User talk:SummerPhD

Ye Olde Rules and Common Sense

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

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)

In reading the Lombard Street Riots I was going to correct the reference to "Irish Catholic Pograms", but a little research shows you're handling this.

1) Shouldn't the word be "pogroms"? Even if spelled right, I find to reference to "Irish Catholic Pograms OR Pograms" anywhere within the reach of Google except here in "Lombard Street Riots".

2) What were these attacks you're referring to? Where and when?

Thanks, BobShair (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily handling this. I started the article and have fleshed it out a bit (with others helping). The portion you are questioning seems to have slipped past me when added by an IP awhile back.[1] I don't see any sourcing for it, nor do I know of any. It certainly is not in DuBois (my main source for the "Background" section). I've reverted the affected section.[2] Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2011 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[3][4] - 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)

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)

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.68.1.89.162 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Summer, nice to meet you! I don't think we've met, but we could make a nice cabal. I have a winter PhD! And you can step into my fuck-free zone anytime, haha. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid our cabal has been unmasked. Once he sends that e-mail, I'll be forced to climb the Reichstag (Spiderman costume optional). - SummerPhD (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Summer, that's neither here nor there--I have just discovered who AvdP is, and now I can't see straight anymore. And to think that we could speak Dutch fustian to each other, neither of us wearing a bra! I'm watching this vampire movie, come hell or high water. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

She's not my type and, for your sake, I hope I'm not hers. I can't even think "straight". - SummerPhD (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm purty darn goodlooking, if I say so myself, but I wasn't looking to compete. Do let me know when you decide to run for pope, if ever, and I'll come harass you and ask dumb questions. All the best! Drmies (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work

Dealing with personal attacks and vandalism. Bravo! :) InsideReverseOut (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, that's a pretty unusual first edit to make. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it? I wouldn't know, seeing as how I'm new and all. I saw you on the Vampires Suck discussion board and read what that guy (whoever he was) was saying to you and your friends. Anyways, keep up the GREAT work!!!!!!! InsideReverseOut (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This guy's just somebody's sock. Check their contributions. Favonian (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to paste a duck here, but I got hungry and ate it. Hey Favonian, why are a******s automatically boys? Can't girls be jerks too? I might email Jimbo about your sexism. Better yet, I'll have a sex change to prove you wrong! Drmies (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you're both just upset because you're gay and I'm not. If it wasn't true, he couldn't say it. I'd guess this is a guy based on the sexual smears alone. Women can be jerks as well, they're just a bit more creative. :) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sheeeeit and now I'm gay to boot. I can't win. Hey, is Jordyn Wieber maybe your type? I basically copied some of your edit just now, just less creatively. Toodle pips! Drmies (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! I'm old enough to be her, um, young, kinda hip mother. I always made it a rule not to date anyone if I could remember anything I did the year they were born. Wieber was born while I was an undergrad and I didn't drink that much! - SummerPhD (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

<--I hope your undergraduate is sourced more reliably than her birthdate. Hmm...1995...it was hot in Alabama, I remember...taking a workshop on teaching Freshman comp...there was some drinking...I remember a Chinese guy farted really loud in the reading room in the library, or maybe that was 1996... Drmies (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm--Original Research on a movie that isn't out yet? Drmies (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, right.[5] - SummerPhD (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. And here I am thinking that disruptive editing is a blockable offense. "Pretty please" doesn't even work with editors who don't engage in conversation, though I applaud your efforts to make this world a better place. Thanks for sticking with it. BTW, I want my daughters to become lesbians, but they're totally into princess-stuff. Any advice? Drmies (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Before launching Genesis International, you need to understand that a childhood obsessed with princesses and drenched in pink paint is not incompatable with later lesbianism. While I've never seen the much-feared conversion from "normal" (straight, right-wing Christian) to "homosexual" (LGBT, Hell-bound liberal), I have no reason to believe it would remove the Disney Princesses and pink tulle from your life. After all, Justin Bieber was raised as a straight girl. Look at her now. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Gay conversion

I saw some unverified stuff on Vampires Suck and had to think of you--but really, I want to tell you that my wife is thinking of starting a girl scout troop for my daughter to join! Yeah! That, like, triples the likelihood of her lesbian future! Drmies (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't bet on it. Our neighbors joke that they want us to "convert" their daughter so they can get away from Ni Hao, Kai-Lan, dress her in jeans and have less concern about boys in high school. While I see the appeal (ill-informed though it may be), it just isn't going to happen. This girl is straight beyond straight. Any cliche you can think of about girly-girls, she's all about. Given who her parents are, the closest thing to a lesbian they're likely to get is a Psych major who works with "at risk" children and (after a brief "experimental phase" in grad school) marries a sensative guy who works in community development. Make peace with the Disney Princesses (though you might at least skew towards the frog princess one). Learn to like pink cupcakes. Realize that dresses aren't all bad. I know you dream of your daughter, dressed in a tux, marrying a school bus driving woman who looks like Chloë Sevigny with multiple piercings and tatoos. Statistically, it ain't gonna happen. My wife and I do not have lots of tatoos, human services jobs, vegan diets and mullets any more than all straight guys have obsessions with trucks, guns and trucks with gun racks. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no, that was not my dream--cute and dainty is fine, as long as she can help work on my motorcycle. Oh, I just saw who Chloe Sevigny is, whoa. She looks a lot like my kid, haha, but I disapprove of tattoos, lest anyone doubt that I'm the man of the house, ahem (I'm not allowed to have a gun--my wife wears those pants). But thanks for your advice! Now I gotta go and make some cupcakes. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Fox News Channel appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. JahnTeller07 (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note the "in use" tags added to the article and section. You are editing while my work is in progress. "When the tags are removed it will be time for you to edit, Grasshopper." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

JahnTeller07 has been indefinitly blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy SummerPhD's Day!

SummerPhD has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as SummerPhD's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, SummerPhD! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah

He kinda seemed to be the type, as he was involved in discussions w/o first acting like a newb. Soxwon (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey summer...

I was wondering, are you one of the people that can run that program to see my internet signature? Other editors are saying that this is not my first account, but I want to show them that I'm not who they say I am. If you're not, who can I ask to run that program? At least give me the benefit of the doubt until you run the program. Grignard4120 (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't run a check user. However, when the behavior is obvious, it doesn't matter if they've found a meatpuppet or a new connection. Stupid is as stupid does. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The behavior is not obvious though...my posts are being deleted because they say I'm someone I'm not...this is very frustrating because it means I will not be able to make any suggestions (controversial or otherwise) without them being immediately reverted. Can you refer to me someone I can ask to run a checkuser on me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grignard4120 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior so far says you are a sock. I'm betting you'll be blocked quite soon. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that I'm that person then run a check! Please, I beg you to, because then I will finally be left alone. 03:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grignard4120 (talk • contribs)

I'm betting you will be blocked without a check user. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Then how in the world can I get someone to run a checkusing on me? Grignard4120 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grignard4120 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming to you for advice on how to prove my innocence...why are you treating me like this without any evidence that I did NEthing wrong? Grignard4120 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grignard4120 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a duck, 3:31, 6 August 2010. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Vampires Suck

You should revert the section back to where I had edited it. If it needs a source, you could have put "citation needed". There was no source as it is. 71.220.218.164 (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The limited plot summary can be sourced to the official page. If you would like to request a cite in the article, feel free to do so. However, saying the film is a parody of any specific film(s) is not, as far as I have seen, shown is any reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful....

Careful :-) 14:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Misread an IP vandal + partial manual correction of vandalism as one editor's work. I've corrected it now. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

ETF External Link - deleted

Hi there, you removed an external link I added to the Exchange Traded Funds page and I was wondering why. The page I linked to is information on what an ETF is that I found very useful when I was learning about ETFs. Jonnydrussell (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)jonnydrussellJonnydrussell (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a particular problem with the site itself, although I don't really know enough about it to say it's a reliable source either. However, we specifically do not list as external links sites that are already linked as sources in the article. Please see #15 under WP:ELNO. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the info - I hadn't realised the site was linked as a source. Exactly where is that link? Thanks. Jonnydrussell (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)jonnydrussellJonnydrussell (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, it's note 24. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah - so it is. Odd reference to have on there. I believe it would be more useful to people to have access to an area on that site where they can learn about ETFs, rather than reading an article that is out of date. Would you concur? Jonnydrussell (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)jonnydrussellJonnydrussell (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

UGAdawgs2010

I think UGAdawgs2010 dropped you a line on his talk page...just FYI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.181.90 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Gee thanks, you old dog. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

About the "Molly Ringwald" talk page

The reason I put the suggestion there was because I nearly run away from My computer evertime I see the 2007 pic of Molly Ringwald. I was trying to say in my twisted way of humor, that somebody at least add a picture of her before... (Music from Shower scene starts to play) - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Are You Watching Me?

About "Talk:Malware"

I was clearing a question up about that how Windows is very prone to Malware, Viruses, etc. (It is the Most Popular Computer in History), but that while Linex may be less prone to such Viruses, it is one of the least popular computers on the market and that Viruses are designed on a daily basis and that no matter what computer You're using, You're going to get one sooner or later. - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You're getting the warnings for a reason. Your explanations do not negate the issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is to stop warning me about "Using Wikipedia as a Chat Forum" when I'm explaining something (even if you can't read it and see My dash of humor in it). I can clearly see You will be following me around (Like My 8th Grade English Teacher), but understand my style of humor so You don't Attack Me (Like My 8th Grade English Teacher) when I give an anwser to a question. - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles If you wish to stop receiving warnings for using talk pages as forums, you will need to stop using talk pages as forums.

Your feelings about the subjective value of editing classic films, celebrities supporting causes and the subjective merit of the causes, relative malware risks on different platforms, relative subjective hotness of a celebrity over the years (and [6]), the relative price of some toys, the relative subjective quality of a celebrity's work over time, your subjective evaluation of death tolls, etc. are simply not welcome on Wikipedia.

If you continue to use talk pages as forums, you will receive escalating warnings until you are eventually blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey You

You know What? I'm tired of You following me around Wikipedia. You re-edit My edits like they're in another language, You revert edits that are just fine and You act as if I'm a petty criminal. I've tried My best to very polite about this, but you don't care, You just want to see much I'll stand. You not even going to read this and then You'll have someone block me for "disrupive editing" and then You'll be happy. I accept defeat and hope you're finally happy and will just stop. - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles If you wish to stop receiving warnings for using talk pages as forums, you will need to stop using talk pages as forums.

If you continue to use talk pages as forums, you will receive escalating warnings until you are eventually blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Summer, have a look at the history of Sex-positive feminism. I've left Chuck Norris, above, a note on his talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, What do I have to do to get it through that I'm not using Wikipedia as a forum. Oh, and Drmies, very funny, but if I was Chuck Norris, I would have just roundhouse kicked everybody in the face and been on My way. - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your forum postings, as detailed above, make it clear that you were far more interested in chatting than improving articles. Additionally, looking at your edits as a whole, of your first 30 edits, 27 of them were chat on talk pages. 3 were edits incorrectly attacking another editor for "vandalism". Now, after 44 edits, one edit attempted to contribute to an article. Unfortunately, it was repeating wikilinks from the body of an article in the "See also" section. If you would like to contribute to the project, please consider signing up for Adopt-a-user. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even going to keep trying to tell you that I was not using this site as a forum, mainly because after I've explained it clearly, You don't seem to listen. I ain't going to keep going on if I can't convince you of the truth. You have also followed me around because I've noticed you made edits to nearly ever page I've even looked at. You have Won. - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Elevator photography

Please don't give away any of my personal info. Plus, in the links I have, that's not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airplanegod (talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Resolved

Listen, I don't want to have to come to this page everyday for you not understanding that I am not using the talk pages as forums and deleting them dispite the fact that they are to be helpful in someway to the site. I had a link to an article on that page that stated that due to the then recent Jenny McCarthy issue of she blaming her child's autism on vaccines, parents had slowly started to stop getting their children vaccines, which in turn lead to a rise in measles-realted sicknesses. I simple had a few words with the link beside it stating that vaccines have help rid most of the world of some of the most dangerous diseases and that there is also no scientific proof that vaccines in no way can cause somebody to develop autism. I kindly ask that you stop barking at me for trying to better the site, for it is both rude and offensive to me. - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You saying you are not using talk pages as a forum does not change the simple fact that you are. The addition you made did not include the link you claim was there. Rather, it was your opinion which is in no way helpful to improving the article. Furthermore, the link you might have been trying to provide [7] is a blog, not a reliable source and not at all useful in improving the article.

You comment was: "Vaccines don't cause autism, they save us from induring horrible diseases that will always haunt the Human Race (Examples: Polio, Mumps, Smallpox). People in the end listened to her and payed the price in the end. P.S., if this link is not on the page, you could add it. [3]"

The first sentence is off topic, discussing the, IMO, moronic idea that vaccines cause autism (yes, I agree with you!) and the horrid diseases they are designed to prevent. For this article, the only thing we need is that she "(promotes) controversial claims that vaccines cause autism." It's there, in the first paragraph. However, enough had been said by reliable sources to go beyond this, as seen in Jenny_McCarthy#Activism_and_autism_controversy. You want to go one step further, though, claiming her actions had people "pay(ing) the price in the end." This is a controversial claim about a living person, a violation of our policy on such statements. Do not re-add this material, or you will be blocked.

Additionally, when you talk page additions are marginally constructive, you deliberately dance on the edge. This bit on Talk:Nadya Suleman is loaded with garbage that is no value: "(Yes, I read People Magazine, that does not make me gay)". Gee, thanks. This is typical of your comments. I'll give you a moment to edit that yourself. Failing that, I'll do it myself. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen, let me lay the jive down on you in this un-funky debate.

• 1. the statement on the Jenny McCarthy refers to what I read in the article I posted along side on the statement. She didn't know vaccines don't cause autism and that once people listened to her, measles sinknesses rised.

• 2. I'm not the robot you wish I am, for unlike you, I can't write in the single-tone robot voice everybody seem to love, and if a little of my personal believes spill over, don't have a cow, man.

• 3. I'm not homophobic. I know that you are a lesbian (according to Wikipedia) and I think you overreacted. I have a sister who reads People and most guys in my age group (teenagers) think that if a man does something that girls do a lot, then it is viewed as sterotypical gay-ish (I knew a guy for years and was shocked to learn he was gay, he was the most manly man I knew). Would you have rather me use some of the REAL homophobic terms used today.

• 4. (Deep breath, put on body armor and pick up machine gun for defence) Please don't comment to me in way to where you come off as a... well... a bitch (run away like little girl to my user page in fear).

I hope this has been very helpful. Have a nice day ;) - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Hunting (House) for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Hunting (House), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunting (House) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Whoa, I says, while I'm pondering the contribution above this notice. Happy days to you! Drmies (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You'll never know. With any luck, I'll never know again. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Columbia Pictures films

Hey. You re-inserted content that had been added by a vandal sock whose pattern is to add deliberate misinformation. Did you check that this content is verifiable? Prolog (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that the target articles are correct, the information I re-added is correct. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't vandalize my talk page with oxymoronic requests

You said: "Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Talk:Michelle Malkin."

1. Talk:Michelle Malkin is not an article, it's a talk page.
2. My statement was fact.

Please cease your vandalization of my talk page, lest I warn you again!! 24.177.123.59 (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Advise

Do not label other editors vandals. This behavior does not foster a cllegial atmoshpere. You misused an article talk page; not the end of the world but an action that does not follow talk page guidelines. Please apply tourself to more constructive tasks. Thanks Tiderolls 03:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.123.59 (talk)

Struck, the admin Tide rolls did not make the above comment. This IP has also been blocked for 24 hours for general trolling, and may be possibly longer(I'm taking this to ANI) for impersonation.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shyamalan Twist

What I'm thinking... is that with use of available sourcing,[8][9] the author might be convinced to merge the information to the M. Night Shyamalan article in a section describing Shyamalan's own use of twist endings... and then we might consider a redirect... but only if sourced and only if the term "Shyamalan Twist" is kept where it has its sourcable context and not mis-applied to films that are not Shyamalan's. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I added a reply to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Packaged dry macaroni and cheese mix, if you would like to comment. --Confession0791 ^talk 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So called vandalism

How did I vandalise the page in question? Bencey (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I've corrected the warning to uw-unsourced1. Sorry. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

CBS Evening News

Your recent edits to the article have been reverted as they were not an accurate summation of the sources provided. Additionally, the event discussed is not a significant event in the history of the CBS Evening News, the subject of this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The information was an accurate summary of the events of a "commentary" by Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News. If you would like to edit that summary, please feel free, but to delete it is incorrect.

This was a good example of plagiarism and a clear violation of ethical journalism, an all too common issue in journalism as well as education. I use this in educating students about the dangers of it. I saw the exact episode in question and have to admit I recognized the commentary as similar to an article I had read (from somewhere), but couldn't place it. There was no way for me to identify it as plagiarism until it was covered by Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and US News & World Report. A producer for CBS Evening News wrote the commentary piece, almost word for word from a Wall Street Journal column. Ms. Couric then read the piece as if she had written it. This is not uncommon in today's multi media journalism, with on-air talent reading teleprompters from copy written by others. It is also completely understandable due to the time constraints made upon these professionals. The difference is that Ms. Couric, an excellent moderator of the CBS Evening News, introduced the piece as "when I received my first library card". This was not true, since she did not write the piece. It was taken from someone else's newspaper column, written by someone else. Double plagiarism, as it was.

You can get more background about these types of problems, although written before this incident, from a book by David Blum, tick...tick..tick: The Long Life & Turbulent Times of 60 Minutes. (no I am not picking on CBS, I happen to like Katie Couric, she just made a mistake, albeit a serious one.)

This incident was a "somewhat" significant event in the history of the CBS Evening News as it was for all multi-media journalists. At least as important as Dan Rather's forced retirement from CBS mentioned earlier in this same article. There were even discussions of Ms. Couric stepping down or being forced out, much like Dan Rather had been. Any accurate history of a news program being accused, accurately, of plagiarism should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudding30 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You feel it is "a good example of plagiarism and a clear violation of ethical journalism, an all too common issue in journalism as well as education." The sources do not say that. And "background about these types of problems" has no relevance to this particular incident unless it discusses this incident. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why that would be relevant to the article, although several sources did say that, none of which I quoted or listed. I never said that in the edits that were subsequently deleted from the wikipedia article. I am not concerned about their personal opinions, your personal opinions nor mine for that matter. It appears that you did not read the articles I cited or any other related information regarding this incident.

What is relevant is that this did occur on the CBS Evening News. It was well publicized and deserves to be a part of the article in order to be fair and balanced. The article reads like a Public Relation handout from CBS.(Again, nothing wrong with that, but is somewhat biased.)

If the article is to contain a description of Dan Rather's removal from CBS Evening news, as part of story he did on on another program (60 Minutes), then this incident needs to be described in the article. Regardless of whether I write it or not. The incident is relevant and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudding30 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your claim was that Couric committed plagiarism. The sources provided do not support your claim. Your claim was written in such a way as to lay blame at Couric's feet. The sources do not support that. - SummerPhD (talk)

23:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

She did commit plagiarism. In the piece, she stated, "I remember getting my first library card..." This is a direct quote from the Wall Street Commentary as was the rest of the piece. If one claims an piece as your own, but is actually from someone else, it is plagiarism. The commentator claimed the words as her own, but was actually that of a producer. The dispute, according to numerous sources is whether Katie Couric knew that it was plagerized from the Wall Street journal. Obviously, there is no way to know she did or not, but she did know the words were not her own. Ergo, plagiarism. If she had said, "Do you remember when you got your first library card?" then the plagiarism would have been slightly less questionable, on her part. TV news anchors reading the news written by other is not new, nor is it plagiarism, exactly. But claiming a commentary as your own is. It should be noted that she no longer does commentary on the Evening news, but Bob Schieffer still does on Face the Nation on Sunday. Your point is well taken and I will add additional verification. Gee, where did I put that Time magazine? I know that I have my old US News and Wall Street Journals around here somewhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudding30 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources cited call it plagiarism. You do. This is synthesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

You reverted my First edit two years ago. :) I am really surprised because of your insight and kindness you are not an administrator yet. :) I know I will vote for you once your RFA comes around. Thanks from your long time fan. --Talktome^(Intelati) 00:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully my explanation at that time was clear enough. Thx. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was. :)--Talktome^(Intelati) 00:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Note about sockpuppetry case

Hi there. It appears that Webhat filed an SPI case about you. It can be found here. I don't think you were notified about it. --Bsadowski1 09:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't notified. It was a dead issue before I got to it, but thanks anyway! - SummerPhD (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And I see that you was accused of "missrepresentation"... ;) Drmies (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracies abound. Either I have a four year old sleeper account that I'm saving to add false credits to Vampires Suck or my marriage isn't recognized by the heterosexist patriarchy. You decide... - SummerPhD (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I made up my mind about some of those issues a long time ago, which is why I became a minister. Speaking of marriage: I was invited to a wedding yesterday, one with special shoes required--the four-year old was going to marry her one-year old sister. How could I object? But who do I give to whom? Things were simpler when she simply wanted to marry me. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind the young'ens. Now that we're being allowed to marry each other, I'm ready to fight for my right to marry a sheep. The struggle continues. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just don't end up in here. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-creation of Coy Stewart

I recently posted this article for deletion review and I was given the go ahead to re-create it. Since you were the nominator to have it deleted, I letting you know that I am re-creating it with the proper sources that I have obtained: [10] [11] [12]. QuasyBoy 19:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did I get marked for vandalism?

If you've seen the video he says he's a karate expert. I'm just tryin' to contribute and now I'm gettin' marked down for vandalism. What the hell is that about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorCal764 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I saw your other vandalism, like this one, and wrongly assumed your unsourced edit to Rent Is Too Damn High Party was more of the same. I'm changing the warning I gave you to an unsourced1 and adding a separate warning for the third vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but that makes another problem. Now I am being penalized twice for the vandalism I did to Justin Bieber, which I only did once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorCal764 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of magical negro archetypes in fiction into Magical negro

Hi,

As you have recently edited one of the two articles mentioned, I am notifying you of the proposed merger. Please comment at Talk:Magical negro#Proposing a merger. Thank you, Bigger digger (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you're still busy trying to keep the List in some semblance of order but you haven't commented at the merge proposal. Can I ask why? Bigger digger (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

GBC Asset Management - a division of Pembroke Management

Thank you for your feedback Summer. I do appreciate the explanation. I understand perfectly what you are trying to convey. I would agree that having a list of "notable" firms is important -- and you have done a fantastic job of driving that point home with your Puerto Rican analogy. Your analogy however does very little to illuminate your 'criteria'. What makes a firm "notable" in your mind? And, how is it that one of the oldest investment manager in Canada -- one of a handful around the globe with a 40 year performance record -- one of an even smaller handful that uses a 'growth strategy' as opposed to the more common 'value strategy'-- is not included, yet Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc. is. GBC Asset Management - a division of Pembroke Management is much more "notable" than many on the current list, and I would like your help in ensuring that it is included. What do I need to do? Regards, Jack (A341672 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

Specific notability guidelines for organizations/companies can be found at WP:ORG. Long story short: notability is determined by substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. A 40 year history, growth vs. value -- it's all moot without such coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

SPS

Its not SPS at all, at least not by the subject, its a harmless little external link. It won't make any difference ,whats the issue? Seems to be in some other BLP articles, external links - Off2riorob (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying it was published by Roy, only that it is published as, in essence, a blog. The photos are "courtesy of" various copyrighted sources. As the site does not give a credible claim of permission to use them (as it likely has no such permission), the site is a copyright violation. Wikipedia does not link to such sites. Other articles link to the same site? The site should be removed from those articles as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sock!

