of the new price). I'm sure Pascoe is in all current Who's Who in Australia editions. I agree most of the books listed written by Pascoe will not be cited much but he wrote a book about Australian historians in the 1980s that was considered a classic by the late and distinguished Professor Henry Mayer and he was the convenor of the panel of judges for the Grollo Ruzzene Foundation Prize for Writing about Italians in Australia about 2007.

Please don't be put off by the reputation of Victoria University. There is at least one person there who is notable and that is Pascoe. I am a bit prejudiced myself about that institution as a chapter of a book I wrote was cited in a published work by a PhD student at that institution and the credit was given to the editor. My name was not mentioned in the book, yet I did the work. I was told by the student's supervisor (a professor at VU) that that was how it's done. It is not. The author of the chapter is given credit for whatever he or she writes in the chapter. That is the calibre of academics at that place. I complained to the publisher who agreed with me and told me I would be given credit in a future reprint, which will never be done as the book probably sold less than 1000 copies.

Who's Who in Australia no longer lists automatically professors at Australian universities other than the leading ones as there are too many of them. Only professors considered notable (and I know that's a value judgment) are now listed.

Hope you will consider relisting Pascoe. I have met him but it was some years ago. I think he does have a good reputation. I wouldn't list most Victoria University professors. Just for the record I do not consider myself notable and I do not have an entry in Wikipedia, not would I ever be so silly as to write one (as some people do). I have never been in Who's Who in Australia either.

Carola56 (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not about my opinion of any particular institution, another publication's standards for notability, etc. This is about Wikipedia's standards. If Pascoe meets our standards for notability, establishing an article for him will demonstrate this fact (note the need for "significant coverage in independent reliable sources"). Passing that bar will allow us to consider him "notable" enough for inclusion, if we have a reliable source that states he attended Victoria University. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'll write an article about him when I get around to it. There are plenty of reliable sources about Pascoe that should meet WP quality requirements. I hope so anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carola56 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Carola56 (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Kwong Lee Dow

Kwong Lee Dow is a former Vice Chancellor of the University of Melbourne. I assume from your edits you are an American. The Vice Chancellor is effectively the CEO of an Australian University. The Chancellor is the titular head of the University and is normally an honorary appointment. It is very prestigious, of course.

I think former Vice Chancellor of one of Australia's top universities, the University of Melbourne, is very notable and Kwong Lee Dow ought to be included. It's the equivalent of saying a former CEO of GM is not notable. He is listed under Lee Dow, Kwong in Who's Who in Australia 2006.

You removed a third person as non-notable. I know nothing about that person so can't say whether your judgement is accurate or not in that case.

Carola56 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The way to show a person is notable is to establish an article about them, citing reliable sources. Once that's done, we can list them as a graduate of whatever school(s) by citing reliable sources. Failing that, we're listing a name next to a title in an article with no indication that the name matches the title or the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for the comments. Kwong Lee Dow should also meet the WP quality requirements. Also Who's Who in Australia is a quality publication, and no person can pay for entry in it. There are editorial guidelines as to notability before a person can be included. There are some Who's Who type publications where people can pay to be included, and I think WP has an article about one of these. I once received a questionnaire from the particular Who's Who organisation, but I ignored it as it was just an attempt to get me to pay for inclusion. Who's Who in America (in the same way as Who's Who in Australia) is I think a quality publication also, but I think WP would want another source of information about notability as well. Where people fill in the questionnaire themselves they sometimes overpromote themselves. Who's Who in Australia editors can usually pick this up but some get through. Thank you also for your professionalism.

