User talk:SummerPhDv2.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:SummerPhD)
Jump to: navigation, search

This talk page is for Tefkasp: The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD.

From June 12, 2006 through May 25, 2015 I edited as SummerPhD. I then managed to lose my password and was unable to prove my identity as I had not updated my email address. Oops!

Same ornery Lesbian Space PopeTM, new user name.


Incidents, accidents, hints, allegations and things left unsaid

1) Questions you ask here will be answered here.
2) Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things: ~~~~
3) This is no number 3.
4) I did not delete "your" page or block you. I am not an admin. I may have suggested that the page should be deleted or that you should be blocked.
4a) You do not have a First Amendment right to edit Wikipedia.
5) I don't care if you did hear it from your best friend that her next-door neighbor's cousin knows this guy who once dated someone who went to high school with a roadie for the band, we still need a reliable, verifiable source.
6) The blog/myspace/youtube/sign on a telephone pole you read is not a reliable, verifiable source.
7) You are free to assume I am stupid, lazy or "out to get you". We probably just disagree.
8) Personal attacks are a blockable offense. Sometimes the block is even enforced.
10) Try not to be a low to moderate level dick. If you must be offensive and/or boorish, please go for the gold.



Berklee Alisa Edit[edit]

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

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

Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Ancient astronauts[edit]

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

talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. You have new messages at Talk:Wonga.com.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Barbie Cancelled Film[edit]

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)

Rip Taylor[edit]

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

sharon leal edit[edit]

how was the to source i provided here not goood enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.57.56 (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edit said they divorced in 2007. The article does not say that. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


You cancelled my change abouts the movie list. Please re-add it, these are the sources of my edits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2584018/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_5, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0495095/ Furthermore one of the above sources was already in the page as external links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelightandsea (talkcontribs) 14:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source when you add material to an article. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


I thought that IMDB.com was a reliable websit, however I have other sources. If you know how to add the references, please add these two sources and update the filmography for me. Many thanks. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/freedom_2015/# http://www.fandango.com/sharonleal/filmography/p264185 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelightandsea (talkcontribs) 21:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been a long time, SummerPhD[edit]

Remember me? It's been a while (six years now), so you probably don't. My original account was GreenBayPackersfan09. That was my first Wikipedia account (I was 11 year old when I first used that account in 2009, and 14 when i lasted used it in 2012). I'm 17 years old now. I remember when I would used to create a lot of articles, notably on actors who starred in shows that I watched (wizards of waverly place, hannah montana, etc.) We first crossed paths in 2009 when you nominated a good number of them for deletion (some of them got deleted). If you look at the talk page on the GreenBayPackers account, you'll notice that I actually got vindicated on a good number of the articles you nominated for deletion – a lot of the articles are intact, and in fact have been expanded with pictures, more sources, etc. such as the Harry Shum and Simon Curtis article. I forgot the password to that account, and later used sockpuppets (which I remember you blocked me for, lol). So, how have you been? I've been well. I've started editing a broad multitude of articles productively (I'd argue I was editing productively with that other account as well, and that you were being a tad overzealous). I now edit articles on current events, public figures, politicians, etc. I've learned a lot about Wikipedia's rules, and have made a good number of productive edits. I just stopped by to say it's amazing you're still around. Some people retire after a well. Anyway, just wanted to let you know. Scaravich105nj (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Scaravich105nj has been indefinitely blocked for personal attacks/rants. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Now confirmed to be part of a sock farm. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)c

removal of my SS United States edit[edit]