Remember when you were accused by User:Webhat? It seems they're very interested in what you and I are doing: [13], [14], [15], and [16]. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The plot thickens... As for the connection between you and me, I'm not sure if I'm you or if you're my minion. In any case, you are enveloped by my darkness. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand that comment, and I have no intention of ever finding out what it was supposed to refer to. I feel quite comfy in your darkness, even if I am you and you are my minion, possibly. But there is a test to see if you're me or not: Pete or Frank? (And if you say neither, you're clearly not me.) Drmies (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait. I am you and you are me? Confusing. Who is Paul in this equation?

No, not Texas Pete. And not Franks. But not neither either. Sorry. If asked Ginger or Mary Anne, I'd pick Velma every time. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I learn something new every time I come by here. Thanks! Oh, you should be happy you're not me tomorrow; enjoy your Friday. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what your Friday involves, but have a good Friday? Thanks, but I have other plans. (I have a considerable stack of undergads' musings to read.) Why (existential issues aside...) do I not want to be you? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

<--Eh...have to get up early, take the kids to school, bake crepes at school for a dozen screaming toddlers, run home and witness installation of new dishwasher and take care of the associated cleanup, run to work and sit in on meeting, and in between those things we have a car that needs to be taken to the shop because it won't start. Ha--and I have undergraduate musings to grade! But a lot of them aren't so bad, fortunately, and I have all weekend to do it in. Are you teaching freshman comp? I remember the good old days when I used to torture those poor kids. But at least I'm getting a new dishwasher. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And here I am whining about a few misguided stabs at post-WWII U.S. social policy! - SummerPhD (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, I think I prefer making crepes; I shouldn't complain. Ha, the jug with batter fell over in my trunk. You wouldn't believe the mess. But I had enough left for everyone and the teachers, and it was great fun. Still no dishwasher though! Happy grading, Drmies (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Summer, I finally got my dishwasher, and I also got this. Words fail me. How do we attract these... editors? Drmies (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'd tag him for civility, but I'm a half-wit. So there you go. On second thought, we have the warning templates for a reason I suppose. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what's the point. Why do I even care? On a brighter note, hey! Good to see you. Get your papers done? ;) Drmies (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, maybe after a warning or two he'll turn into a great editor or a frog prince or something. In any case, the papers are done. All that's left now is to tell one guy his paper was poorly written, off-topic and, incidentally, identical to one available online :( Enjoy that new dishwasher (sooooo exciting)!! Live it up: Run a couplea half empty loads on "Pots & Pans" with heated drying. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

<--You are sinful, and a bad, bad calvinist. That place you go, I can only dream of it. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to Hell for sure. Bummer. Then again, I hear it's one big house party. Not exactly my cup of tea, but I guess it's better than eternity with a God who hates me. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you see this? "You aren't helping things here." Indeed, because I reported him. You don't like ballroom dancing? I loved Strictly Ballroom. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, ze did ask you to please go away. Ballroom isn't my thing. But, whatever floats you boat, ya know? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Grant and Tori

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

My talk page

There is no reason for you to be on my talk page. Please keep keep any comments you have for me on the relevant talk pages. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 22:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I was on "your" talk page to discuss your edits. That is what they are for. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, after I asked you to keep your comments on the relevant talk pages. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"(T)he purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." Wikipedia:Talk#User_talk_pages When discussing the article, I use the article talk page. When discussing a user's edits, I use user talk pages. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of reversion

You recently reverted one of my deletions in the raw veganism page. Since you requested an explanation, I have now given clear, detailed rebuttals and explanations in the raw veganism discussions section as to why those 2 relevant sentences must be deleted, as the wording of those sentences is heavily biased, and the ref is, anyway, highly suspect. Please also read the raw foodism an d the richard wrangham page so as to find out more info debunking those sentences. Loki0115

THOMAS (neuroscience)

I see you have proposed THOMAS (neuroscience) for deletion. I did the same last year, but since that was removed [17], you may have to go through the WP:AFD process --Rumping (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of THOMAS (neuroscience) for deletion

The article THOMAS (neuroscience) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THOMAS (neuroscience)]] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--Rumping (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Jamal Warner's Twitter

What you mean it's stupid? More people will be able to follow him and that'll make you guys to know that's really him than other people that's trying to copy him regardless of you guys saying that you can't help him "VERIFY" his account. Stop being Straightforward all the time and start helping him for real. Pekin Republican 3:21 P.M. 12/16/2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to "help" Warner, nor can we verify that the account is his. If you have a [WP:RS|reliable source]] showing that the account is his, we'll have something. Otherwise, the Twitter account in question cannot be added to the article on Warner. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Murray Article

Resolved

If you would have paid closer attention to what I added, you would have seen the cite note with a reference to an article on ESPN that clearly proves what I added, is in fact correct. So, next time you start accusing people of vandalism and telling them they need references, please open your eyes and pay closer attention before you make a fool of yourself. Thanks! --71.10.57.189 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit claims he "threw the chair at a defenseless woman". Your source says, "a woman was accidentally hit by a chair swung by" him. Those are, obviously, two different things. Please review WP:BLP. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Accident or not, he threw a chair, and the end result was hitting a defenseless woman. He wasn't swinging the chair in an attempt to cool himself off with a breeze, so obviously what I put wasn't incorrect. It was a malicious act, regardless of whether or not he attempted to hit the woman with it. So let me break it down into a level of simplicity that maybe even you can understand. A: Bob Murray threw a chair. B: The chair hit a defenseless woman. C: The police were called. He didn't accidentally bump into a chair that fell into a woman. He threw it. So, I would appreciate it if you would quit vandalizing my usertalk page with false allegations of vandalism. I know you enjoy your little power trip on Wikipedia because you lack any real authority or credibility in real life, but please save it for actual vandals. BTW, you can block IP addresses from editing, but not actually ban people. It takes about 45 seconds to release an old IP address and obtain a new one, so your threats of banning me over false allegations aren't really of any concern to me. You're now just trying to make excuses for yourself because you were too blind to see the cite note and reference on my original edit, and you're making up B.S. reasons for reverting it now that you've been caught. I'm not saying anybody is perfect, I mean, I originally misread your username and thought you were named after a brand of feminine hygiene products. But luckily, I proofread and double check things before I look ridiculous. Thank you, and good day! --71.10.57.189 (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I like your four references to support your theory that I'm a "vandal." However, this is a shared computer. And after looking at your references, I had to laugh. I didn't know it was even possible to vandalize the Wikipedia sandbox. That's great, you just made my day. You're threatening to block people for allegedly vandalizing the wikipedia sandbox. How ridiculous you are, I hope everybody sees this and laughs at you. --71.10.57.189 (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed edit is a direct violation of WP:BLP and will not stand. Everything you've done so far is vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Malicious

Hi. You asked me not to mention that in Malicious Molly Ringwald makes a nude appearance in which her breasts appear unless I can cite a reliable source. How about the movie? Or, if I am going to cite the movie should I try indicate what is the name of the scene? I am now sure what standards of citation you are looking for here.

As to your comment that this is trivial information, I am not following you here either. Actors are judged by their performances and their image in the eyes of the public. Ringwald developed a very family oriented image in the 1980's. Exposing her breasts was a significant departure for her and for viewers. If she had started off her career as a nude model, then I agree it would be no big deal. But I find it similar to Julie Andrews baring hers in S.O.B. which by the way is discussed openly on that article in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanfardon (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for an independent reliable source. A "reliable" source, as linked, because it is our policy (see verifiability). An independent (not the movie or a source affiliated with it) to demonstrate that the material is not trivial. While your analysis may or may not be true, the point is moot. Wikipedia is based on material presented in reliable sources because A) it is verifiable and B) it is less likely to be trivial.

We could discuss thousands of things about any given topic that various editors believe are relevant. If we did this, articles like George W. Bush and Barack Obama would be even more of a mess than they already are. Instead, we stick to material discussed in independent sources. If you cannot find independent reliable sources discussing Ringwald's boobs, they aren't notable to Wikipedia. While the article on S.O.B. discusses Andrews' boobs, there are several differences. First and foremost, problems in other articles will always exist and do not justify repeating that mistake. Next, the exposed boobs are a significant part of the plot. Finally, thought that article is unsourced at present, I doubt that Andrews' topless moment cannot be sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just updated the S.O.B. article to request additional sources for the article and to add two sources (NY Daily News and an Andy Rooney book), both commenting on Andrews' nude scene. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK dude. How about if I found a source saying Molly was a family favourite. Then could I cite that her exposure of her honkers was in contrast to her previous image? I mean, would this slip under your radar and qualify as something factual though not opinionated?

By the way, your discussio of SOB sounds to me like handwaving. Do you know what that is? I think so as you sound like you have been to grad school and you should know when a prof is trying to snow you. Plese dont do this with me because 1) you wont get away with it 2) its not pleasant, and after all, we can all be pleasant cant we? The exposed boobs are just as much of the plot in Malicious and if you want to debate about interpretation then you are riding the same bus I am and have no business censoring me for stating that they are a significant part of the plot.

I am gonna try to conform to what you are saying, but I will ask you also to abandon your 13th century scholastic pedantry. I have studied the trivium and the quadrivium. And I KNOW the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanfardon (talk • contribs) 03:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you find a source saying Ringwald was a family favorite, you can then say that she was a family favorite. To say that the nudity was in contrast to this image, you need a source saying the nudity was in contrast to this image. We now have a couple of reliable sources (and an uncited third, alluded to in the text) for the nudity as relevant to the plot and surprising in S.O.B. (Maria's boobs! Yipee!). I have yet to find a reliable source mentioning Ringwald's nudity (Sam's boobs? ...). Basically, without reliable sources discussing Ringwald being topless in the film, it doesn't belong in the article. With reliable sources discussing it, we can say what those sources say. We cannot interpret what content in the movie might mean to something another source says. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Clearly we can't use this as a reliable source, but I thought you might find this[18] interesting. Michelle Thomas' mother confirmed on the Facebook tribute page she created that her daughter was in fact born in 1968. Oh, and before you make the obvious question "how do we know that's really her?" I would refer you to the Youtube video in which Penwah Phynjuar gives people her website address; that website contains a link to this same FB page. So even though we can't use it as a reliable source it is confirmation that Michelle Thomas was in fact born in 1968, not 1969. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As previously discussed, it's not a reliable source. Perhaps instead of asking for the date, someone on there should be asking for a verifiable source... (Interesting facts from Phynjuar's MySpace: She's 20 years old, from Beantown!, New York.) - SummerPhD (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you're missing the point about something very simple. I said nothing about Myspace and I stipulated twice that what I was telling you couldn't be used as a reliable source. I was just pointing out the fact that (as I had previously pointed out) Michelle Thomas' own mother claims Michelle was born in 1968, which is the same birth year reported by Jet Magazine, the NY Times, and People to name a few. Don't you worry though; I'm sure we'll find another reliable source sooner or later that you discount. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, so the point is you've found another unreliable source? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Smoking ban

Moved to Talk:Smoking_ban#Claims_Glantz_is_a_.22smoke_free_advocate.22.2C_etc.. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Happy New Year, Summer. The girls would say hi, but one is reading a book (pretend reading--she's one) and the other is making a necklace, which, as you know, is terribly important. Take care! Drmies (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And a happy new year to you and yours as well. Don't knock the necklace making, they aren't going to make themselves ya know. Count the young one pretending to read as five parents-who-value-education points. Cheers! - SummerPhD (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Soccermeko socks

Hi I've been accused of sock-puppetry with Soccermeko & that's untrue; I was trying to put up Nicole Wray's singles again because I have found new information & re-organized them in a very well-suitable manner. As for the Lady "Mae West" May thing, I've been trying to update it all week & have found new information & most of it on there is false & I was trying to fix it but then you undid all my changes. If you don't want me to edit the Nicole Wray section then I fully understand just be advised & be more updated on her article, there's tons and tons of events that have occured that Wikipedia & you have not updated upon for a little update she has confirmed herself via her official new website & Twitter account that her current single is "Ice Cream" set to be released in February 2011 and her new album is called, "Kill Cupid"; as for LoveChild the album was shelved in 2005 not 2004. And again I apologize I am in no way in relation or have any involvement with sockpuppetry especially the individual you have labeled me with. ~Happy Holidays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.61.221 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page describes how to respond to sock allegations. Responding here is a waste of time. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fat Albert

Resolved

There are a lot of "trivial" items on Wiki articles. That didn't need to be deleted, it wasn't like it wasn't true. Very petty, just thought I should tell you. I'm not on here to undo everyone's work. That is unproductive and disruptive. But that "virus" seems to go around so much here, it's a shame. God forbid I stand up for myself and tell someone what I think about their edit/revert, "scary things" may happen to me. (ugh) 63.131.4.149 (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability. If you don't like that, feel free to go elsewhere. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, real nice professional attitude. It was "verifiable". Did you check? It linked to the actual article about the show for one. If it's not sourced, help source it. Help improve it. Don't like that, "feel free to go elsewhere". P.S. Truth is, you didn't like it so you removed it. Plain and simple. It wasn't "hurting anyone" being there and you know it. Remain neutral! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to the edit by a different IP address that I reverted, it did not link to anything other than pizza and soda. It was a trivial claim that somebody, somewhere was going to release something. If you have independent reliable sources, cite them. Without such a cite, a name, something, it is very difficult to find anything. Given the amount of self-promotional crap added to Wikipedia daily, unsourced material that looks like self-promotional crap is usually quickly disposed of, whether it is "hurting anyone" or not (which is immaterial in any case). There is no question of "neutrality" as there are not two sides. The material was unsourced, I removed it. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Disregard, it was my mistake to contact you, I clicked the wrong user edit. My eyes/screen was playing tricks on me. I was trying to "talk page" more than one user at a time. I'm gonna leave my comments on the editor below your edit on the history page. I apologize, I was wrong. Nonetheless, I was taken back by your "reaction". At any rate, thanks. Bye... 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Censorship

Hello. Censorship takes many forms plus I have all these sources (take your pick). Marcus Qwertyus 01:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources that I see popping up with your search are not referring to what that section is discussing. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:

I do not appreciate you changing my edit, and I think your little 'crusade' needs some source yourself. The fact is, he was detained by guys on the scene; he had the gun. We don't have to wait for a jury to know that. Toa Nidhiki05 21:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your claim is a contentious, unsourced statement about a living person. Feel free to bring this up at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not contentious. Toa Nidhiki05 22:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Contentious: A dispute that calls for a legal remedy." As there are lawyers involved in this very question it is, by definition, contentious. Again, feel free to take this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoa!

...Ronald Reagan is dead?? Drmies (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

But Caesar's still kicking out CO2. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

what is this warning about?

Why? They caught the strangler! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.101 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They arrested a "person of interest". He has not been convicted of anything. Saying he is a murderer is a clear violation of our policy on biographies of living persons. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"DNA links the 21-year-old alleged serial killer to three murders in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia, police said at a Monday night news conference." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.101 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"DNA links the 21-year-old alleged serial killer..." Whatever you are quoting, it does not say "he did it". It says DNA links him to the crimes. It does not say his DNA is an exact match to the killer's DNA. My DNA "links" me to my family. It says "alleged" for a reason: to avoid libel suits. Please review WP:BLP. If you still disagree with me, I invite you to take the issue to the BLP noticeboard for discussion. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Smegma

No problemo. It was my bad. I thought I was reverting 2 edits by two IPs to clean up everything, when in fact I just reverted the partial clean up. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:The JPS/Differences from the novel

Hello. I noticed your comments at Talk:It (1990 film) about the appropriacy of sections listing differences between novel and film. I have seen this discussion several times: I have created the above page as a one-stop explanation of why they are inappropriate (for users unfamiliar with policy or the MOS). Any feedback, or improvements, will be gratefully welcomed. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Heya, just thought I'd better be polite and let you know that I've just vandalised your user page. I know it's bad, but I was bored and Question Time isn't on for another two hours so I thought I might as well amuse myself online.

So yeah, I haven't done much at all, so don't worry. I've just moved your vandalism counter on one from 62 to 63. But wait a second - with my edit, your user page has actually been vandalised 63 times, so since my edit isn't stating anything which isn't true, it can't really be vandalism after all! But if that's true then you really have been vandalised only 62 times and thanks to me your page is proudly stating an untruth! So it must be vandalism! But then it can't be. But then it is! But then it can't be! But then - MY HEAD'S JUST EXPLODED!!!138.38.32.174 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

you gave me a warning for editing an article

but all i did was talk on the discussion page... i never edit the aaron porter articleJessicaevens (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

i see you spotted your mistake

"Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Aaron Porter are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)"

it was not general disscussion about a topic the event happened yesterday and someone was asking if it should be submitted maybe you should do a little research first before throwing warnings around...Jessicaevens (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no mistake. Your first edit makes an unsourced contentious claim about a living person, a violation of our policy. Please note, as the warning states, this applies to "to an article or any other Wikipedia page".

The edit you made was not about improving the article, but about exposing the cabal on Wikipedia which exists to protect the images of anyone Jewish. We are not amused. - SummerPhD (talk)

Are you trying to dispute that fact? What a load of bs

you cant even post veified information which is valid and sourced from reliable sources about any jew or jewish person... check my attempted edits of michael richards page. apparently so it turns out when a jew is racist it is termed "problematic behaviour" not racism, and if you point that racism our with verified sources then t3h omg you are anti semetic.... well.... you can all go eat a dick!Jessicaevens (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not wish to "eat a dick". Sounds like you could use the love of a good woman.

I can neither confirm nor deny the existance of a super-secret cabal here on Wikipedia that is out to "get" you and prevent the Truth from seeing the light of day. If I did, they would kick me out and come "get" me. You, however, will be handled soon enough. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Re your comments at Talk:It (1990 film), you might be interested in the request for comment that has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film. As many voices as possible are encouraged to be heard to gain a solid community consensus. (Please feel free to also bring this RfC to the attention of those that advocating these sections.) The JPS^{talk to me} 21:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Seuss eBooks

Hi there, I would really like to discuss the removal of the Dr. Seuss eBooks under the adaptations section for the various books. I'd love to do it by email, my email address is (redacted). If you could shoot me an email that would be great. If you'd prefer to speak on this page, please let me know, and I will happily make my case here :) The basic point is that these eBooks are very relevant to so many communities, especially the Dr. Seuss community, who are huge supporters and are thrilled to discover this new way to enjoy their favorite titles. I look forward to hearing from you! Ntaller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

I've removed your e-mail address from this page in the hopes of sparing you huge amounts of spam. As a heavily visited site, Wikipedia is constantly being visited by various bots.

As to the inclusion of the eBooks under the sections of the various articles, you clearly have a vested interest in them. To make it into the articles, we are primarily concerned with undue weight issues. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The Suess books, by and large, are classics of children's literature. As such, they pop up in lots of different places: Plush dolls for sale, plush dolls as promotional items at Macy's, Christmas decorations at Burger King, film strips, animated movies and TV specials, live action feature films, books based on the movies that are based on the books, "Tag" electronic read-along books, audio books, caricatures and spoofs in various media, allusions and mentions in various media, pedagogical debates and controversies, etc. If we were to include all of this material in these articles (or in Star Wars, Jack and the Beanstalk, Ronald Reagan, milk or anywhere else), the article would quickly be over run by material connect to the book while the material about the book -- the actual topic of the article -- fades into obscurity. So, we need guidelines to help us draw the line. In general I, for one, use substantial discussion in independent reliable sources. The sources for the adaptations you are connected with are fairly minor. As such, there is, IMO, absolutely no basis to include them in the individual articles about the various books. With some more meaningful coverage in independent reliable sources it might merit brief mention in the main article about Dr. Seuss. Your company, though, does not currently seem to have enough substantial coverage for a stand alone article itself. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You bring up many good points, and I am not going to argue with you about the Oceanhouse Media article. Right now, my goal is to explain to you that these omBooks are not merely a book's pages that have been copied onto a screen, but rather, they are an entirely new publication. And are very relevant. I get your concern about the actual topic of the article fading into obscurity, however, to compare this joint endeavor between Oceanhouse Media and Dr. Seuss Enterprises, to publish all 44 Dr. Seuss titles in the latest and greatest digital medium of today, to Christmas decorations at Burger King, is simply not a fair comparison. Also, I honestly do not understand how the discontinued educational CD Rom game of The Cat in the Hat is deemed relevant, yet these omBooks, which are literally creating a revolution in Children's publishing, are not. [19]

For now, I will provide you with some links that I believe will help illustrate the importance of these omBooks, and this emerging industry in general. Below is an old video, there are now 17 Dr. Seuss titles on ios devices. As well as some on Android. But this video gives a nice overview of this field: [20] This is a nice article by The Wall Street Journal, on Dr. Seuss books transforming into omBooks: [21] A short blurb in Publishers Weekly, Titled "Digital Numbers from Oceanhouse Media, Barnes and Noble" [22] note: There are an increasing number of digital book conferences, each year, that every top publishing house now attends. And the speakers are digital book publishers. A simple article by Huffington Post, captures how parents across America (but really the world)are embracing these Dr. Seuss omBooks. [23] Again, an older article, but it describes the industry (and hopefully the relevance of the industry) pretty well. [24] For your interest, Here is a video of one of the apps, that a website called, Apps for Children with special needs, put up. These omBooks truly reach out to so many people, across so many cultures and walks of life. It really is a wonderful thing. [25] For more references and general information, this website will be very helpful: [26] The press page in particular has hundreds of articles pertaining to these omBooks.