Carola56 (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:King Edward VI Grammar School (Chelmsford)#The Edwardian, etc

You and I have both made similar edits to this article, which have been undone. Rather than edit-war with IPs, I've left a question for discussion on the talk page, which might interest you. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 16:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

yeah, but...

it had mores style with Godzilla in there. I even used the double brackets and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.145.33 (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your addition was absurd. Next time, rather than cleaning it up, I'll simply revert it. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoax

I only created the page because someone created the Skeleton Canyon treasure article, I assumed that if that article surived as long as it has without being deleted, why wouldn't another just like it be deleted?--Az81964444 (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Realize, of course, that you will now need to provide air-tight sources for absolutely everything you add. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Shawn johnson announced her comeback

I can't add it into the article, because it is semi-protected. but it needs to go in there somehow. that's why I mentioned it on the talk page. See here for a reference: http://www.whotv.com/news/who-story-shawn-johnson-london-2012-050410,0,771524.story (Also, please be a little more tolerant of flippancy in talk. Debating is better than cutting others comments.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.145.33 (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me here. Discuss the article on the article's talk page. (Also, given your absurd article edit, I saw little reason to take your "talk" comment seriously.) - SummerPhD (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I stopped by

to wish you good luck in your dealings with User:Az81964444, an editor who seems to have learned his research skills and ethics from Rush Limbaugh, who recently upon being confronted with an obvious . ... misquote of something supposedly said by President Obama replied, "I don't care if those quotes are made up. I know Obama thinks it. (reference upon request) However I am not going to say that. Instead, noticing all the stuff on your user and discussion pages about homeopathy and going to tell you about Norbu Rinchin my dog who fell off a cliff in Canada somewhere and broke her leg in 7 places. She was a Chow and took it pretty well until we took of the bandage. Then she saw her wound and freaked out. Every 3 minutes she would go into a hysterical panic for about 30 seconds, then would relax for 2 1/2 minutes then go off again. It was terrifying to behold and my wife and I were on an island alone with her. However Vi had, as she always has, her homeopathic first aid kit and found something for (among things) post-operation hysteria. We popped a couple of globs into Norbu and the panic attacks stopped immediately. However I am NOT inclined to do any editing at the article. What was your question again? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you had a point to make, you didn't. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been accused of being obscure when intending to be other things. my apologies. Carptrash (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Lien

Hi SummerPhD, could you please elaborate on the reason for removing the picture from Jennifer Lien. There is no better picture available. Why can this picture not be used? Please specify what exact part, of the page you link to, it violates. Taketa (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Nfcc#Policy, #1. Wikipedia regularly holds that images of living persons are replaceable. That is to say it is possible (though not necessarily easy) to take a photograph of the person that would serve the same purpose as the photo under consideration. If this article were about the character, it would not be possible to take a photo of her dressed as the character as the show is no longer in production (and was presumably filmed on a closed set). Were Ms Lien no longer living, it would again be impossible to photograph her. Specifically outlining this as an unacceptable use, see Wikipedia:NFC#UULP. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the further explanation, Taketa (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Need to Understand

Why is that every page I add something you or anyone else deem to have the need to overturn it? eddie5000 —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

Every edit I make typically includes an edit summary explaining the edit. Phil Lipof, for instance, was tagged for notability because of a lack of independent reliable sources with an edit summary of "notable?". Annie Wong has the same problem. This is not "overturning" anything, it is identifying problems with an article that need to be corrected.

I also changed numerous uses of the familiar "Phil" to the encyclopedic "Lipof" in Phil Lipof. This is in keeping with our Manual of Style.

If there are other edits I have made that you do not understand, feel free to ask. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

- Note: Please try to help make the these two site better with me eddie5000 —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

Both pages need reliable sources. To the extent they are found and added, there is no problem. If reliable sources are not added to the articles, deletion becomes an option. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Italian ice

Should this page be protected? There seems to be a lot of vandalism, and constant back-and-forth about facts without any sources. And as soon as a source is added, it gets deleted. Your thoughts? Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I got invovled with this problematic stub about a year ago. It was in pretty bad shape. Since then, there's been a good bit of back and forth, some spamming and a whole bunch of "this is what I know"-style editting. The stub still sucks out loud. It needs sourcing and a top-to-bottom rewrite. I don't think protecting it will solve anything, it will just prevent the creation of a rotten version in favor of the current rotten version.