I'm curious why you deleted my addition to the Wikipedia article about the SS United States. I felt it was worth noting that it is visible from the Walt Whitman bridge because that is one of the three or four best views of the ship. I realize that the United States or parts of it can be spotted from "the Ben Franklin [bridge], the Comcast building, the aquarium, IKEA's restaurant and hundreds of other places." But *not* with a view comparable to that from the Walt Whitman. I hope you will reconsider your reverting my edit. In any case, I do look forward to your response. Richard27182 Richard27182 (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, it's a few factors all coming together.
It's not encyclopedic: Where can one spot the Walt Whitman Bridge, Ben Franklin, Comcast building, Aquarium, Ikea and hundreds of other places from? While we certainly have some articles discussing how to view their subject (e.g., Moon discussed various aspects of viewing the Moon), most do not. Many things can be spotted/viewed/examined in various ways. Is the view better during a brief trip across the Walt Whitman, a slower drive down Columbus Blvd or a half hour shopping break in Ikea's restaurant? Who knows -- it's a matter of opinion and purpose. If you want an overall view of the ship, hiring a helicopter up the street might give you exactly what you're looking for. Curious about the state of the paint/hull? Walking from Ikea's lot or a small boat might be better. Hoping to just see it while driving by? I-95, the Walt Whitman, Ben Franklin or Columbus Blvd might be just the thing.
It's not sourced: Yeah, no one is going to doubt that it can be seen from the bridge. That's not the point. The point is it is trivial. We don't discuss Mel Gibson's nose (though I swear someone tried to add it to the article) because sources don't discuss it. (We do, however, discuss his unusual kidney.)
Wikipedia is not a tourist guide: The best view of the ship might be to simply trespass. A leisurely hour sipping a soda at Ikea might over stay your welcome. Does the Walt Whitman allow foot traffic? Is driving on Columbus advisable at all (I'd say not, some driver's need to buy a clue). Independent reliable sources discuss various ways to see the Grand Canyon (from the rim, hiking a trail, donkey train, by boat, etc.), so we discuss them. We don't discuss much else about them -- who you meet hiking a trail (not Americans, mostly), what a raft trip costs, etc. -- because that isn't what Wikipedia is about.
Come to think of it, the bit about I-95 shouldn't really be there either. Nothing that encourages traffic on I-95 should be on Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Dear SummerPhD

Thank you for replying and for doing so so promptly. Because the view of the SS United States from the Walt Whitman Bridge is about as good as that from the other two viewing points that *had* been mentioned, I felt it only fair that the Walt Whitman be included with the original two (from "shore" and "Interstate-95"). However, since the original two have now also been removed, I have no problem. I understand and I do *not* disagree with your arguments for not listing vantage points in general. And as long as the article continues to avoid suggesting places for viewing the ship from, I have no complaints nor do I have any plans to try to reintroduce my edit.
Sincerely,
Richard

Richard27182 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my edits[edit]

Every edit I have made is true. I wouldn't put it there if it was wrong. Please everyone stop deleting my edits. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm having trouble. I would never vandalize Wikipedia but all my edits are being called vandalism. thankyou from supergreg22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergreg22 (talkcontribs) 17:13, May 2, 2015‎

Hi, Supergreg22 and welcome to Wikipedia}}.
Sorry you seem to be having trouble, we are trying to help. A few points that may help:
  1. When you make a change to an article, below the editing box is an area marked "Edit summary". Please use this to give a brief description of why you are making the change.
  2. If a change is made to an article you are watching and you want to see why, click the "history" tab at the top of the page. This will show you the edit summaries left by other users. So, for example, at Full House (season 6), you would see that I said, "Reverted good faith edits by Supergreg22 (talk): Trivial. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page." (The info you added, while likely true, is trivial.) Rather than undoing another user's revert of your edit, we suggest that you stop at this point and discuss the issue on the article's talk page, by clicking the "talk" tab.
  3. With so many editors making so many changes, communication is important. Please discuss disputes on the article talk pages. Please use edit summaries. When editors don't do this -- and repeatedly change articles back to their preferred version -- it is difficult to figure out who is doing what and why. We do get editors who simply want to have the articles "their" way or simply vandalize articles. Without edit summaries and talk page discussion, people start to assume you are one of those!
In general: When in doubt, slow down and talk it out. Happy editing! - SummerPhD (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Incoherent French vandal[edit]

Hi Summer, by chance do you have any detailed information on 78.112.129.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? I'm not quite sure what to do here, but this guy has got some tendrils out there. Looking through his edit history I found Draft:MetroQuan (which I see that you've also found), but when you start following the other IPs in that edit history, you find 86.69.112.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which leads to a lot of other draft articles, and other IPs creating these disruptions. Thoughts? We'd pretty much have to get an admin to devote a lot of time to reverting this crap. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Not much help from me, I'm afraid. I noted their repeated use of one fair use album cover in numerous unrelated draft articles, links to draft articles in live articles and other confusion. All I have is a brief list of IPs:
Special:Contributions/77.158.41.12
Special:Contributions/78.126.213.28
Special:Contributions/86.69.112.35
Special:Contributions/78.126.170.122
Special:Contributions/91.68.144.122
Special:Contributions/78.201.236.77
Special:Contributions/78.112.129.63
Where to from here? AIV and sock seem fairly pointless. ANI? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb: In case you missed it, he is now registered as Killian779. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Oill keep me eyes peeled! (<--Some sort of seafaring accent) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

