User talk:SummerPhD

Incidents, accidents, hints, allegations and things left unsaid

1) Questions you ask here will be answered here.

2) Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things: ~~~~

3) This is no number 3.

4) 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 should be blocked.

4a) You do not have a First Amendment right to edit Wikipedia.

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 blog/myspace/youtube/sign on a telephone pole you read is not a reliable, verifiable source.

7) You are free to assume I am stupid, lazy or "out to get you". We probably just disagree.

8) Personal attacks are a blockable offense. Sometimes the block is even enforced.

10) Try not to be a low to moderate level dick. If you must be offensive and/or boorish, please go for the gold.

Berklee Alisa Edit

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

~usmarinesjz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmarinesjz (talk • contribs) 17:00, September 18, 2012‎

Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 07:41, June 29, 2013‎

Ancient astronauts

See Talk:Ancient astronauts#Nation of Islam - you may wish to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 13:04, July 5, 2013‎

talkback

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybec (talk • contribs) 01:06, October 16, 2013‎

Barbie Cancelled Film

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

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

• The Sleeping Beauty (ballet)#Trademark controversy
• Aurora (Disney)#Trademark.

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

Why the deletion in Horse-ripping?

You recently deleted my addition of the category Animal Welfare on the Horse-ripping article. Your edit summary does not make sense to me. Please could you explain.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edit added Category:Animal welfare to an article that is already in Category:Equine welfare. "Animal welfare" is a parent category relative to "Equine welfare": the equine category is in the animal category (because any article about equine welfare is about a form of animal welfare). In effect, all the equine articles are in the animal category. It's explained in detail at WP:SUBCAT. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Citizenship spammer

I noticed you'd reverted a spammer on Citizenship in the United States. It looks like all of their edits were to spam the same site, sometimes using the deadlink seo technique. I went ahead and reported them to AIV as a spammer. Yeah, they'll create a new account but at least it slows them down slightly. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like their first time through. It took four edits the get the first addition right and their domain isn't otherwise on Wikipedia. I'll check them a few more times in the future, but they might be done. Fingers crossed, I guess. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

Did you mean to do this? We now have archives consisting of one post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Cleanup_in_aisle_1 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Laconia incident

I do not understand why you reverted my edit on the talk page.

My comment was directly relevant to whether this constitutes a war crime.

Certainly the comments regarding Hartenstein's intentions have nothing to do with the event being a war crime, yet those comments remain. Jokem (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are entirely your opinion on whether or not it was a war crime or should be a war crime. Your opinion on the matter is entirely irrelevant to the article. The article will never include a section that says, "Wikipedia editer Jokem believes this was a war crime." If you wish to discuss whether or not there was a war crime or what should be considered a war crime, you will need to find a forum to do so. Wikipedia is not a forum.

Discussion on that talk page should be restricted to efforts to improve the article. What do reliable sources have to say? Should we include that material? Is there anything in the article that lacks a reliable source? Is there material that misrepresents what the cited sources say? Are there sources in the article that are not reliable?

Adding your personal opinion about the topic (in the middle of another user's comment, incidentally) is not helpful in that regard. It's also worth noting that you were replying to a comment from a decade ago.

MANY of your comments seem to be aimed at simply discussing the topic. This needs to stop. If you would like to discuss how great the German 88mm gun was, whether or not you feel the action in a movie was scientifically accurate, whether or not a planet in a science fiction novel is believable or any other opinions you have on any other topic simply do not belong on article talk pages. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I note even less relevant comments by others are left as is by you. So I conclude my comments are being given undue attention.

I didn't know there was a rule about replying to a comment made a decade ago. How long does a comment have to be idle until it is forbidden to reply to?

Many of my 'opinions' as you state them are presented as questions, so I conclude one is not permitted to ask questions regarding improvement of the article.

I did not know adding a comment in the middle of anothers comment was forbidden either.

My comment about how 'great' the 88mm gun was had to do with when it was first used as an AT Gun by Germany, NOT, in fact how great it was. Or at the very least, how great it was is incidental. A reference was presented.

The comments about the science of Gor's atmosphere is common scientific knowledge. How obscure does the science have to be before it needs citations? Jokem (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If you feel there are other inappropriate comments, feel free to address them.

Adding comments in the middle of another user's comment is specifically discussed at WP:TALK. Trying to revive an off-topic discussion from 10 years prior is pointless.