Maybe I'll give it some attention and see what happens. Maybe you will. Let's see. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of problem I was talking about. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been through a few times (as I'm sure you can see). I don't think temporary semi-protection would stay up long enough for this one. Longer term protection doesn't seem to be worth it. That's just my opinion, though. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.A Sniper (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As explained in my [Scream Bloody Gore original edit summary] (of the edit you reverted without comment), "not in the source cited". That is to say, while there is a source "cited", it does not support the information it is cited for. So yes, the material I removed was not sourced (like I said) and no, I did not remove text without an edit summary (like you said). I leave that for a couple of days, market appropriately. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

death metal band demos afd mess

Thanks for figuring out what I had done there! It's indeed nowhere near my fields of interest or knowledge. DMacks (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

All Your Life

I did provide significant coverage in an independent reliable source. How many sources woudl you like? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I could be snarky and say something like, "Well, more than one would be nice" (which is true). The truth of the matter is I haven't had a chance to verify the one source you provided so I don't know how substantial that coverage is. The closest thing to a hard and fast rule is "substantial coverage in independent reliable sources" (not a lot of help there...). Essentially, if the source provided is A) independent and B) reliable, it will hinge on how substantial that coverage is. If it provides a fair amount of depth on the album, I would be comfortable with just one more source of similar reliability and depth (though 2 or 3 more would, of course, be better still). If the coverage is less substantial, we'll obviously need more. I'll let you know what I find if you don't address it before then. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Jamie Shannon

I know they were not in the article when you came accross it, but it seems the individual has received a Gemini Award win and two Gemini nominations. He meets WP:ANYBIO. I'll get on some cleanup and sourcing later this evening. Best --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Did some expansion and sourcing. I feel that the his participation as creator and puppet master in multiple notable projects meets WP:ENT, his awards and nominations meet WP:BIO, and the significant coverage of him in multiple reliable sources meet WP:GNG. Lots more available for further improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Schuldiner

Good call on that Schuldiner edit. I could find no source for the Hoglan quote and he doesn't recall ever saying it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When did Hoglan say that? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Hello, you noticed that I mentioned your name at a different user's (ASniper's) talk page, and kudos for noticing so quickly. Sorry if you saw it as a personal attack but I see it as a description of your very obvious philosophy at various controversial AfD's. So be it. I'll edit the post in question. I was trying to advise a volunteer editor (like you and me) on how to handle a difficult task. But do your research on other users. I've been a constantly active editor here for three years and don't need to be introduced to the Welcome page or rules on so-called personal attacks. Pointing me to those pages could very well be an example of the attitude I was talking about in that post with ASniper, but I'll assume you weren't trying to be condescending. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just crazy enough to see being called "inflexible, humorless, and condescending" as an attack. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Seddie

I agree. -- Confession0791 (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

David Sanger (organist)

SummerPHD ... why do you insist on publishing the controversial about David Sanger instead of elaborating on his accomplishments? ...BellVideo

I "insist on publishing" encyclopedic information about Sanger, including the "four counts of indecent assault and four of gross indecency, all against a boy under the age of 16" and his sudden death immediately after facing court on those charges. This is an encyclopedia. We report significant verifiable information -- the good, the bad and the ugly. You'll also want to review my last edit to the article, adding to the list of Sanger's accomplishments. I am here neither to bury Sanger nor to praise him. I'm merely here to report on him. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

IMDb

Alpha and Omega is listed on IMDb, but thanks for caring.andycjp (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. (And it certainly isn't "substantial coverage in independent reliable sources".) Incidentally, edit summaries help explain your reasoning before we get to discussing it on talk pages. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Gay labels

I wasn't sure if your comment posted on WhatGuy's talk page was an admonishment to me about my query or to him about the original post. Can you clarify for me? I hope I've not done anything wrong or broken any rules. That wasn't my intention at all.86.135.214.70 (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the note I placed on his page relates to a different article. It was placed using a semi-automatic system that did not place a heading between your discussion and my note. I've adjusted the note. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My Edits