MetalMachine Music[edit]

hi SummerPHd,

Just checking with you regarding your edits of my additions to the Metal Machine Music article. Many thanks, Deeperknowledge 22 Deeperknowledge22 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Full House[edit]

How do I add sources? And what if there isn't a source for it. I'm sorry, I didn't know it was wrong. Full House used to be my favorite show (now it is Boy Meets World) so when I got the account I wanted to improve the article. Please help me put a source. Thank you, Supergreg22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergreg22 (talkcontribs) 20:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Full_House_(season_6)#Trivia. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Bechdel test[edit]

Hi, could you take a look at the latest edits? I think our new colleague is going at it the wrong way, but I'm not sure that I have the time or the patience or the skill to explain how... Regards,  Sandstein  21:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

VeggieTales[edit]

My Twilight Zone hypothesis: The VeggieTales vandalism is coming from one kid who travels a lot and who never grows older than 11. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nah. With long-term editors making changes to dates, adding ages for fictional characters, repetitively redundant modifiers, in-depth descriptions of minor credit screen/FBI warning changes and similar stuff, all in kid's TV shows spread over several years... This, IMO, is developmental disabilities. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I had a more creative take, but I was bound by civility and all that rot, but it involved a tiny working brain lobe, a fantasy sequence, and a dank basement in Colorado, and I don't mean "dank" in a gorgeously stinky marijuana way. Although now that I bring it up, whatchoo holdin'? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not saying that the VeggieTales vandal (or any other specific editor) has a developmental disorder. That would be a civility issue. I am saying that the parsimonious explanation for obsessive solo work on minutia related to media designed for children by people who cannot be children themselves is either teens to 20-somethings with developmental disorders and/or academics with very peculiar research agendas. I can't see funding sources for the academics, so I'm left with developmental disorders for most of them.
As for what I'm holding, I just picked up some smooth Columbian over in Jersey. I usually more of a tea drinker, but this time of year, I need the caffeine to get the work done. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
You know, I just came across Lyle the Kindly Viking again. There's something about seeing "Larry the Cucumber as himself" that makes me want to commit an act of harm. Like, do the people who submit this crap not know that there are actors doing the voices? That Larry the Cucumber isn't really an actor? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User rankings?[edit]

Please cite where it says Wikipedia does not use site user rankings. I find it pretty absurd that a tiny sample of 6 reviews of the film God's Not Dead are considered relevant enough to include as some kind of a critical consensus in an article about the movie, but 39,000+ crowdsourced ratings are not.

I have a feeling you might not be correctly understanding an actual Wikipedia policy, but if you are correctly understanding it that policy should be changed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbutler3331 (talkcontribs) 19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Rbutler3331: I believe MOS:FILM#Audience response is the relevant guideline. There are also numerous discussions I'm sure in the archives at WikiProject Film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Could you please do..."[edit]

I reported this guy (the linked account, not your account) to HJ Mitchell a while back, but I was told that the editor wasn't really doing anything wrong by being the recipient of these cryptic notes. But clearly there's something funky going on here, not only with the bizarre IPv6 edits, but also with the IPs who have sprung up and reverted these weird notes (IP users can't create watchlists, so are they constantly watching the page for some reason, or is this the regular user's IP and he's trying to throw people off the track?) And this all seems related to that whole stupid world of YouTube where people seem to get off on creating hoaxes in really weird, super-niche communities. Like, let's assume for a second that your major interest in life centered on cataloging the opening logos from all DVDs. Well, this is a really weird, specific and questionable interest, but it's your life and you gotta do right by you. But clearly the IPv6 editor is asking Nickelodeon745 to create prank content, i.e. disruption elsewhere, and wouldn't this be a basic TOS violation? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I wish I'd made a note of it a while back when I ran into the poster child for this. Someone was noting -- with a semi-reliable source -- that a "special edition" release of an older direct-to-video film was coming soon. After detailing what was known, they added speculation that it might restore a scene dropped in the first DVD release and "most importantly returning to the blue FBI warning". My theory on these types of edits again involves developmental disabilities. So long as we have anonymous editing, we will have this problem.
The violation seems to be using Wikipedia as a social network. Is N745 doing anything to encourage it? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
That, I do not know. I'll have to snoop around a little later. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking at N745's talk page comments, I do see where they seem to be addressing the IPs comments about liking X or hating Y, but I haven't seen any cases where there was any "Yeah, I'll do that." I haven't looked very closely.
If we don't have N745 doing anything wrong, the only thing I can think that we could do about it would be to semi-protect their talk page, but I don't think that's likely to fly. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not hastily remove sections[edit]

