Jump to content

User talk:SummerPhD

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rrand (talk | contribs) at 04:10, 16 March 2014 (→Roy Batty would not be civil). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Ye Olde Rules and Common Sense


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


Andrea Mitchell

Berklee Alisa Edit

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

~usmarinesjz

Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Coconut oil for deep frying

Hello!

First off a pre-emptive apologies if I muck about the formatting!

You posted on my talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienceandFitness - RE: "Coconut oil should not be utilized for deep drying, as multiple use may be associated with production of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, a carcinogenic compound"

I'm not really sure how to source this? It's more of a general-truth that you deep-frying (multiple usage) causes fatty acids to degrade. It's kind of the same issue found in BBQed meats, but in a lesser amount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceandFitness (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule of thumb, if reliable sources do not discuss something (directly discussing the topic of the article), it doesn't belong in the article. Please see WP:OR. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little late, but I have added an appropriate citation!

ScienceandFitness (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient astronauts

See Talk:Ancient astronauts#Nation of Islam - you may wish to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Another one?

I happened upon this after an edit to was made to one of the pages on my watchlist, but thought nothing of it. Then it happened again (and again), and I discovered this. Related?

ʍw 20:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty clear to me, I've added them to the list. I'm not really sure where to go from here. A sock case would lead to worthless blocks on the abandoned accounts and do little to prevent more from popping up. I'll probably take it to an admin board for any ideas other than the ongoing game of Whack-a-mole. Any suggestions? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a one (I don't have any real experience with sockpuppet investigations or hardcore vandal-fighting). As far as I know, the only potentially productive outcome of a sock puppet investigation in a case like this would be a range block; but as those are reserved for only the most disruptive and damaging cases, I doubt one would be applied here. Might be worth a shot, though. ʍw 22:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ʍw 13:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

talkback

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


November 2013

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Perri "Pebbles" Reid, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SummerPhD (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


Who are you to give me a last warning ? You are NOT an administrator as you state atop this page. Edit collaboratively or not at all. Once of the rules of wikipedia is that your edits will be edited by others so if that bothers you dont edit. My edits are sourced and I discussed them on the talk page. But if you dont want to work together YOU need to stop editing the article. Dont ever threaten me again. You say you do not like people to talk at you so do not talk at me. I do not appreciate that at all. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am an editor enforcing Wikipedia policies with legal implications: WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO. You have been warned about both and WP:3RR. In addition to my reverts, your edits have now been reverted by an administrator. I am not an administrator. That said, you are editing in violation of Wikipedia's policies. Until such time as you address those concerns, your edits will be reverted. If blocking you and/or edit protecting the article is needed to enforce Wikipedia's policies, that is what will be done. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now under semi-protection. Only confirmed users may edit the article. If you do not have a confirmed account, you will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and establish a consensus to have the edit made. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(BLP violation redacted) is racist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdhrPh09TX0 why cant i put it there if it is true. This video is very reliable. If i cant edit it, tell me how i can make a new (BLP violation redacted) post since i am new here. PS another video show roach lying about what he said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaisog (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" Materialscientist (talk | contribs) blocked Isaisog (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎(Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia)" - SummerPhD (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppets

So, it's OK for that "editor" (actually, he's more of a reversionist) to claim I'M a sockpuppet because YOU don't like me? Sounds a little like bias to me. And in fact, if you took the time to look at his edit history and how long he's been an editor combined with the sophistication of his Wiki knowledge, you might consider that he is a sock puppet.

But again, why are you sending ME a nasty gram and not the other editor who continues to claim I use sock puppets? You don't like me so you play favorites? Wow. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly claimed the other editor is using socks without starting a case. If you do so again, I will report you for personal attacks.
The other editor made the claim about you one time (that I see). I notified that editor before your response here asking why I didn't. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question is a sock puppet. You may not wish to consider it, but it is fact. He edits under several accounts. I edit under exactly ONE account, all my blemishes, all my warts. So be it. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Start a sock case or stop making the accusation. Those are your options.
Incidentally, my guess would be that the sock puppetry accusation leveled against you was based on the edits under Special:Contributions/2601:1:B100:4E4:95D2:4ED3:8B20:4B34. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After this, you'll have a lot harder time calling other editors on allegations of socking. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Trivia is a legitimate section title, the PROOF being that while looked down upon, it is both ***NOT*** outlawed, and there is in fact a "trivia" tag. Again, being honest about the title of a section in reference to it's content is, well, honest. There is NOTHING wrong with labeling "trivia" trivia. What is wrong is including trivia under the complete bullshit title "In Popular Culture".

Did I mention that there is absolutely no / zero / nadda rule that outlaws "trivia" at Wikipedia. It must be properly labeled and in fact there is a trivia tag for doing so. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are being disruptive. The consensus, as repeatedly demonstrated,[1][Talk:Joni_James#In_popular_culture][2] is that these sections should be labeled "In popular culture". So far as I have seen, numerous editors disagree with you and none have agreed with you. You are editing against consensus, for which you have been blocked in the past. If you continue, you will be blocked again, eventually leading to a permanent block. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I appreciate your warning and will fold it into my consideration when I edit. I am not a bad editor, I am not bad person. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Shavitz

I didnt think i needed citation...he's my neighbor... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.237.176 (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do need a source. Verifiability is one of our core principles. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested

Hello summer, I was wondering if you could help out with a very disruptive editor? I have noticed that you have had dealings with Johnny squeaky before and he seems to be up to his usual disruptive behavior yet again. Last night he started an edit war over an admin rollback on Leona Helmsley accusing others of being sock puppets and now he is reverting pertinent information on the Kleargear article with his usual comment of all I.P. Editors being a single editor using multiple I.P.s Others have tried to discuss but he just instigates and eggs people on. Any help would be appreciated166.147.80.218 (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you review your options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If there is some particular reason you want someone else to do that for you, I'd want to know what. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Nation

Can you help keep an eye on it and Lilsrlupq16? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Slap! This discution was in 2008! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alissa White-Gluz
Now is 2014 (without 16 days). Do you thing you banned Alissa for life? You are wrong. Alissa′s notability is incontestable, guy. XXN (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was redirected because she doesn't seem to be notable independent of the band. I see no indication that has changed. Your restored version made three changes: correcting two typos and adding categories. Notability for musicians for individual articles (rather than a redirect to the band's article) calls for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources demonstrating notability for activity independent of the band. Articles about the band do not demonstrate that. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Walter White (Breaking Bad)#Real life meth dealer named Walter White

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Walter White (Breaking Bad)#Real life meth dealer named Walter White. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Making a correction; need citation

I just saw this message pop up for the first time:

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Hulk Hogan, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall what the edit was (it would be helpful if you included it in the message). I am guessing that i may have corrected Hulk Hogan's billed height, as i see it is incorrectly listed as 6'7", when he was billed for many, many years as 6'8".

I don't know what qualifies as a reliable source, but there are probably 500 videos on youtube where they announce his height as 6'8".

Here's one of the most famous of them (skip to 5:25 for the 'tale of the tape'):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOCqV23VkXU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.107.119 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit in question. Yes, it was changing the height. The citation in the article was (and is) his WWE bio, which says 6'7". If you have a reliable source that contradicts this, I'd suggest taking the issue to the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Changes" by Faul & Wad Ad

Here is the stand-alone single article as required for listing is here Changes (Faul & Wad Ad song). The song is #1 on the German Singles Chart: [3], [4] and is also charting in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland. I dedicate the smash hit to you: [5]. I am adding back to the "Changes" list with the required link to the page. werldwayd (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Your history of following be around Wikipedia is in fact claer evidence of "stalking". It's unfriendly, and really quite creepy. Please stop, it doesn't make Wikipedia better, it doesn't reflect well on you as an editor, and it is not proper "policing", which is not your job anyway. It is in fact "harassment". =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Johnny_Squeaky_and_.22Trivia.22 - SummerPhD (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Discussions about me are entirely irrelevant to discussions about "trivia". You may attempt to change or deflect the discussion away from the actual topic, but in we are talking about "trivia" not "Johnny Squeaky". =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Johnny_Squeaky_and_.22Trivia.22, there is a clear consensus to the contrary. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thx + comments

"His too. The dispute had nothing to do with him and he used it to take a swipe at me. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)"

"Inappropriate behavior as a response to inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)"

First, I don't personally believe in the "two wrongs don't make a right" popular mantra. (I consider that dumbing down and a false rule, for example, the Japanese killed Americans at Pearl Harbor - a "wrong" - then we entered the War and dropped an A-bomb on them ... Why aren't the mantra people scolding *that*? On and on.)