I believe that I have been civil to you. I was curious how fast you would troll through edit memos and see what I wrote, and sure enough you've attacked me and my edits with no more proof than the memo. Must this continue? I haven't attacked you - I've even conceded there was not enough material out there to sustain the Infernal Live page. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you had previously comment that one of the members of the band said he didn't remember saying something in an edit I removed. This raised the concern that you had a possible conflict of interest in editing articles related to the band. This is not an "attack" on you, this is about our core principles: neutral presentation of verifiable information on notable subjects. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Many folks within the small death metal subgenre know each other. However, this does not reflect a lack of neutrality. I take every edit very seriously, and I certainly do not confine my editing to the subject of death metal. I apologize if in some way if have offended you or got your back up. I may certainly be guilty of a breach of Wiki etiquette, but I still stand by my edits and concern about neutrality. By the way, I believe I have supported some of your edits, and just now cleaned up the header for the Mutilation demo. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies—Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability—when editing in that area."Wikipedia:Coi#Close_relationships - SummerPhD (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for placing that misleading memo in an effort to bait. As for neutrality, I strive to be neutral in all my edits, and to always find suitable secondary source material for each one. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you are not the "successor-in-interest to Charles M. Schuldiner"? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that thing to see how long it would take for you to attack. I knew the article itself was deleted, and therefore nobody would be paying attention to the orphaned photo page, other than you. It was wrong of me and I'm sorry. I had convinced myself that you were trolling these sites as a deletionist, and that was very bad faith on my part. I can see thaht your edits have all had the best interest of the articles in mind, and I hope my subsequent edits bolster this. A Sniper (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Admitting to the bad faith editing on this issue does not remove the COI concern. We still have your claim of personal conversations with Hoglan. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There should be no COI re: Hoglan. I, like many metal folks, have the ability to contact him and ask him questions. Hoglan was an employee and paid musician, and not a member. He has had nothing whatsoever to do with Death since leaving their employ after album number six, and was involved with Death for only two years out of sixteen years. So where is the COI? Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"So where is the COI?" For openers: "I...have the ability to contact him and ask questions." I am not in personal contact with any individual who is the subject of an article I edit. I have collegues with articles, my employer and funders have articles. I do not -- will not -- edit them, as I recognize the potential COI. In theory, if I noticed a glaring omission, I would be comfortable with stating my connection to the subject, stating my case on the talk page and letting it go. Nothing more. (I invite you to have a look at my edits and try to guess the field I work in, my employer or anyone funding projects I am invovled in.) As for what Hoglan has to do with it, he is, in part, the subject of the article. He's being quoted in the article now, with quotes of dubious provenance placed on his lips to create credibility. The band's reputation -- good, bad or indifferent -- reflects in part on him. You are too close to the subject. Additionally, you've had a tendancy to edit hastily and regret your edits: lying outright about ownership of an image and a relationship to a public figure, attacking me then declaring it wan't meant to be an attack, etc. Your feelings are getting in the way of your edits. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would remind you that the Wiki community is made up of all kinds of editors. I would also mention that, in the instance of the Hoglan quote, my purpose was to bolster that the quote was not sourced - my edit remark did not influence an addition to Wikipedia but an omission of something without reference. In fact, if there are quotes from Hoglan of dubious provenance, they certainly haven't been added by me and should be edited out. I am not too close to the subject, and simply do not agree with you. Folks with knowledge are encouraged on the one hand to contribute in areas they know about (which is mentioned on my user page), but being ever mindful of the issue of neutrality, which I always strive for. However, I am not challenging you personally and wish you well. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I nominated 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up for AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Phoenixville, Pennsylvania