As a final note, these Dr. Seuss books are so popular, they are often at the number 1 spot in the books category on iTunes out of thousands and thousands and thousands of other books... not just children's books. All books. Currently, Fox in Socks is number 6, Green Eggs and Ham is 16, and The Cat in the Hat is 20. Also these books are sold across the world to countries I haven't even heard of. How incredible is that, that kids across the world, in places where the print book was never published, now have access to the great Dr. Seuss? And they love it! I think it's so great, and very relevant to anyone who lands on one of these Dr. Seuss Book's Wikipedia page. I hope you agree. Ntaller (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I haven't heard back from you about my last post. Please let me know where you stand because I would like to add a simple sentence or two under the adaptations section for the various Dr. Seuss books. I look forward to hearing from you Ntaller (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That you, with a close connection to a product, think that product is great is neither convincing nor relevant. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you looked at the links I provided. They show that the community of Dr. Seuss fans is highly interested in these omBooks. If you did not look at the links I provided, please just glance at this page which will show you the sheer volume of press interest in this subject. [27] Since you have assumed that I have a close connection with the company, I'm wondering, now that I've explained these products to you, if someone else were to add these omBooks to the pages, someone you deemed more credible, would you still take them down?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntaller (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly cringe, as many of us do, when I see additions to pages made by someone with a clear conflict of interest. Taking a look at the very first link on your the page, we're directed to an ABC story on the 50th anniversary of Green Eggs and Ham. For the story, ABC ran through a selection of the ever-growing list of tributes, adaptations, satires, etc. out there. In addition to briefly mentioning "There's even an app for that." (without mentioning the company), they also mention the 1973 cartoon; readings by American Presidents, Miss Americas, Heismann winners, Hall of Famers and Jesse Jackson on SNL; Food Network recipes; a kids' musical; a pop song; an Iowa State Fair butter carving; YouTube videos; celebrity accolades; and more. Before I cleaned out the Green_Eggs_and_Ham#Adaptations_and_tributes section in the article[28], there were also a Latin version, a St. Elsewhere episode, a computer game, two or three other pop songs, three children's TV series, a Broadway musical and two movies referencing the book. If we dug through all of the references your promotional site gives, we'd probably stumble upon dozens more. Then the Google searching would begin... What we're talking about here is WP:WEIGHT. If a song mentions Gerald Ford, it is unlikely to be notable in any article. If the song is about Ford, that's worth mentioning in an article about the song (if there is one). If there is a fair amount of press about the song, it's probably worth mentioning in the band's article. Unless there is considerable coverage about the song's impact on Ford's professional and/or private life, it is highly unlikely to merit mention in the article about Ford. As a result, despite thousands of pop culture references to him, characters based on him, spoofs about him, songs mentioning him and, undoubtedly, apps that connect with him, the only real pop culture ref in Gerald_Ford#Public_image is to Chevy Chase's repeated lampooning of his perceived clutziness. Your involvement in the placement of the info is troubling, but it is not the reason I am against it. It simply does not have a place in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I never specifically mentioned you by name..but you may want to take a look ;)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 21:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Affiliate Marketing Awards

http://www.adotas.com/2011/02/affiliate-marketing-awards-where-affiliates-shine-brightest/ Can the artical stay TomSF100 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We need substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That source says the awards are "The brain-child of affiliate marketer and blogger Murray Newlands, who often graces these pages with his bylines...", not an independent source, IMO. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

read my edit please for the sake of humanity

Hello friend I see you reverted my edit on our great, honorable, supremely honest, role model, stand up citizen of a justice Antonin Scalia - I am leaving you this message because I believe in you; I want you to be a crusader for justice and equality as well as for the mandates of god; I would rather have 1lifelong ally than 1 lifelong enemy; please read my message and take it to heart after much consideration

I see you reverted my edit but this is one topic that the option to be un(or dis)interested in is life or death for billions of people worldwide. The black and hispanic man is still not free in the U.S. and the rest of the world as well. They (us me) are in a constant fight to survive and make it or lose our lives in this god forsaken world. The knowledge that you are just even typing on the computer (u are editing wiki r u not?) shows me that you are middle class and thus relatively problem free. But friend you have to understand the majority of the world is not as safe and happy as you. MThe majority of the world doesn't have people speaking for thier rights. the majority of the worlds doesn't have corporations and lobbyists telling them where to go when a land lord evicts them, helping them assist their husband when he is jailed not for a crime, but simply because he is black, the majority of the world doesn't have life insurance policies like u and i and can't even speak for themselves. People like you and me are who Christ will Reward in the end of Days. He will not reward people who clutch the Bible and then use it as justification for numerous moral wrongs (criminalizing blacks and hispanics, corporations pollution water supplies, etc. etc. ). HE will transform you and me into zealots at the my friend. All youneed to do is help those unfortunate around you and rise them up to where you are. Three Reasons Why Republicans Are Wrong

If you think you may know why Republican reasoning is flawed, then pay attention because this should bring up some interesting new angles you probably never thought about. I’m not talking about policy differences, conservatism vs liberalism, or just plain illogical hatred. Here are some three solid reasons as to why their ideologies are wrong…

1. Reaganomics is too ideal to work

The whole concept of the trickle-down economy is brilliant. Put the money into the pockets of the corporations, and let their prosperity pull the rest of the population along. A corporation that does well expands further and hires more people, raises salaries, and, in general, improves the quality of life for everyone. People complain when stocks go down in Wall Street. Well, that’s because the corporations aren’t doing well during those times. Most everyone naturally wants these businesses to do well. Ideally, this is fantastic.

There’s a problem: it’s too slow. How long is it going to take before the poor finally get the benefits of this? And how can you insure that eventually everyone is benefited? Can the poor or the unemployed really wait a year or more before help arrives? Putting more money back into the pockets of corporations assumes they will take that money and actually hire more people or create more opportunities for the poor/middle class. This isn’t always the case, and, if it is, it does not happen overnight. I know when my father was unemployed, money was extremely tight. It took a year before my dad was able to actually find a job, and now my family is up to our necks in debt. Luckily we had enough of a reserve, but what about those who don’t? Not everyone is as fortunate, and some people need all the help they can get, and sooner rather than later.

2. America is NOT a Christian nation

America has a majority of its population as some sort of Christian (there’s way too many to keep track of these days). But it was not founded as a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson was a deist, as were many other of the founding fathers. Jefferson was a strong proponent of the separation of church and state, and that’s why it is explicitly written in the Constitution. So, people should be able to worship whatever they want in America, correct?

How can people possibly argue against stem-cell research, or against gay marriage? With the separation of church and state it shouldn’t be possible. If I create an established religion where stem-cell research is part of our practice, then who can argue with that? What about a new religion that only marries gay couples? Just because your religion does not support those beliefs doesn’t mean you can tell others what they can and cannot do. It’s simply not your right. People need to keep their religion to themselves. I will say however that the marriage issue is an easy fix: stop legally calling it marriage and call it a civil union instead. Everyone, under law, should be, “civilly union-ed” and not “married”. Let churches make the marriages. What does this have to do with the Republican party? Traditionally these issues happen to coincide with the Republican party. This is not always the case, but for the most part the argument holds.

3. War is good for the economy, nation-building is not

No matter what anyone else says or how anyone else puts it, the Iraq War is over. It was over years ago. We are no longer fighting a war, we’re trying to keep the peace. What we’re doing in Iraq is nation-building. We’re trying to help Iraqi’s get up on their feet and take care of themselves. There is really no enemy in Iraq, just a bunch of insurgents trying to kick us out. At no point will any of our actions cause this “war” to end. What happens if we do capture Osama Bin Laden? Do you honestly believe terrorism in the Middle East will end once he’s captured? And if he dies… lord only knows what happens when the extremists consider him a martyr. There is no “win” condition. The only win we can accomplish is if Iraq builds itself as a stable country. And that’s not cheap. A real war bolsters the economy by kicking up production, but this occupation of Iraq is draining our resources and killing our men. To claim Iraq is working is mere speculation at best. Should we pull out? Yes. Are we going to feel terrible for the mess and future chaos that will ensue? Yes. Do the Iraqis want us out? Yes. Are we denying the troops victory? We had already won…Template:Unsoigned

Good luck with that. At the moment, though, you're about to be blocked. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Max Gerson Wikipedia Page

The information on this page is biased against the benefits of Gersons therapy because of its limited sources.

To correct this, additional information needs to be made available to readers (including the no less than 4 documentaries that include patient testamonials with medical records showing resmission of symptoms).

There are no trials with evidence to dispute Gerson therapy efficacy, only lack of evidence to prove it.

Lets let the reader decide. Patient testamonials with medical records are not 'unreliable sources.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motzingw (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Patient claims (n=1), small documentaries and other anecdotes are not reliable sources. WP:MEDRS says no. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Test" edits

I've restored my constructive edit. If you believe the (imho completely extraneous) link to Fan (aficionado) adds to the quality of the article, feel free to restore it. However, the period I removed from the one image caption though is a non-controversial part of the edit. Captions which are not grammatically complete sentences but only extended nominals groups do not end in punctuation. In the future, please pay closer attention to your reverts. Consider that others may not check back like I did and in that case a constructive edit would have been mindlessly reverted as a test. That is not acceptable. --78.35.206.162 (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

When an anonymous editor makes an incomplete edit without an edit summary, there's little else to do but revert. The very short history of edits under that IP made it seem unlikely that anyone would check back to see a question on a talk page and there was no hint as to why the edit was made. You might want to consider registering a user name. You should use edit summaries in any case. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Needs work MisSiss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MisSiss

Hello SummerPhD Thank you very much for your help with the text of this Biography. I know that Wikipedia is an important place! We are working to improve. In one week I will add a new reference of a personal webpage with important reference about this artist in Vienna. Concerning the genre, I thought is better to write Style. Here in Argentina where we produced this music we thought to name this new style like a new genre but is right that until now doesn´t exist and is strange to write. The musicians are the most famous of tango music and them were agree with MisSiss about this new genre. "Soul Tango". And the sentence that we wrote "like a coach.... " well until now we have not links to made a reference for it I cleaned the lin. I didn´t know how to edit the vague link. I am new in this. You will do? or I need to do another thing?

Best regards from Buenos Aires. Sealightbaires (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC) sealightbaires

Quick question

Hey there. I noticed you reverted an IP's attempt to blank their talk page and purge any warnings/blocks from view, and your edit summary said they could register for an account to get their own talk page. While I was generally aware that editors were free to delete messages (and, yes, warnings) from their talk pages at will, does the same privilege extend to anon IPs? I am dealing with a similar issue with another IP and wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing. Any info/links would be appreciated. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 00:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: May have answered my own question. --McDoobAU93 01:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Good Day

Good day friend.

I added Katy Perry to this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Muppets_(film)

'Cause in the Katy Perry thread here on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katy_Perry say that she perfomance a cameo in the **The Muppets Movie 2011**

So if Lady Gaga is show, why Katy Perry isn't ??

Thank You ;)

And I will add again to Katy Perry ;)

--Neo ender (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding information about roles in forthcoming films requires citing a reliable source for the information. As the note on your talk page explained,I removed Katy Perry from The Muppets (film) because there was no source cited for the information (Lady Gaga's role is cited in that article). As this information also lacked a source in Katy Perry, I have removed it there as well. For further information, please review verifiability, one of our core policies. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk)

Coffee enema

We're going kayaking tomorrow.

De gustibus non est disputandum! How are you, SummerPhD? Enjoying Spring Break, looking out over the Gulf of Mexico? Drmies (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're tasting them, you're doing it wrong. Alternatives to medicine are like that, though. The Gulf Coast will have to wait, we're probably doing the New England bit this summer, though. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered Maine? Blue Hill has some interesting sights, at least at the cemetery. Thanks for your enemal advice--you are correct. Still, oral application of lots of coffee has a similar effect, no? If you will pardon me--my boat's in the harbor! Drmies (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice that the two of them were so close -- living together, buried together... Oh, and she went to Bryn Mawr and taught at Smith... It's such a shame she never "found the right man". If you will pardon me, the @#$%ing roofing contractor will be here soon.- SummerPhD (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow we're not going kayaking. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good luck. The joys of homeownership. If you care to move--there's a nice house for sale here, for 429,000. Right now it's the one nearest the beach, but there is a lot in front of it. I'll save you a flyer. Hope things went better than you might have feared. Drmies (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A few more years and it'll be on the beach. Eventually, someone else will own it. Doesn't seem like a solid investment of a half million we don't have. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

coffee enema

There's no reason to keep removing the current studies section. What's the deal? Can you give me a solid reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.201.2 (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Issues regarding an article belong on that article's talk page. Rather than merely restoring the contested material, please join the discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

SRI

Sorry about the edit summary. Someone had added the sentence (approximately), "Religion has been a factor in SRI since the days of yore." Someone else removed the sentence. I felt (and still feel) that the substance of the sentence is well-supported by other statements nearby in the article and does not need a separate citation. So I decided to undo the deletion of the sentence and clicked on the version that had it. But "the days of yore" was a bit silly, so I took that part out. Unfortunately, I forgot I was editing an old version, and wrote my edit summary as a change from that version. There was no intent to mislead.

But the ongoing question is what to do about the content dispute. I hoped to short-circuit it by finding a ref and did a quick search on {social investment religion history} and didn't find any useful hits, though I believe the information is out there somewhere.Ma^t_chups 02:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. No harm, no foul. Hope I didn't come off too harshly on that...

The problem, IMHO, is that there's a whole lot of POV bundled under the covers in that simple little sentence. Depending on how strictly we define "investing", what we define as "socially conscious", how do we determine "has been a factor" (or another version's "has been in the forefront of"). Without a good source, I can't see including it. - SummerPhD (talk)

Attack in what sense?

How does turning an attack back on the attacker constitute an attack in itself? I thought I was very restrained in the face of considerable provocation. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not on the contributor. "He hit me first" is not an excuse. Ignoring the attack (for which the user had already been warned) or placing the {{uw-npa1}} template on the other user's talk page would have been constructive. "Hitting" back was not. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, so I was supposed to just let slide his lies and insults where he actually voiced them? Me pointing out the self-evident falsity of his suggestion that I had "followed" him to that particular page was a entirely factual. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You certainly could have addressed the insults and purported lies without calling anyone a "moron" or "conceited". Their personal attacks were wrong. So were yours. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I used "moron" speculatively in inverted commas to mark it out as the word he had already freely and unequivocably aimed at me. I also said I myself was not conceited. Am I allowed to not insult myself? Nick Cooper (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The intent and implications of several of your edits are clear. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Young Artist Awards 2011

Thank you for your renewed interest concerning the notability of the Young Artist Awards and its associated pages. I've added 5 independent reliable sources to Young Artist Awards 2011. Please kindly remove the notability and primary sources templates if you are satisfied by the newly added secondary sources. Otherwise, please begin a discussion on the talk page to explain your concerns in greater detail. Jusses2 (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Kari Byron Date of Birth

Just FYI, I've found a "KARI E BYRON" on the California Birth index available at familytreelegends.com (sorry, can't like to it now, I'm on a mobile device, but Tory Belleci has a citation to it) verifying the December 18, 1974 DOB. Connormah (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. Now, if we can confirm that that "Belleci, Salvator P." is the same "Tory Belleci" and that that "KARI E BYRON" is the same "Kari Byron", we'd have something. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we find anything on the the names of their mothers? IIRC the birth index lists those. Connormah (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be kinda surprised if a celebrity who isn't listing their birth date is sharing their mother's name. Good luck! - SummerPhD (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lyxor Asset Management

Hello SummerPhD. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lyxor Asset Management, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation: He decided that you were full of non-sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.61 (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh... oh my god no... anything but that... I feel so... so positively wounded by the lonely guy making tit jokes on Wikipedia. Now I must cry. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is someone accesing your account

Hi, I noticed and reverted this change to the Vegetarianism article from your account. I have checked your history and other edits are constructive, so perhaps you should check if someone else is accessing your account. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My bad. The diff I saw and a bit of inattention on my part. The prior editor had reverted half of a vandal's edits. I inadvertently reverted the half correction Check my edit summary. Thanks for the catch. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

wasnt vandalism

The study linked to that I deleted on vegetarianism doesnt talk about vegetarianism, but prescetarianism. Prescetarians eat fish and poultry; they are not vegetarians. Therefore it is erroneous to state that the study found people with higher IQs became vegetarians, because they were not vegetarians, but prescetarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.200.55 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was pure vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Mick Thomson

Dear editor, please reconsider the multitude of tags at the top of this article. Some vandal just came by and did a hack job. Thank you. Signed: The Anonymous Avenger.

@#$%ing breeders going after my talk page again. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, The Breeders are certainly not "innocent". They've ... um ... gotten around. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also incidentally, I love "Cannonball." Still do, after all those years. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That being the case, I can highly recommend the solo albums by Amy Ray. Yeah, of the Indigo Girls. Honestly, though, solo she's a rock artist more like the Ramones than the group stuff would have you believe. I'm particularly fond of Stag (Amy Ray album), though while it is true that "Lucystoners don't need [[Hot dog|boners" I think she's unduly harsh on Jann Wenner. If nothing else, it's cheaper than a house on the Gulf Coast and more accessible than anything bell hooks ever wrote. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Really Summer, which part of "no wikilinks in quotes" don't you get? I ordered Didn't It Feel Kinder, so I could get the matching shirt for my oldest daughter. I listened to a couple of bars from the Knoxville album and that sounds good too, but I'll save that for later. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I ruined my brilliant joke with a typo. Story of my life. I had a student last year who got published. Two weeks later, engaged. No Lucystoner, she's taking his name (kids today...). Just as well, they misspelled her first name in the dead tree edition (but not on line...) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

<--It took forever, but my woman finally took my name a year ago. And what a hassle it's been! My last name is weird! The bank account is still in her name, 'cause there's no branch offices in our state! Her former last name is now her middle name! I tell you, with all that hullabaloo it's hard to relish in the thought of property finally being transferred in the proper way. Oh, she's calling--gotta go and do the dishes. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Kitchen clean, lunches made, clothes put away, Dante quiz made, I'm done. Hey, whatever happened to your roof? Got it fixed? Drmies (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably. While it seems everything is shipshape, I'm reserving judgment until after monsoon season (a.k.a. "Spring") wraps up. Fingers crossed. Do you suppose it's legit to offer extra credit to anyone willing to replace some failing plumbing? I'm sure the old pipes are at least 50 years old and were likely installed by someone whose story reflects on the state of social welfare policies of the time. I'm thinking a paper titled, "Immigrant labor in the mid 20th century as reflected in Doc's old pipes" coupled with new copper pipes. I'm flexible on the title of the paper (academic freedom and all), but copper pipes are a must. Think it'll fly? (Honestly: I once had a student suggest, right after midterms, that his roommate could give us a good deal on house painting...) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Magical negro

Hi Summer. I think you posted this to the wrong user page, right? I haven't made any additions to article, not recently anyway. I did add a tag to an unsourced edit. No harm done. If I had a dollar every time I posted to the wrong page I could retire early. :) Best wishes. Cresix (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure enough. Haste makes waste. Sorry! - SummerPhD (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Land levelling

Wow, that's *yawn* really exciting stuff. Impossible to imagine, but if you get bored with copyediting that thrilling prose, perhaps you can swing your gaze toward Kelley Deal and associated articles? They need references, reorganization, discographies, sex, and car chases. Nothing you can't handle. Thanks in advance! Drmies (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• BTW, congratulations: "I do not see a need for a "Slipknot expert" (!) here" is beautiful. And now, dishes and baths. Breeding is SO much fun! Drmies (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Kelley Deal's notability is fairly marginal. Basically, it seems her drug problem is the only thing that really tips the balance, and that's pretty sad. Maybe asking for a Breeding Breeders expert would help? In theory, we could slap a pointless LGBT project tag on it. It would either be completely ignored (likely) or draw some attention to it as the community pointlessly argues about whether or not the tag belongs there. Meanwhile, someone flipping between an IP and a user name continues to play stupid games with the most important article in the world and the future fate of Land levelling is left to someone who "know(s) the rules of this a little better" but hasn't figured out the whole talk page thing yet. Where's your sense of priorities? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Mine? In my pants, pointing proudly at Kelley Deal, who's more notable than you or I will ever be. But I won't stand in the way of you and land levelling. Maybe that needs an LGBT tag. Or I nominate it for deletion, you slap an ARS tag on it, and the Colonel comes riding in with the cavalry. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Kelley Deal? Really? I can't say I get it. Oh well, to each their own. As for her notability, 359 g-hits? Heck, I'm at 220 on Google scholar (with the ink on my PhD still fairly damp) and I'm feeling the PorP pressure on a regular basis (though I'm technically not tenure track). The Colonel's cavalry doesn't impress me. As for one of his fellow travelers, who shall remain nameless, I think we're reaching more kids today. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey wanted to say thanks, I did not know you can send a message like this, hence why I wrote on your article page. I thought that was what you did on mine, but I guess you sent a message. I hope what I wrote didn't offend you in anyway, I was just explaining myself. Thanks again for leaving that page pretty much alone, it is a class project that I had to do, hence why I kept changing it back. I'm new to wikipedia, and to be honest only created this account because I had to do this for that course. So I really have no idea how to actually edit these pages. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjh9-NJITWILL (talk • contribs) 15:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheese steak page edits

Dear SummerPhd: The edits to the above page were made for the reasons given: the Olivieris did not invent the cheese steak, no matter popular attribution: the history directly above their mention establishes the sandwich existed at the end of the 19th century. They popularized it.

The edit attributing the popularity of Cheeze Whiz to Pat's introduction is not unsourced or unsupported. It simply condenses what is established elsewhere in the article. You want to trim that down to merely re-state that Pat introduced it and no more, be my guest.

The "Variations" subhead is a flytrap for all manner of variation. I had cheese steaks yesterday and today from two different places. You want me to list them, too? A cheese steak is a cheese steak: steak, cheese, onions, peppers and mushooms if you please. Going beyond that is not encyclopedic, it's fanpage stuff. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summaries do not summarize your edits. They should. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Point made. I'll endeavor to do better. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the history directly above says "The cheesesteak was developed in the early 20th century" and the sources say the Oliveris are "credited with inventing" the cheesesteak. I've made this correction again. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As I find no source elsewhere in the article claiming Pat's introduced Whiz, I've added a {{cn}} tag for the moment. I've returned a reduced version of the varieties section, keeping only brief descriptions of the very common chicken cheesesteaks and pizza steaks, as sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The addition of cheese in general and Whiz in particular has a bit of unsourced competing claims in Pat's_King_of_Steaks. Pending a source, I've removed it from this article. Further discussion re edits will go to the article talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So, I see you prefer a patently erroneous "sourced" claim to simple reality - as stated at the top of the History section - that the sandwich existed for some thirty to forty years before the Olivieris as credited with having "invented" it. This is preposterous, and thoroughly non-encylopedic editing. "Citing" an error does not make it so. Respectfully, Wikiuser100 (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thirty to forty years (unsourced) before 1930 is no longer the "early 20th century" cited. 1930, as sourced, is. I'm moving this to the article talk page. Please respond there. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Denise Boutte

Hey SummerPhD it's me Jabrona. I got her date of birth off of IMDB and I assumed it wasn't false since the date of birth of actors from that site are usually accurate. Sorry for the mishap. There's a similar issue regarding Michelle Thomas' date of birth being September 23, 1969 when there's a needed source for that even though it's been confirmed by people who know her personally. - Jabrona 021:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical information. We do not take information from a user edited site (like IMDb) assuming it is "usually accurate". Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't really see IMDB as a user-edited site considering it's not like you can make a simple edit like on here since there are steps that must be confirmed before actual changing can take place, so yeah. But again, sorry for the mishap. - Jabrona 023:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, we have discussed imdb before and decided it isn't a reliable source. For example... - SummerPhD (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So...

Not that this is exactly wiki related, but ya know I'm a human and I think you may find this interesting. You have the first name of someone that really means a lot to me. I mean even seeing your username kind of haunts me, I mean not that's that is necessarily a band thing, I mean her and I still talk, it's just... you know how it is when there's that person that just steals your heart, ya know? =P - GunMetal Angel 06:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Brings to mind The Mango Song, "When you love somebody/And the dick you around/Doesn't that really suck?"