But I'm not aware of doing anything "inappropriate" (if there was any implication), in spite of the user's accusation. To suggest the Chess.com article content is "nothing to do with [me]", is crass & foul ... I'm one of the first editors to get involved on issues at a related article Talk, and the recent Chess.com AfD, so it has been on my watchlist for that past issue and others. Second, for a user to accuse me of hidden motives, or to even announce he is able to discern and act on such suppositions, is both also crass, and illegitimate. (But it is apparently tolerated on the Wiki. Thanks for stepping in to warn him; too bad you are not an adminsitrator with some power to do something about that editor's hostile and out-of-bounds incivilities [such as, his righteous claims to anti-incivility on his User, followed by hypocritical examples, and there are many others, like the above].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teala Dunn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shake It Up! (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content editors need your support, not your lectures

Save yourself the trouble of lecturing me, I've been around here longer than you have. Go bother that little tendentious troll who is on a deletionist spree. Have you looked at his contribs? That's almost all he does! I've got better things to do than to spend any more time defending something as dumb as Charlie's Angels, but I will NOT be snarked at by trolls and someone needs to get that little twerp to slow down and start being constructive instead of taking the lazy route and insist on article deletions that contribute to the anti-woman systemic bias the wikipedia is just loaded with. I'm absolutely fed up with the ongoing harassment that content editors get when they try to add content and have to endure this sort of stuff from people who wouldn't know how to write a featured article if it bit them. If someone can't be bothered to rework an article and save it, then unless it actually violates policy, they need to just pop on a couple appropriate tags and go on. Now leave me alone, I'm done with that stupid situation, and if the other editor keeps snarking at me, then why don't you go and lecture him? Montanabw(talk) 07:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care how long you've been here. I don't care who you think started it. I gave the other editor the same reminder I gave you. You were part of the problem, now be part of the solution. Discuss content not editors. If you believe another editor's edits are problematic, whining about it at an AfD, on your talk page and on mine will accomplish NOTHING. If you are unsure where to address the issue, ask. Otherwise, address the issue or drop it. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't worth an ANI or some other drama board, because nothing will be done but waste more bandwidth. And Pleses, spare me the "if you are unsure" crap. If you can't recognize a troll when you see one, I can't help you (I don't see you weighing in on either side of the actual deletion issue, by the way, if you want to be part of the solution). Frankly, sometimes it IS the person, and we all know that the bullies of wikipedia use these policies as WP:BAIT. Sorry to get off on such poor footing with you but I've had it with the bullies here, we just saw the resignation of the highest vote-getter on ArbCom election (28bytes) largely because of trolls, and I'm just tired of these twerps. Oh well, happy new year, I guess. Nothing changes on New Years' Day...sigh. Montanabw(talk) 07:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The collapsed section of the AfD is troll food. If the other editor is, as you say, a troll, you are making it worse, not better. And no, nothing changes on New Year's Day unless you change it. If the time is right, you can break through. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, per this, I will take back what I said about not warning the other user. So sorry about that. As for feeding the trolls, I guess my feeling is WP:ROPE; if they escalate, they will get blocked. I don't care to be bullied and I'm not much good at ignoring personal attacks. Montanabw(talk) 22:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cusack

Hi Summer. Thank you for your corrections of my inexperenced additions and my lack of good manners in getting back to you sooner. If you have no objections I'll take Donner60's, who seems to keep a watching brief on 'Cusack', suggestion as outlined below.

Cusack Ancestry[edit] Putting the information in a full sentence or perhaps as a clause at the end of a sentence would have been better form. This is a minor issue, of course. The main problem here is that there is no reference to the person(s) being "Norman-Irish." They are listed in the Notable Modern Cusacks section but I don't think the article establishes that all Cusacks were or are of "Norman-Irish" ancestry. Without citing a source that definitely links a modern person to a "Norman-Irish" lineage, it is technically correct to challenge the addition of that fact. If there is no definite source among those cited in the Cusack article or otherwise, I think another approach, or perhaps compromise, would be to find a stand-alone word "Cusack" in an article on an individual person and link it to the "Cusack" article. The reader could then see the information presented there and draw their own conclusion from it. Donner60 (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Best Regards for 2014 C.Cleeve — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Cleeve (talk • contribs) 12:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an attempt to include a claim without a source. I'm not sure how inviting an unsourced assumption is better than making an unsourced assumption. For Martin Luther King Junior we do not link Martin, Luther, Martin Luther or King without a sourced reason. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Girard College

Where is the source for the assertion that 80% of the students are African-American? In the absence of a citation to a source, is that not "original research" as well?John Paul Parks (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition was original research. I removed it. If there are other problems with the article, feel free to correct them. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a reference?

I want to add a citation to an article so I can correct the information in it. How do I do so? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.228.229 (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CITEFOOT. If that isn't clear, feel free to ask for help. Once you've added the cite, drop me a note here if you'd like and I'll take a look at it to see if everything looks good. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello-I'm Claire and created a Wikipedia account. I wrote to you in this section prior to confirmation of my account. Do I need to re-write my message to you or will your reply (if you reply) still reach me? thank you--Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire Bonan (talk • contribs) 08:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Claire Bonan glad you've decided to stick around. Responses to your comments under your IP address would still go there, anything new should go to your new account.
I hadn't sent you a message about your new citation as you hadn't asked for comment.
I did check your reference, though. You formatted it correctly and everything was displaying correctly. Unfortunately, the source you cited is a blog. Blogs are what we refer to as "self-published sources". Basically, because anyone can write pretty much anything they want in a blog, we do not accept them as reliable sources. I made a few changes to hopefully cover the facts of the situation. To see what those changes are (and why I made them), please go to the article, Harley Flanagan, and click the tab labeled "history" at the top of the page. Next to each edit, you can select "prev" to see changes from the previous version or "cur" to see how that version differs from the current version. If you have concerns about my presentation of the facts, you can certainly make additional changes or discuss the situation on the article's talk page. Thanks and happy editing! - SummerPhD (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Pepsi

FYI. Chunk5Darth (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tick...tick...tick... - SummerPhD (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Idina Menzel

Hi, so I edited the Idina Menzel page and didn't provide a source which you said I needed. The reason for this is because I am the source, I have loved her for years and everything I added I know 100% to be true just from years of being a fan. So I am not sure what to do so that my edit doesn't get removed, can you please let me know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serina1222 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Serina, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Your edit stated, "Idina's powerful voice, passion, and broadway history (mainly in Wicked and RENT) has made her a legend on the broadway stage. She has a very dedicated fanbase who refer to themselves as Fanzels." Wikipedia aims to provide neutral, verifiable information on notable topics. "Verifiable" is part of the problem here: Readers need to be able to check that the information came from an independent "reliable source". If you take a look at the references currently used in the article, you'll see a long list of such sources: the New York Daily News, New York magazine, Entertainment Weekly, the Times Herald-Record, The (London) Times, The Toronto Star, Variety, etc.
The second part of the problem is neutral point of view. Wikipedia aims to present material without bias. Your edit contains strong pro-Menzel bias. "Powerful voice", "passion", "legend", "very dedicated", etc. are all your opinion. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dania Ramirez

Dania Ramirez, is married to Bev Land! But on your wiki for Bev Lands ex wife, you have that they're still married which isn't true. Since hes married to Dania. I tried to sort it out but you keep removing it, so have an incorrect wiki. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.130.241 (talk) 04:17:, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the core principles of Wikipedia is verifiability. IF you add information -- especially claims about living people -- without citing a reliable source for the addition, your changes will be reverted and you will receive notes on your talk page (as you did) explaining why. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its a little odd then how Dania has Bev Land Married 2013 on her Wiki and Sharon does? A little weird if they're both married to him..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.130.241 (talk • contribs) 04:35, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source for any information you would like to add. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Monument to the Forefathers

Sorry but I don't believe you have ever watched Monumental. It is a very eye opening movie! The summary of the movie is that the further America gets from Judo-Christian values the more liberal( pro-gay & more violence) it becomes. Also NO ONE HAS AN UNBIASED OPION Sincerely, Truth Seeker ( I don't believe everything I hear NO MATTER THE SOURCE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.209.247.188 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware that Professor Doctor high school graduate Cameron PhD MA BA AA has done a careful, unbiased analysis of a statue constructed by late 19th century Masons based on their interpretations of 17th century Brownist refugees' ideals and determined that the ideals of those religious separatists hidden in the Mason's statue represent the guiding principles of a country founded by Deists that two centuries later subsumed the territory they had formed their enclave on.
Cameron found what he set out to find. (I don't doubt you'll find "The Truth" you expect to find.) He is not a relevant academic for the National Monument to the Forefathers. He is clearly biased in favor of a conservative Christian interpretation of anything and everything he speaks about. If you feel this former actor's opinion belongs in the article, you'll want to discuss it on the talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perri Reid

January 2014

Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon Your recent editing history at Perri "Pebbles" Reid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ''PLEASE discuss the issue on the article's talk page. SummerPhD (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I posted section after section of the discussion page. You NEVER replied. The posts are in the archive if you have forgotten. Now you saying 'please post on discussion page first' when YOU DONT DO THAT. For months you just reverted every edit I made but did nothing to expand the article. i have expanded the article ( the whole 'early life' section is my work--you didnt even know about her teenage pregnancy and marraige-- and yet you still revert.