You did not ask questions about improving the article, you asked about the topic.

How obscure does the science have to be? Immaterial. For an article to discuss how, for example, Superman can fly, we would need independent reliable sources discussing it. As an example, we have such sources discussing some scientific problems in Gravity. The article does not have various editors speculating about problems they think they have identified. The talk page is not for such speculation either. If Jodie Foster's character sat down on the outside of the ISS, removed her helmet and ate a pastrami on rye sandwich in the near vacuum of space with no ill effects, the article might mention her doing this in the plot section, if it was significant to the plot. The article would not, however, discuss that this would surely be fatal and that she couldn't really sit "down" in microgravity -- UNLESS independent reliable sources discussed it.

There are tens of thousands of Internet forums around where you can discuss virtually anything you can imagine. If you want to discuss the physics in bad sci fi movies from the 1950s or the clothing worn by a character in an obscure kids TV series or pretty much anything, there are sites for that. Wikipedia is not one of them. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for all the time you have invested in maintaining our encyclopedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 23:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

?

Summer, I was going to come here and accuse you of being a shill, a tool or part of some conspiracy, but after reading your talk page apparently I don't have to. I'm not the only one who considers such possibilities. Of course it makes more sense to accuse you of being a shill because I refuse to believe that someone of your intelligence could be so ignorant. So there it is. 75.82.68.41 (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi there, @75.82.68.41:! Careful friend, we don't tolerate personal attacks here. If you have a legitimate beef, you should be capable of expressing it without resorting to ad hominem or building up some unfounded conspiracy accusations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I expressed myself exactly as I intended. In fact, I tempered my words. If you would like to ban my IP, please do so immediately. Otherwise, mind your fucking business.75.82.68.41 (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I give up: Who or what am I shilling for this time? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The international cantaloupe conspiracy. 75.82.68.41 (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I maintain my position that scientists reporting on deaths attributable to cantaloupes are all merely falling in line with the hegemony to protect their funding. The UN's so-called "Intergovernmental Panel on Cantaloupe Change" is a corrupted body designed by the Illuminati to allow the United States to nationalize the melon production industry. That my studies are entirely funded by the Cabal of Almond, Nectarine and Cantaloupe Entrepreneurs and Restaurateurs (CANCER) does not in any way imply that I am biased. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask the obvious question. What's a shill? 213.83.127.252 (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC) WT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.127.252 (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone paid to act as if they are a fan of a product or service to convince others to buy it. Suppose I wrote a really book and wanted to boost sales. If I pay people to write enthusiastic reviews online while pretending to be just random people who read the book, those people would be shills. (I have no idea what the IP editor was talking about.) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it's not a word we use in England. For the record, I think it's pretty clear you're not a shill! Don't let the buggers grind you down, you're doing a great job. 79.64.142.98 (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)WT

If she's not a shill then she's something much worse, a true believer. Some of the worst problems in this world were created by people believing they were doing the right thing. 75.82.68.41 (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you OK? Do you want a hug? - WT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.127.252 (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm far worse than a mere "true believer". I am the architect of lies about, um, whatever it is, I'm sure. In the forthcoming final battle between the forces of good and evil, I will surely be unmasked as the lesbian space pope of darkness and cast into the pit of eternal darkness. Until then, we have anonymous editors making pointlessly vague accusations on a Wikipedia talk page; fighting the good fight for the truth. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The UPN Vandal

SummerPhD, is it possible for you to make a WP:LTA page for the UPN vandal? I would do it myself, but I'm uncertain about the whole thing. Is he even still active? Does he even qualify for LTA? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 14:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations

As you submitted the first instance of this case some years ago, I thought you'd be interested in the second, as it involves identical characteristics. Pax 04:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Kristin Davis Birth Date

Hello SummerPhD, I am new to this editing, but my reliable source for Kristin Davis' Birth Date is from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004862/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phade7 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, IMDb is not a reliable source. While they do "review" user submissions, they are vague as to what that review entails. Wikipedia requires sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, especially in regards to material about living persons. For more details, please see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, nope

Well first of all, the material quoted her as avowing that "She did not learn how to vote until [some late date]" (emphasis added). Learning the actual mechanics of how to vote is very easy for persons of normal intelligence, so although she may have said "learn how" she doubtless meant "bother to even learn how" -- that is, she was either busy or uninterested or just not in the habit, rather than of sub-normal intelligence. Implying otherwise is uncalled for, and that's what the quote does.