It's cold comfort, of course, but... well, who am I to give advice? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of internet links waiting removing

A lot of internet links waiting removing in page what you have restored, see page before references.--Musamies (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit of digging tells me you are talking about Mummers Parade. However, I still don't know why you were removing all of that. Can you explain why you were removing it or list the Wikipedia policy you feel applies? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it also so in your wiki that all intenetlinks shall be in references part or in external links part. In text area shall not be any internetlinks. Thats why I remove them.--Musamies (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand what you are saying: "No links in-line with text." That's fine, but the information with it (the names of the organizations) should remain. I'll make the change. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for the good detective work at List of collective nouns. I didn't have time to investigate, but I was hoping someone would. Cresix (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I'm watching TV. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. A colleague mentioned it was on (he's a bit of a buffoon, but he tries ;). I have it set to record in the early AM. I'm not sure if it's new or not (our jerry-rigged TV setup doesn't really give us much info). I might have seen it. I keep meaning to buy a DVD recorder for this type of thing to loan around (instead of sending people looking for illegal rips online or to buy it at Giovanni's). Too confusing for me: DVD-R, DVD+R, rewritable, WORM, Blue ray, arrgh! Time to call in a tech-savvy in-law... - SummerPhD (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I have a DVD-R machine, but I'm not sure how it works. I'm watching purely by chance, didn't know it was on. It's pretty good, and I never knew about it (also, I didn't know we did such terrible things, electroshocks and all--explains a thing or two about some of my in-laws). Drmies (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just narrowed my assumed description of who you are: If you didn't know Stonewall, I know a few fields you don't work in (or, at least, I hope you don't work in). Maybe I should refer you to Giovanni's[29]. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Next time on American Experience, it's the Freedom Riders. (See Greyhound Bus Station (Montgomery, Alabama) and First Baptist Church (Montgomery, Alabama), written by yours truly.) I had a friend in high school for whom Giovanni's Room apparently was the eye opener. I don't know if my work is so relevant to my ignorance of topics like Stonewall. They don't really teach a lot of US gay history in Dutchland. They don't really teach a lot of it here either. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

See, I learned something already. I'd have picked you for a Northeast transplant living in Illinois. Shows what I know.

Here, not far from a different Dutchland (which used to feature a large windmill and people in clogs), Stonewall is pretty huge. Given the general lack of local knowledge that the Pennsylvania Dutch are of Deutsche origin, not "Dutch" and mentions of "The Hague" having my students wondering what he had to do with the ICC, I guess I should expect U.S. LGBT watersheds wouldn't necessarily translate.

As for Giovanni's Room, that's a pretty nasty cover. I think I read it in a "collected works" kinda deal. The one I referred too is pretty eye-opening as well. Walking through the gayborhood in Philly, this seemingly small bookshop on the outside is a rather large bookshop/community center on the inside (painted "lesbian bookstore purple", of course). Kinda like the phonebooth thing in that British scifi show I can never remember, but gay. Very gay. Or so I'm told -- I mean about the phonebooth thing, not the gay thing. I'm quite sure it's gay. Quite gay.

Here's a challenge for you: as soon as possible, mention Stonewall to someone who clearly would have no clue otherwise. On my end, I'll try to clear up the distinction between rural Anabaptist dirt farmers in Pennsylvania and a kingdom in Europe for the next tourist who asks me about "Ay-mish" country. Together, we'll improve the world, if only by a tiny bit. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I find your discussions to be quite entertaining, I come here sometimes. I find it interesting that Netherlanders are referred to as Dutch, but Deutchland is referred to as Germany. The neighborhood of Dutchtown here in St. Louis, Missouri was actually built by Germans.

If you guys haven't ever read this, please do. I got a big kick out of it. --Confession0791 ^talk 01:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, looks like the next generation has a few things to sort out. Hopefully there's someone around to set them straight about the L's, G's, B's and T's. (Get it? "Straight"! Haw, I'm really funny.) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello, I was just wondering if you could explain of why you reverted my recent edit to mutual fund? Monterey Bay (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated. First, your edit was 'not "minor rewording". You removed someone's POV addition ("Some investors believe that government regulation is a disadvantage rather than an advantage.") and changed "Less predictable income" to "Lower profit potential". "Less predictable" is not the same as "Lower potential" and "income" (dividends) is not the same as "profit" (vague, but probably capital gains and might include dividends). Second, I did not "revert" your edit. I removed "Lower profit potential" as the vague "Fees" is already on the list. The only thing that reduces mutual fund profits compared to similar investments outside of a fund is "fees" (loads and expenses). Listing "Fees" and "Lower profit potential" is redundant. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Falley Jr.

Regarding Richard Falley Jr. being Notable (in your eyes.)

Wouldn't having a street in the city named for a person make them notable (Falley Dr.)? Or maybe having a tablet provided by the Westfield Bicentennial Committee. (http://www.falley.org/) Please take the time to do the research other than a quick google. Perhaps check out the library where they have old grinding wheels and tools from the armory he ran off of Reservoir Rd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulB1979 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:PaulB1979#Westfield.2C_Massachusetts. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So Sad

So sad to go thru life never motorboating or being motorboated, sadder still to be so vigilant about a discussion page about a long dead tv show. MBRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.61 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my vigilance is indeed sadder than your sexual frustration. Still, I feel sorry for you. Odd. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Jamie Hyneman

A Google Books Search shows that he was born on September 25 - see [30]. Connormah (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

More searching supports the Marshall, Michigan place, and Sept 25, 1956... see [31] Connormah (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam Savage DOB: [32] Connormah (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Kari Byron: [33] (page is for December 18) Connormah (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Google searches are not reliable sources. A Google search shows that, at this particular moment, there are websites showing that information. "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." A Google search is not "published" nor does it have a "reliable publication process" (one with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Using a Google search, we can document that the Moon landings were faked, George W. Bush is a lizard man or any other "idea" someone has put on a website. We need a reliable source, not a web search showing that there are some "sources" of some kind somewhere. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the books the searches yielded - see the links. (eg. in Chase's calendar of events 2009 - Page 472, it lists Hyneman's DOB as Sept. 25, 1956, in MArshall, Michigan) Connormah (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where they get their info, but it looks like a reliable source. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dana Barron

You removed text that stated Dana Barron had a sister named Allison, claiming it was 'unsourced'. The reference that I cited (Celebrity Parents Magazine) clearly indicates they are siblings. Calm Seas101 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I read your latest edit, and added Allison again, this time without the last name. Calm Seas101 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say her sister is "Allison Barron", as added in the section with her husband and son. I neglected to add her sister "Allison" under her early life section. I've since corrected this. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Keltz

I would like you to take a look at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Jonathan Keltz. There was an article about this fellow that was sent to AFD in January 2010.[34] As I myself commented back then, I felt that while the fellow might be seen to meet WP:ENT, there was simply not enough reliable coverage at that time upon which to build a decent BLP. That has changed. In the intervening 14 months, the fellow has received growing coverage and recognition he lacked originally. And with the new coverage, available only since the deletion,[35] I feel it benefits the project to have this new version of the article return to mainspace to further grow and be expanded. No point to a DRV, as there was no flaw in the reasoning for original deletion... but what I have built is not the same as the article that was deleted, and this due to actor's career and coverage not sitting still over the last 14 months. I seek your approval in its return AND in it not being mistakenly speedied as a G4 recreation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks fairly shaky, IMO. Yeah, lots of sources with big names, but they are used to cite... roles. Is he notable? Under WP:ENT, I'd say no way: the two roles he's supposedly best known for are minor roles that aren't mentioned in the plot descriptions of the main articles. No presumption of notability there. This leaves substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Based on what is currently sourced in the article, I don't see it. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an additional note... I brought it to the deleting admin's attention and he gave his okay to an return to mainspace,[36] and sent me a link to the version he speedied, which I then found in a google cache.[37] I can well understand his deletion of that earlier version. Yikes.

But as I do believe Keltze "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," has himself specifically been written about in context to his roles in Entourage and Prom, and as there are 1. other sources available for expansion and sourcing, and 2. a reasonable expectation that the upcoming releases of Playback and Transgression[38] (new articles likely on the horizon), perhaps it might be conceded that we have just enough to allow it to remain and be expanded in due course of time? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, I think there is very, very little chance of a speedy. It sounds like it is substantially different, so that should be clear. If it goes up the way I saw it, deletion wouldn't be on my to do list. I'd certainly tag it and might need to dig in and see what kind of biographical info we have and can add. I disagree on the WP:ENT pass, but it's really a moot point. Passing or failing a guideline shouldn't matter; sources matter. I hope that some of those sources currently being uselessly cited for indisputable roles can be moved to source more substantial info about him: hometown, schooling, something. I'll be watching for it (for some work), but I don't feel any particular need to argue with anyone about it. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll see about some additional expansion and sourcing before going live. Thanks for the input. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please Keep your political views out of my Wikipedia discussions (Birther discussion)

Hello Summer,

I noticed your recent condemnation of my remarks on the Birther page, claiming that I was "debating" and not discussing the article. And yet, even as I described myself as a Tea Party conservative (though by no means a Birther), I noticed the first thing on your page was a bunch of Liberal quotes. Does it not seem coincidental that I myself happen to have brought up my involvement in the Tea Party, and you, a Liberal, immediately attack my writings? I ask that you please put aside our political differences and work to maintain the neutrality that Wikipedia is supposed to demonstrate. Left wingers have already vandalized pages on conservative movements, and I worked to remove allegations that the Birther movement was "racist". My discussion was not to promote my own beliefs, but rather to attack the deep knives of racism. To call anyone or a movement a racist is beyond even the most horrid accusations. By no means, regardless of a left-wing individual's views, should it be affiliated with a movement on a Wikipedia page. I, along with the Democrat who originally was shocked to see the words and brought up the issue, felt compelled to immediately ensure the vandalism was removed. My and your political beliefs have nothing to do with it, so, if by some chance, you snapped at me because I am a Tea Party Conservative, please refrain from doing so in the future. I shall revise my discussion to make it more related to the article, if you wish.

Finally, to inform you, I am not a newbie on Wikipedia. I have been contributing to pages for a few months now, but only just decided it was worth creating an account a few weeks back. Thank you, however, for your concern.

If you wish to discuss politics, by all means, I am with you! I absolutely love debate, and would be glad to have an educated discussion with my liberal counterparts. I am afraid that too many of us Tea Partiers have been described as "gun-toting, anti-intellectual rednecks" (as I believe were the remarks of the former NPR chief executive officer), and now wish to reverse this commonly held stereotype. Nbarile18 (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for prolonged discussions of politics or any other topic, whether related to the article in question or not. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you, without any prior authorization, simply deleted all my contributions because they opposed your own thoughts is absolutely shocking! You have a right to believe my writings were too political, however, you have no right whatsoever to wipe out my all my contributions to the DISCUSSION page. I implore you to revert your edit, in which I myself may then proceed to revise my contribution. What you are doing is known as Censorship, in which one intentionally distorts or deletes the work of those opposing their beliefs. Please disregard that I am a Conservative and you a Liberal, and contribute and edit Wikipedia in a neutral and unbiased manner. You have absolutely no jurisdiction in deciding what is debate and what is active discussion relating to an article. Nbarile18 (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not delete all of your contributions, I removed your otalk page discussion which had nothing to do with improving the article. I did not do this because our thoughts differ, I did this because your discussion had nothing to do with improving the article. I do not believe your discussion was "too political", I believe it had nothing to do with improving the article. Actually, yes, I do have the right to remove contributions from article talk pages that have nothing to do with improving the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. Removing off-topic discussion on talk pages is not censorship any more than removing vandalism or unsourced material from an article is censorship. Wikipedia is not a forum. Using it as such is no more defensible than using an open area in a shopping mall for a baseball game. In either case, you will be asked to stop. I have full "jurisdiction" in deciding what is discussion related to improving the article and what is not. So do you. So does every other editor on Wikipedia. When we disagree on another editor's actions, we have the "right" to seek additional opinions. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution for further options if you believe your discussion was somehow intended to improve the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sharpay's Fabulous Adventure Edit

Out of curiosity, am I able to use YouTube as a source if the channel is from Disney Channel's YouTube? --DisneyFriends (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO: If it is clearly their official channel, we can make limited use of it, with caution. First, it does not count in any way toward notability (for notability in establishing an article or for moving a fact out of the "trivial" realm). Next, the fact being sourced must not be the least bit controversial (no claims it's a great film, critics love it, etc. for example). Also, don't interpret anything, use it to support simple, concrete facts only (release date, who is in what role, etc.). - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Giving the dog his day

Sir, you're a good woman. If the article gets kept after all, maybe you'll be allowed to lick the canine's bowl, in an appropriate nod to the adventures of the "real" Pickles. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I won't stoop so low as to point out that you implied that many the American politician's claims about gay marriage leading to man-on-dog action aren't all that far-fetched (NPI) after all. As I said, I won't stoop so low as to mention that, so be grateful, you sicko. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, I wasn't implying that at all. And if I was, I didn't mean to, though Sadie kept me warm many a cold night up in the Appalachian mountains after we ran out of money to buy diesel fuel to heat the home which we couldn't afford (the diesel fuel that is, which incidentally I didn't know was diesel since I didn't know kerosene and diesel are apparently the same thing, but also incidentally we couldn't afford it, that is, the house, to buy it, which we tried to but the owner was asking some ridiculous price) since there was a 100 gallon minimum, but it was all above the sheets (metaphorically, of course, since literally we were under the sheets, and a double set of blankets as well). But at least we were of the opposite sex--I guess, since I don't know if dogs are culturally gendered in the way that we are, I mean, I'm obviously a man's man, you know?

Which reminds me--I wanted to ask you, if you want to get out from under that molded roof of yours, you can buy our house, and if you do, you'll get pool privileges in the new house (across the street). I'll make you a squeal of a deal... Drmies (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The deal would have to be considerably skinnier than square. The "Ivory Tower" seems to think the prestige of working there should be payment enough. To be nice, they also include a little walking*-around-money and reasonably decent benefits. *i.e., not enough to pay for a car or transit pass. I'd never heard the whole diesel/kerosene thing. I've heard of people (against car-care-type-advice (and the law)) using untaxed heating oil in their meant-to-be-fueled-with-taxed-diesel cars. I'd have to assume that heating oil is a bit more "rustic" than diesel, given the simpler mechanics involved. So probably a bad idea all around. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I'm amazed that he has the gumption to show his mug after Santorum (sexual neologism). And do you have the balls (metaphorically or otherwise) to place a hatnote above his article linking to that term? Drmies (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Tempting but, surprisingly enough, there's been some bickering about that on the talk page. S h o c k i n g . in any case, I don't see a need for it. Someone searching for frothy mix would end up at the disamb page, Santorum. If, on the other hand, we had an article on Saddlebacking... - SummerPhD (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice! I'll keep that in mind next time I teach linguistics. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Victorious Soundtrack

So you decided to use the All Music Guide link as a reference for Victorious (soundtrack). I was hoping to find an additional source, and to wait until AMG had more data as well. Regarding iCelebz, that site looks like more of a gossip site rather than a fan site. Not that I blame you for wanting to remove it, because I have a strong feeling that site is infected. ----DanTD (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I decided we pretty much had to use the AMG page because without it the page would remain unsourced. It should have been deleted, but no one bothered to !vote. I guess the article will remain a bare shell for now. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Brucejenner sockpuppet investigation

Hi - I noticed that you've been working recently on the Brucejenner SPI. I was wondering if you would weigh in on Wikipedia:Help_desk#how_to_handle_a_confirmed_sock_puppet_of_two_users.3F. There's at least one user who's been confirmed as a sockpuppet of both Brucejenner and Polylepsis, and I'm wondering if that has implications for the SPIs -- should they be merged? Can we conclude that they're all the same socks? etc. Thanks —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Shepard Smith article talk page

I am curious why you deleted the entire "hair" section from the talk page for Shepard Smith's BLP article, including a valid response from a Sysop that the posting was frivolous. The posting certainly appeared to be silly and may even have been a type of joke but I do not understand why you just deleted the section which appears to go against Wiki policy for talk pages without a satisfactory explanation in the edit summary other then the vague "-chat". You have more then 12 times the edits I do so there must be a policy reason that I am unaware of. I have reverted your deletion pending your explanation. Veriss (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the edit as it was discussion that was not intended to improve the article.WP:FORUM While the discussion may have appeared merely frivolous, in the context of that editor's other edits, it was clearly of non-constructive intent. Note the first three edits were all to talk pages and were all frivolous-to-bizarre mentions of hair. See also the user's talk page. Given a chat warning on one article, they ramped it up with a clear BLP violation on another. Warned for that, the editor restored both edits they had been warned about. This resulted in a 31 hour block, from which the editor did not return. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of this article, I would like to appologize for my comment on Talk:Shepard Smith. It really wasn't posted with malicious intent or to be libelous. I'm just very concerned about the guy considering REDACTED. I really don't believe the rumors about REDACTED, and was shocked that anyone would make such accusations, and wanted to know what would have provoked such false information. Had I posted this on Shepard Smith instead of Talk:Shepard Smith, that would have definitely had been a BLP infraction. Another thread in the talk page is far more libelous than the question I posted with the intent of ending such disinformation. Apparently, that was wrong. And for that I appologize. Sorry for the mistake.--Bushido Hacks (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of your intent, WP:BLP specifically applies to talk pages as well, including this one. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania

Dear Summer, Thank you for taking the time to discuss your edits with other editors. The relevant [[39]] does not seem to indicate a person is notable only if he has an article about him. Perhaps I missed it. Could you point it out? Often I skip over things when reading before my coffee. Notable seems (according to the cite) mean "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. I would propose these people having risen to the senior leadership of the military are notable. The one fellow who enlisted in the army in mid-war despite his educational background seems quite notable. With this as background, perhaps you would like to revert your edit. Many thanks, Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The entries were unsourced and based on subjective, recentist criteria. As the [User_talk:PaulinSaudi#May_2011 standard notice] explains, "In general, a person or organization added to a list...should have a pre-existing article to establish notability." None of the names have such an article. Additionally, none of them are properly sourced (one was sourced to a blog, the others were completely unsourced). The page you are citing, Wikipedia:Notability_(people), goes on to explain, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Needless to say, none of the names cited such sources. Consider, for a moment, what such lists in other articles would look like. Each of those people are connected to at least one town or city (most are connected to more than one), went to a high school, went to at least one college, had at least one academic major and fit under various other lists of "Notable _______s". How long will the lists of vegetarians, business administration majors, computer programers, people from New York City, fraternity _ _ _ members, etc. be under your proposed criteria? You are arguing for "senior leadership" in the military. Now expand those lists to senior leadership in business (6,000+ publicly traded companies in the U.S. alone), senior leadership in various cities, states and countries (sure, the Mayor of Chicago; how about the deputy mayor of Springfield, Washington?), every person in "senior leadership" ever, of course, not just the four very recent ones you are arguing for. Shippensburg dates to 1871. How about every person in such positions going back through history. The University of Pennsylvania (1740)? How about Pembroke (1347)? For the record, Pembroke lists 64 people, all with articles. Further, they have a Category for their alumni (all with articles, of course). - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Summer, Thank you for your reply. If we were print the 'pedia on paper we would have to limit ourselves more strictly than we in fact do. Listing many names, or places or whatnot cause no harm that I can see. Further, I can see where it would do some good. Further, if over-listing of non-notable people were a problem, we would have a policy to address that issue. In the absence of a policy, I see no reason to make one up for article. If you feel that there ought to be a policy, you ought to work to establish one. Elsewise, we will have one set of guidelines for this article and another set of other articles. I think we can agree that would not be a Good Thing. I do however humbly admit that additions without citations ought to be deleted. I would propose deleting the ones that lack a citation or a blue link. Can we compromise on that? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The entries did not have blue links and were unsourced. Discussion continues on the thread you've established on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Summer, Thank you for your reply. So you will insist that notable means blue link? I believe the policy allows for notability without a blue link. Of course we agree all entries must have a cite. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point, the discussion is clearly about article content, not specific editor's edits. Please continue the discussion in the thread you've established on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Your User Page

By the way, your user page is excellent. Congratulations. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

IP vandals

Hi, I noticed you came across a couple of IP vandals; I believe that they are sockpuppets of a banned editor, Pricer1980 (talk · contribs). The IP address is ever-changing, so combating the vandalism requires some persistence. I have a sub-page at User:Erik/Draft providing some information; the talk page also has some notifications of IP vandals. Wanted to give you a heads-up. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Blake Michael

Just to let you know I've just declined your G4 on this article cos it's actually quite different to the originally deleted version. Similar, but different enough IMHO (4-5 times the content!) to warrant a new discussion. [stwalkerster|talk] 00:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Just thought we might save some time. Oh well. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

External Link

After looking over guidelines for external links, I wrote on the Discussion Page that I wanted to add an external link to the monthly newspaper The Coastal Star. It's a paper that uses paid reporters to cover hyper local news including that of Highland Beach. I heard nothing from anyone. So I added it and now I hear the link is to spam. I don't get the reasoning so would like to find out more. Thank you. Dhartz (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I know you've asked the question a few times[40][41][42][43]. I also see that your addition of the link has been reverted several times, by several editors[44][45][46][47] (the last two were mine). You've also been given notes giving links to various related policies[48]. Hopefully I will be able to clarify the situation for you.

The link you've added, http://thecoastalstar.com/ (which you say is a "legitimate monthly newspaper" serving the various communities you've added the link to) is problematic in a number of regards. In general, Wikipedia is not a collection of links or a web guide. While the site may provide information about current events in those communities, Wikipedia is aimed at providing a general overview of the topics it covers. The detailed day-to-day happenings are well outside of our field. Our guideline on external links explains what we generally do and do not link to. The site does not clearly hit one of the three items we normally link to: #1 official sites for the subject (such as the City of Boca Raton's website), #2 a free copy of the work that is the topic (does not apply to the articles in question) or #3 sites with neutral, accurate and relevant information that cannot be included in the article for a number of reasons (reasons that do not apply here).

This takes us to links we would consider including: #1 concerns professional reviews of films, books and such and does not apply here. #2 rich media files (such as links to an artist's videos, film clips and such) #3 a link to a directory of websites or organizations (not your link) #4 sites that are not reliable sources but still give content from sources considered knowledgeable about the topic (for example, a blog by a recognized expert on a topic) (also not your site).

So, we don't have a compelling reason to include the site. What reason to we have to specifically not include it? Well, under our list of links to avoid we have several that apply to one degree or another: #4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website" (as your only edits have been aimed at adding this link to several articles, this applies) and #10 & 11, links to networking sites and blogs (which seems to be most of your site).

Hopefully this clears things up. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you

That that line is trivial. Bet you didn't read the news report.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Foxhound66, you will find that other users have an easier time responding to you if you A) give the name of the article you are talking about (apparently Jennette McCurdy in this case) and don't obscure your user name.

The single performance you added does not seem to be noteworthy, as is typically the case for such once-and-done events. Exceptions to this general rule are identifiable by coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, other than local media. If Joe Blow performs at the Capital City Dome, the Capital City Gazette might report on it as being of local interest. If the event is in some way notable, media from outside the area (national newspapers, for instance, or major papers from far outside the area). Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Rageholic Filled With Rageahol

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SummerPhD for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even get a chance to respond. (Closed as bad faith accusation.) - SummerPhD (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So why wasn't the one you started closed as a bad faith accusation, since it obviously was? Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In your sock case, it was determined that the other account was a sock of yours.[49] - SummerPhD (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually read the things you cite?