Get an admin to be our intermediary again because I feel you dont know what you are doing. You are going to keep reverting, then 'warn me about 3rr", revert the page to your version, then get the page locked. I dont have time for your games. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion on the article's talk page discussing the problems with the version you are replying to. I asked you to discuss these problems here, here and here. You responded by reverting to the problematic version without explaining why you were making most of the changes here, here and here. Your explanations for the reverts, without commenting on the issue on the article's talk page were "you dont discuss on talkbut want me to. gtfooh. i added so much meat to this article while you just revert."; "yahoo and its blog are credible."; "i added that she is 1 of 4 kids of a divorced mother, that she was preg and married at 16, and more. you didnt. just reverted. and you are still doing it. go away." and "dont write to me when YOU DONT DISCUSS. I had questions posted on the talk page and you never replied!"
Yes, you have asked me not to write on your talk page. I respect that request as much as I can. However, for a WP:3RR warning, I have no choice. Saying you asked questions that you say I didn't answer (whenever that may have been) does not give you carte blanche to make whatever changes you wish. This is still a colaborative project. (I am not sure which specific issues those are and the archiving you requested moved them to the archive before you addressed the issue.) There are numerous problems with your edit, some you will likely disagree with, some you will likely agree with. Please discuss the issues on the article's talk page. Page protection is an option if you continue to not discuss the issues. That will, however, block you from editing. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Winx Club may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |''Winx Club'' franchise]]. The series is the first Italian cartoon to be sold in the U.S.<ref name="iginiostraffi.com"/<ref name = "rainbowwinx">{{cite web |url= http://www.rbw.it/en/
  • fairy earns her Enchantix by saving someone from her home world, with a self-sacrifice on her part (excluding Bloom and Tecna- Bloom had willed herself into her Enchantix {though it is incomplete and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Britewater2

Hi SummerPhD, I appreciate you filing all these SPIs, but if you could add a few words of explanation about the similarities between the users you report it would probably help your cases be handled much quicker. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Thanks for everything! - SummerPhD (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi, this is the first time I'm sending a message, so the kitten thing is weird for me, but here you go. This is in thanks for your contributions to the CBD entry. I read the entry when it stated "CBD is psychoactive but not intoxicating" and I went and got some high CBD flower (from a dispensary, so the CBD content was somewhat trustable), smoked it, and proceeded to get high as fuck. And if I've done that, surely other people have, too. So I appreciated your correction, when I saw it on the talk page, which I visited later, specifically wondering where that sentence had gone. It's so important that that information's as accurate as can be. Thanks a lot!

Zaraaxelrod (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lil twist

you removed my edit of lil twist even though i quoted a cite, there are multiple cites too including tmz that report lil twist was IN FACT ARRESTED FOR DRUGS AND FOR DAMAGING THE PHONE i cited a website. i guess wikipedia does NOT CARE about the truth!!!!! RESTORE IT there was nothing saying anything but the FACTS— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.132.144.189 (talk • contribs) 18:39, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Lil Twist: "Christopher Lynn Moore (born January 11, 1993), known by his stage name Lil Twist"
The source you cited: "Xavier (Lil Za) Smith, 20". - SummerPhD (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I bring your attention to...

this? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Cancelled Film

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

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

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

Hello

Resolved

User:MaxBrowne has been obviously baiting me with unwarranted accusations, insults, personal attacks, and attempts to defame on a project discussion page, as a result of my good faith contribution on the thread topic, which clearly he did not like (but, that isn't my problem, and, I don't deserve the crap from him that I have received there). So I'm curious to know, who are you to decide where civility is and isn't, and how do you do that (names only? what about other forms of incivility such as harassment, baiting, false accusations, attempts to defame, as well as the personal attacks I received on that project discussion page?), how do you find consistency reverting my post on his User but not reverting any of his baiting and inappropriate, baseless, and harassing posts on WT:CHESS and my user Talk? And also, are you watching that user's page, or watching my edits? And if so, why? Last, you are not an administrator, why are you acting as if you are one? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment stated, in part: "I have a right to say that I think you are a 100% asshole ... I don't respect you ... So I have good reason to think you are a slimeball." This is clearly a personal attack. Personal attacks are not acceptable.
Who am I to decide? If you believe that was civil and post material like it again, you will be discussing this at AN/I. I am quite confident others will find it was not civil. Whether or not you were responding to personal attacks is irrelevant. Inappropriate behavior in response to inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior. That I warned you for this edit does not mean that I find all other comments made by or to you were acceptable, only that this one clearly was not. Comment on content, not editors.
I am not "acting like an administrator". You made a personal attack, I issued a standard warning. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're insulting my intellgence (do you realise?), by suggesting that I might not know that a name-call is uncivil. (I do. And I don't need you to point it out to me, or explain it to me.) Whether or not you were responding to personal attacks is irrelevant. I don't agree. You're taking the remarks out of context if you think that. Your philosophy Inappropriate behavior in response to inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior is trivially true, but sidesteps a deeper and more significant truth that I am a fucking human being with limited patience, and after taking too much unwarranted crap from somebody like MaxBrowne, I tend to tell them what I think. So forgive me for being human. It seems to me you're getting a kick out of looking for incivility infraction and inserting yourself like a self-anointed Wiki civility "policeman". That is pretty shallow, as it seems to support enforcing brittle rules blindly, out-of-context, that are dysfunctional to begin with because other forms of incivility that precipitated a remark go unnoticed and unpunished. (What kind of thoughtful, intelligent human being would subscribe to such a system?) If you expect me to be a robot and have unlimited patience after a series of insults and attacks, then you expectations need adjustment, not my behavior. You pomopously tell me Comment on content, not editors, which is again something I did not need to be told, and, if you peruse the WT:CHESS thread in question, you'll see I did just that, and the other editor initiated a series of baits and unwarranted personal accuses and remarks which you did not respond to in same fasion. So I question your consistency. I'm also wondering who you think you are still, and why you decided to insert yourself. Enforcing rules according to shallow, brittle policy, is a form of incivility, or, haven't you thought about it? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. Ever heard of Malleus? He has called editors "cunts", and he always gets unblocked early, if there ever has been a block for what he has said that was "uncivil". Do you like to pick on me instead of him, because I'm a less-known editor? Or how about your objective and fair and rationale comparison of it?[reply]
Recognizing that your behavior was uncivil is a first step. The next step is to be civil.
I do not expect you to be a robot. I expect you to not make personal attacks. If personal attacks are directed at you, I would encourage you to warn the offending editor with escalating warnings designed for that purpose, culminating in administrator action if required. Inappropriate behavior is inappropriate behavior regardless of any justification offered.
I do not intend to respond to blanket characterizations of unrelated situations.
I am an editor reminding another editor of our policies. If you feel this is inappropriate or a personal attack, I can only offer my assurances that it is a central part of our editing process. Otherwise, there would not be a large stock of standardized warning templates, such as the one I used. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are expecting me to behave like a robot, if you expect machine-perfection of "never not being uncivil" in response to a series of accusations, insults, personal attacks, that I was subject to. You expect perfection from me, because of an easily-spotted name-call, but you grossly overlook all the crap sent my way as explained many times to you already. (So, you're enforcing policy? That includes enforcing it unevenly? Because that is easier for you?)