Second of all, whatever the material is intended to show -- that's she's stupid, or a hypocrite, or a dilettante, or or otherwise unworthy to engage in political discourse -- I'd want a very good source, or very good multiple sources, indicating that. A deal link to Brietbart doesn't cut it for a BLP. Herostratus (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Kids in America

I see that you reverted my disambiguation of [[New Wave]] to [[New wave music|New Wave]] with the edit summary of Trivial use. Was your intent to revert whole sentence? -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 03:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I've fixed it. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Meek Mill

I do remember saying I would help reflect the changes to other pages, which is why I did just that with: Wale discography, Don Logan discography, Maybach Music Group, Action Bronson discography, Ludacris discography, and many more pages. All of those pages reflect your pointless changes, which is why when I tell you that you're taking things too far (again), you should try actually listening to me for once instead of ignoring any opinion that isn't your own. You constantly police Meek Mill pages with no concern of the inconsistency you're causing for all the other coinciding pages within the genre. You're adding "scheduled" to something that doesn't even say released in the first place! The only contribution you're making is confusing readers who might be interested in reading about rappers other than the single one you've chose to police! You say that that specific section needs to say scheduled, even though nobody is even saying that it was released! It's overkill, it's inconsistent and it's rude to readers. I had much more to say but I'm starting to realize that regardless of what I say you're going to ignore it and continue to do whatever you please.

Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Please stop making personal attacks. Please sign your talk page entries. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

STOP WRITING ON MY TALK PAGE

You have made 4 unanswered posts on my talk page in the last 30 minutes, none of which were relevant. You're bullying will not be tolerated and shall you decide to continue, will be reported.

When you always delete all comments to your talk page, it ceases to mean anything. When you make personal attacks, revert edits without discussion, etc., escalating warnings are to be expected. If you continue the behavior discussed in the warnings, the next step is to have you blocked from editing, as happened with your previous edit warring. You will not find a standard warning for giving editors standard warnings. Here's a list, feel free to dig through it: WP:WARN.

If you would like to stop receiving warnings for personal attacks, you will need to stop making personal attacks. The same applies to warnings for edit warring, not signing talk page comments, marking substantial edits as minor, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your hard work Defending the Wiki from the vandals, I award you this barnstar. It was never work that appealed to me, really, so it's good to have you on team serious business. Have some fun sometimes too though. ResMar 02:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Miranda Lambert Link

Hi SummerPhD, As an avid country music fan, I believe that the http://countryfancast.com/country-artist-news/miranda-lambert/ external link provides a great resource for all things Miranda Lambert. From her bio to her social media presence to her tour schedule. I don't feel that this is any different from the external links leading back to Billboard and the Internet Movie Database. Really, this link is a valuable resource. Please leave it up. Best, Snetemeyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by SNetemeyer (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am aware that you are promoting the site for Miranda Lambert. And Chris Young. Oh, and Chase Rice, Casey James, Garth Brooks and Brad Paisley. Your site, however, fails WP:ELNO. It is an unofficial fan site, not a reliable source. Just to be sure it doesn't accidentally show up...[1] Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you 2 stop the edit war?

on the Bechdel Test page. Take it to the talk page and work it out there. I'll be saying the same thing to NJM. Tamtrible (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think your "edit war" trigger might be a bit too sensitive. Two reverts two days ago with edit summaries and substantial talk page discussion immediately after the second revert is hardly an edit war. A third opinion seemingly resolving the issue is already on the talk page as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

fyi

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I give up, EEng. Why am I being notified of this? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was notifying you because you commented at the last AfD long ago. However, it doesn't look like you did, so I have no idea how I ended up here on yr page. Never mind! EEng (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Is KCParent a reliable source?

It's not a blog. 108.47.207.75 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that WordGirl's original target was South Park? 108.47.207.75 (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, shoot, that was actually Pucca! Anyways, the "Whoa - a dog from the old days! That dog is probably dead now" quote from Two Brains Quartet sounds like black comedy. Even TVTropes knows! 108.47.207.75 (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"Only a family of imbeciles has a television." - Tobey

"Whoa, we're not imbeciles!" - Becky

"And how would you know?" - Tobey

"Imbecile is another word for idiot. We're not idiots. We only watch PBS." - Becky

"Hmm, interesting... someone my age who actually has a brain in her head." - Tobey

"Thanks. I think." - Becky

^^ Sounds derogatory to most parents, right? Maybe black comedy? 108.47.207.75 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The blog, written by a teen blogger, is a blog. Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. w^{L<speak·check>} 06:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurauth (talk • contribs) 19:28, March 8, 2015‎}}

Maurauth: Please be sure to use {{subst:uw-3rr}} next time and sign your talk page comments by end them with ~~~~. It makes it a lot easier for all involved.