Seriously? Do you read the things you cite or do you just google the article title and if it is in there it is obviously a reliable source regardless of the context? Did you fail reading comprehension or something? Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be angry. Please be careful to avoid personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to add Overpush as a sockpuppet, too.

You forgot to add Overpush as a sockpuppet of me. He is obviously one since we disagree with you and made edits on things that are in the same state. How did you miss that? Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In your sock case, it was determined that the other account was a sock of yours.[50] If I think Overpush is a sock, I'll add that one as well. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think you would do it, but you did. You'll probably wind up with yet another person pissed off at you and your lies. Apparently anyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet. That is one way to get what you want. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do it. You didn't think. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, looks like you won't be replying for awhile. Bummer. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you handle the truth?

Why can't you handle the truth? Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful to avoid personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a message

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

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Move_Closer_to_Your_World

Holy hell. For keeping your cool after all of that, here is a cookie. What a nightmare that must have been.--v/r - TP 19:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

TParis has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks! (To be honest, though...[51]) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Why delete Selena Gomez & The Scene Song, "Bang Bang Bang"?

Hi, I was wondering why you wanted to delete the article Bang Bang Bang (Selena Gomez & The Scene song) because it is have been officially released as a digital download. iTunes Store officially released it on June 7th, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.152.141 (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As the article's AfD discussion page explains, the song is not notable. Per WP:NSONG, "Most songs[note 5] 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 independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song has not charted, won significant awards or been released by several artists. If you disagree, please comment at the AfD page linked above. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok you're right, I'm sorry. 174.28.244.90 (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Response

How's this source for Gibby's hometown? 89119 (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO, The Orange County Register is reliable. However, all of the pages I can find on their site that mention Munck say he is "of Mission Viejo" -- apparently he lives there. However, the article is saying where he was born. His website says he was "born and raised" in Orange County. Yes, Mission Viejo is in Orange County, but it is certainly possible that he's moved within the county since he was born. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding placement of new link

Dear SummerPhD, Please, explain me, the reasons to delete a link Pumpable ice technology from Supercooling? I install this link because this technology includes different refrigeration processes including, of course, Supercooling. I gave you, to my point of view, very detailed answer in our previous discussion. After your critics I installed additional links taking into account your opinion. In addition, in this page Supercooling there is a link of slush (beverage) that is a very quite local case for Supercooling. You did not removed this link. Pumpable ice technology covers many refrigeration process and it is very relevant to be installed as a link in Supercooling. I suppose on your balanced answer. BR Swallow2011, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swallow2011 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Colonial Theatre changes

Hello there, SummerPhD. Regarding your recent revert, no worries. I don't edit pages very much but felt that page was a bit lacking. I added a bunch of sources to the talk page for the Colonial theatre, if you'd like to take a gander at them prior to my adding them and re-adding the reverted text. If not, I'll just go ahead and re-add the material with source links added.

Thanks! CharlieFandango (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

hi, nice to meet you

Whats up!!! I wanted to talk to you about the Michelle Thomas page. I looked up her birth and death date and i don't have any specific website for her info, although i did see in part of the text on Google on pretty much every website that said she was born in September 23 and died in December 23. Is there a wikipedia chatbox we can chat on because sending messages on talk pages is a bit unpractical and difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boberson33 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There has been substantial discussion on this already (see the article's talk page). Yes, "various websites" report one date. However, other "websites" give conflicting information. Many of these sites are not reliable sources anyway, so whatever they say is moot. Reliable sources (major newspapers and magazines, generally), as cited in the article, also give conflicting information (disagreeing on her age at death and not giving a birth date). If you can find a reliable source giving her birth date, that would be useful. Beyond that, please see discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Warning

Your "warning" was completely uncalled for! I did not violate Wikipedia's BLP rule, and besides, you are not an admin, so you had NO RIGHT to put that on my page anyway. Thank you. PingaBinga (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edit made an unsourced contentious claim about a living person. I do not have to be an admin to remove such claims, warn you for them and, if need be, have you blocked for the same. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're already blocked. Oh well. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Finkelstein

"selecting a quote others might disagree with does not make a "controversy".
I agree, though I couldn't immediately see where else would have been relevant to put it.
Just change a word to see how outrageous his agreement with Sontag is: "The [Jewish] race is the cancer of human history". You're telling me you would calmly say that "others might disagree" and remove the quote if someone said that about Jewish people? Are you antisemitic as well as an anti-White racist? Iloveandrea (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot simply select a quote and add it to the article. Doing so allows any editor to create bias in the article.

As a thought experiment, pick any subject and look for quotes making them sound brilliant, stupid, conciliatory, argumentative, etc. With enough source material, it is absurdly easy. Now imagine the effect allowing this would have in, for instance, Barack Obama. Love him or hate him, it's obvious the article would quickly become a relentless battleground in ceaseless edit wars.

If independent reliable sources have commented on it, you may have a case for including it, otherwise not -- especially in a biography of a living person. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Retraction

Well SummerPhD, I've seen your user page and see that you do have a sense of humor, so I retract the charge that you do not—it is completely without foundation. As to the sock puppetry I abase myself before you and beg forgiveness.154.5.32.113 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your sig

looks very nice but needs to link back to either/both your user page or user talk page. Cheers, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. Overlooked that. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

I got new shoes! Drmies (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why haven't you created Drmies' new shoes yet? Surely you can source it to your blog or one of the fansites dedicated to you... - SummerPhD (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have an obvious COI, don't I. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I guess you'll just have to blog about them and count on your legions of fanboys to do the work for you. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

help me to understand your words you say in my article "All In Your Name (Barry Gibb song)

SummerPhD i couldn't understand could you explain to me and thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedunbreakabletato (talk • contribs) 14:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As you have also asked this on the talk page for the article, I've answered it there. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

hi

Oh ok, thanks. I just needed to see what Zoe Pound is really about because the page that you see now with so little info of that gang doesn't tell anything much. I know theres a rapper named (redacted, per WP:BLP) in Canada and his a member of Zoe Pound. I know pretty much every rappers in Canada. I can help Wikipedia, because I know 165 rappers that are underground in Montreal that i can have the links the their myspace, facebook, twitter, and they are even on ReverbNation and they are on Pouchons.com. I know the labels that they are on, the mixtapes and singles they released. Young Brault (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits you made to Zoe Pound removed most of the sourced content we had on that page, removed the only reliable source we had and added substantial information with no sources. Wikipedia is about verifiable information from reliable sources. (I've removed the name of the rapper you mentioned above as a potential violation of our policy on biographies of living persons. Presumably the rapper is alive. Saying ze is a member of a criminal gang is a controversial claim, requiring strong sourcing.) Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Smash Mouth Egg Controversy

Hi fellow Wikipedian!! Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines before deleting the remarks of other Wikipedians in the Smash Mouth Egg Controversy. All sides of the egg debate should be carefully considered so that we can make the Smash Mouth page -- and Wikipedia as a whole -- as balanced and helpful a resource as possible. That's what the Talk Page is there for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.46.175 (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." I've removed it again and warned you. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

561 Zoulka Zoe

WHY DO YOU KEEP MESSING UP THE ZOE POUND PAGE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.170.233 (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability. The version I have restored (numerous times) cites reliable sources. The other versions are completely unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, please remember to log in to your account when editing. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Casino Royale (2006 film) - Reboot

Hi - Could you have a look at a comment I just made on Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film) about the reboot revert you just made? Many thanks. --Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You should count your eggs before they hatch, my friend!

Aren't you a bit too gung-ho on refusing to allow any edits to the Smash Mouth Wikipedia page to reflect the $10,000 egg challenge? I'm looking through some of the dialogue here and you seem to be a bit of a 'deletionist'. I'm not a regular Wikipedian, but I do know some of the lingo, if you know what I mean. Anyways, I'd cite, as an example, your premature deletion of the Bang Bang Bang (Selena Gomez & the Scene song) article, which you were wrong about as that song did end up charting. I know precedence is important, but this isn't a true bureaucracy - don't make yourself struggle through the extra paperwork of deleting an event you know is on the verge of notability anyways! Thanks for reading, thanks for your time and oh, by the way, consider donating to the cause? Ten dollars closer to $10k is ten dollars closer to that notability you so desire :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.204.136 (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I should count my eggs before they hatch? Well, that would be reckless of me, especially with the old adage saying "Don't count your eggs before they hatch."

I am not blocking edits from the Smash Mouth article. Yes, I've reverted some trivial unsourced and poorly sourced crap. Yes, I asked to have the article blocked from unregistered editors (the better to track and block those who choose to repeatedly ignore our policies to repeatedly ignore the consensus view that this is not sufficiently covered in independent reliable sources.

No, I have not deleted any articles. I've initiated discussions about what should possibly be deleted. "Bang Bang Bang" was not notable before it charted. The article should not have been created before the song charted. Consensus had formed that the song was not notable and the article would have been deleted, had it not charted. It charted, the article stayed. The process worked. I've started the discussion for the deletion of well over a thousand articles. Articles about someone's garage band, a movie that might never be filmed, songs that never charted, actors with bit parts, minor islands, fake bands, fake movies, fake songs, fake actors, fake islands... you name it. Maybe one in a hundred has not been deleted. I'll "batting" about .990. Boo hoo.

At the moment, the egg "story" is a bunch of guys goofing around in net forums and Twitter. It isn't notable. It isn't a cause. You want to donate to a cause? Find a charity, write a check and mail it to them. Better yet, find a charity and donate your time working for them. That is a cause. Some guy eating eggs? That's called "lunch". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

[52][53] Looks like there's egg on your face, friend! And this is about more than lunch. We're raising $10,000 dollars for St. Jude's Children's Hospital so that Smash Mouth gobbles up all 24 of those eggs, eats them up good! If you don't want to count your eggs (there's 24 of them, so we're clear), maybe you should count some cash and donate to a worthy cause Even a minimum $10 would be greatly appreciated, and I know we can count on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.96.244 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Worthy cause? Great! Mail your check directly to St. Jude's today. Oh, wait, this is about someone eating lunch, not charity... - SummerPhD (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fuck off please

Quote:

Talk pages are not for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussing ways to improve the article in question. In addition to the pages listed above, and others you have been previously warned for, your additions to Talk:Space (TV channel), Talk:Zoophilia, Talk:Yevgeny Petrosyan, Talk:Klezmer, Talk:Sholem Aleichem, Talk:Oasis HD, Talk:Ossetians, Talk:Shish taouk (Montreal), Talk:Semitic, Talk:Lockdown (TV series) and plenty more have all been reverted. Please consider this your last warning. If you continue to post unhelpful comments to article talk pages, you will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You are making things up as you go along. I have been warned for just ONE of the above. You just now made a bunch of reversions. Fuck off. --KpoT (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice. If you read a bit more carefully, there are the ones I listed (which I reverted), others' you were warned for and more I've reverted. You have had plenty of warnings for this: [54], [55], [56], [57], ...interrupted, see below...

You have also been warned about personal attacks before: [58], ...interrupted, see below...

Well, no reason to complete this now, as I see you have now been blocked. If needed, I'll pick up on this after 31 hours. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick heads-up: there's not currently consensus that in-effect block-messages need to stay (I think they should, but that's just me). Declined unblock requests definitely, but not the block itself if no unblock request stemming from it. DMacks (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was fairly certain I had seen this enforced before and was just looking for a guideline/policy/whatever. Oh well, back to the salt mine. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "religion" from template

I saw your question on the infobox template talk page. You may be interested in this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,

I'll take a look. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why

	WHY
	Why do you keep changing my changes in the Attractions" Section of Phoenixville? I am simply adding attractions. Everything is properly cited i believe, so why change it? Pdakeyboardplaya (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Hey, you continue to remove some of the edits a make to Phoenixville, under the "Attractions" section. My question is Why? I believe that my edits are properly cited and i am typing in a neutral tone. All i am doing is adding attractions to the Attractions section. If they are improperly cited, i would like to know how to do it properly, seeing as I am new to wikipedia editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdakeyboardplaya (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page. Additionally, each edit's edit summary is available on the article's history page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Independent Reliable Source.

For future reference, I'm curious as to what you mean by an "independent reliable source". The classic towns of greater philadelphia is a plenty reliable source, though I'm curious as to your definition on a website being "independent". It's not like some random person is putting it on the web. But it's an actual organization sponsered by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, and it has a seasonal newsletter and everything. It's a legitimate title. Also I would like to ask what the problem is with having additional information on a page? This is an encyclopedia (kind of), is it not? The more information the better, right? When people are contemplating moving somewhere, more often then not they will look at the place on wikipedia. What is the problem with showing people what Phoenixville has to offer? The YMCA and the gold courses are not really recentism, presumingly considering that they will be around for quite some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdakeyboardplaya (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of this is already discussed on the article's talk page.

• an "independent reliable source" would be one that is A) a "WP:reliable source" in our terminology (see the linked article) and B) independent of the topic being discussed. For instance, yes the DVRPC acknowledges that it has a website that mentions Phoenixville and Phoenixville (the city, their chamber of commerce, etc.) might mention that DVRPC has a website that mentions Poenixville. The DVRPC page might be a reliable source to cite for information about Phoenixville. However, you are attempting to say that it is some kind of honor or award bestowed upon Phoenixville. For this to have any kind of meaning, we need an independent source to show there is something meaningful about this. Imagine a newspaper reporting "In 2011, Phoenixville was featured as one of the Classic Towns of Greater Philadelphia". Can't imagine that? It's trivial.
• Yes, this is an encyclopedia. "The more information the better, right?" Not quite. If we added all of the information available, this article would include every person's phone number, every businesses' hours, etc. Obviously we have limits as to how much we want to include. Please review WP:NOT for a partial understanding of what we are not (a directory, for example). Also consider WP:WEIGHT. With such a large section you intended to add on the local Y, it seems to be just as important as the history of the town. The Y will change. It's "state of the art" (according to them!) whatever will be dated. Heck, it could close tomorrow. The town's history, however, will not vanish.
• The problem with "showing people what Phoenixville has to offer" is that it is not what we are here for. Imagine you were writing about, say, Baghdad. Would the article be about what Baghdad has to offer? If you wanted to know about Baghdad, would you be wondering about the specifics of the facilities at their Y? How about a reasonably balanced article discussing what is notable about the city, based on reliable sources instead? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I dislike you. Are you like an actual person doing this for fun? Or are you paid to do this? That's actually a serious question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdakeyboardplaya (talk • contribs) 21:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not very polite. Feel free to try again. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal life is valid

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contessa_Brewer&oldid=441099599 It's on MANY articles. She publicly said she was pregnant. Oh, and i have been editing wiki's longer than you've been alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your continuing problem with chat on article talk pages is not valid and I earned my master's degree before you first logged on to the 'net. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"been editing wiki's longer than you've been alive" .. and yet you don't know of simple things like signing your posts and using edit summaries? what a laugh. -- œ^™ 17:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't look for logic. You can't get blood from a stone. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Ericg33 then received a 6 month block for chronic disruptive editing.

FYI..

There is currently a discussion taking place on Sondra Locke that could have some bearing on the discussions we've had in Michelle Thomas. The topic is using a cited age to obtain a birth year by subtraction. Sounds familiar, does it not? If you'd like to contribute, I invite you to do so now. Thanks. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Tomboys

Stop deleting our edits of the fictional tomboys page (Incorrectly added to my user page, moved here for response.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.163.112 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 3 August 201 (UTC)

I have been removing all unsourced additions to that list. If you have reliable sources, please cite them. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Primary school Branko Miljković

Hello SummerPhD. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Primary school Branko Miljković, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing the Talk Page

The comments on Talk:List of Tomboys in Fiction were my own. I forgot to Login — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny 42 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The comment was also chat, so I'd suggest not re-adding it. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Blonde from 3's company

"I am unsure why you feel the need to repeatedly refer to Jenilee Harison's hair color at Regggie Jackson."

Why not. There were multiple women on that show. She was the blonde. --Ericg33 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"The" blonde? She was one of four female roommates on the show, three of whom were blonde, that's why. You might just as well have specified that she was right-handed. - SummerPhD (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Peter Pepper (musician)

Hey there. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Peter Pepper (musician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's additional sources now that weren't included last time it was created. Needs to go back to AfD if necessary. I'll move it back to where is should be (without the disam). Thank you. GedUK  07:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Birth

I would be very interested to know your views as to whether or not it is worth mentioning Leslie Weatherhead's [controversial] suggestion regarding the Virgin Birth of Jesus. That was included in my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_birth_of_Jesus&diff=446053315&oldid=442209340 ... but my contribution was reverted yesterday (21 August) by Wiki-Editor "History2007".--DLMcN (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than canvassing for support, you'll need to take it to the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Your question was probably a great help in "stirring the pot" - triggering off quite a fast and furious discussion ... [I wonder if that broke the Wikipedia record?] Thanks anyway. Good wishes,--DLMcN (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The King of Rock 'n' Roll

Hi, SummerPhD. I understand the rule about talk pages being for the discussion of articles, not their subjects, but it is in the interests of Wikipedia to have omissions pointed out so that articles can be improved. Often this takes the form of someone asking a question on the talk page that is not answered in the article, in the hope that the information can be incorporated into the article for the benefit of all readers. Given that many articles on songs with videos say something about where the video was filmed, who directed it, what inspired it, etc, I think it is reasonable to ask on the talk page of The King of Rock 'n' Roll if anyone knows where the video was filmed. Thanks. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Roughly half of your addition (from "Presumably..." to the end) was not your typical roundabout requests to expand the article. It was chat. Further, there are expansion templates for requesting additions to an article. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

List of collective nouns

I have finally finished combining these various lists of collective nouns

• List of collective nouns by subject A-H
• List of collective nouns by subject I-Z
• List of collective nouns by collective term A-K
• List of collective nouns by collective term L-Z

and published the new article at List of collective nouns.

As you have been keeping an eye on the old pages and reverting dubious edits, I was wondering if you could have a look at the new article and check whether I have made any glaring errors or omissions before I get the old pages deleted.

Each entry should now have at least one reference. I have left out any entries on the old pages that had no reference or a dubious reference. I am aware that there are some entries still to be added (e.g. parrots and walruses, just to name two), which I will add later.

Once this is all sorted, I will work on merging these articles as well -

• List of collective nouns for birds
• List of collective nouns for reptiles and amphibians
• List of collective nouns for fish, invertebrates, and plants

as I don't believe that separate articles are justified.

Thanks!

Ozzieboy (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Socially responsible investing

You left a comment (quite a while ago) on my talk page complaining about an edit summary on Socially responsible investing. I should have been more careful, but I wasn't trying to mislead. Here's what happened (other than the dash, which I think is uncontroversial). The sentence "Religious institutions have been at the forefront of social investing ever since" had been in the article for a long time. On March 9, User:Stevendoll tagged it as unreferenced. On March 21, an IP user added "the days of yore" and removed the tag. We both noticed this; you responded by removing the entire sentence, with the edit summary, (-joke (?)). I'm not quite sure—given the delay—what the timeline of my actions was, but my intent was to remove "the days of yore" only, and my edit summary reflected that intent; given your intermediate edit, that was not what I actually did. And I suppose I may have been influenced by your edit summary, which I interpreted to mean that you had an issue only with "days of yore" and not the entire assertion.

Sorry about the confusion, and I suppose what I should really do is try to find a reliable source for the statement. "Socially responsible investing" church leadership "19th century" finds 800,000 Google hits, with a smaller number for 18th century and even some for 17th, so that should be feasible. Ma^t_chups 14:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicole Polizzi

I saw that you reverted my edits about Polizzi. I suppose I should express my confusion over what constitutes a reliable source (since you pointed me to our policy article on the subject): Is a video of her saying those things, particularly one that is likely to be up for some time, not sufficiently reliable?KlappCK (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

For such trivial content, we need an independent reliable source -- one not associated with Polizzi or the show. Your interpretation of her comment as supporting awareness of a particular "issue" is problematic as well. Without this requirement, every article about every prominent person on the planet would be littered with various statements the person made that someone feels is notable. Unless a reliable source discusses the statement, it is trivial and does not belong in the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have clarified this further at Help desk inquiry. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you even check sources anymore, or do you just revert first? It was discussed by an independent source.KlappCK (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Which edit are you talking about? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit that it is hard for me to assume good faith when you say "trivial unless discussed in independent reliable sources (she's seen eating frequently, where's THAT discussion?)".

Two things: 1) As has been made clear at the help desk, the issue is the importance (you might say triviality) of the subject, not its sources. In this specific instance, you have in one hand the video of Farley pissing behind a bar (and, in a different episode, in a back alley) after saying stating that she could not wait any longer, and, in the other hand you have a video from of her discussion the incident with a prominent third party (one with its own wikipedia article, I might add) on a radio talk show. 2) If you want to include other details, that is your prerogative, provided you can source it and justify its inclusion. This desire to expand upon existing content is how we got up to 3.7 million articles.

What you really should have pointed out from the beginning is its prominence in this relatively small article. If the Farley article had more than 20,000 words, I would imagine that an inclusion like this would have been much less questionable.KlappCK (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I make a sarcastic comment and you assume I'm not trying "to help the project, not hurt it"WP:AGF? I can't help you with that.

A subject, being filmed or speaking about herself is not an independent source. (She is not independent of herself.) The other details I provided as examples are equally sourced and equally trivial. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess we agree to disagree. :)KlappCK (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

NPA

Consider this a rejection of your warning and advice to stop acting like you own that talk page. Sorry you couldn't spot sarcasm on your own and looked silly by treating it as a real theory. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh no!!!!!!!!!!!! Someone said I look silly!!!!!!!!!!!!! Must... crawl... to... corner... to... curl up and cry. sob. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, copyright violation?

Summer how is this a copyright violation of this source? I wrote the synopsis in my own words and did not merely copy and pate from the source that is included in the article (I don't know where Entertainment News blog came from). —Mike Allen 03:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I might have been editing at a bit of a clip. I searched for a piece of the text (as I've often found plots for upcoming films are copy-pastes). In any case, it looks like I saw "...Their search takes an unexpected turn when Matty tells Michael that he is gay." vs. "...However, their quest takes an unexpected turn when Matty tells Michael that he is gay." I'll tweek it, if you haven't already. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it can be tricky to write a synopsis in your own words when it's only a couple of sentences. Thanks for fixing it. —Mike Allen 04:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, in retrospect, I think calling it a copyvio was hasty on my part. I usually run across blatant copy-pastes of entire paragraphs. You left in part of a sentence. I'd flag it in a term paper, but I wouldn't fail anyone. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

City of Dunedin Choir and St. Paul's POV / neutrality

Hello. Re CODC, I'm still gathering data at the moment, not much to say that hasn't been said at the discussion page. Am happy to publish content that has come to me that the choir would probably prefer to remain private, if it is needed to support the content posted here at Wiki. As far as I understand, choir letters from committee on official letterhead do constitute appropriate source material for wiki. The real question to ask is whether the page on the choir itself is even noteworthy enough for wiki. Possibly not - there is a question mark over the page and it is listed as of low importance to wiki. I'd prefer the page to stay, I'd also prefer facts to censorship within it, even when those facts aren't exactly pleasant. I sing with CODC, and am not happy about the matter, but will not hide its dirty laundry either.