As far as warning the other party of the personal attacks and incivilities he sent to my attention, tell me Summer, what good is that? (How does that get administrator solution or involvement? At ANI? ANI is a cesspool most usually. Many editors go there to be the first to say "BOOMERANG" and feel puffed up about themselves. Editors who like drama are attracted to contribute many times to ANI, making it a cesspool of irresponsibility. [I am not alone for having this opinion of ANI -- the same disgust with ANI was shared by many experienced & respected editors before I ever even signed up to be a WP editor.] So, I will never go to ANI or open a thread there for any purpose, whatever, ever. Simply because I refuse to allow myself to be subjected to unwarranted abuse. Many of the arguments there are irresponsible attempts at mud-slinging and lynching, adding to the stench at ANI.) So without ANI to go to for assistance to stop harassment by another editor, what do you recommend? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. BTW just because templates exist, does not mean it is civil to use them. Some regular editors take offense to being templated. (Am I considered a "regular" yet? [I dunno.]) And you know what? Essays exist and are bandied about as wikilinks, and many of those are down-right uncivil by their very nature, for e.g., WP:DICK. I'm curious what you have to say about that, seeing that it is an uncivil name-call even by its very title.)[reply]

If you do not follow WP:NPA, you will end up at AN/I, it's that simple. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." - SummerPhD (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need your reminders or warnings or admonishments. I see now that you are non-responsive to any thoughtful question I have, and simply repeat stridently "You broke a rule!" That's so brittle and thoughtless, I don't know how to respond to you. I told you at least twice that your informing me of something I already know, is insulting. Your selective templating is biased, and seems to be based on "bad words", which is an incomplete, shallow, and dysfunctional view of incivility. Your warning me about taking me to ANI is also problematical, since, aggrieved parties go there with their issues, not 3rd-party parties on behalf of aggrieved parties. (Otherwise I've seen the 3rd parties questioned as to their motives from bringing ANIs where they are not involved.) You seem to have a thoughtless and shallow "wiki-cop" mentality of enforcing rules based on brittle and shallow interpretation of incivility, and frankly, that's boring and a waste of time and attention. You go in circles and never discuss anything except your shallow rules interpretation and making threats. All of that behavior is uncivil, I don't suppose you recognize that? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you have acknowledged, you made a personal attack. Your numerous arguments as to why your breech of our policy is not a problem do not change this. Don't do it again. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I acknowledged that. But, is this a joke? Or simple harassment? I feel like I'm talking to an automaton. This might come as a big shock to you, but this has not been a conversation or discussion. You have nothing important or interesting to say. Your selective interpretation of WP:CIV by willful unrecognition of obvious baiting and construction of unnecessary and out-of-bounds attack page on a WP project thread demands none of my respect. You are not my boss. You seem to have a self-perception of "Wiki-cop", and quite frankly, that's boring and not interesting or a good use of my time paying any attention to you. Please go away and convince others you are as important to WP civility enforcement as you seem to think of yourself. And I don't want you coming to my Talk page anymore. This has not been a conversation. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. Are you a bot?[reply]
As a general rule, when discussing your personal attacks in violation of our policy, it is a bad idea to make personal attacks. Per your request, I will not visit your talk page again unless it becomes necessary to take the issue to AN/I. At that point I am obligated to notify you on your talk page and will do so. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is so insulting! "Our policy" As if you are some fucking owner, and I'm some fucking visitor. (Jesus!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that part of our conversation confused you. We -- you and I -- are both fucking owners. Even if you feel you are exempt from one of our policies, so long as you are part of Wikipedia they are equally your polices. My final note to you: You have been repeatedly warned by numerous editors not to make personal attacks. You have acknowledged that you are making personal attacks. If you honestly believe any of your justifications for ignoring our policy will suffice at AN/I, you might have to learn the hard way. I'd prefer it not come to that. It's your choice. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preachy much? And how many times did you push words in my mouth in your above paragraph, that I never said or implied? (That is also uncivil, hello!) You ignore what incivility you like to, and go around pretending you are important by tagging obvious bad words, because that is convenient and easy. The WP:CIV policy is egregiously flawed, if you have any sense with what has been currently going on in the WP for the last years. Your shallowness and brittleness is headache-inducing. What an annoyance you are! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couple theoretical Qs for you, Summer (since you are so expert at picking out personal attacks): 1) Is calling another editor a "bully" a personal attack in your view? 2) If answer is yes, then: Is telling another editor to "stop your bullying" substantively the same, or substantively different? (I'm not meaning the grammatical answer, as from an English teacher on a grammar question; I'm meaning in the real world of WP civility enforcement, of which you are an expert. [Unless of course, you base your civility envforcement efforts on grammatical details rather than meaning and message, etc.]) Are my Qs clear or have I confused you? Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This, of course, is another way of saying you were justified in your attacks because you were merely attacking back. Arguments as to why your breech of our policy is not a problem do not change anything. Don't do it again. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)c[reply]
I have no idea how you got off to a tangent like that, or even what you mean. My Qs were straightforward, and didn't hint or suggest anything under cover as your paranoid thinking apparently likes to imagine. There is nothing wrong with my Qs as is, you shouldn't see ghosts in every sentence as you do, it makes your message and communication incomprehensible. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. You took good-faith Qs, and somehow turned them into a need for another pointless warning. How the hell you did that, I'll never know, and quite frankly, don't want to know, because knowing how you got to such dysfunction won't help me any in any way.[reply]
It's interesting to see how you template me on my User talk with "Comment on content, not on the contributor", but then when you see other editors sending derogatory personal comments to my attention in the WT:CHESS thread (accusations of "bullying", falsely and without basis accusing me of "bludgeoning anyone with a different opinion", name-calling me a rude person, "having thin skin", commenting on what the user thinks my personality is like e.g. "not a comfortable combination", etc.), you call it "bickering" and collapse it and call it a day. (Consistent much!? Why haven't you templated those users since they have clearly engaged in personal comments and insults and attacks?? Where's your consistency?? Do you think their comments weren't derogatory towards me?? Do you think their comments weren't personal towards me?? Do you think their comments weren't insults and personal attacks?? How do you justify templating me to "comment on content, not on the contributor", then at same time take a blind eye to the shit thrown at me that is personal and derogatory/insulting?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also take offense to you characterizing my response to User:MaxBrowne's baits and taunts and personal accusations and insults as "bickering". (I do not "bicker". I make my case, and in my response, I didn't get personal or attack him as he did me. The fact is his taunts and accuses and personal stuff was baseless and no doubt intentionally inflamatory, and I don't take baits like that and lower myself to get in pointless emotional squabbles as he clearly was trying to trigger. I think I'm better than that. But I did point out he was issuing personal derogatory comments again, that were unprompted and without basis. How is that "bickering" exactly according to you?? Do you realize that you have insulted me by asserting that I would choose to "bicker" with such an editor? Does it make you feel good to play the superior role while insulting me that I'm a lowly "bickerer"??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ihardlythinkso, if you have a problem with a user you can find acceptable ways to handle it. There's RfC/U, there's ANI, there's old-fashioned hate mail with a stamp on it. Cussing and yelling on Wikipedia is not an appropriate way. Whatever they did, however wrong they are, you're wrong too. So drop all this commentary here, which is starting to sound like harassment. I'm not kidding: consider this a warning. Suck it up and move on; I'll be glad to look into some dispute, but first you have to leave Summer alone. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you Drmies, I've concluded Summer is over her head with understanding the inconsistency of what she thinks she's doing, the reason I continued is that I liked to think that wasn't the case and this editor could round out a bit rather than continue with all the brittleness. But I disagree with you on the point that to respond with a brief incivility to editors who initiate obvious baiting and taunting and personal attacks, is wrong. (The "two wrongs don't make a right" thing is oversimplistic view of things. For example Malleus has many times told such editors where to go. Have you advised him the same as you have advised me?) Also I need you to know, ANI is off limits to me as venue for anything, it is a completely broken cesspool of irresponsibility. And the RfC/U's I've seen haven't impressed any better in fact they have been worse. There is an overwhelming recognition on the Pedia that WP:CIV is incomplete, inept, unevenly enforced, and used as a club against editors one doesn't like. You know all these things, I know you do. I did not know anything about user Summer so my attempted dialogue with her was very informative for me. But again I understand what you're saying and thank you for stopping by. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may or may not be hearing Drmies. To clarify, he's clearly not your biggest fan. Hell, he's made it quite clear on your talk page that he does not appreciate your personal attacks. This makes it pretty clear as well. Consider this my final word on the issue: Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. You feel you have no option because taking the issue it AN/I is to boomerang. You're probably right. However, you do not have the right to make more personal attacks in an attempt to avoid discussing your prior personal attacks at AN/I. Let's make this simple: The next personal attack I see you make won't be condensed, hatted, warned and forgotten. It will be discussed at AN/I. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pathetic. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eric Corbett just today called an editor "asshole" on that user's Talk. Are you going to template Eric for making a personal attack (as you did me)? Don't you think calling someone an "asshole" is making a personal attack?! Are you going to threaten Eric with taking him to ANI if he does again (as you did to me)? Or is it that you think Eric deserves none of your reminders, admonishments and threats, but on the other hand, those are fine for you to issue to me, instead?! If you have an answer or rationale, could you please explain it clearly. Thanks! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC) p.s Or if you don't want to do that, then can you agree to leave me alone, as you have to-date left Eric alone? Some consistency would be nice (or don't you think so?).[reply]
If you see an editor making a personal attack, feel free to warn them. That's how Wikipedia works. Your continued belief that you should be free to make personal attacks because either "he hit me first" or "but he's doing it too" is immaterial. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't enjoy you paraphrasing what I said according to your own over-simplified memes that toddlers use. Your "that's the way Wikipedia works" translates to "that's how Wikipedia demonstrates the moral ineptitude of its CIV policy and ongoing support for kangaroo court lynchings at ANI". And why are you stalking my edits, SummerPhD?? (You just admitted you didn't "see" Eric's edit, yet you "saw" mine.) I also notice that YOU have violated WP:CIV in ... what is it ... six or seven different ways. (Why is it you've been blind to that, and only attack others with your prudish admonishments and pointless threats? [Such as, taking an editor to ANI as a third party observer.]) Do you think you have any credibility, Summer!? You apparently believe in third-party action. Fine. I just alerted you to Eric's name-calling an editor an "asshole" on that user's Talk. So time for you to rev-up your third-party Wiki-police motor and go template and threaten Eric the same as you did me. Why is it that you are not interested to do that? Because you weren't witness to it? I just made you aware of it. What's the difference in substance? A breach is a breach, you don't think so? I think what you mean "That's how Wikipedia works" is that you are free to selectively harass if you want, or do any other selective and inconsist thing that you want, without complaint, as long as you do not name-call someone, but it is just fine if you are uncivil in many other less obvious ways. "That's how Wikipedia works" ... as though it works well. (Funny.) Do you mean like never in the history of WP an admin being blocked for making personal attacks!? Wikipedia can "work" for you apparently, as long as you can continue your selective stalking, pointless templating, and pompous threats. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your choice, not mine. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And just how is that any kind of intelligible response to anything in my post?! Eric called someone an "asshole". Go get him. Go template him. Like you did me. Go threaten him, like you did me. Go admonish him, like you did me. Or explain why there is any difference whatsoever in this wiki-world. (And do make your explanation clear and plain, if that is possible for you to do. Else clearly and simply keep your stupid comments off my Talk once and forever.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment above contains personal attacks. This is not your Talk. Your choices are to not make personal attacks or leave the project (whether voluntarily or not). That is not a threat, that is a choice we all have. If you see another editor's behavior as problematic, address it yourself. I have nothing further for you. Now it is your choice. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment above contains personal attacks. Are you sure you know what you're talking about? And assuming you do, are you suggesting that personal attacks are OK if they are made on a user's own Talk? (It seems you are. Can you point to policy on that?) I'd like to see you go tell Eric Corbett what his "choices are". (And then, how he responds to you!) I'm glad you have nothing further for me, because this thread has been awesomely boring and headache-inducing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"And do make your explanation clear and plain, if that is possible for you to do. Else clearly and simply keep your stupid comments..." Personal attacks are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All that shows is that you do not understand what constitutes a personal attack on the Wikipedia. (More headache from you. Thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have argued your personal attacks are justified and therefore acceptable. You are mistaken. You have argued I have no standing to warn you for personal attacks. You are mistaken. You have argued that fear of an AN/I boomerang somehow has bearing on this. You are mistaken. You have argued that unless I am policing everyone you should be exempt. You are mistaken. You are not arguing that your personal attacks are not personal attacks. You are mistaken.
You seem be spending MUCH less time on talk pages discussing other editors since I warned you that your next personal attack would result in an AN/I thread. This seems to indicate understanding. This is progress. The fact remains: Your next personal attack will result in an AN/I thread. All further comment from you here defending your personal attacks will receive only this response: WP:NPA. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You draw wrong conclusions, Summer. (I don't think any of the things you said, nor have I made any of the arguments you've attributed.) I'd rather listen to someone scratching a blackboard with fingernails than anything you think you have to say. You've selectively targeted me in your self-appointed Wiki-cop activity, you disregard incivilities and personal attacks from others and from yourself, while clamoring loudly about me. You've already demonstrated faulty understanding what constitutes personal attack, and faulty understanding of who brings a case to ANI and for what. You bore me to chicken litter. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised. (Look up earlier in this thread. I referred to lack of thoughtfullness in responses as though from that of an automaton. I could program an automaton to "speak" with only templates and WP:XXX in its vocabulary.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) p.s. I asked you earlier if you thought WP:DONTBEADICK is a personal attack in your estimation. No answer. (Why?) I see now there is also WP:DONTBESUCHAPUSSY and WP:DONTBEANAL. I did not create or support them. (They seem inherent PAs to me.) I merely asked you what you think. (Personally I think if WP is serious about NPA, it s/ start with removal of those essays, which are out of tune with NPA in addition to CIV.)
WP:NPA - SummerPhD (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Summer, User:Eric Corbett just within the last few hours called an editor "fucking idiot", which I'm abosolutely sure is a PA in your book. No one is doing anything about it. So why aren't you defending the WP from PAs, since no one else is?! Why aren't you templating and admonishing and threatening Eric with ANI, as you did me?! How do you explain the consistency of picking on me?! Because I am a "nobody" and he is a "somebody"? Is that your standard? It is OK for him to issue PAs with liberal abandon, and you don't lift a finger, and no one else does either, yet you want to come down on me hard for any name-call? Do you like to pick on the weaker editor, and avoid the stronger editor, because that is easy for you? (Hey! Bullies like to pick on the weaker guys, they avoid the stronger guys, because they might fight back and give the bully a "black eye". Is that your same rationale that explains why you pick on me and ignore Eric's transgressions against the CIV & NPA pillar? I am just trying to understand the innermost inconsistency of your putrid set of principles that you so zealously uphold ... will you help me in that endeavor?! Or will you continue to avoid and deny and avoid and deny?!?) If someone else was doing something about Eric's clear transgression of NPA, then I could understand your reluctance, since then someone else would be "handling it", wouldn't they. But that is not the case. No one is. So why aren't you on Eric's Talk page right now, with your template warning and admonishment and threat, same as you did to me. If you don't do it Summer, no one else clearly is. What about that? How do you explain and defend your selective interest in CIV and NP according to the user?! I really want to know. Please give me some semblance of a logical answer. Your other option is to hide behind your WP:NPA template response. Go to it. Show me your best. I'm waiting. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA - SummerPhD (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ihardlythinkso, by now you're just baiting and it's time to stop. Half the world has already visited Eric's talk page in the last few days; there is no conceivable reason why Summer should do so. You see something wrong? WP:SOFIXIT. You warn him, if you think he needs to be warned. Now, Summer is a nice person and hasn't asked you to refrain from posting here, so I'm doing it. Please refrain from posting here if all you have is personal attacks (the bully commentary) and baiting. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, you seem to be missing the point also. The point is one of consistency -- how inconsistent CIV enforcement is defended and supported. I would expect a person like Summer, who seems to go by the "letter of the law", would see it fit to rethink consistency issue when presented to her. (I never suggested she wasn't a "nice person". This is about ideas and how an editor justifies possessing them loudly. Nothing personal. I was really interested in a thoughtful response. [She only issues threats. How nice is that?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA - SummerPhD (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're kind of missing my point. The very first section in this thread is about your claim that you were being baited, and now, I maintain, you are doing the same by basically challenging her to go issue some warning to someone unrelated to this affair. The civility policy may well be applied inconsistently, but that's not Summer's fault and at any rate situations are often incredibly different--as you should know, since you yourself argue that you had a right to use profanity because you were baited. What you call "inconsistency" may also well be a different set of circumstances judged to be worthy or not worthy of a warning or a block or whatever.