Thanks, of course, for the warning. I stopped at my third revert and am awaiting confirmation from AI/V on your apparent vandalism before reverting further. Now would be a good time to provide reliable sources for your "Big guy" and "Little guy" nicknames, as well as the direct quote of "bigger guy, for you" in place of the reliably sourced info you are replacing. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Maurauth has been indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Miranda Lambert Reference Links

Hi SummerPhD,

I added a link about the Miranda Lambert-Rams Truck partnership detailing the campaign plans, the current video, etc. I'm not seeing why it's spam or not welcome. I thought it gave a great update since the other source was older on the topic. Music Row, Taste of Country, CMT, The Boot, etc. have reference links all over the place. Not seeing why Country Fancast is being excluded. Can you shed some light on this or give me tips on how to better adhere to what you're looking for? Thanks! ~ Snetemeyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B35A:3BD0:CC68:17CE:401E:B401 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE sign in when you edit. As discussed with your edits as SNetemeyer, your website is not a reliable source, it is an unofficial fan site, specifically excluded at WP:SPS. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi SummerPhD,

Is there a way I can prove out that Country Fancast is a country music news site (like The Boot, Taste of Country etc.) to you? Country Fancast is owned and ran by the media company MobSoc Media. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, etc. and am trying to learn more. Thanks! SNetemeyer (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC) edits as SNetemeyer

Well, you have an uphill battle, to be sure. First of all, it is clear you are an involved editor. Your first edits to Wikipedia were adding the same site as a link across a half-dozen articles. Failing that, you decided to try the site as a source. Failing that, you want to know how you can prove the site meets our criteria. You seem to be here to promote the website, not build an encyclopedia.

Next, we have the site itself. On the surface, we have obvious problems. The most recent link you used[2] is apparently a press release, clearly not an independent reliable source. Going directly to http://countryfancast.com/miranda-lambert took me to an article that certainly reads like a fan site. Well, let's check the author[3]: "Sarah Netemeyer - Sarah takes deep interest in pop culture, societal trends, and Chinese food. Mindy Kaling is her imaginary best friend and mentor. She can often be found politely ignoring people while reading a book or passionately discussing 'Game of Thrones' theories." It isn't The New York Times. Heck, it isn't Entertainment Weekly. It's a fansite.

Here's the meat of the matter: For external links, your site "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." The link you added is "mainly intended to promote a website". It fits numerous criteria at WP:ELNO and should not be listed as an external link.

As a source: Is it an "independent reliable source"? Well, press releases are certainly not independent. We can't really use them for much of anything beyond very basic information and we don't need to link to a fansite to find them. This leaves us with the articles. My golden rule is that reliable sources rarely use exclamation points. At the moment, your site's main page has four headlines I can see without scrolling (a rough approximation of "above the fold"). All four have exclamation points. One ends in two ("YOU Gave Brad Paisley a YouTube Award!!") Why is this the hallmark of a fansite? Because fansites are not designed to tell you everything meaningful, they are designed to tell you that "your" celebrity is the greatest person alive. We don't get new albums, award nominations and promotional fluff ("Joe Blow gives back to the community by spending an hour at a hospital shaking hands and posing for pictures") mixed with drunk driving arrests, tax problems, artists dropped by labels and tours cancelled due to poor ticket sales. Instead, it's all good news. GREAT new!! ("Garth Brooks Talks About His Next Album!" is one step away from "Carrie Underwood Had Corn Flakes for Breakfast!") While it's fine for fans to read about "Carrie Underwood's Baby Name Dilemma" or whatever, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, based on independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

IP editor removing sources at Stormbreaker (film)

What are we supposed to do about that IP editor? I'm going to request page protection on Stormbreaker (film), but I'm a bit worried that any concerns about removing sources will just be ignored again at ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I would try to address the problematic editor before protecting the article. Last I saw, I had given them a final warning for removing reliable sources without discussion or meaningful explanation. The next step would be a brief block to get their attention, followed by longer blocks as needed. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that it will be resolved at AIV, as I've seen a few similar reports declined there recently. I guess I can ask Tokygirl79 for advice. She seems to have come out of hibernation. Maybe she'll have an idea of what to do next or if a block is warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello Summerphd

Thank you for your work on the Manic Pixie Dream Boy topic although I totally disagree with you ;)

I suppose de gustibus non est disputandum.