SummerPhd,

I noticed you removed my section on coconut oil. I understand that I did not give an explanation for removing some content, so let me explain:

First, I'm new to editing articles on Wikipedia and this was my first edit, so I missed the explaination section at the bottom of the page. I noticed that some significant modifications have been made to some pages regarding foods that you might find in health food stores, some of which are completely unfounded. For example, deleting information regarding nutritional composition, or studies linking foods to particular health effects, seems to be some kind of info war to me. If you or others who delete these sections feel that the issue is not so black and white, then additional content needs to placed to challenge those studies, rather than removing the content entirely.

The section I removed seemed to me to read as biased. The section reads:

"Many health organizations advise against the consumption of coconut oil due to its high levels of saturated fat, including ..." (and then a list of organizations are listed).

First of all, none of those references make any statements advising against the consumption of coconut oil, they only talk about limiting saturated fat. If you read the section on saturated fat, you would notice that the issue is not that cut and dry. In fact, some studies show that <7% SFA and TFA may have a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease.[1] The actual picture may be more complicated, and ratios of saturated, mono and polyunsaturated fats may be more important than actual levels of these fats, but this is mere conjecture to me that I am not interested in defending. Although it is not that cut any dry, I still maintain that caution should be taken with the consumption of saturated fats. There is enough data to suggest that, although the picture is much more complex than we originally thought, there may be good reason to limit saturated fat intake. But completely removing a macronutrient from your diet may have unintended consequences, which is probably why none of these agencies advocate a complete elimination of saturated fat, but to maintain low levels of it.

I did not see listing all of those agencies as necessary. It appeared to read like a biased article, and in order to eliminate the feeling I had that it felt biased, I still kept the original argument but in a more succinct fashion with the references in tact:

"Since lauric acid is a saturated fat, moderation is recommended by many health organizations, which advise a higher ratio of monounsaturated fats and polyunsaturated fats." (I included all of the original citations at the end of this sentence).

Nevertheless, instead of restoring the old content in addition to mine, you completely removed my content, despite it containing a good amount of studies, some from notable journals. And the content I wrote was not particularly regarding saturated fat and it's controversy, but instead, it mentioned the antimicrobial effects of MCTs and monolaurin. If you feel that there is some debate in some of the findings that I presented, you should instead include those in the article, rather than completely removing my edit.

I hope this explains things for you, SummerPhd. Please be less hasty about deleting content on Wikipedia, many people rely on it to learn about complex issues. If you feel that the section is biased, please mention how. If you feel that it's more complicated, please explain and cite your reasons with sources from journals. Readers have a right to make up their own minds about these subjects, and wikipedia is all about shedding light on all the complex dimensions of our world, not merely maintaining a one-sided argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.61.2 (talkcontribs) 15:05, May 21, 2015‎

The article you are editing, coconut oil, has been through a few heated debates, including both edit warring and sockpuppetry. The edit you have made makes several substantial changes to the status quo that emerged after those debates (please see the article's talk page and edit history for more information). As such, edits which make numerous changes are probably not going to fly. You'll find much more success if you take on smaller portions of the changes you wish to make, using edit summaries to explain the basis of your changes and discussion on the article's talk page to clarify. Make smaller edits over several days, rather than one set of sweeping changes all at once.
Two more general issues: Sections of this article concern biomedical information. As a result, more strict sourcing requirements apply.
As a general rule, our editing flow follows a pattern described at WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. You boldly made the changes you felt were appropriate. I reverted that edit. At that point, it was time to discuss the issue. As the issue is the content, that discussion is best handled on the article's talk page, where other editors can weigh in. Unless there is a fairly straightforward misunderstanding, policy violation or similar issue, restoring the edit prior to discussion is generally frowned upon. With that in mind, I am reverting your edit again, and ask you to discuss the issues on the article's talk page.
(As an aside: Yes, people do come to Wikipedia to read about complex issues. People also come to Wikipedia to assert that their beliefs/opinions are correct (e.g., the only natural/healthy/moral/normal/reasonable human diet is low-fat/low-carb/all organic/all local/flexitarian/freegan/semi-vegetarian/pescatarian/vegetarian/vegan/raw vegan/fruitarian/paleolithic/Bible based/macrobiotic/based on your blood type/seasonal/whatever). As a result, many editors are vigilant about edits that seem to violate our core neutral point of view policy, especially regarding fringe claims and biomedical claims.) Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: another editor, Yobol, reverted the edit before I had the chance. You clearly will need to discuss the issues on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Van Horn L, McCoin M, Kris-Etherton PM, Burke F, Carson JA, Champagne CM, Karmally W, Sikand G (February 2008). "The evidence for dietary prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease". Journal of the American Dietetic Association 108 (2): 287–331. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2007.10.050. ISSN 0002-8223. PMID 18237578. 