But why don't you just show a better side and leave this be? Summer is not an admin, she won't block anyone, and she can hardly be made a party to the supposed inconsistent application of our civility policy. I can be--and here my judgment is that you need to stop this, since you're badgering the witness. Summer says she already answered your question, and that should suffice. If you're not satisfied with the answer, what good do you think this thread will do? You think after all the derogatory comments you heaped on her she would have a sudden change of heart and say, oh, yeah, they must have a good point after all? That is unreasonable. So stop pressing the point, please. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that CIV is applied inconsistently, in my view, s/ give anyone pause that chooses to loudly enforce CIV arbitrarily and selectively. I was insulted and a user took a project Talk page and attempted to create a personal attack page out of it, to defame me. The same editor removed posts by another user on that page that spelled out some of that user's behavior and illustrative post(s). Since no one gives a damn about me when I'm attacked, and I will forever not allow myself the venue of ANI out of disgust with the environment there, I'm left to defend myself from the crap, which might include telling someone where to go. (I'm sure you understand all of that.) The question on my mind with Summer wasn't simply inconsistent enforcement of CIV between users, but also topic of what constitutes CIV and NPA re inappropriate use of Project space to attack and attempt to defame a user. I never said or argued that I "had a right to use profanity". No one ever asked me what my defense is for using it (p.s. is "slimeball" profanity? I'm not sure but don't think so). I've already "let this be" as you requested, Drmies, the last post was not to Summer's attention. Since as you say "different set of circumstances judged to be worthy or not worthy of a warning or a block or whatever", that is all find and dandy, but I think you are describing an evaluative process that an admin makes, not a user like Summer. Even though this message isn't for Summer I would like to apologize to her for rude comments I did make. (My obective was to get her to think more about the fallicies of a broken CIV policy and consequent brokenness of enforcement endeavors, especially a black-and-white and selective one, and you are right, I blew it by being rude.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC) p.s. Drmies, Summer has on several occasions threatened (guaranteed) she'd open ANI against me on any NPA she deems she sees from me for future. Could you advise her, please, that that isn't the thing to do? (Thx.)[reply]
You may not like ANI but it's really the only place for certain things--at least after other options are exhausted. Instead of saying "you're a 100% asshole" (difficult to quantify anyway), you could have slapped a personal attack-IV warning on their talk page, maybe, and then alerted an admin. (Or, if this is a pattern with the user, start an RfC/U--but I say this only for the sake of completeness, not because it applies.) Lots of people don't like ANI, and in part that's possibly their own fault, but ANI does sometimes achieve result--but only, of course, if the complainer keeps a cool head. Now, don't say that no one cares--Summer warned the other user as well, and I would have done the same thing. (And I'm sure she's got better things to do than to start ANI threads.) Ihardlythinkso, typically in such a fight, where outside judgment and arbitration are necessarily involved, guess who wins: the one with the cooler head, the one who makes the better argument. Let me know if you run into more problems with that editor: you know, I hope, that I'll give you (and them) an honest opinion and won't be afraid to act on it. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Admin TParis took User:StillStanding-247 to ANI over an ill-advised off-color joke he attempted to make, all the while wailing and moaning and bellowing emotionally how his equanimity and/or life was shattered and demanding his head on a pike. He got his way in addition to a flood of support, while the cool-headed StillStanding got banned. (So much for your theory of hottest head not prevailing; or does that apply only to non-admins? Another problem with the theory that coolest head prevails, it suggests that an editor with unclean motives and zero basis can get away with murder there by being the coolest head. And I've seen a lot of that kind of dirty expertise already.) I really despise ANI and will never go there. The only thing MaxBrowne has ever complimented me on is that I "at least don't template" other users. (!) My understanding is that a worded message is equivalent if not better than a templated one!? If I alerted an admin that means I'd have to choose one, and even if I liked said admin I'm sure she/he wouldn't enjoy getting involved in the dirt. And if I asked a specific admin for help wouldn't that be considered canvassing?! And recall that I did ask for help from the only admin I know at WP:CHESS (Sjakkalle), and it is clear to me he went out of his way to find a spot on me which he then proclaimed in ANI-like fasion was sufficient cause to conclude both parties were equally at fault and to do nothing. (Besides BS, that was offensive as well, and I'll have no more to do with that admin in future as result.) I've looked thru MaxBrowne's User Talk history , and there's nothing there from Summer to MaxBrowne over the personal attack thread he created at WT:CHESS that I found tacky and underhanded and offensive and caused me to go tell him off. (I think you are confusing her post at his Talk from an earlier additional incident of personally offensive remarks directed against me by that user.) So I was right when I said no one cared in the current incident. If Summer has no interest in starting third-party-initiated ANI threads then isn't it reasonable that she should stop waving it as warning/threat? As far as turning to you if MaxBrowne continues his illegal smear campaign against me, well, though I have some decent respect for your objectivity when you need to call on it, you've already expressed your opinion (bias) that you think I'm "worse than MaxBrowne", which is really an insult because I feel that editor is an underhanded and unethical cheat, so, would it be rational for me to expect objectivity from you unless I felt your expression against me was not genuinely sincere and made out of spite!? (Actually I think your remark was probably made out of spite. But one additional thing you did was to utilize MaxBrowe's illicit Project page attack thread with same purpose/intent as MaxBrowne.) I know you hate me from the beginning, Drmies, because I criticized your friend admin Dennis Brown. And several of his friends, not only you, have unleashed their displeasure against me in various ways at various times for that (though Basalisk for one did finally recognize the faultiness of that and apologized) and these admins I never had any interaction with at all in any venue. (Admins hang together in friend-cliques, and with the crudgels held ... it has probably produced the most detrimental and poisonous aspect currently existing in the WP today. That and a hostile and abusive environment unable to be controlled, and when attempted to be controlled by individual admins, produces not only uneven attempts, but enforcement at whim, which has created a cover too, for selective grudge-blocks under guise of "helping out".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. The process is unfair to you. It is so broken it should be ignored. When someone attacks you, it is best to attack back (because life is exactly like chess). AN/I is a joke. Personal attacks don't matter. Your personal attacks are justified and aren't personal attacks. Warning you about personal attacks is a personal attack. If you keep repeatedly stating how right you are about having been so wronged people will begin to see the world your way. And anyway, you've done nothing wrong. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you wanna spank my bottom mommy? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a good idea to tempt a person who was bodily thrown out of the WWE for misinterpreting the "Gory Special" as "picking up your opponent and folding him in half like a piece of fleshy paper." Just saying.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