Anyway: I started a new talk about the subject and I would greatly appreciate your contribution, because frankly I don't understand why you just deleted my entire contribution. I would understand though if it was because it was a bit meagre on the footnote, but then you could have pointed out...

ciao

Dddorian grey (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"The trouble with a kitten is that eventually it becomes a cat." - Ogden Nash

Thanks for the sentence improvement, and an edit question

Hi. Thanks for your recent edit at junk food; "gorges" definitely improves the encyclopedic tone. I have a question about the removal of the word "organic" to describe a healthy food lifestyle in 1976. In your edit summary, you say, '"organic" in 1976 is not "organic" in 2015 (VERY different)' - I'm not clear as to that difference? To my understanding, the most visible distinction of "organic" in regard to food (based around the use of man-made, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides), as used in the song lyrics, has been essentially the same for several decades.

Popularly, Rodale had been publishing an organic gardening magazine and books at least since the 1950s, and the whole pesticide concern was blown up with the publication of Silent Spring in the early 1960s. I found this handy University of California Timeline: Cultivating a Movement, An Oral History Series on Organic Farming and Sustainable Agriculture on California's Central Coast which seems to illustrate the point: the first US organic certification programs were launched, in Vermont and California, in 1971, and so forth. I'm naturally curious as to your distinction! Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the song mentions "organic cooking" once, but is mostly focused on a healthy food/junk food dichotomy. Today, we have restaurants specializing in all organic food, serving nothing but burgers, fries and milk shakes. Really.

"Organic" in the U.S. in the 1970s meant different things to different people, ranging from the early, local certification standards that were forerunners of the current, national standard to Anthroposophy-based ideas and biodynamic agriculture. (My personal recollections from the '70s involve a neighbor whose "organic" philosophy was based on "unity" with the "brown peoples of the world" (expressed through brown rice, brown bread and brown eggs) and some gardening practices based on "wholeness".) Rather than possibly give a wring idea here, I think leaving out the word "organic" sidesteps the possible issue. YMMV and I welcome discussion. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoned reply! I'm not arguing for restoring the word "organic" at this point; however, since you welcome discusssion, purely for conversation's sake, the reasoning behind your intention to avoid misrepresenting what organic may have meant "then" to readers familiar with the "organic" of today doesn't seem that solid.

For one, our perception of junk food is equally different today, in the 1970s, it hadn't been widely demonized, even outlawed, it wasn't yet associated with health...pandemics, and so forth. But we mention Twinkies and KFC because they illustrate the timeline and establish a historical connection with the essentially same products that exist today. In the same way, while a uniform concept of organic food was, as you say, probably not pervasive, it was still easily understood from the well-publicized basics, the no nasty chemicals, natural foodie/health food, purist/elitist, and back-to-the-land/hippie connotations, which is essentially what many people still think of organic today. (And I'm sure we can still find a few folks in solidarity with "brown peoples" as their primary organic-eating lifestyle; I think that's sometimes called fair trade.)

The other and possibly more interesting aspect is speculation that "Junk Food Junkie," a low-quality recording of a novelty song poking fun at foodie health food nuts, in fact became a hit because it marked a fundamental shift in American food awareness, the tipping point, the point in time when the idea first hit the collective consciousness that there might be an organized business force, concertedly trying to make us eat more of their high-profit food-like products at any cost, simply in order to make money. For that reason, using more evocative, resonant terms, like "organic diet," "natural diet," or "health food diet," instead of the very vanilla "healthy diet," would more accurately represent the dichotomy as it was at the time both intended and actually being perceived.

I do get your point, though. Carefully considering the lyrics, while all of the healthful food references seem completely up-to-date, the hippie/natural foodie references, although also consistent with our 21st century neo-hippies and sustainable foodies, suggest that the caricature of the Mr. Natural the songwriter has in mind may be quite different from the "average" foodie at the farmers' market today. Although I'm sure better historical research would quickly decide the whole thing.