Re St. Paul's Cathedral, all the content that you have removed has been approved by third party as verifiable and wiki worthy. Removal seem biased to me, and yet another attempt (there have been several) to change history on this topic. I will request a lock on this page if necessary. Let's keep it pleasant, and leave the issue alone. If you have an issue with the way the ODT and the Bishop handled the issue, I suggest you take it up with them, rather than attempt to change fact here at Wiki. Regards, UltraZit (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Ultrazit

Re: "publish(ing) content ... that the choir would probably prefer to remain private". If the material has not been published, we cannot use it as a source. It is not verifiable.

Re: "choir letters from committee on official letterhead do constitute appropriate source material for wiki". Letters to you or anyone else are not published, nor are they verifiable.

If you feel the Choir is not WP:notable, feel free to list it for deletion. That is a separate issue.

That you "sing with CODC" indicates a likely conflict of interest in your editing these pages.

I see no indication of the "third party" you say has "approved (it) as verifiable and wiki worthy". As such, I am neither able to comment on nor am I compelled by their opinion, whatever it might be.

I am completely uninvolved in this case. I have no feelings about any of the individuals and institutions involved here. I am merely trying to ensure that the material presented here is relevant, reliable and unbiased. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ulrika Jonsson

As per our conversation elsewhere on your page, "for such trivial content, we need an independent reliable source -- one not associated with [the person in question] or the show," (these are your words). It would appear to me that the link to a video of an independent news source interviewing said person would satisfy the conditions you had described. Can you elaborate on your decision to delete the information?KlappCK (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your "independent news source" is a copyright violation of an advertisement for Envive pads. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your propensity for brevity at the expense of clarity is frustrating. I was not aware that this link was copyright infringment. Can you explain (preferably by demonstration of evidence) how you know this is the case? Either way, I believe I have found the content provider. I noticed that this article also features Dr. Sarah Jarvis prominently, which (to me) further establishes credibility. Insofar as this content is provided on behalf of an incontinence products company, I would point you to Mary Lou Retton's incontinence and her endorsements of a particular product (I beleive that, in her case, the product being endorsed is a medication). In this instance, the information was deemed relevant enought for inclusion (and not by me, in case you were wondering). Therefore, in my mind, even if her "speaking out on the subject" is a veiled product advertisement, it seems inconsistent to include the information for one woman, but not another. As I (and apparently many other Wikipedians) have mentioned in the past, you would be doing us all a favor if you tried to be a bit more of an otter and bit less of a vampire when writing your correspondences.KlappCK (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As the site does not present a credible claim that the site or that the uploader holds the copyright and thereis no reason to believe the work is public domain, Wikipedia assumes it is a copyright violation and will not link to the content. Assuming this is the original producer of the "article" -- again, it is an advertisement, not an independent news source -- we are back to this being trivial content. Jonnson as a paid promoter of pads is likely mentioned in a reliable sources somewhere. Find such a source if you wish to add this. However, I rather suspect you are more, um, "interested" in adding "urinary incontinence" to the article. This is quite common in postpartum women. It is likely trivial, similar to "gee, she had acne as a teenager". If it is not trivial, you should be able to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As for Mary Lou Retton, yes, I see you've added it there as well. Other stuff exists. Possible problems there are not a "precedent" for allowing the same or similar problems elsewhere -- especially when the person citing the other stuff created it. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

1)"Jonnson as a paid promoter of pads is likely mentioned in a reliable sources somewhere. Find such a source if you wish to add this" - here is the information for which I believe you are looking.

2)"However, I rather suspect you are more, um, "interested" in adding "urinary incontinence" to the article." - Not that my [you in the past] has had any apparent effect, but this is argumentum ad hominem, a personal attack, is little different than any other (admittedly novice) WikiGnome's edit behavior when contributing to a WikiProject (in this case, Medicine). I have simply tried to increase the number of relevant articles linking to the subject. Since you seem to question my motivation, may I ask why you give a fuck? Specifically, why did you remove only that "trivial" detail, but not any of the many unsourced or under-sourced one sentence details about her career or personal life? Did it just slip your mind, are where you combing through my edit history, looking to undo my work?

3) As for Mary Lou Retton, yes, I see you've added it there as well.. - Let us look at the diff, shall we? I merely elaborated upon and added an internal link to existing information, which you can check for accuracy by following the reference link. To my understanding, this violates no Wikipedia guidelines.KlappCK (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

1) I see nothing to indicate that "trulyme.com" is an independent reliable source. While I don't have reason to believe it isn't independent, I see no indication that it is a "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."WP:RS

2) Your apparent desire to add "urinary incontinence" to various articles is neither a statement meant to cast you in a negative light nor is it intended to nullify any argument you have put forth, Rather, I am proactively seeking to ensure that we stick to what the sources say. Finding an independent reliable source for her endorsement deal does not necessarily provide a source for your desired addition of "urinary incontinence".

3) "Combing through (your) edit history" was a simple matter of opening the article's history and using "find" for your user name. You pointed out the problem there, I fixed it. If there are other problems with that article, feel free to either fix them yourself or tag them for another editor to resolve. There was no indication that independent reliable sources had discussed this, now there is. What's the problem?

If you would like to add "urinary incontinence" to any other biographies of living persons (or talk pages or other articles discussing living persons), you will want to review our policy on sources for such information, whether you are a "newcomer" (as you implied) or not. As it stands, I do not see such sources for Jonsson. I care because our BLP policy is an issue to be taken seriously. If you do not agree, I cannot help you. If you do not understand, I'm willing to try. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel like the subject matter itself limits my ability to find the kind of sources you desire. Could you point me specifically (perhaps even quote) where in our wikipedia policy it is made clear that the (video) source is insufficient in context? From our discussions with others on the Help Desk, it would seem that this video is the closest thing we can get to legitimate evidence from a single source. Similarly, I have been unable to find evidence that urinary incontinence is "common" in postpartum women anywhere in Wikipedia, can you provide a link to verify your assertion? Would you prefer a link/reference to X (where X is the article to which you are refering) rather than urinary incontinence)? To the extent that this information about Ulrika is trivial, and not unsourced, would you be content with posting the information we have collected thus far on the talk pages and putting the decision to include the material up to consensus? It seems more constructive than, say, going to dispute resolution.KlappCK (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Why this is difficult to source is a moot point.

We do not link to copyrighted material that is illegally copied.Wikipedia:Youtube#Restrictions_on_linking Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked to.WP:YOUTUBE The youtube page in particular does not present a credible claim that the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use.WP:ELNEVER

To refresh your memory, please review the discussion you refer to. Of particular interest is this part, "Also, is the link to a copyright-respecting location, not to a bootleg or YouTube upload of copyrighted material?" and this, "Read WP:UNDUE: this kind of junk has no place whatsoever in an article." and this, "If and only if the information has become the topic of discussion in articles about the subject in notable venues. That's why I referred you to WP:UNDUE. In other words, if the articles about this person in TV Guide or Newsweek mention this information, then it might be relevant. If it's only the subject of some derision on blogs and webforums, then generally not." Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

1) I thought we had addressed the youtube video issue by finding it on the source website? You're not saying that that too is a copyright infringement, are you? 2) Where you ever able to find a Wikipedia article confirming that postpartum urinary incontinence is common? 3) Okay...you 'are' slowly winning me over here, but I am of the understanding that the relavent part of WP:UNDUE is "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." To me this sounds relative: if a BLP has 50,000 words, would it be undue if six of them where about a verifiable medical condition? The answer appears to be yes when we look at our featured BLP's.KlappCK (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

1) I didn't see it at the production company's website. "If and only if the information has become the topic of discussion in articles about the subject in notable venues. That's why I referred you to WP:UNDUE. In other words, if the articles about this person in TV Guide or Newsweek mention this information, then it might be relevant."

2) Postpartum UI is experienced by 23.4%[59] to 38.4%[60], likely higher during pregnancy[61]. That is to say, it is very common.

3) This "verifiable medical condition" is more prevalent in postpartum women than the flu. Did Jonsson have the flu that year? Shouldn't we find out? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Does it take much of an effort on your part being such a condescending smart-ass, or does it come naturally? :) I think you should commit those figures to an appropriate article (perhaps here?). Kudos for doing the research though. As you had suggested, I think we 'should' look into the flu thing, especially since vomiting can cause stress incontinence. (I'm jesting, just so we're clear.) Here's the link I was referring to where that video was originally posted (to my understanding): [62]. Cheers!KlappCK (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never been one for the nature vs. nurture debate. That said, whatever innate abilities I have have been augmented by years of practice from both sides of the lectern. Feel free to use the study figures as appropriate. The flu thing, of course, would apply to BLPs "If and only if the information has become the topic of discussion in articles about the subject in notable venues." Whatever "digitalnewsagency.com" is (I assume it's an ad firm fronting as a news content provider), I see no indication it is an independent reliable source and certainly not a "notable venue". - SummerPhD (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess we're done here then...and, you know something, you're alright.KlappCK (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to question your judgment, but I doubt those who know me best would agree that there isn't something about me that isn't right. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You question my judgement? What a refreshing change of pace! Here I thought we were just going to agree on everything all the time.KlappCK (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever include those sources you found on postpartum urinary incontinence in a wikipedia article?KlappCK (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response on that last comment.(KlappCK (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You could have just checked my edits. IAC, no, I have no interest in inserting this factoid anywhere. Starting with data and looking for a place to put it is seldom a good idea. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

2013 and beyond in film

So, you contributed to this discussion a fair while ago, and circumstances have changed a little over that time, so if you could look at it, that would be great. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, another response would be nice. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just For Comparison

Just so I can get a sense for the distinction between relevant, well-sourced material and that which is not, can you check out the second to last paragraph about Chloe (pornographic actress)? Is that quote about her sexual tastes appropriate for a BLP?KlappCK (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even looking. If you find a problem with that other article, feel free to fix or tag it. I will note, however that if you can't see a difference between sexual tastes in a porn star's article and a common medical condition in some random person's article, there is nothing I can say to help. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I should just stick to mathematics and physics articles, because my mind has a hard time reconciling the subtleties of what is relevant and what is not relevant. I get that the sexual tastes of someone who has sex for a living is relevant, just so we're clear, I was focused more on the sourcing. If the source was a problem, though, I wouldn't know what do (short of just removing it, like you do).KlappCK (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally unrelated here, but your user name seems to imply you have a PhD, what in?KlappCK (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not say. A bit of digging on your part would likely turn up what my masters degree is (though nothing to differentiate it). Let's just say there is little to nothing in my editing that has much to connect it to my field (and nothing remotely connected to my specialization. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh...I don't care that much. Until we meet again, happy WikipediaingKlappCK (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Public smoking ban in Ohio

Please add neutral information to the Ohio portion of the smoking ban page. Which includes telling the entire story, up to and including the lower court case, not just the appeals case. As well as that only ONE report was conducted on the ban in Sept. of '11. The economic portion was conducted by a non-economist. Which was cited and referenced. Tell the whole story, not just your personal opinion of a matter. Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smace05 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

All information I have added is, to the best of my knowledge and ability, neutral. If you have specific problems with what is or is not included, you will need to get past your apparent reluctance to address your concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello SummerPHd

We recently [63] had a sort of difference of opinion regarding a possible conflict of interests in edits made by a new editor. I have been thinking about our exchange even since then and decided to chat with you about some of my thoughts. We can do it here, or at my place, or off wikipedia. I am aware that many editors do not like that last option, since doing it here helps maintain the transparency of wikipedia, but I can do it any way. Starting here and looking for a response here. I am wondering if you consider that any editor who quotes and references their own work automatically represents a conflict of interests? My feeling is that by doing this we loose access to a lot of good material. Self-promotion needs to get deleted. But published - peer evaluated material, it seems to me, is fine to use, posted by anyone, author or not. Secondly, and this is a more sensitive issue, but I will just blurt it out in a most unsensitive manner, have you googled the editor in question and seen what shows up? Ie. her experiences in South Africa and even more germane (in my view) her role in discrimination (gender, not racial) at the U of Hull? I believe that this is an editor who would have a lot to contribute to wikipedia, well beyond her published material, and I would not like to see us loose her. This is one man's opinion, I look forward to yours. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is generally a bad idea for editors with a potential conflict of interest to edit within the area of conflict without openly stating their potential conflict. (As such, I do not edit in my area of specialty and rarely edit in contentious areas directly connected to my more general field.) I have seen cases where editors openly state there possible conflict, edit in other areas with no problem and handle edits in their field in a manner similar to unconfirmed editors attempting to edit semi-protected articles: Take it to the talk page, discuss what you feel needs to be done and possibly suggest specific changes and sources. Otherwise, it is far too easy to simply fall back on what you know best: your own work. If I edit articles related to my work and cite my publications, it is certainly true that I am adding to the articles. However, I am over-representing my work and my findings. The bias is inherent and, for mere humans, unavoidable. Changing users names to hide an apparent COI is a very bad idea. When outed, a COI will then be assumed, with most work by the editor deemed biased. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So I am one of those folks who, when I see a statement such as, "generally a bad idea", I respond with, " 'Generally' does not mean 'always'." Maybe she is one of the cases that falls between the two words. Also, since she edited using more or less the name that she published under I feel that this, " without openly stating their potential conflict." does not really apply. Now as I recall the situation, you did not undo her edit, you just pointed out a possible conflict of interest and she removed it. We will see where she goes next, but I hope that it is somewhere on wikipedia and not just outta here. Carptrash (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The warning outlines our* particular concerns. I have undone an edit or two from that editor, and I'm not alone. Those edits, though, were not specifically "conflict-y", they were just bad form: "Author A in Book A discusses aspect A of the subject. Author B in Book B discusses aspect B of the subject. Author C in Book C discusses aspect C of the subject. Author Me in My Book discusses aspect My of the subject." That's a problem of a different type. In my experience, an editor who manages to mention their own work in all of the first half dozen or so articles they edit usually doesn't last long. Maybe this one will be different. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Carptrash (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

and a review of the editor in qusetinos work since then strongly suggests that you were right, or to put it in a more painful way, I was wrong. Carptrash (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Food Pyramid

Thanks for your contribution on the Food Pyramid page. I have reverted it with some minor changes. I thought it was a bit obvious that the whole section (including the table below it) are extracted from the same work and therefore the reference above it effectively applies to the whole paragraph, and to the table following it, but to aid matters, I have including a piece referring to the "table" that follows in case other people misread it, too. The reference to "that nutrient" refers back to the first part of the sentence, which describes the multiple nutrients in the table directly below it that have no limit. It would be nice to understand what an edit is trying to say, and help structure it, rather than just undo it. I am sure people would appreciate a bit more some help re-crafting it (I certainly would). I haven't yet mastered a double link to the same reference, so if you are able to do that to help make my edit more understandable, it would be great.Ged Sparrowhawk (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Hack

We are not in disagreement, and I already look to possibilities before piping up at an AFD. We both agree fully that verifiability is the key, and I find that key usually opens the lock. When I offer an opinon at an AFD, I do try to back up my opinion proactively. More to do, yes... but improvments and sourcing seem reasonably addressable as issues go.  :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the notability guidelines are rather loose in both directions, with a few exceptions. Cudos for backing up your claims with effort. Too many flatly assert that subject X is clearly notable, that the AfD is procedurally incorrect -- demanding a speedy keep or some other manufactured nonsense. I'll take a look and see what you have. This one's been looking for attention for some time. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Moby Games

As far as I have been able to determine, per WP:VG/EL its use is generally okay for WP:V, though it is not suitable to show notability.[64][65][66][67][68] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the specialists at WP:VG say its OK for an external link. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not rushing to add it back. As just as with films, credits are okay as sourcable to the film itself. Will be doing more to that article in about 15 hours (long workday). Been otherwise working over at Jenna Rose. Very odd AFD with a strange and quite polite WP:IDONTLIKEIT re-re-nomination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does seem to be snowing in the 3rd go for Jenna Rose. I'm sure it'll be back though. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Me too... but we usually try to give something a bit more than 20 days before renominating. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. A current item like this is something "keep" !votes will stick with for a few months longer. AfD was doomed from the start. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, but it won't fly. Let's watch... - SummerPhD (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Tward that "interesting idea"... others seem to accept its misinterpretation of BLP1E despite multiple viral video releases and coverage since 2009. Might you feel an incubation for a few months might make sense, specially as the article NOW is in far better shape than it was when it was renominated 20 days after a keep. This should serve to allow continued collaborative editing and could hold of the expected drama when some "fan" tries to recreate the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Drink up, little Summer, before it's fall. Happy days. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't you have anything darker? And you can't fool me, I know it's already fall. (Next you'll try to convince me the tooth fairy is real. <insert obligatory fairy joke here>) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as the water is swimmable it's not really fall yet. And yes, I do have something darker, but you have to reach down the back of my pants for it--reading and teaching The Summoner's Tale is really a lot of fun. Oh, I don't have to believe in the tooth fairy, since I usually carry an iron object around. I urge you to do the same, since intoxicated tooth fairies have been known to forcibly remove adult teeth just for the hell of it. "Is it safe?" Drmies (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dog! They have you teaching Chaucer! The Philistines! (There's a reason I don't "do" lit...) And to think I was annoyed with having to teach American public policy 1950 - 2000 to a bunch of twenty-somethings. Granted, I hate hearing students flipping through their notes to figure out who I'm talking about when I let slip with an "Ike" or "RFK", but Chaucer sucks... in my opinion... I could be wrong... - SummerPhD (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and you are! Sooooo wrong! What happened? You got farted in the face and now you're taking it out on the Father of English Poetry? I wish you'd drop by and sit in for one of my classes; I'll make a believer out of you. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I had a transesophageal echocardiogram a few years back. The procedure is very unpleasant ("May be uncomfortable for the patient" is Wikispeak for "I'm going to take a plumber's snake down your throat. You are going to want to see me die a slow, painful death."). If someone were to tell me that I am "sooooo wrong" about that, I would be ever so slightly more inclined to believe them then someone trying to sell me Chaucer. No offense, but I'm not buying any today. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A what? You can spell like nobody's business. Hey, did you ever get your roof fixed? I think we need a roofer now. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Because the water was coming in through our neighbor's downspout, our insurance companies are still fighting about who owes what to whom. Fun, fun, fun. (I can't spell for 5h!t, but I can piece together scraps of Latin well enough to give Google what it needs to find what I'm looking for. It's the 21st century, don't cha know?) Oh well, off to teach the thumb tribe all about social welfare in Camelot. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello SummerPhD! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 02:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism insurance

hey, my article on terrorism insurance has been deleted and if you could please clarify as to why because im kind of new here and i'm still trying to reference it if that is the problem.thanks sudiksha gulati (Sudiksha.gulati (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC))

Your additions to the article were reverted as copyright violations. Please see Wikipedia talk:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Indian Banking and Financial Systems Year 2 Group A#Terrorism insurance[69] for details. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Cassidy

Hey, Why did you edit the article I updated on the rapper Cassidy, He is 29 years old — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.55.176.182 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source for that information. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Thanks for the input. I am not trying to improve any site’s search ranking but to provide examples that are culturally relevant. There is not a great deal of content for the U.S. Hispanic, bilingual and bicultural audience. It happens that I can point to such content via the work that I and my colleagues do. Please let me know how I can better serve Wikipedia users in particular and web users, in general. Kviera (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That the majority of your edits promote the organization you work for is a clear indication of a conflict of interest. Your edits start with "Where can I add Mun2 to Wikipedia articles?" Rather than "What do Wikipedia articles need?" As the saying goes, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail." Please stop looking for things to hammer. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Help please

hey there, i heard you deleted my page about a gang & i was wondering can you help me improve it cuz as you see kind of i am a wiki rookie & i dunno much about it i am not askin for infomation i am just wondering if you could give me some specific info about makeing it alot more yer know ... obiding by tha rulez & not getting deleted by admin's & wikipedians with potentials like yourself for example, if you get a chance to look at this message send one back on my talk with info about improvement, hear is my practice page ( User:KieranKiwiNinja/North Liverpool Jetz ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KieranKiwiNinja (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The article in question was deleted as an unremarkable organization (a "gang" formed this month of half a dozen or so young teens, completely lacking in sources). The "practice page" mentioned above may need to be deleted as well, as there are some fairly serious WP:BLP issues. I'll discuss this on your talk page and give you a chance to source it first. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you deleting everything i edit?

Seems you're stalking me. Why? --Ericg33 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read your talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Question: Sympathy or Empathy for an inferior race would fall under what category?

Racism, Racialism or something else?
Thank you
--OxAO (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Racialism are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you this isn't a discussion topic. I am not bringing up a discussion I am bring up a missing topic. May I revert this question back please and why would you delete it without talking with me or at least answering the simple question?

--OxAO (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Unless you have a reliable source asking the question you are posing, you are discussing the topic not improving the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

are you suggesting I need a source that proves people have sympathy for what they think are inferior or different races? This is basic logic. There can only be three types of racism hate(racists), neutral(racialism) and Sympathy(unknown) for what is believed to be an inferior or different race. All I am asking is WHAT IS IT CALLED and were do i look it up? This isn't a debate question it is a simple logic question and i would like an answer. How can I give you a source if I don't know what it is called? The closest word I can think of to it would be "pompous" but that doesn't describe why he is self-important.

--OxAO (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your question has nothing to do with improving the article. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. If you would like to know what some people would call "sympathy for what they think are inferior or different races", Wikipedia is not the place for that. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is a word for it then adding that word to racism would improve the article and so far neither you nor I know a word for it. Yet you do not allow me to ask if anyone else does. Why?

--OxAO (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You are speculating that there is a term for a very specific view which may or may not involve racism and/or racialism. It is likely there is no specific term. There might be phrases used to describe such a view, likely involving the word "racism" (as the belief assumes an "inferior race") and/or "racial" and/or "paternalistic"/"paternalism" and/or "sympathetic" and/or "naïve" etc. Depending on who is talking and the particular situation, it might be "naïve paternalistic racism" or "racial paternalism" or "naïvely sympathetic racism" or any number of other combinations. Unless you have a reliable source discussing this in some way, you are dreaming up a situation to either chat about or somehow inject into the article. This is not what talk pages are for. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously neither one of us know if there is a word for it and you are obstructing my inquiry. So I looked on google and found this supreme court case: "Is Sympathy Towards Minorities Race-neutral?" This case the justices needed more evidence for discrimination charges but it does show this question is being ask and should be taken up by Wikipidia as a race discrimination question.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/preempt01.htm

--OxAO (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You found one case discussing sympathy towards minorities. You did not find reliable sources seeking a term for "sympathy for inferior races". This is the difference between an article on people who like apples and an article seeking a term for people who like apples dipped in steak sauce. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The court case was about racial discrimination thus it wasn't just about sympathy towards minorities.

You are only obstructing my inquiry. May I post my question please?

--OxAO (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Your inquiry has nothing to do with improving the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong it is that simple and no one person should be making decisions here.

--OxAO (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on your theory that there might be a term for this, what improvement would you expect to see in the article? "There may or may not be a term for sympathy or empathy for an inferior race which may or may not be racism or racialism." - SummerPhD (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I came here looking for a word for it. You know that is what an encyclopedia is for? I don’t know if there is a word for it and I still don’t. But the concept of people that feel so superior that they treat others like a pet should at least be expressed in any encyclopedia in my opinion. Maybe using that court case and any other reliant information that has been expressed over the years. But I still do not see why you feel the need to keep this bottled up between you and me?