I was going through the page list of fictional terrorists; perhaps that page should be deleted given none of it appears to be sourced? I'm not familiar with most of these characters, if their pages do not include the word terrorist I will remove the category. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming clear that you do not know how to create a category, much less when you should. In addition to your additions to the new category being original research, the category has been deleted repeatedly. Had you checked the page Category:Fictional_terrorists, you would have found that the category has been deleted after a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_23#Category:Fictional_terrorists. Your "new" category has exactly the same problem. Please remove the category from all of the articles and seriously consider whether or not your category creations are worth the headaches they are creating. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the page List of fictional terrorists for deletion. I will be posting a very serious concern on the talk page for terrorism; this term is undefinable, and therefore unencylopedic. Rapist, arsonist, spy, soldier, criminal and murderer all have actual definitions and both real and fictional people are categorized as such. The class for the terrorism page needs to be lowered. Also it might take a day or two to remove all the characters listed as terrorists; but I will do so this weekend. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, creating more categories at this point would be a bad idea. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive user 108.48.144.42

Hi SummerPhD, I believe you previously commented on an AN/I report involving IP 108.48.144.42, but nothing came from it. I have re-reported the user, so if you have any input or just wanna gripe, the report is (for now) here: WP:ANI#Disruptive editing from 108.48.144.42. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary of yours cracks me up every time I read it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm glad you enjoy it, I was trying to be objective. I think I came about as close as a mere mortal could. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CensoredScribe

For the love of god send him to ANI again. He's creating so many shit categories that the effort I'm putting in to empty things like Category:Slave owner (added to the pages on the first 4 American presidents), Category:Fictional heartless, or Category:Fictional religious figures is causing my computer to screech to a halt. He needs to be stopped.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a strange twist, he sent me to ANI after I found him crying to Jimbo.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs in the United States

Hello. Your edit to the List of gangs in the United States is understood. It turns out that "Tango Orejon" is the "Tango" gang name used in San Antonio, TX and the gang is already mentioned on this page: Puro Tango Blast. Thanks, Suzanne 30 Jan 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzanne Astorino (talk • contribs) 07:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My gift for you

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

for starting an SPI into me without bothering to do the slightest research. See my reply at the SPI....William 15:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It must be tough living in a world where everyone else is wrong and out to get you. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the trout

I agree with the trouting but because I don't care about getting blocked I am going to call you out here. What you did was nothing more than personal attacks intended to discredit me plain and simple. I told you specifically who I was at the ANI and you still submitted to SPI. So to me this SPI is nothing more than an attempt o discredit me for calling out 2 administrators. Whether you want to admit it or see it admin abuse is rampant on this site and its driving editors away. Nyttend and Orlady have both acted abusively working as a team to show WilliamJE how editors are dealt with when they fail to address admins in the manner they feel like they deserve. Its disgraceful and in violation of policy. They both have had issues in the past, they both have been sent to ANI multiple times and they both have been mentioned in Arbcom sanctions multiple times and let go (admonished). For you to jump to conclusions here without doing the slightest amount of research does you discredit and makes you look stupid. I highly recommend in the future if you are going to submit someone to SPI make sure its a valid complaint and not just a message to discredit them for submitting admins to ANI. If policy was actuall followed on this site that action could get you blocked. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It must be tough living in a world where everyone else is wrong and out to get you. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wrong just as much as anyone else and I don't think everyone is out to get me. Unfortunately quite a few are and Wikipedia doesn't do anything about those folks if they are admins. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It must be tough living in a world where almost everyone else is wrong and out to get you. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake "SummerPhD", it'd look better for you to say "oops, my mistake, sorry about that." The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, the rules of civil discourse...[6][7] - SummerPhD (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, 108.48.100.44 has been blocked for personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winx club