Anyhow...I'm a lateral thinker, not a deep one, so that's really all I've got. But if you reply, I will read it with interest... :) --Tsavage (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Reading this just now reminded me of our (kinda lopsided) discussion here. From this account, it would seem that by 1976, the idea of organic food was well in the mainstream public eye, and referred to what seems pretty much like the organic food we talk about today. From Green Culture: An A-to-Z Guide, p. 334 (with my emphasis):

"Several mainstream publications of the 1970s alerted the general public to the effects of industrial food on the nation’s health, particularly degenerative diseases. Leading titles include Consumer Beware! Your Food and What’s Been Done to It (1970) by Beatrice Hunter, James Tumer’s The Chemical Feast ( 1970), Gene Marine’s Food Pollution: The Violation of Our Inner Ecology (1971), and Diet for a Small Planet (1971) by Frances Moore Lappé, which uniquely linked diet not only to health but to ecological and social justice concerns as well.

"Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, growing consumer demand led to increasing numbers of farms claiming to produce organic foods. With the backing of scientific inquiry such as the work of biologist John Todd and the New Alchemy Institute beginning in 1969, organic foods were gaining a new respectability. The movement was presented by maintream media such as the New York Times and Newsweek with a new orthodoxy that challenged earlier counterculture associations. More health food and cooperative markets appeared in response to heightened public interest in organic and whole foods. Given an increasingly affluent, educated clientele, these markets began to look more like upscale, mainstream supermarkets.

"By the early 1970s, in California alone there were more than 300 health food stores and 22 restaurants selling organic foods. One of these was Alice Water’s Chez Panisse in Berkeley, which she founded on the premise of providing wholesome, fresh, locally produced (with later emphasis on organic) foods. Her work spurred the “California” style of cuisine, marked by fresh, whole, and local foods, that has since become popular throughout the United States."

I've actually been reading quite a bit about organics in the States back then, 1960s-70s, and it seems it really blew up from the start of the 1970s, not only organic food itself, but the idea of commercial organic farming. By 1971, Rodale estimated there were 10,000 organic farmers in the US; in 1975, the Sunday New York Times ran a front page story, "Organic Farms Found Efficient." Anyhow, in case you were interested! -Tsavage (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Necks and Beards

You're a neck-beard, right? Not and actual PhD, but some guy who spends a lot of time at home? Am I right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:9180:604:219:D1FF:FEA8:25F0 (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a personal attack? Please try again. This is neither much of an attack nor very personal. Yeah, sure, I'm a twenty-something hipster shut-in in Des Moines. Let's go with that. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct

Hello, at the risk of having you again bite off my head, I am respectfully requesting your help on the New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct article. This article actually lists "controversies" which have had no official finding of police misconduct, such as a lawsuit settlement, conviction, termination, or even so much as a suspension. Listing such frivolous cases detracts from the truly egregious cases that belong on the page. It seems that liberals are controlling the referenced aticle and unnecessarily damaging the reputation of the NYPD. Can you delete the "controversies" and only allow the major misconduct cases to remain?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I would highly recommend that you leave out discussion of who you think is doing what to the article and why in all talk page discussions. ("It seems that liberals are controlling the referenced aticle and unnecessarily damaging the reputation of the NYPD.") It is needlessly divisive and won't really help resolve the situation.

I'll take a look at the the article. I can't promise anything, of course. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll sit this one out. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Linda Fiorentino birthdate

She was born in 1958, not 1960. Imdb tends to be more of a reliable source than wikipedia. However, here is a reliable source for her actual birthday -

http://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Fiorentino

Thanks!

Ax 3/29/15 184.78.168.124 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

1960 is reliably sourced in our article. IMDb and fr.wikipedia are not reliable sources. Please address further questions on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Why?