--OxAO (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You came here looking for a word for it? Well, as far as Wikipedia knows, there isn't one. If you find a reliable source for one, feel free to add it. Otherwise, this is not what talk pages are for. As much as you are using talk pages (and contributing virtually nothing to articles), you really should familiarize yourself with our talk page guidelines. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to help me find the word? Elitist is a discriminatory term not exactly what I am looking for. SummerPhD said, "Well, as far as Wikipedia knows, there isn't one." Since this hole concept is being left out of Wikipidia and no one can bring it forward without your permission. For one person to make that statement makes you an elitist one that is above everyone else even know you are not an administrator. You are very similar to the word I am looking for except you are doing it in a discriminatory way not as a master would treat his pet which means you are close but but 180 deg off the final mark. It was a good try and thanks for trying to help me find the word (if that is what you were trying to do?)

--OxAO (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Your unsubstantiated theory that there might be a term does not point to an improvement in the article. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you insist that I must have a term to write about a concept? I came here looking for a term I don't know if there is a term I frankly don't care. There has been movies, plays, TV series and a hole lot of real life done around this concept yet it is completely absent from Wikipida and you will not let me help this site. An extreme example would be Star Trek Who Mourns for Adonais? where a god wants to care for his people. You are not being productive in any way. You should just move aside and let others express their opinion on this. Let me do this. If I was going to write this I would need help. I believe that is what the talk pages are for, to get this expressed properly.

--OxAO (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles. Additions to articles require reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

what is your point? I said I need help writing this if I choose to do it. Do you expect me to pull a rabbit out of the hat or something and find others to help me do it? The logical place to find them would be the talk pages.

--OxAO (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no indication that reliable sources discuss this. There is nothing to add to the article(s). - SummerPhD (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

B Maej Edit

Dear SummerPHD,

Thank you for your recent feedback. I undid the change you made for a few reasons. Since I created the page, saved it from deletion (see afd deletion), and have more details than most on this particular artist I make it a point to regularly correct erroneous information placed out there. People who arbitrarily edit articles (introducing typos, and wrong birth dates, record labels that don't exist TM3 etc. (not you)) - need to find something more productive to do. My edits are sound. Additionally if he wanted his govt name out there it would be there - hence the removal.

BTW thanks for showing me how to use the edit summary and user talk feature. No offense intended just seems like there are too many cooks in this broth. Hope I signed this right.

Hec24000 (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As this deals with the content of the article, I have responded on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please remove your comments from the tooth fairy talk page.

Please remove this from the talkpage. Penyulap _talk 12:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is an ANI discussion about you here Penyulap _talk 12:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see the continuation in WP:ANI#response. LadyofShalott 15:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Some Kind of Recognition Award Type Thing

For General Awesomeness in Dealing with Vandals, Huns and other Wiki-Invaders

Major cleaner-upper

Can't even remember what link brought me to your door, but your talk page was the best article I'd read in ages... ;-) So you needed a barnstar, or something, but there weren't any that really fitted your Wiki Awesomeness (Huh? No article?)

Cookie? Nah, maybe you'd be on a diet, or had a cookie intolerance. Milk, beer, wine? What a quandry...

Then I thought, well everyone likes a comfortable shoe, but seeing the wellington boots, realised that, actually, what you needed most was a shovel for all the erm...stuff you have to put up with on your talk page (in the most civil manner I have ever encountered in the entire Wiki World), hence the biggest I could find, to reflect the excellent work you do around here.

Or maybe a cup of tea would have been more appropriate...

Thanks for all the lessons! Much respect. Haruth (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... NOOOOOO! Look out for the kitten! Actually, if the kitten buys it, it's the good doctor's fault. You were innocently smooshing things with your... whatever that is when Drmies threw a kitten in front of it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fear not, it's the "Kitten Safe 2000" - auto-stops whenever it detects cute... sure glad I didn't go with the shoe now! Haruth (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Drmies had no way of knowing that, unless you are also part of the Lit-type admin cabal... hmmm... - SummerPhD (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for not showing your teeth in these tooth-fairy matters. Your patience is appreciated.

Drmies (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm a little disturbed. It looks like Haruth's "Major cleaner-upper" thing is about to smoosh the poor little kitten.

Actually, the truth is I'm more than a little disturbed. My accountant seems to have too much time on her hands and thinks I should "reposition" my portfolio based on the up-coming presidential primaries on this side of the pond. A few of the more conservative candidates are making some outlandish and regressive tax proposals (flat taxes and such) that would hurt a working stiff like me. I've tried to tell her we don't have enough money to worry too much about this. My second point was that we didn't know what the future would bring. In my email, I started to link to WP:CRYSTAL to drive my point home. My accountant, incidentally, was in the kitchen cleaning up from dinner while I was typing. (I married my accountant.) See? More than a little disturbed. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, tell your accountant to give it up. That whole portfolio thing, the moment you change something you lose money on the very thing you changed. Or, don't change it, and lose money also. Tell your accountant to butter a thousand slices of bread and toss them up in the air (accountants know tax law, not Murphy's Law.) Yes, we are not rich enough to have to worry about it. As for the flat tax plans--every single one of them is so obviously moronic, even more so than the current tax code, that even Congress wouldn't be dumb enough to fall for it. It's rhetoric, that's all it is. Remember Bush and the privatization of Social Security? Happy days, and stroke your kitten for me. I'll go and beat that straw man some more.

PS I made pumpkin pies, cornbread, chili, and Jello today. Someone should send me citizenship, at least of the CSA. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Watch it with the Onanified* cats and scarecrows. Just because I disagreed with you is no reason to work blue on my talk page. I actually agreed with the Colonel and disagreed with Ten# in AfDs this month, so I figured you were next. (*I invented a word, just for this post. If Shakespeare can do it, so can I.)

I don't have the authority to let you into the CSA. However, if you make some green bean casserole, I can make you an honorary cracker. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I once had a student named Onaneisha. I figure that means "masturbatrix". And no, I won't make green bean casserole, and I'm already a cracker, haha. Oh, I was pronounced an honorary woman, around the time of my dissertation defense, and one of the ladies of the committee drew a penis on my bald head with a lipstick. How do you like them apples? BTW, I was unaware, of course, that I was entendering doubly. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

173.19.32.22

Just a heads up, I've cross-posted your AIV report on 173.19.32.22 (talk · contribs) to WP:ANI#173.19.32.22 moved from AIV. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm a little concerned about the serious kitten safety issues on this page. Simply alarming. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't tempt me to push that button on your user page. I see your block log hasn't been added to in a while; if you want to hang with the cool kids, you're going to have to be a little badder. Mroww! Drmies (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've uncovered the legendary Lit-type admin's cabal. Do I get a prize? Drmies has admitted{{weasel word}} to being one of those lit people. LadyofShalott's user page, which minors regularly read, actually links to articles about literature. Now I see Drmies butting in on Luna Santin's comments. I'm too afraid to click on the link, but I assume "Luna Santin" is some sort of reference to a 17th century English ballad... - SummerPhD (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I rather think we have a wolf (admin) in sheep's clothing (baby lover and lullaby singer) here...Luna Santin, you're not fooling everyone: we all know you are an easy-listening superstar. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Easy-listening superstar : Lit-type admin :: Kitten : Major cleaner-upper thing. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a sectio aurea to me! BTW, I found you an interesting redlink. Go for it. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's see: Latin and a passive-aggressive dig at my distaste for archiving. Mama always said, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." Hmm... that's a tough one. Well, Drmies, while no one likes a smart ass, at least you aren't a dumb ass. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My wife likes my ass, she says, or at least the look of it. Thanks for the compliment--all in moderation, I reckon. Have a nice day, Summer. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

ZOEgirl articles

Hello,

Just a few comments regarding the ZOEgirl articles:

• Dismissed (ZOEgirl song): Like You Get Me, it is a notable song, but no information for North American airplay is available. This is because Sparrow does not publish it, CHRI's site wasn't archived during the single's airplay, and Billboard/R&R sites are a pain. But it's a Top 10 hit, at least in the UK, and a wonderful music video was made for the song. Maybe it was just released too late, however, leading to a lower chart score, at least in the UK.
• Even If (ZOEgirl): The USA and Canada approve of this song, and it charted well in both countries. ZOEgirl talked about this song on a Tommy2.net interview. Charts position will be up shortly.
• ZOEgirl discography: the UK chart from Cross Rhythms is used in Britt Nicole articles, and maybe more. They have a well-established FM network in the country, and their charts and reviews are used as references in multiple Christian articles. Ditto for CHRI-FM, which serves Canada's capital, Ottawa. The latter is the fourth largest metropolitan area in Canada as well as the smaller Cornwall and Pembroke cities. It is the most reliable Christian chart to use as a reference for Canada, because CHRI has been around for over a decade, and their chart archives are easily accessible. As you can see, Christian musical taste buds are much different in both Commonwealth countries, usually to ZOEgirl's disadvantage. i disagree with classifying either of these charts as WP:BADCHARTS, as they are reputable, reliable, and have been around for a long time.  :( But it's important to note that the songs chart differently worldwide, because Americans prefer ZOEgirl.

That's all for now. Let me know if there are any other issues!  :) --LABcrabs (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Dismissed" - If it was a "Top 10 hit", we need a cite showing that. A "wonderful music video" is a moot point. Without citing chart information, it is not notable.

"Even If" - I have no idea what you mean by two countries "approve" of the song, it is likely a moot point. If it "charted well", this needs to be cited in the article to demonstrate notability.

It does not matter if the bad charts are used elsewhere. They are not notable charts and should not be included in Wikipedia articles. As these issues discuss the content of the respective articles, this discussion should take place on the respective articles' talk pages. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, what is your basis for considering these to be bad charts? None of the charts that i used are listed as bad charts. So i'm confused. What other Christian chart do you want me to use? --LABcrabs (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC) And i say this because there isn't really any corporation in Canada or the UK that does stuff like Neilson or Billboard. --LABcrabs (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see the individual article talk pages. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Elton John's Levon

I understand your removing of an item you felt was breaking one of Wikipedia's rules, but I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of my edit to the article on the song Levon by Sir Elton John. The term 'original research' as it is used here means adding items which are not sourced and do not have a provenance from some other provable place. In the case of an audio sample, it is provably part of the recording, and in order to use it on Wikipedia, one is required to cut the audio down to under 30 seconds in order for the piece to constitute 'fair use' under copyright law and not be an infringing use of the sound recording. Since it is an example of the artist's work as performed in that article, is not 'original research' as that term is used on Wikipedia. I am restoring the audio sample as it is my opinion that it is legitimately appropriate to the article in question and does not constitute 'original research' as is normally defined here. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edit stated, "As is heard in the audio sample below, the first few opening seconds of Levon are very similar to one of Sir Elton's other songs, Tiny Dancer." Without a source, this is clearly original research. If you'd prefer, think of it at WP:POV or simply unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Inline external links to IMDB actor articles

I reverted an edit of yours and gave a reason at Talk:Kickin' It#Inline external links to IMDB actor article. I'd appreciate any comments you choose to make there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hedge fund introduction

Hello, SummerPhD. Earlier this year you offered some thoughtful input on the Hedge fund discussion page, and I would like to invite you back to consider a current problem that I have described on the discussion page. The introduction is currently inaccurate and out-of-date and I am seeking consensus to restore an earlier version, that I helped to write and place. I have asked other editors involved then and recently to look at it as well, and I am hoping to find long-term consensus, so your input would be appreciated too. Thank you. --Bryant Park Fifth (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.Surf Dog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC).

My edit accurately reflects what the source says. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Surf Dog (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read and understand Wikipedia:Edit_warring before accusing me of edit warring and revertign my edits without explanation. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I had no intention of submitting that first comment. It really doesn't make sense, now does it? I have died to remove it a couple of time now and put what i meant to say. Please just let it be. Surf Dog (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As explained on your talk page, feel free to strikethru the text you wish to disclaim. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the friendly comment on my page. Despite what you say though, it is not original work, and the sources are reputable. Surf Dog (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Several of the "sources" do not refer to the subject of the article. Feel free to discuss the issue on the article's talk page if you disagree. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ecotarian

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Ecotarian, as the article was discussed at AfD, which resulted in a consensus to merge/redirect. This indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial and therefore fails the principal criteria for prod. Do not interpret this as my endorsement for keeping this article; I have no prejudice against opening another AfD and will most likely not !vote in such a discussion should you or anyone else choose to open one. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

stop harassing me

I saw your reversion of my edits on Cruelty-free and find them harassing. It's bad enough that even after I continually rework the text on pb&j, and have good cites you keep reverting me, but now you're harassing me. Please stop. Surf Dog (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

My edits are well within bounds and do not constitute harassment.

That one organization briefly pushed one food item as "cruelty-free" is clearly trivial. If the article were to list every food item anyone has ever called "cruelty-free", the article would grow into an extensive, useless list of every vegan food imaginable, and various organic/"cage-free"/"pastured"/"free range"/"cruelty free"/... meat, fish, dairy, egg, etc. item imaginable.

Your additions to PB&J are still problematic. I'll put them up for discussion shortly. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now tagged your additions appropriately. I'll give you a chance to take them down yourself (someone else might do it first) before addressing this myself. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think the whole situation is ludicrous. The sentences have been improved from what they originally were, they cites are reputable. I think you are blowing this way out of proportion, and being somewhat of a bully. SummerPhD, you are driving an edit war. Surf Dog, have you seen Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance? Philly jawn (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• You're an idiot for calling me a sock puppet.Surf Dog (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You are "both" so sweet. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• i met someone today at the DC meetup who knows you IRL. They agree with my assessment of you. Surf Dog (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Aww, I love you two too. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Tavis Smiley

Thanks! You reverted just when I did. I have a feeling this wandering IP's efforts will result in page protection again. Oh well... --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 20:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Already requested. This same vandal lead to the protection at Anderson Cooper. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That's how I found out they were doing the same thing here. Which makes me wonder if there might be other articles where the same thing has been done, and we don't know about it. At least this article has now been protected for a while. Cheers! --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 20:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Easy enough. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You are now at 3RR on Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. This serves as your warning. Philly jawn (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So, it addition to not understanding WP:V, you don't understand WP:3R? I added a synthesis tag to two sources that were never in this article before. The editor who added them has not edited for 4 years. If that is a revert, let alone a third revert in 24 hours, I'm the pope. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping with the Noah Munck page! Tinton5 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Philly

Thanks for the barnstar! I am pleased to help out with the Philly articles WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Responses to sneezing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Chinese

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Punta Brava

Haha, only now I see that one of my edit summaries needs to be read without pause halfway: "Summer, still no nightclub--how about a naked guy with a cock and bull story who survived a hanging?" A naked guy with a cock, that's probably redundant. And what would a bull story be? like a bull market? Happy days, Drmies (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• PS We have a pool now. Bring your significant other, or anyone else, sometime next summer. There will be beers and complaints about grading. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	SummerPhD's diligence is exemplified in this edit, and it is only one of many. Please don't ever leave us. Also, please don't do shit that makes us have to kick you out, haha. With much Wikilove, Drmies (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Gee, thanks! But no love for my diligence protecting the world from unsourced info about upcoming Chipmunks films? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't help you there. That's too popular for me. Still, I have faith in you, oh Summer, pisser-off of all young people who love things trivial. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's not fair. I'm not convinced the Colonel is all that young. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maisie Williams

Good catch. Not only fails ENT but her coverage makes this a BLP1E. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. You flatter me... go on... tell me more... - SummerPhD (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fishing for compliments? While User:Alessandra Napolitano makes some decent guideline-supported points, I think observance of the applicable policy overides any consideration of guideline for this one... she is a minor child, after all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and a poorly covered one at that.... Now what was it you were saying about my eyes? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK lovers, you both have gorgeous eyes, and they ooze charm and demand devotion. Now, if you're finished, perhaps you care to ogle an important matter, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Article_names? After all, y'all are sticklers for the MOS... Drmies (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Doc, butt out. It's not bad enough my wife is sitting here wondering what I'm typing about? . . . OK, so I'll take a look (though I usually don't go there). - SummerPhD (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

AFD

Hey there! I closed your AfD as a Redirect, as I felt that would be the most appropriate action. In retrospect, I'd just like to know if this seems like an action you'd support, or if you're looking for a straight delete. Cheers, m.o.p 23:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirects are cheep (free even!) and a redirect takes any readers that do happen by to an article that makes sense. A well-reasoned call, IMO. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. As the nominator, you're welcome to weigh in (at your leisure, of course) at the DRV another editor opened up about the closure. Cheers, m.o.p 05:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Age of consent page move discussion

Not sure you're still watching this article, but you may want to lend your thoughts to this discussion: Talk:Age of consent#Page move. And keep an eye on it if not already. 89.149.195.167 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Best laugh I have had on Wikipedia in 6 or 7 years. Reverting an edit because you don't like the edit summary and issuing a warning on top of that. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Care to explain how removing text is "rewording"? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited J. Leon Altemose, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Union and Rolls-Royce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your diligent, patient and rational defense of WP:V and WP:FRINGE at Talk:Max Gerson. Thank you. Sparthorse (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I've declined your block request for 70.44.149.170; while I agree that some of the talk page comments (e.g. Andrea Mitchell) are going too far in the chat direction, many of them are statements specifically about the content of the articles and how they should be improved.

By the way, I have a simple request — when you report at AIV, would you consider putting your signature on the same line as your report? Since you put it on a separate line, I thought that someone had reported you without explaining why, and it took me a bit of looking through your contributions to realise that you were the reporter. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Carlon Jeffery

I knew you would find the article and have it speedy deleted it, No problem. I'm submitting it for deletion review. Feel to take part in the discussion (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 1) but I doubt you won't. QuasyBoy 23:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up! - SummerPhD (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK then. QuasyBoy 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources for personal relationships

those aren't going to be covered by the Wall St. Journal. Photos should qualify.

Are all my edits being forwarded to you?

--Ericg33 (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless discussed in independent reliable sources, personal relationships should not be in an article at all. Photos would show the two people together, but would not show they are a couple, nor would they make race an issue. Your apparent need to point out every relationship where the people are of different races (oh! the horror!) does not "qualify" for inclusion in Wikipedia unless that particular aspect is -- for some reason -- given significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A note and a question

Hello! I noticed some time ago that you had removed several references citing publications by Int'l Business Publishers, describing it as Wiki reprints. There's a somewhat related discussion at WP:RSN about plagiarism of Wiki content by publishers, and now User:Utcursch/plagiarism from Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that's something you'd enjoy contributing to, but I gather you have experience identifying such sources.

And now a question: in this edit, you describe a 2002 IBP publication as a reprint of Wiki content, however I found no comparable content in versions of Bhutan or the like through 2002. Was there another Wiki article this publication was a reprint of? Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 07:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I did not independently check each instance to see if it was indeed a copy from Wikipedia. Three separate cases had been found where this definitively was the case (i.e., the book was a verbatim copy of a specific version of a Wikipedia article). I checked two more and found similar problems (actually, I found very close matches, but did not go back through the history to find the specific version). In any event, a publisher who reprints Wikipedia articles is not a reliable source, of course, as it is doubtful (to say the least!) that some of their books are blatant copies of Wikipedia articles while others are professionally written and carefully fact-checked. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not well liked by anyone

And using the words 'African American' is now racism? Photos are valid to indicate a personal relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please watch the personal attacks.

The phrase "African American" is not racist. Going out of your way, repeatedly, to point out that various couples are mixed race, however, is either entirely pointless or racist.

Your interpretation of a photo is not a reliable source for relationships in a BLP article. You have been reverted several time on this issues by several editors. If you continue down this path, you will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(Ericg33 is now enjoying a 6 months' forced vacation. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

Courtesy Notify

Just a quick note to say that your name has been mentioned here. Nothing for you to worry about (I'm the target of any hostilities there); but your name did pop up during discussion, and I try to avoid any "talking behind ones back" issues. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. This seems to be building up... - SummerPhD (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Response

I have responded to your form comment on my talk page. Piratejosh85 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

List of defunct retailers in the United States

Thanks for editing with clarifications & better rationales in edit summaries. --Lexein (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reading them! - SummerPhD (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

MPAA

Thanks for your concern, (remainder redacted)209.74.45.21 (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your concerns do not belong on the article's talk page or my talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Why youuu...?!?!?!

Hey, why did you reverted my edits to Money for Nothing? 77.85.6.48 (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary explains it. Your addition was unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't need sources for something which is evident. Look up "Fisherman's bastion" on Google and watch the video. 77.85.6.48 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether "evident" or not, you do need sources for something which is trivial. We could lard up each and every movie article with lists of specific locations used. We choose not to. That is what IMDb is for. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of defunct retailers of the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jack Lang, Morville and Paul Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD patrol

Hi. Thanks for signing for me. I don't like to edit anonymously, and I guess I just forgot to click the pen icon a few times. --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of defunct retailers of the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eckerd, Cunningham Drug Stores and Cunningham Drug (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk Page content

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.114.216 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This was posted by an IP who really, really wants to use talk pages to explain to people that, gosh, slavery in the United States wasn't a bad thing done to people. Turns out it was some kind of employment program mixed with a free vacation. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Slavery

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Slavery. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

You deleted multiple new sections of the articles Slavery, Atlantic Slave Trade and Slavery in the United States on the related Talk Pages. You provided insufficient reason for your deletion actions. Therefor i had to report your actions. You should have requested a deletion before you commence it by yourself.WP:Delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.114.216 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(None of these articles are up for deletion review, of course, as none of them have been nominated for deletion (that I'm aware of). This is just more of the same IP who posted "Deletion of Talk Page content" above.)

Yes, I'm one of two editors who deleted the IP's historical revision/lesson on the talk pages of those articles. If you'd like to dispute my removal of your violations of our talk page guidelines, deletion review is not the place for it. I'd suggest you take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (My apologies to everyone at AN/I...) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi. I agree with the small print thing; I wasn't sure there was enough material there even to bother with a merge; I might dig it up from article history later. But the daylight savings time overlap is a real concern for computer professionals. Can you help me get sources and/or help with merging it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there wasn't enough any material for an article, just your WP:OR and decision that a particular ad was deceptive.

There's nothing sourced, so there's nothing to merge. It's not that hard: Don't start articles if you don't have sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Before you lecture me on Wikipedia policies, you might want to review Wikipedia:Verifiability:

• You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself.

I wasn't announcing a new theory in astronomy or nuclear physics. How about a little WP:TEAMWORK here? --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Before you go asking for teamwork, you might want to be sure there's something to work on. You created an "article" (to the extent that three sentences of WP:OR is an article) and barely a half hour later agreed it should be "merged" (even adding the merge tag yourself). When it was duly redirected (as I had no intention of adding your WP:OR to another article, I was simply removing "material lacking...a reliable source"), you cried foul and restored the WP:OR. It has since been redirected by another editor. No, I am not in the business of running around after you looking for sources for your WP:OR. You've obviously been around long enough to find your own sources. That you seem unwilling to bother is a problem, but not my problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you have challenged the material, the burden is on me. But next time you consider removing material for which you don't see a source, try to remember the policy, "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references."