You sent me a message that asks why did I deleted some contents in the page of Winx Club. To answer your question, I deleted the contents because they were false. I have a request for you which is to remove what you have restored please. I apologise if I deleted them unexpectedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristi Islam (talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if the information is correct or not, so I cannot remove it. If you believe the information is incorrect and wish to remove it, you may do so. Explain why in the edit summary. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP 24.7.211.135 on Bane in other media

I saw you warned this IP on the 27th - they went ahead and re-added the OR yesterday. Just FYI. --64.134.186.78 (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nazareth, Pennsylvania‎

Hi. We seem to have disagreeing guidelines here; not at all an unusual situation on Wikipedia. You referenced some talk, but I did not see any at the article's talk page. WP:USCITIES#External links seems to approve of using convention and visitor's bureau links; in many cities the CVB and the chamber are the same organization. I really didn't see the relevance of #13 in WP:ELNO. It is commonplace to have chamber links in settlement articles, although some of them can be very commercial. So I guess my question is, are you objecting to links to chambers of commerce in general, or to something specific about this one? John from Idegon (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have now created a section at the article talk page so I will copy most of this to there. John from Idegon (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletions at Talk:AC power plugs and sockets‎

I reverted you. I sympathize, but WP:DENY is merely an essay. WP:TALK is a guideline... not policy, but it's still ranked above any essays. WP:TALK pretty clearly says we're not supposed to delete or edit others' comments from talk pages, except in one of a very clearly defined set of circumstances (like copyvios or BLP issues), and none of those apply as far as I can tell. WP:DENY does not suggest deleting material from talk pages. Nor did I really see "recurring vandalism". If talk page abuse continues, the right thing is to take it to RFC/U or ANI. Jeh (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THC 2

I responded to you here in case you didn't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Skin (talk • contribs) 02:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bertha other uses

Can you please tell me why you removed my addition to the list of "other uses" for the term Big Bertha? I had listed an Estes model rocket by that name, and you removed it. I look forward to hearing from you. GungaDan (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC) GungaDan, 7 FEB 2014[reply]

Your edit added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, an item on a redirect list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. For example, I have a friend named John Smith. He's a nice enough guy, but he's not (so far) WP:NOTABLE. As such, he shouldn't be listed on the disamb page John Smith, the list page List of people from New York City, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber RfC

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


why ?

why you change kimi finister year born in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:90B9:9C2F:99AE:387 (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When someone undoes one of your edits, check your talk page: User_talk:2601:E:1980:532:90B9:9C2F:99AE:387 and their edit summary: [8]. Additionally, it would be helpful if you would use edit summaries explaining why you are changing what you are changing. As it stands, it looks like you are simply undoing anything you disagree with. Wikipedia does not work like that. We need you to cite sources for material you add. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I though Kimi Finister was born in October 5, 1999. and she was 1 years old in 2000 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:90B9:9C2F:99AE:387 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show a reliable source that says that. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Page Deleted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:90B9:9C2F:99AE:387 (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are referring to. What page? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kimi Finister page is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:90B9:9C2F:99AE:387 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you were recently blocked from editing and are now editing from a different connection. This is not allowed. Please see the note on your talk page regarding "Sock" editing before continuing. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be blocked again please don't block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:90B9:9C2F:99AE:387 (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for a short time before. Until that block ends, you are not allowed to edit. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Woman

[9], check? OccultZone (Talk) 14:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Evans1982 added it. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk) 14:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford Kamhlaba

I noted with curiosity your latest comments on the talk page of Waterford Kamhlaba. On 13th Feb I removed a whole list of unsourced and unreferenced alleged alumni and subsequently you also reverted some further re-additions for which I was grateful. My belief is that the list is more or less genuine and I haven't found any obvious howlers amongst them. I am however interested in your comments about Sally Field who I cannot locate in any recent revision. Because the list looked genuine, I have been trying to find suitable sources to demonstrate to editors who know about the school, how they might improve the article and re-instate some of the names. However, your latest comment seems to be unenthusiastic about these names. Rather than debate a potential disagreement in approach on the article page, I thought it better to address it here in case I am way off beam and missing a critical issue. Clarification would be most welcome. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   23:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Field is an actress who is, to my knowledge, not in any way connected with Waterford. She is notable. She meets half of the criteria for inclusion as a notable alumnus.
The red linked names are, to my knowledge, not notable. They are alumni of Waterford. They meet half of the criteria for inclusion as notable alumni.
The point is this: We should not list non-notable alumni under "Notable alumni" any more than we should list notable non-alumni. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly - alumni must meet notability guidelines and must be demonstrably alumni. What is not required is that the person has an article. There is no current requirement that all alumni should be blue-links. Thus a senior political adviser to the President of Mozambique for which there is a reference who is also demonstrably an alumnus of the school, meets the required criteria. Would you agree ? So for Alan McGregor we have a Guardian obituary which confirms his status as an alumnus plus the assertion that he is a Professor at a highly respected University (my own Alma mater). Since true Professors are de-fact notable in Wikipedia (I have no idea why or how that is justifiable , but it seems to be the case) then this one source establishes notability. Similarly, the reference for Fernando Honwana demonstrates he was an alumnus and that he was notable - any very senior diplomat and special adviser to a President would almost inevitably be notable. Here however there is an issue of unintentional Wikipedia bias. Because of the circumstances in sub-Saharan Africa, the level and extent of documented notability for many of its people is very sparse and because of this they are poorly represented in Wikipedia. It is my belief that we should apply the rules with some degree of compassion to reflect the need to address this systemic bias. I would therefore agree, were you to make the assertion, that the reference source for Fernando Honwana is not of the quality that might be expected for an American, European or New Zealand politician but it is a reasonable source and my belief is that we should accept it and other similar sources in allowing this particular school to provide an encyclopaedic record of its truly notable students. I do agree however, that the generalities of notability guidelines still hold sway; and it was me, you may recall, that savaged the list in the first instance. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   14:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alissa White Gluz

Can you please explain your deletion, the article had been successfully peer reviewed and surely meets notability guidelines. Thanks. TheWarOfArt (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alissa White-Gluz, this was redirected to the band's article. This is the reason for the redirect at Alissa White-Gluz and my reasoning in redirecting Alissa White Gluz. Please address this at Talk:Alissa_White_Gluz. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely different article than the one created in 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWarOfArt (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please address this at Talk:Alissa White Gluz. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of children's television series by country may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You've been mentioned in a rather unflattering way here. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Beach, Florida

You just deleted this text: "Palm Beach, like other areas of extreme southern Florida has a tropical rainforest climate, defined as having no month with mean temperatures below 64.4 °F (18.0 °C) and no month with with less than 60mm of precipitation.[5][6]" saying that it violates Wikipedia:SYN. In seeking to understand this I looked at the climate descriptions of Miami and Fort Lauderdale where it seems they have similar sentences. Could you please explain how SYN is involved here? - GroveGuy (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources sited doe not state that Palm Beach has a tropical rain forest climate, nor do the sources state that Palm Beach's climate is like other areas of extreme southern Florida, nor do the sources give the ranges cited. Rather, the source give raw data for Palm Beach and raw data for other areas and other sources (not included here) might put that is the "tropical rainforest" category. A + B = C is WP:SYN. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! That's exactly what I did. Except backwards. I saw some guy change it from "tropical climate" to "tropical rainforest climate". Then I investigated and found he was right. Except it needed that bit about the rain to substantiate the word "rainforest". My investigation turned up this map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koppen_World_Map_Hi-Res.png If you look you will see a tiny deep blue dot at Palm Beach. Can we use this map as a source? - GroveGuy (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where that map came from, so I can't say if it's a reliable source for anything. Even ifI don't see a label for Palm Beach nor a key sayng "tropical rainforest climate". You need a reliable source that unequivocally says "Palm Beach has a tropical rainforest climate" in order to say that Palm Beach has a tropical rainforest climate. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hope to help Hero2316 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You agian

What State are you from ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:6D2E:7E09:4D67:3DD8 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live is not relevant to the project. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know but U just want to know where you live.anyways Im from A North State Are you from New York ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:6D2E:7E09:4D67:3DD8 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not interested in sharing, thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So you are from New York. im interesting in anything. IM from Illinois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:6D2E:7E09:4D67:3DD8 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say I'm from New York. I said I am not interested in sharing. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

karate kid vs spongebob is good.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:e:1980:532:645a:c5a4:ab5c:68dc (talk • contribs) 01:00, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

The giraffe in the bathtub with the socket wrench. - SummerPhD (talk)

List of Italian-American mobsters - you removed my edit and emailed me.

