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)

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)

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)

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)

[1] - 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.[2][3] - 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, [4], the yahoo page for that movie here [5], release date according to comingsoon.net here [6], release date according to box office mojo here [7]and according to the movie insider here [8]. 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)

Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories

This is answer to your comment just now at this article where you deleted in full a comment. I don't get it. McGeddon and others like Dayewalker (see him say so here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lisa_Miller_%28journalist%29) said it was the best venue for info. The Lisa Miller Newsweek article about the lottery draw of 666 the day after Obama's election. We're talking about two major organisations: the State Lottery run by the Illinois Gov and Newsweek. Both notable orgs that's granted. So maybe not conspiracy theory matter. But still too big to dismiss as insignificant.

Another matter is the coverage it got. The Lottery result was in the newspapers of the 6th of Nov. which was Obama's special victory edition. Newsweek doesn't make a piece unless it's notable and all of Illinois read this Lottery result that day when it was Obama's big day.

So, I don't know if you're experienced in Wikipedia editing but maybe you have an idea better than McGeddon's about the right appropriate venue for this information. Right now you're all passing the hot potatoe back and forth but that doesn't make it any easier. I'll take this anywhere it's right but you guys have to show some sense of help to me. After all that's what Wiki is about isn't it ? Help. It's not as if I'm peddling some snake-oil. This is perfectly legitimate info and I'm not making it up as I've amply demonstrated haven't I ?

Where does this go by your estimate ? If you can't find a better place for me, I'll put it back. But I'll copy this and put it on the Talk page first because one shouldn't put back something unless one talks about it and I wouldn't want to revert. The last addition was nto a revert because the previous person had agreed telling me how to do it which I did.

I find it quite comical to act as you peoples' punching ball and no one being able to decide where this info, which is legit, should go. It's like arguing parents. Also one thing, I got a message about correctly refrnecingadditions to articles from Wikipedia. The Lottery is perfectly referenced by the Newsweek article. And Newsweek is reputable I reckon don't you ? I also have the Lottery link to provide (The Lotto's the Illinois government that's quite reputable or is the Illinois government not reliable as a source ?) and that'll be in that now for future reference. I know you're all helping me and you want information to get out as that's Wikipedia's mission, so I thank you for that. Geiremann (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The article in question is not about the lottery draw. It is about numerous theories, one of which involves the lottery draw. Numerous sources report the number drawn on that day. You, however, wish to report substantially more. You wish to report that 666 was drawn on that day and 666 is a number of magical significance in some Christian beliefs and the day in question was the day after Obama's election and this can be read as implying that the significance attached to the number attaches to Obama. One source reports that one unknown person believes this to be the case. This one unknown person's beliefs are simply trivial. Every day, in reliable newspapers around the world, random individuals' beliefs are reported (in letters to the editor, "person on the street" interviews, etc.). Their beliefs are not notable or articles such as those on Obama, Bush, Clinton..., various sporting events, lottery pages (which would report every day's winning numbers since the beginning of lotteries) etc. would be thousands of pages long and clogged with random thoughts from random people.

Where does this "information" go? I don't know, maybe your personal blog or e-mails you send. Heck, make it your Facebook status. All I can tell you is that based on the limited information presented in that brief article, there's nothing to add to Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

Well I'm here because you reverted my edit on Scream Bloody Gore page... Yes, it is true there is no real source for that, but Chuck Schuldiner himself stated that Sortilège is his favourite band, so I guess he was influenced by them. And if you listen to Amazone (1983) and Evil Dead (1987), intros are very similar. We can't really know if that is true because Chuck is dead, but thats why I putted that intros are similar because he was probably influnced. Anyway, I just wanted to prove you that there is some logic in it (still you are right, there is no real source). Thanks for your time --Guitar Shred (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree: there's no real source for that. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Kraft Dinner

I have again reverted your additions to Kraft Dinner as they are against the consensus currently established on that article's talk page. Please do not restore the information again so long as that consensus remains. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but two editors engaged in POV editing is not a consensus. Fred Talk 00:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Two editors do not have the authority to overrule the general Wikipedia practice that relevant information published by reliable sources should be included in articles. Fred Talk 00:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit was not vandalism. If you carry on using TW to revert good faith edits as vandalism, TW may be taken away from you. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My tagging one of the repeated additions of the ingredients as vandalism was born of misremembering several of the contributers to the talk page as having opposed such an inclusion (when, in fact, only one of them had actually weighed in on the issue) and frustration from the WP:SYN/WP:OR that has frequently been included with these additions. My appologies. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that can happen, thanks for answering my post. Best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL

I love how editors who have been on here a long time pull all their buddies into their... bouts. Think you put enough warnings on my page? 68.1.89.162 (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel you are being warned for reasons other than your edits, please follow one or more of the opions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Otherwise, drop it. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I will be sending an e-mail with you and your 2 buddy's names in it. Have a great day.