SpongeBob and Arthur DID come before 2000 and they ARE still making episodes, yet you claim it as "unsourced"? B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T! 108.47.207.75 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they did start prior to 2000 and are still producing episodes. However, your edit also claimed that they are "animated sitcoms" and that they are two of the five most popular. I see nothing to indicate that this is the case. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

One category says they are sitcoms. 108.47.207.75 (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, unsourced categories say they are animated sitcoms. You added that they are "animated sitcoms" and that they are two of the five most popular. This is still unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

108.47.207.75 has been blocked for one month. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Saving Christmas

I am the cinematographer for the film under discussion. I wish to have my name permanently with held from the project, because I want nothing to do with it, and I would prefer to not have my name associated with it. What more can I do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypatch (talk • contribs) 04:17, April 2, 2015‎

You are about to be blocked for edit warring. You will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page once your block expires. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sofia the First music

Hi, I see you reverted my changes to the Sofia the First page. You mention that the edits are "unexplained and unlikely." They are unexplained because I am a new Wikipedia user and did not know I had to explain my changes. They are not "unlikely" since I am the music composer for the series. For verification, please visit my page at www.kevinkliesch.com, or visit my agent's website at www.soundtrk.com, or simply watch the credits of a Sofia the First episode. Mike Himelstein is another Disney composer, but not on Sofia the First. Richard M. Sherman was a famous Disney composer 50 years ago. John Kavanaugh should hold the title of songwriter and music director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Kliesch (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Bunga bunga

Do you have any evidence that this term is or has been used anywhere but Italy, or in discussing Berlusconi? deisenbe (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Per the source cited in the article:"Silvio—I call him Silvio and not daddy as he would like to be called—told me he'd copied that expression, bunga-bunga, from Gaddafi," Ruby told a reporter for La Repubblica newspaper referring to the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. "It's a rite of his African harem." - SummerPhD (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Rip Taylor

Thank you for the heads up about not filling out the edit feature on Rip Taylor's listing when I deleted a paragraph about Patty Duke and him on "Super Password". I just went back, removed the paragraph in question again, and filled out the edit feature as you advised. The reason I removed the paragraph in the first place was because I strongly felt when I read it that the incident described in the paragraph - which seemed to me to be the LONGEST paragraph in his biography - was of a truly minor, trivial incident that added absolutely nothing important or insightful about the individual's life. Genarians (talk)

Problematic Texas IP editor

Hey Summer, a brief note re your warning here. This user has been brought to ANI a couple of times [4][5] Nothing was done the first time, though (Solarra warned the user in the second case). The last time they were brought to ANI (by me) it didn't result in any sanction because other issues came up that required more pressing attention. I'm not quite sure what to do here; the user is problematic.

Typically what happens is they completely fall off my radar, and then like here I notice some edit warring with pissy edit summaries, (like here where they write "I don't know why you are continuously fighting over something but to be honest it's not worth fighting over it" as they reinstate the content they are fighting over.) Then I later notice that they're removing warnings from their talk page with more pissy summaries, and eventually it becomes clear, "Oh, it's that editor."

Since they didn't seem to get your warning and called your warning "foolish", I reminded them of BLPPRIVACY but my warning was predictably not well received. My feeling is that in due time I'll have to drag them to ANI again. I figured I'd at least share some of the backstory with you. :) Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Drop Bear - valid edits

Please debate your issues on the drop bear talk page before undoing my good faith edits. I have not vandalised the page, my initial edits did not change the facts, just slights restructured the first 2 para for my subsequent addition of references and further development of the article. You also undid well referenced subsequent additions. I also intent to further develop this article. So please do not vandalize my work. This is a valid topic for Australian popular culture. I am Australian, if you are not Australian, please do some research before taking action. (I'm sick of defenders of the wiki faith who react without due cause) Regards˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD not WP:BRRRRRD. Yes, "Australian culture" might want to "keep the surprise". This, however, is an encyclopedia. Yes, they are mentioned in a novel/movie/TV show/comic strip/knock-knock joke/etc. We do not list trivial occurrences in popular culture. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

Regarding SummerPhD's edit here:

The intro to the Ku Klux Klan article is very sanitized to the point of being inaccurate. Per WP:Bold, I support the changes made by User:Runikmehrotra. Similarly, I had to add the word "racism" a few weeks ago, as it was nowhere to be found in the intro section of the article (and is currently only found elsewhere once in the article). Take a look at Encyclopedia Britannica. I realize we're not EB, but it can provide a valid frame of reference. Or take a look at encyclopedia.com

Let's be blunt: it appears likely that white supremacists constantly make subtle edits this article to keep it from describing the KKK in any sort of negative light, gradually whittling away at edits that don't sound "historical". Again, I think WP:Bold urges us to not be so protective of the status quo, especially in situations such as these.Strom (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's continue discussion here. Strom (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)