Please explain how I might show verification for my addition to the list of living Italian-Mobsters. All I have is his prison record and his information showing in the records of NJ DOC site.

I am new to this editing and not sure how the site or all of the this works. I feel strongly that my edit/addition is correct since he was tried and convicted of being a mob hit man, working with Ritchie the Iceman, Gotti, etc. And is doing a 30 to life sentence for his mafia association.

The DOC has him down as Organized Crime mob association. Thank you, SourceResearcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceResearcher (talk • contribs) 01:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally "List of..." articles, such as this one, do not include every possible member of the list. We generally use a straight forward test: If the item/person has an article on Wikipedia and fit the article's criteria (i.e. for "List of Xs", are they an X?), we include them. If not, we don't. At present, the person you are adding does not seem to have an article. (Everyone else in the list does.)
If you still wish to add him to the list, you will need to create an article for him. For the article to survive, it will need to cite substantial coverage about him from independent reliable sources. As you have indicated that he is known for criminal activity, I should point out that primary documents (court transcripts, arrest records and such) are not useful in this regard. Lots of people have been arrested, tried and jailed for lots of crimes. Most are not notable.
As this concerns a living individual, please note that contentious claims will require strong sources, per our policy on biographies of living persons. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TTTS BOOKS

Why did you remove Smith's and Bruch'S books on TTTS? I've read both they cover and explain it in layman's terms.

Hero2316 (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Hero2316Hero2316 (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither book is a reliable source as both are by otherwise unknown authors, published by vanity press. Please see WP:SPS. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they come back, return and resurface

Howdy! The Disruptive, Destructive, Destroyer editor (or the Flowery, Embellished, Festooned editor...take your pick) is back at it. If you recall from whence last we met, encountered, and crossed paths, we were discussing IP 108.48.144.42 and his/her needlessly repetitive writing. Their most recent edits are in vio of a 1 month block on their other IP. Just a heads-up. Here's the new one: Special:Contributions/108.48.85.180. Here are the two ANI reports I'm aware of: [10] and [11]. Have a great, wonderful, terrific day! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society/Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society, March 2014

I know that I am making a number of assumptions based solely on your username, so many apologies if theses assumptions are wholly or partly unfounded. However, on the chance that they may be correct, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society/Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society, March 2014 - not in participation on the day (wrong country and all places booked) but in general experienced Wikipedian support. Just a thought. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   20:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Days in the Desert

User:Erik brought forth a source showing that principle filming has begun, and the topic meets WP:NF through WP:GNG. Good enough? Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As another editor is still !voting delete, I can't really withdraw anyway. I'll take a look later and see if I want to change my !vote. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented at the AfD. No change to my !vote. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Mile

In the movie he actually spells his name with a Koffey...So its not vandalism, maybe you should check the movie out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OkMonika (talk • contribs) 21:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources cited at Michael Clarke Duncan and The Green Mile disagree with you. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

welcoming me

Didn't you read my user page? I've been here for 4 years!!! --MegGriffin55 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, seeing you edit warring over garbage like this convinced me you're new here. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed item

I'm new to this, so forgive me if I'm going about this wrong. You removed the Pennsylvania Convention Center calendar link as an "promotional in-line link." The link is to DiscoverPHL.com -- a nonprofit and the city's official Convention and Visitors Bureau. (And, yes, the site I work for.) I added it in order to better serve potential Wiki users who might want to know the kinds of events held at the convention center. If there is a better link out there, feel free to add it. Barring that, I'm inclined to say removal of the link should be reversed. Thoughts? Thanks. Markcorrea (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Markcorrea 3/6/14[reply]

The article includes a direct link to the venue's official site. The additional link does not provide additional information beyond that. Please see WP:ELNO. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The matrix edit

Rather we agree on the length of an explanation of the matrix is irrelevant; because as I understand Wikipedia is neither yours or mine. So what is important is in an entry to be able explain the concept or thing that pertains to article. Would you please elaborate as to why you know my analysis of the matrix is not object or is biased in some way? You also claim that well known authors that I cite and base my diction on are irrelevant to the matrix because they're dead; when not only are their ideas portrayed in the film, but Socrates "allegory of the cave" is apparently relevant and part of the article. Socrates is dead and has been dead for a long time, and his allegory is only remotely relevant and doesn't really explain what the matrix is. I would appreciate a response, yours truly Know NothingKnow Nothing (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for an article must discuss the subject of the article. Socrates did not discuss this film so his writings cannot be used as a source for this article. If an independent reliable source were to compare "The Matrix" to the cave, that comparison might be appropriate.
Your extensive addition would be entirely too long even if it were not synthesis. The "Matrix" is not the subject of this article. This article is about the film "The Matrix". As such, it is subject to WP:FILMPLOT, limiting plot summaries to between 400 and 700 words.:If you disagree with my reading on any of this, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure if you realize my example of Socrates's "allegory of the cave" is already included inside of the entry by someone else, and I referenced it because its apparently relevant due to its status in the entry; I've shared my feelings on its importance and validity to the film. Also to claim that the only things that are relevant to current topics or any topic are sources of people who are alive and explicitly reference the topic, is a fallacy. I mean this as politely as possible without condescension, but as a literal fact. Because everything we know or think we know comes from dead people and their ideas are extrapolated by living people who die and the process continues. If I'm misunderstanding your meaning please correct me. Furthermore, my post was not a plot summary, but more of a discussion on the meaning of the film. If the meaning of a film is irrelevant to the film's entry I was unaware of this (would you please share the link, the earlier one I appreciated and was unaware of such guidelines), and if what is important: is the actors awards, the films awards, the numerical grossing of the film, and opinions of and on the film. Then the entry is on point. thanks Know NothingKnow Nothing (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this is turning into a more substantial discussion of the content of the article, rather than one revert, please take this question to the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ihardlythinkso and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Northern Antarctica (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

See:

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

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

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

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

Chia Youyee Vang

Hello,

Why did you delete the entry on Chia Youyee Vang?

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

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

Girlfriend in a Coma (TV series)

@Kitranda:: Both of your notes to my talk page[12][13] were removed by an administrator, likely because your tone was not civil.

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

Additionally, you state that I added that "Miranda Cosgrove is suing her bus driver" and that this is not true. I did not add this information. It was added by User:Marty2Hotty[14]. It is quite well sourced.[15][16] If you believe these sources are not reliable or if you have other sources stating this is not true, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

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

NBC order 16 episodes of girlfriend in a coma

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

NBC has ordered 16 episodes for the first season

— Girlfriend in a Coma (@GirlfriendinCom) <a href="https://twitter.com/GirlfriendinCom/statuses/420370367954173952">January 7, 2014</a> <script asyncsrc="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitranda (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the info.[17] As the episodes haven't been produced yet, I have not added the "16" to the infobox. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Cosgrove New Movie

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

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

— Darius Films (@DariusFilms) <a href="https://twitter.com/DariusFilms/statuses/442031723035889664">March 7, 2014</a> <script asyncsrc="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitranda (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Accidents and incidents

Hi SummerPhD,

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

In Aviation accidents and incidents, Wikipedia says:

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

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

It also says:

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

My edit was entirely consistent with the above statements.

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

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

You are indeed correct as to the technical definitions, as used by the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13". That said, the article does not make it clear that these technical definitions are being used. As such, commonly used meanings for words probably come to mind. In ordinary English, an "incident" is merely "an event or occurrence".[18] An "accident", however, is "unexpected", "unintentional" and "without apparent or deliberate cause"[19] (clearly not what we are talking about here).
Normally, I would suggest merely rewriting the section to avoid using either of the terms, but I think that exacerbates another problem: the sentence in question is unsourced original research. "As of March 2014, it remains the deadliest aviation incident as well as the deadliest act of terrorism in the United Kingdom." As this is in the lede section, it should be merely summarizing material found later in the article. It doesn't, so far as I can tell. The closest thing I can find is the sourced claim that it is "the deadliest act of terror against the U.S. prior to 11 September 2001."
With this in mind, I'd suggest removing the sentence as unsourced. If it comes back with a source, we can borrow the bit of wording from the source. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Batty would not be civil

Resolved

You should really eat your own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrand (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're done here.[20][21]

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

Notification of case being declined

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SummerPhD&oldid=599816667"