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. You have new messages at Talk:VeggieTales#Cast_list_renovations.
Message added 19:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Motion Picture Association of America film rating system[edit]

Hi Summer, I am wondering if you could do me a favor. You expressed an interest in Motion Picture Association of America film rating system a couple of months ago and I was wondering if you could take a look at a new dispute that has arisen at Talk:Motion Picture Association of America film rating system#Alterations to Motion Picture Association of America film rating system#Language. I believe a SPA is introducing original research and synthesis but I could do with a third opinion before I shop him (if you spot anything I missed then feel free to fix, you won't be stepping on my toes). Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Zoom (1999 Series) Edit[edit]

Hello Summer,

Could you please describe more as to why you undid my table edits? I would also like a source in Wikipedia as to what I didn't do correctly, or at least some guideline that I didn't follow. Wikipedia tables have the capability of using spans effectively and I think we should be encouraged to use them when needed. In this case, it makes sense to show the season ranges of each Zoom cast member. Having it in its current state is confusing and misleading for readers and I think it's important we show them how long each member lasted. Otherwise, what is the point of the table in the first place? If you could respond to this within a week, that would be great! I'm also up for taking this to a third person (WP:3) if we agree to just disagree.

Thanks! srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you might have the wrong editor. I reverted a nonsensical edit by a problematic editor.[1] I believe the revert you are asking about was the one made by Seston.[2] As they did not use an edit summary (and don't seem to like to communicate...), I don't see a reason for you not to restore your edit. Cheers. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion[edit]

:D[edit]

∆∆∆ HI!!! ∆∆∆ omg ur awesome! <3s


(I am compelled to leave this here.)

Faux20 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Lyle the Kindly Viking[edit]

Hey there "formerly SummerPhD"! In this edit at Lyle the Kindly Viking I created a new cast list based on the film's credit roll. It was predictably reverted by a New Jersey-based IP. Just an FYI. I'm going to try to fix as many of these cast lists as I can, which will hopefully give us a good consistent base. I'm pretty sure that all of the character names like "Ma Carrot with Blue Purple Hat and Blue Purple Clothing" are entirely fabricated. I can't bring myself to watch an entire episodes, but I'd guess that maybe these are background characters that some kid decided to name. Obviously, it's garbage content and we'll need to be on top of that. Hope all's well. Bummer about your username...I have a hard time pronouncing Tefkasp. Face-smile.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I chose an unpronounceable symbol as my new user name to protest the record company using my name as a way to make money... or something like that. "Tefkasp"" is just something my fans came up with.
I'm continuing to slowly merge the individual articles. At my current pace, I should be done shortly before the heat death of the universe. It's vitally important work and must not be rushed. I savor every word I read about Great Aunt Rhubarb and the lessons she teaches about the importance of not skinning live puppies. As I can't bring myself to care, I'm not paying much attention to formatting. I'm mostly just copying what I find, with a little bit of clean up. The real fun -- finding sources for all this dreck -- will come around soon enough.
Incidentally, the who made the edit you pointed to has edited "Lyle the Kindly Viking" over a time frame when other IPs were making edits like this. So much for the [[single bullet theory|single editor theory]. - Tefkasp (The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD) (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Haha! Well written and I'm an idiot for not figuring out TEFKASP. Unrelated: The destructive destroyer vandal came back and has been blocked and stopped and prevented from editing once again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This IP you reverted at Snorks is also a VeggieTales vandal. The type of editing he did at Snorks reminds me of Avenger2015, a sockjobber who kept adding cast lists that duplicated the existing Character lists, only there were far more pointless roles, like "Dude #2" and "Man with towel" and crap like that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I've run across other repeat problems on Snorks articles in the past. The only note I seem to still have is one tagging this edit as being reminiscent of The UPN Vandal's creation of fake future films for long dead kids'/family TV shows. At the moment, I'm starting a list of problems on the VT articles, looking for patterns. Mostly flyover states so far. More info will hopefully lead to something useful. - Tefkasp (The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD) (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Examine.com[edit]

Hello!