Hi. I had removed obvious vandalism in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, which you reverted. Why are you talking about maintaining the policy of verifiability, when you keep the unsourced vandalism? Csigabi (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. We have a simple crossing of wires here. When I looked at the article, the difference from my last edit was the addition of "Now phoenixville is being takin over by gang violance." Obvious vandalism. I hit revert. This undid your edit to the article. Unfortunatly, your edit was not the vandalism, but reverting half of the vandalism by IP 72.94.255.138. I'm fixing the article now. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Therion demo albums

While it does not seem that the article contains any information not already found on the Therion website, may I humbly ask you to consider if you can find a way to salvage its contents; for example, by moving it to a subpage of the Therion talk page, transwikiing it, moving it to a user subpage, or integrating it into another article (perhaps Of Darkness...). Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't personally help you. However, it sounds like you'd like to "userfy" the page: have it moved to a sub-page of your user page right before it is deleted. I'd suggest adding: "{{helpme}}" (without the quotes) to your talk page along with that request, asking an admin to assist. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Stonyfield

Can you please explain to me in more detail why you deleted my link?

I do not believe you are right to delete my link in the name of good faith. My website is not intended to harm the company in anyway but to keep a record and stand as a public service to consumers in hope that they become more aware of the possible dangers that may be lurking in their food. My website does nothing to attack Stonyfield, and is written completely without malice, but instead, it is a factual account of an unfavorable incident that I believe should be public knowledge.

I believe my website complies with all of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the link is appropriate.:

Stacyfeldman89 (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your personal web page falls under Wikipedia:Elno#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #11: "Links normally to be avoided...Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites". Your one-time, personal experience (which, based on the info on your site, seems to have little to do with Stonyfield) is no more relevant that someone saying "omg! stoniefield r best evr!" or "i h8 stonyfeeld". - SummerPhD (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the fact that two editors disagree with your link does not support your case.[19][20] - SummerPhD (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Book is not poorly sourced.

You don't really have a PhD do you?98.198.136.216 (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog, a PhD, Katie Couric's assistant or a lawyer. We can tell, however, when someone is a currently blocked annonymous editor using several identities. But back to the point.

As my edit summary made clear, I was not talking about the book. I was talking about the headline of the article on the website that misrepresents the book. Your addition relied on a headline. The headline said what you need it to say. However, the article does not present material supporting the claim that the book said that. You should also note, of course, that several other editors disagree with your interpretation. Take the hint and discuss the edit before restoring it again, once your block from this time around ends.

Alternatly, you may either present the argument that the website is a relaible source (it isn't) or pull quotes directly from the book and argue that the book is a reliable source. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Capriotti's

Hi. I am and independent writer who created the Capriotti's page. I have no stock in this company. Can you either make the changes to the Capriotti's page or tell me exactly what needs to be done, because every time I look, there is something new that you've flagged. Let's just fix this so I can be done. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.177.26 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The other guys movie release date

Hi, you reverted my edits for the release date of the other guys and re-tagged it with citation needed, mentioning Imdb as not a reliable source. I just wanted to point out that I had referenced 3 sources, 2 others in addition to Imdb.com, I understand the need for reliable sources but a movie's release date should not be this disputed. you can take a look at the movie's official site here, [21], the yahoo page for that movie here [22], release date according to comingsoon.net here [23], release date according to box office mojo here [24]and according to the movie insider here [25]. All the pages I listed above unanimously list the release date as August 6th, and the list above is not exhaustive. I am going to add the official site and one other source for the release date if that's alright, do let me know if that's acceptable. Thank you.--Theo10011 (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. The official site is plenty. Anything beyond that is overkill. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

macadam

Yes, you are correct. It was macadam, and various people insisted it was asphalt, and that no one would know what macadam was. Incredibly, this was a topic of contention during one of the reviews. I finally gave up. :) auntieruth (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It confuses people a whole lot. Airport runways are called "tarmac" and blacktop on playgrounds are called "macadam" though both are asphalt pavement. <badjoke>Similarly, we drive on the parkway and park on the driveway.</badjoke> - SummerPhD (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Rapture Ready

I left a comment for you at the Rapture Ready's talk page. Thank you. Kindly refer to that.Geiremann (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)