I usually use the {{fact}} tag, and then come back in a few days. A lot of people leave fact tags in for years. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you "may object". However, when you say to go ahead and do something, objecting when it is done seems rather pointless. You created a little turdlet of an article with no sources or sources of any kind. It's gone now. If you happen to dig up sources for your idea that times written in abbreviated form seem to overlap, feel free to add it to an article somewhere. If you find substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, you might have an article you can create. Catch that? You could create a real, live article. Not four sentences you immediately agree shouldn't be an article. Not a quote farm for someone else to clean up. Not a random, pointless redirect that you shore up by adding the byzantine wording to other articles. A real article. You can even count it as one. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I catch your drift. As Simon Bishop said to Melvin Udall, "It's not a subtle point you're making." --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Summarize changes

Hi, i'm sorry i forgot to summarize my changes. I just keep forgetting to do it, but I'll be sure do provide it in the next changes I make. Thanks for the tip!--Sepguilherme (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Deligabi and copyrighted images

Hey there, just letting you know that Deligabi was in the IRC help channel a few days ago asking for advice on how to upload the images. He was advised by people in there to add the current tags as he assured us the copyright holders would release the copyright via email. I trust that the process is underway. If there's a problem, the images will be deleted, if not, the OTRS pending tags will be removed. As for COI, I think there is one but I think I'll try give the user some pointers about neutral tone and clean up the article with or without their help. When I get a moment that is. Regards, ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 01:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of unreleased Michael Jackson material for featured list removal

I have nominated List of unreleased Michael Jackson material for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Rubiscous (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

IMDb Resumes

I see you've deleted the IMDb resume reflink on the Dylan Riley Snyder page. Since nobody is trying to remove the content from the article, I'll leave the issue alone (for now), but from what I see, the User-submitted content criteria you cited doesn't say anything about IMDb Resume pages. I suggest reading something to see if it supports your rationale before citing it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to think I didn't read it and that it doesn't say IMDb generally isn't a reliable source. You are wrong on both counts. I won't suggest that you read a page before telling me what it says because I assume you did. You seem to misunderstand what it says.

In any case, in addition to IMDb generally not being a reliable source, Wikipedia has a clear preference for independent sources. If, as you claim, only Snyder can edit that section of IMDb, it is not an independent source. With all of that in mind, and the simple fact that the information in question cites independent reliable sources, there is simply no reason for including a link to IMDb as a source. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, IMDb is GENERALLY not a reliable source, but information that can only be edited by the performer would be appear to be one of the rare IMDb exceptions (the definition of "generally" is not "always" and the fact remains that there is no mention of IMDb "Resumes" in what you cited). I also agree that a person cannot verify their own "notability", however, if "first person" sources cannot be cited then every single print interview, news interview, auto-biographical book, etc, would not be considered reliable enough to establish innocuous background information, such as someone's "early life" (where they grew up, early family life, etc) and "education" (schooling, special training, etc). - we both know that's ridiculous and not the intention of the "first person" source guidelines on IMDb. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not say we never use primary sources, I said Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Yes, we occasionally use primary and/or self-published sources for basic information when we cannot find reliable secondary sources for the material. That clearly is not the case here.

Additionally, I do not see anything to indicate that IMDb resumes "can only be edited by the performer". (I do see that "IMDb is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this page, which have been supplied by a third party and have not been screened or verified.")

Finally, while WP:IMDB seems to allow that there are some instances where IMDb is a reliable source (the issue of writing credits comes to mind), I see no indication that IMDb resumes is one of those instances. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Counter

Resolved

Your userpage clearly states "If you're going to vandalize my page, please update the counter." So how come when I merely update the counter, you mark it as vandalism and revert it to what it was before I touched the page? Hypocritical any? And your attempt to delete my Secret Hate article was obviously in retaliation of my vandalism. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing the counter is an admission that your edit is vandalism. If you wish to believe that my nomination of the article was in bad faith, feel free. In reality, I had nominated one article you had created (not "your" article...). You vandalized my page. I looked at the rest of the pages you had created an found another non-notable article. If it's actually notable, it can be sourced and will then survive AfD. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Still, I don't get why you even bother having a counter if you're not going to honestly update it. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not about you. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, at any rate I apologize for my behavior and promise not to vandalize again. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Fuck off"

Hey Summer, if Concept comes off their block and insults you or anyone else again, please let me know--I'll be happy to block. My apologies on behalf of mankind--I'm saddened that a fellow human being would choose to act in such a way. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, Doc. As most of the members of mankind were uninvolved, I'll let it slide this time. I'm fairly sure I'll manage to pull together the tattered pieces of my soul and move on. I've little doubt I could have gotten this one blocked without an AN/I thread, but I rather suspect this one will be back. (One thing I've learned from my recent brief encounter with someone I think of as the "dean of don't" is to always document escalation.) My suspicion is someone spotting this at AN/I will catch the next round before I do. Now I do need to get back to those iCarly pages. They need me. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. iCarly is real important, I know. (Actually, I didn't know it existed, but hey.) Drmies (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, iCarly : American tween girl : : Transformers : American tween boy. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Chemotherapy & radiation therapy

Hi summer, has anyone written and article on scientifically proven chemotherapy, or radiation therapy as a safe conventional form of verifiable scientifically proven medical therapy treatment?. Is this form of medical therapy radioactive? What are the scientifically proven verifiable sources, that it is, or is not dangerous medical quackery?. Does anyone know if the death rate is higher or lower than the success rate?. I would love to know 27.33.34.3 (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting with chemotherapy and radiation therapy and going from there. However, if you're a fan of Gerson therapy, you are unlikely to be convinced by the independent, peer-reviewed sources used in those articles. (Chemotherapy uses powerful, toxic drugs which are not radioactive. Radiation therapy typically uses exposure to radiation.) Is it "dangerous"? Of course it's dangerous. The difference between a medicine and a poison is in the dosage. Too much of anything (even water) is toxic. Radiation is used to kill cancerous cells. It also kills any other cells that get in the way. While various methods are used to limit the number of healthy cells killed, there is always some unintended damage. Similarly, surgery to remove cancerous growths invariably removes some healthy tissue and cutting into the body is obviously risky to begin with. Cancer kills. While it would be nice if a treatment like Gerson's worked, the evidence clearly shows that it does not. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. When you recently edited Greater Kensington (string band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Academy of Music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Maxwell's Silver Plagiarism

That is an even better solution. Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

To enjoy with a PB&J, environmentally friendly or not. Hopefully now we have a consensus that solves that issue. Number36 (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope that's made with the "cruelty-free" bubbles I read about in some random blog... Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

PB sandwiches

Peanuts are obviously going to feature highly in peanut butter sandwiches.. But I won't try to revert my edit again, you know Wikipedia better than I do. :P --Rasppeachberry

The problem is that lots of things you can say about part of something do not apply to the whole. Jelly is high in sugar. PB&J? Maybe, maybe not. If it is significant and true about PB&J, it should be relatively easy to find a reliable source saying it about PB&J. Otherwise, it is original research and/or synthesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha! Rasppeachberry —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

hi

I removed the content because ITS NOT GOING TO BE ON THE ALBUM AND PEOPLE KEEP PUTTING IT. I will keep removing it. BECAUSE IT SHOULDNT BE THERE. RickyRozay (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Since there is a reliable source saying it will be on the album, you'll need a source for that. Please see the discussion at Talk:God Forgives, I Don't. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"Mentions" is subjective, but "states" is objective?

Hey! Just saw your edit in the sagging page. I'm not a native speaker, so I may be wrong about this, but how on Earth is "states" less subjective than "mentions"? I just checked out their definitions in dictionary.com, and there seems to be no indication regarding that. Gabi Teodoru (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. Is there such a thing as an objective fact? http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1889#comic

IMO, it's more of a connotation than a denotation. "Mentions" seems to imply a casual referral to an undisputed fact: In response to you saying there was some kind of parade on Main Street today, I might "mention" that it's Easter Sunday. Alternately, I might "state" that there are parades all the time. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. And yes, there are objective facts. Humans might not be able to capture them in human language, but yes, some things exist in some sense, for instance. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Asking for your comments, recent edits on the Zoophilia article

Outside of the bots, IPs, and users reverting vandalism, you are the only one that seems to actually edit the article. Some of the edits you made on Zoophilia were removing content that was clearly not in the source, added on by the user Plateau99. He has a clear history of adding non neutral-POV pro-zoophilia content, unsourced materials, original research, and his opinions cited with sources that do not even support the claim.

I removed a bunch a few months ago, and some today (the content he wanted to add was not supported or mentioned anywhere in the cited article, he just wants his pro-zoophilia opinions in the article by hiding it with incorrect sources) but he keeps reverting those edits back without any explanation. I do/did not remove all of the content he added, just the ones that do not follow the Wikipedia guidelines. But he will still revert everything, every change I make, because he thinks removing any materials that he adds is an attack on zoophilia.

Can I please have your comments and opinions on the issue? I had a history with him in the past and I do not want to be engaged in another edit war with the same user.

Thanks. Someone963852 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi SummerPhD, I think you are a fantastic editor, and I would like to nominate you at RfA. Please confirm that you are interested in this opportunity. Thanks, Keepscases (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see this before now. Looks like the offer is no long valid. Oh well. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me

Please stop stalking me and erasing all of my legitimate edits. Thank you. 65.96.48.102 (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of my edits you are unhappy with. Was it restoring the "repeat vandal" header on your talk page? Maybe it was when I removed discussion not intended to improve an article from a talk page. Maybe it was me removing your original research/POV from a BLP? It's hard to tell. Looking around, I see you've been warned by other editors for the same issues I'm noting, you've been blocked more than once and have accused other editors of "stalking" you.

Yes, other editors are watching your edits. This will likely continue until your edits show an understanding of our policies and guidelines, along with a willingness to follow them. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How about I put it this way. If you do not stop reverting every one of my edits, like the one to the Sam Adams article, I will report you to Jimbo Wales or take other appropriate action. Thank you. 65.96.48.102 (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This should provide a 3-month drama break (at least from this IP). JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, JS. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(65.96.48.102 and User:12 Zmmps were later indefed as socks of a banned editor.)

Nifelheim

I am leaving you this message because I am involved in a rather contentious edit war on a page you've contributed to, or because I feel you may have perspective on the subject matter. It involves a rather rude user and I'm admittedly worn out and beginning to sound a bit rude myself. The dispute is over the reliability of a little known fanzine over blabbermouth.net. If you could join the discussion and contribute to a resolution, that would be great. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I told Williamsburgland numerous times that Slayer is not just “a little known fanzine”, which they ignored as every other statement of mine except those that might be uncivil. And they aren’t just “beginning” to become “a bit” rude. --217/83 02:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Both editors have been blocked for edit warring, and Williamsburgland has been warned about forum shopping. (He posted the above message to at least nine talk pages.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it clearly was out of hand. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

War on Women

I see you participated in last month's AfD for "War on Women"; that article was reinstated yesterday.--24dot (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick Note, War on Women has been renominated for Deletion--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/War_on_Women_(2nd_nomination)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!

• You really had never heard of this? Its a very well known product, fyi.[70]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've heard of lots of things that aren't notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Good for you!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not (now) saying ICBINB isn't notable. Given the sources you've added, it looks good now. I'm just saying that whether or not I have "heard of" something doesn't convince me one way or the other. I've come across articles up for AfD that I would have been certain were notable only to dig for sources and come up empty. The reverse has also been the case. Cheers! - SummerPhD (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

RfA nomination

I rescind my offer to nominate you for adminship, as it has come to my attention that you attempted to delete I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! Sorry. Keepscases (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm particularly interested in a mop and bucket right now (thanks for the thought anyway), but for clarification, I did not "try to delete" anything. Yes, I nominated this article for deletion as I saw no indication it is notable (beyond the hundreds of other margarines and such that aren't notable). IMO, the links added so far make it a marginal keep. Sorry to disagree with you. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So...

I came across this page through someone I have watchlisted. And I read your rules at the top of the page. They made me giggle, I thought you should know. :D MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 12:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. It was the bit about the "squiggly" things, wasn't it? (I mean, it's a fun little word that sounds like a small child rolling around with an enthusiastic puppy.) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Points 5 and 6 more specifically. Point 9 is just clever. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 09:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Saad Muhammad

SummerPhD, sorry, but that was the wrong edit you undone. The wikispan was in the references. --BoxingGoMan (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia

You may not be aware of how stupid it came across but you messaged Rich Farmborough with a "welcome to wikipedia" message. You do realise that he has nearly 1 million edits to wikipedia, the second highest on the website?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As I've already explained, there is nothing on his talk page to indicate that he's edited prior to this month (first comment there is this month, no archive, etc.). Life goes on. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

And, incidentally, if my standard, templated warning is really "one of the dumbest messages" you've ever seen on Wikipadia[71], you need to get out more (or read the talk page discussion in full before commenting on it). - SummerPhD (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

CfD

I noticed you placed a deletion tag on Category:Lightbulbs that are unscrewed, but I cannot see the CfD. Did you ever actually file it?--v/r - TP 22:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Keith and Glenn

I notice you undid my change to Keith Olberman's and Chris Matthews page, identifying them as liberal (my contribution) political commentator, after I notice Glenn Beck and others are identified as conservative political commentators. Can I inquire as to why one is allowed and one is not allowed? Rodchen (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The descriptions you added did not cite reliable sources. If you feel there are other articles that do not meet this standard, feel free to address those concerns on the respective articles' talk pages. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

But if you look at the references at the end of the paragraph, those references identify him as a left-winger (liberal) but does not identify him as a political commentator. So it seems like you should have deleted the 'political commentator' reference but left in (not pun intended) the liberal reference. Rodchen (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You added content without citing sources. I removed it and explained why. If you have concerns regarding specific content in specific articles, the discussions belong on the respective articles' talk pages. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now clearly sourced it, but is still being removed. If sourcing was really your objection, I would appreciate your participation in the discussion. If sourcing was simply what you said was your objection, but you really had an agenda objection, then I won't request your participating in our discussion. Rodchen (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maxwell's Silver Hammer

Thanks for correcting the erroneous change I made. I couldn't have been reading it properly and didn't realise that the part I edited was still quoted text. PRL42 (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Shanti Carson

Hey Summer. An article that you PRODed and I deleted, Shanti Carson, has been undeleted per a request on my talk. You may wish to take it to AfD if you still think it should be deleted. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Harper Valley PTA

Hi:

I edited the Harper Valley PTA page because the addition was poorly written. Barbara Eden does indeed state that the film was shot in Southern Illinois, but local media in both Lebanon and Cincinnati, Ohio, state otherwise, as does the ending credit of the film. If my edit needs to be deleted, the entire paragraph needs to be deleted as well. Thanks. Dma124 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Martyr

How the hell was that vandalism?

How the hell can a Jewish site be a credible source for an Islamic term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.84.91.103 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A few hints:

• Please use edit summaries to explain why you are doing what you are doing, especially when editing anonymously.
• When an edit is reverted as possible vandalism, simply restoring the edit without comment is usually a bad idea. Take it to the article's talk page or, at the very least, use an edit summary to explain why you are doing what you are doing, especially when editing anonymously.
• When warned on your talk page that an edit was reverted as possible vandalism, an explanation on your talk page is probably a good idea, especially when editing anonymously.
• Calling a major university's partnership between the Omar Ibn Al Khattab Foundation, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, and USC's Center for Religion and Civic Culture at the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences a "Jewish site" is odd. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

next time dont delet me contribution

why did you delete my contribution to teh talk page of racism? i wasnt discussing anything i was giving a better definiton of racism and pointing out grave issues with teh articvle you having differing opioins doesntr give you teh rigth to vandaliize/delete my contribution. next time.....just dont — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnlk (talk • contribs) 03:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Your opinions of what racism is/is not are not useful in improving the article. If you have reliable sources, feel free to add them to the article or discuss them on the talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion watch

An uncoverd manhole in Ulan Bator (although not the one I fell down).

Hello Summer. How are things? That's great to hear, I am doing wonderful (in case you were wondering). Reason I am here, somehow I wound up on your deletion watch page (don't ask me how, I often end up in strange places, such as the time I fell down a manhole in Ulan Bator, true story). While I was there (the deletion watch page, not the manhole) I expanded the collapsed thingy (technical term) and found Image:Adrianne_Curry.jpg was visible rather than a link. I was considering fixing it myself, however I figured it was probably on your deletion watch page for a reason. The file is now hosted on Commons and I don't know the history behind it (for example if it was really non-free and got transferred prior to deletion, or was a new image under the same name), so I figured I would ask you before taking drastic measures. By the way, I have recently started a garage band, we don't have a drummer or guitarist, and the lead singer is still iffy, but do you think you could start the page for me? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Mel Brooks observed that "Tragedy is when I stub my toe, comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die." Despite the loss of a good laugh, I'm glad you survived.

I haven't a clue which file I deleted or when. Looking at the file there now, I can't easily find a copyvio source (I'm really a one-trick pony for photo copyvios and my one trick isn't finding this one). Given the file name, it could easily be a same name/different file kind of a deal. The shot does look like it's from a professional photo op, so unless the uploader has verified similar work before, I'd say it certainly needs some "attention". (I don't seem to have edited User talk:Daibh, so it was either a different uploader or I neglected to warn them.)

As for your band, I do not appreciate the implication that I would start an article for a clearly non-notable band, so you'll have to do it yourself. To start the page myself, I would need to see flyers on utility poles, a facebook page and a half-assed video on youtube. Until then, it's a no-go. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That was the response (with regards to the picture) that I was expecting. As for the band, we haven't come up with a name yet (since we have no members), so creating a Facebook page is out of the question, however I may start up Unknown band on Tiwtter and see if I can get it going from there. As for the manhole, it was complete comedy, all around. I laughed all the way back to my hotel, and all the new hires I would meet afterwards would tell me this story about some idiot who walked into a manhole. If nothing else I am glad that I can be used to serve as a warning to others. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Herb Bergson

Hi-I reverted your good faith edit with the Herb Bergson article. I found an article from 2007 and it brought up his times as mayor of Superior and Duluth. I added that as a citation and restored the category of being a mayor of a place in Wisconsin. My aopologies for any problems. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Aaargh!

I can't find the page to report a minor disclosing personal information! - SummerPhD (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Child protection? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Which leads to Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)<sarcasm>Wow: I have to handle this by e-mail? How 2008.</sarcasm> Sent to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also if you want it rev deleted, just (quietly) ask an admin, unless you think it should be oversighted, in which case you go through Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd already asked an admin, but figured he might not be around for a while (summer break and all). I'm assuming the email to arbcom will handle it. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It should work. I saw your post, but the proper link should have been this instead of this. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

You do some good editing, but those last reversions of GreenUniverse shouldn't have been reverted as vandalism, could you do some null edits clarifying that please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, on the other hand, I had no idea GU might be a sock... Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your comment earlier.

Yeah, User:GreenUniverse is a confirmed sock of the banned User:BookWorm44. My later edits were more direct on this point. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Notes

Hi SummerPhd, Thanks very much for the note in my talk. May I ask you to leave also a note about the block of the user GreenUniverse in the page: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/GreenUniverse? Likely this would be very useful for who is trying to fix the dozens of articles listed over there. All best, KenneBar81 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Darn. The discussion was over before I got there. Like I said, removing potential BLP violations is a exception to WP:3RR. You should know that by now. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

( ..."After the clip cut, Mitchell ...broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe...) Summer, Your editing explanation above suggests that you are aware of an explanation, by Ms. Mitchell, of the events leading up to the "incident". Does she claim that she was unaware of the inaccurate impression that is given by the clip? If so, does she explain why she later excused it by stating "....we didn't get a chance to show that, so here it is now?" Does she mention what, if any, discpilinary action was taken against the person responsible for this attack on Romney? If you have a RS for this, it would be useful to the "debate". Thanks 98.74.144.41 (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous, if I understand you correctly, you are misreading a direct quote from a source as being my edit summary: "After the clip cut, Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine."[72] As for your interpretation of her saying "...we didn't etc." as her excusing herself, it seems to me she might have been speaking for the network and/or the show at that point. Anything else seems to be torturing the sources to make them speak. I do not see any sources for the network or anyone connected with the show saying this was an attack. No attack = no one to discipline. Checking the sources in the article, none of them directly call it an attack. The closest I can find is that "...conservatives and media writers accused MSNBC of purposefully distorting Romney's comments to make him appear out of touch."[73] As I've just noted on the article's talk page, the clip did not originate with Andrea Mitchell Reports, so I'm hard pressed to think that we have anything connecting the editing to Mitchell. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

WOW Bassieboy666 (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Gee, um, thanks? It's been great working with you over these many, many edits. Let me know if you wanna get together some time and just hang out. Feel free to respond with your third edit ever, a year from now. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Andrea Mitchell Reports, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RNC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Open Mic Karaoke

The article Open Mic Karaoke was created after merging two other articles about two karaoke albums. Worse, someone created Open Mic Karaoke Volume 2 for ZOEgirl but not Volume 1. Do you prefer to have dozens of Open Mic articles floating around, or just one with a list of all the songs? i think the latter approach is better. --LABcrabs (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I prefer that we not have long lists of non-notable material. A karaoke album of songs made famous by a notable group is not notable based on the group being notable. ZOEgirl's albums are notable (assuming ZOEgirl is). A karaoke album of their songs is not one of their albums. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of marriage templates

173.69.8.105 (talk · contribs) seems to still be making non-MOS edits like (here), to the spouse sections of BLP info boxes. They are removing the reasons for 'seperation' ie. death /divorce, which seems odd. Is that per-MOS? Regards 220 of ^Borg 02:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk on the IP's talk page and the talk page for the template seem to indicate that there is no consensus for removing this. I am unaware of anything in MOS dealing with this. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Lay off

Lay off the guys who edit list of fictional tomboys! Homesun (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Barry Soetoro

You are the one who gave a reason why the article redirected to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I don't know what happened to the section you referred to, but it's not there. Anyway, at least for now, I am redirecting to the one article that actually mentions "Barry Soetoro". I never heard this name, but some Obama-hater on a web site I go to said she was not voting for Barry Sotero.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and PLEASE archive your talk page again. Those of us with slow Internet would really appreciate it. Given the articles I have been looking at today, you can see why I would be getting really frustrated.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob De Luca Edit war

Can you do me a favor : Can you undo your last edition in the Rob de Luca page yourself (remove the picture). The man himself wants the picture down and replace it by a newer one, it seems to be very important for him. Nobody knows exactly what it is that is so horrible about the picture, it's a good picture and I like it. But I have met Rob in person and I can state he's not hysterical and there is a good reason behind he cannot share in public. I guessed that the long hair is the reason, but in fact I don't know. I guessed that the long hair might be the reason, but in fact. All I'm asking for is time, 30 days at max that this article will be without picture. Everybody is working on finding a replacement picture ASAP. Maybe there is a policy on Wikipedia on how to deal with this, but wouldn't it be much easier to behave just fair? I was the first to be warned about the edit war, but now I saw it doesn't take me to have the pic up and down continuosly. So if you undo your own edit, maybe we can stop this madness. And I agree that Wikipedia is not a promotional platform but neutrality is one of the major principles of Wikipedia so an article should not be of disadvantage for a career as well. Although none of us can here can see what's wrong with the picture, I think it would be an act of fairness and respect for the individual to remove this picture from the article before an alternate picture is available if he desires so.

Thanks Moonslide (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)