I had added a reference to Examine.com previously on coconut oil, and you had removed it as at the time it was not deemed a reliable source.

I was wondering if it would be now? If we go by mainstream, it's been plagarized and published in a journal with a legitimate impact factor, and even recognized by Fast Company as innovative.

ScienceandFitness (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you are talking to the wrong editor. The source was removed by WLU. I do not see any indication that Examine.com is a WP:MEDRS source. I'd suggest discussing it on the article's talk page. - Tefkasp (The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD) (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh - I was just writing to you based on my Talk page. ScienceandFitness (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That refers to material that was completely unsourced. - Tefkasp (The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD) (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability![edit]

Hello!

I saw you marked Examine.com as possibly not notable enough. It is basically just like Natural Standard and ConsumerLab.com and big enough (they say 1 million hits per month) to warrant inclusion (their alexa ranking, while not perfect, is also higher than those two sites). Especially when smaller companies like nootrobox are in?

I'd be happy to dig into whatever I need to show they are large enough!

ScienceandFitness (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Their size and what other sites they may be similar to are moot points. Notability is based on substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. - Tefkasp (The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD) (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Aha okay! So I used the link that comes from your tagging and found this and this this (as the first few examples) - how do I add them to ensure notability? Thanks! - ScienceandFitness (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:CITE. - Tefkasp (The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD) (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I will read up and learn - a lot to read whew. Any urgency/deadline on me making sure it is (or isn't) notable before it gets deleted? ScienceandFitness (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced message[edit]

I removed a misplaced message from your user page. It can be found here. -- Orduin Discuss 23:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Beavis and Butt-head imitators[edit]

Here's the evidence of Grandpa Simpson and Jasper imitating Beavis and Butt-head in the episode "D'Ohing in the Wind" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBDMXCChBvU). Technically, this may not qualify as a reliable source, but the visible evidence is obvious. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not about "evidence". Random mentions in popular culture are trivial. Please see WP:IPC. As this is a discussion about content, please take any further discussion about this to the article's talk page. - SummerPhD, v2.0 23:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You claimed this was original research. I simply showed you evidence that at least in one of those cases it isn't true. If you want to bring this discussion to the article's talk page, I won't object, though. I have to go offline temporarily though, because we're getting a storm, and I have to unplug my internet access until it's over. -------User:DanTD (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The link (a copyright violation, BTW) neither states that The Simpsons was referring to Beavis and Butt-head nor demonstrates that the material is notable. Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD, v2.0 00:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Tefkasp[edit]

I think edits on "List of 2000 box-office number one films" and "List of 2001 box-office number one films" will may revert you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.1.6 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

1) The material does not cite a reliable source. Please see WP:V and WP:SYN.
2) As a sock puppet of the indefinitely blocked editor Troydevinny545, any/all of your edits may be reverted by any editor without further explanation, per WP:EVADE. - SummerPhD, v2.0 11:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Signature[edit]

Hi SummerPhD, sorry for the lost password mishap. Could you adjust your signature such as to leave a link to this talkpage? Since your current one doesn't it is a sig violation and causing bots to see it as unsigned. That is why the bot attached unsigned in this thread and left the message above. Maybe you could try:

...or something to that effect?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for the note, Berean Hunter. I think I've got it now. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Philadelphia[edit]

Hi. I'm going to wait a few days and see if we get any more comments. If there isn't any legitimate opposition by Monday, I'll make the cuts. Onel5969 (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Any chance you can take out the other Gallery while you're at it? - SummerPhDv2.0 14:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup. And some of the non-pertinent photos you mentioned as well. Onel5969 (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Signature song[edit]

This link [4] for Glenn Miller says specifically "His signature tune"
This new link for Bing Crosby [5] says "Signature Song: White Christmas" (Utzdman55 (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC))

Not sure how I missed that first one. It does call it his signature song. Not sure the source is reliable. The about us page on the site makes it sound like a family is compiling databases. I don't see anything about the introductory write-ups, fact-checking, etc. Sounds like a self-published source.
IMDb is not a reliable source for much of anything. It is reliable for some scriptwriting credits and most editors will accept it as a source for undisputed credits on widely released films. Pretty much everything else is user submitted.
As this is a discussion of article content, please take any further issues to the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. You have new messages at Talk:Timeline of Philadelphia.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Destructive Destroyer Vandal?[edit]

Heya TefSum, does this sound like the DDV to you? [6] "the stepsisters viciously destroy the gown in a fit of rage and jealously." "Mesmerized by her beauty and grace, the two fall in love at first sight and romantically dance alone" "After sharing the kiss of true love," Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like it. If the two had fallen "romantically in love", danced "alone together" or perhaps "viciously destroyed the gown by malevolently tearing it apart" I'd be completely sold. - SummerPhDv2.0

Regarding Wishbone (TV series)[edit]

Just wanted to tell you that my edit was not regarding the dates, I was just fixing a broken wikilink. :) Sn1per (talk)(edits) 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I reverted the wrong edit. Fixed it now, thanks. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

League City, Texas IP[edit]

In case your ears are burning, I mentioned you briefly at this ANI report. You are in trouble! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I just noticed you posting on another talk page and realized I hadn't seen you post for a while. Then read your story on this page. What a shame to lose the SummerPhD account, I'm glad you still use the name on your signature or I wouldn't have known it was you. I'll try to come up with some mnemonic device in order to remember Tefkasp. Hope you are well this summer! Liz Read! Talk! 17:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably change the name to clarfy. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/17cmiller.
Message added 20:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Your new username[edit]

I just saw you here and noticed your new username. It obviously sucks that you've lost your old account. Is there nothing you can do to get back into your old account or have that account merged with your new one? I could vouch that the old account is yours, based on your editing style. Flyer22 (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No way to get the old one back (my fault) and no way to merge to two (technical limitation). I'll survive. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I remember talk of merging accounts in more than one place on Wikipedia, and I wondered if technical advancements had been made in that regard. Anyway, at least User talk:SummerPhD redirects to your new talk page. User:SummerPhD currently doesn't redirect to your new user page, though. Flyer22 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that the way the merging would work in this case is if the SummerPhD account was moved to SummerPhDv2.0. Then the SummerPhD link would simply be a redirect. Or maybe vice versa instead (moving the SummerPhDv2.0 account to SummerPhD). This is similar to, or is what was done, when Doc James moved away from Jmh649 (talk · contribs). But, yeah, you'll survive if a merging doesn't happen. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I just had User:Jmh649 renamed to User:Doc James. Nothing fancy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

I added the rollback flag, since you had it with your previous account. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, kelapstick. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Trolling[edit]

Teardrop tattoo edits[edit]

Teardrop Tattoo

I did explain; please see my edit summary for yourself.

If you properly read the article http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/3624-four-days-in-the-oaxaca-state-prison it does not say the number of drops represents the number of times the prisoner is raped. It only states that the tattoo represents the prisoner was raped. The article is from Mexico but it happens in prisons all over the world.

Also; how does a teardrop tattoo represent 'the number of years in prison' and which reference cites this? Did you even do a check?

Another edit I did was because the meaning section repeats what is already in the definition; why does this need to be repeated on such a short article?

My version has a short description of what a teardrop tattoo is and then in the meaning section all the meanings are explained with passages taken directly from references.

Perhaps because the article is so short it doesn't need both a definition and meaning section and both can be lumped into the definition but there is no need to repeat what is in the meaning section in the definition heading section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.82.40 (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC) 122.148.82.40 (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Three of your five attempts to make this change gave no explanation of any kind. Attempts four and five gave an edit summary that did not explain why you were removing information. Other editors are under no obligation to guess why you are doing what you are doing and investigate to see if that possible motivation might be plausible. When your bold edit was reverted, you should have discussed the issue. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'd like to edit the page to properly represent the references. How do I do it so that someone can check it and not keep reverting my edits back to the current incorrect version? 122.148.82.40 (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit is at least three edits:
  • removing the unsourced Mexico
  • removing the unsourced United States
  • moving text and removing redundancy
Make three separate edits. Use an explanatory edit summary each time. If you are reverted, start a talk page discussion. If no one responds in a couple of days, restore the edit. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.82.40 (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

St. Vincent[edit]

Why is it wrong to credit St. Vincent as LBGT when it's confirmed she is dating Cara Delevingne, and it mentioned on both profiles, with Cara's profile also indicating LBGT? Corabal (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPCAT. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That's all well and good but it's sourced on St. Vincent's page. Corabal (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT says, "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." At St. Vincent (musician), we do not have public self-identification and there is no indication her identity has anything to do with her public life or notability. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Very well, I see what you're getting at now, also sorry for the late response.Corabal (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Carnism again[edit]

You had some choice comments last time around. Perhaps you'd be interested in the current AfD. FourViolas (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Between[edit]

I see that you've had a persistent problem over the past few days dealing with the editwarring on Between over whether the age the disease hits is 21 or 22. Since the edits have been coming from anonymous IPs, I just wanted to let you know that I've put the article under "autoconfirmed users only" semi for the time being, so that any discussion about it can be contained to the talk page. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a fairly detailed discussion to the talk page in the futile hopes of building a consensus. Well see. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Have left a description of why I edited the age, as it's that given on the Netflix official intro to the program, but will leave as it's a minor detail - D Ball 24/7/15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidball999 (talkcontribs) 04:00, July 24, 2015‎

The source you cited does not seem to say what you think it says. Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Lamb Chop's Play Along edit[edit]

Why did you remove my edits? I put sources this time. Several in fact. --Websurfer246 (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see discussion on the article's talk page. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

How dare you interrupt my entertainment![edit]

Aww man, you're throwing salt on one of the most provocative, action-packed, interesting Wikipedia conversations OF ALL TIME! What's wrong with you?! Outta curiosity, who's the sockmaster of the IP? Frankly it sounds a little like one person talking to himself...but I don't wanna speculate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This kid has been around for a while. This gives links to some of the more recent crap. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I was wondering what was going on here. -- Orduin Discuss 22:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon[edit]

Hi can you help me flesh out Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon? Joanne and Kirste are all too often relegated to a footnote to Beaumont children disappearance articles and pages. They deserve better. Sadly the newspapers from the time are not digitised as they are still under copyright (and God knows who owns the copyright to The News, Adelaide's old afternoon newspaper). Paul Austin (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I came up on your radar for this.
In any case, the applicable criteria here is Wikipedia:Notability_(events). For the article to remain, that is your hurdle to clear.
Short answer: You will need to show substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.
Common problem areas in this type of article are:
  • Brief spikes in coverage are common for news stories that are otherwise not notable (so include coverage from sources published well after the events).
  • Coverage in newspapers alone is typically seen as a problem (so include other sources: books, magazines and such).
  • Local coverage is not a sign of a notable story (so include sources from locations far removed from the events).
Beyond that, I think you are laboring under a false assumption. We are not restricted to online sources. Sources need only be reasonably available. While an online archive would be great, the existence of library archives is sufficient. Copyright is not an issue as we do not directly copy text.
A couple of sources to start you off: Daily Mail, 17 July 2015, The Advertiser, 12 March 2015, ABC News 17 September 2014. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Paul Benjamin Austin, you might also consider asking for assistance at the Reference Desk. There are helpful people there who have access to library materials. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

hei there im ryder[edit]

wanna say that you work hard for wiki man Ryder bashanako (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

MarioandSonicFan0718[edit]

Hi Summer, re: MarioandSonicFan0718, every time I see this pairing I'm reminded of KuhnstylePro. He was into Mario and Sonic. And that's one to grow on. I haven't, however, looked into their edits. Just a quick note. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Juana la Iguana[edit]

Hi SummerPHD. I see that you removed Juana la Iguana from the list of Venezuelan children's TV shows. Is there a particular reason? CharlesWalter (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see the notice on your talk page and the article's talk page.- SummerPhDv2.0 01:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood. The page for Juana la Iguana is now live. It is a very well known show in Venezuela. During its run from 1996 to 2003, it achieved some of the highest TV ratings for young kids, and sold some of the top grossing home videos. The page does make reference to the character and the TV show, so I understand if you have concerns with that. Can I add the show to the list, or would there be other concerns? CharlesWalter (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have gone back and added Juana la Iguana. Happy to address any other concerns.CharlesWalter (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You made me laugh[edit]

Came across this while looking for certified conflicted financial planners. It considerably brightened my mood, so thanks. Brianhe (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Glad you found something enjoyable in that mess. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Mike Nawrocki[edit]

Hi, you PRODded this article and it got deleted, but the deletion has now been contested so I've restored it. You may wish to nominate it for AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll take a look. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User name[edit]

I see you've upgraded your user name as well. ;) You went digital, I went medieval. Hope you're doing well! Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm binary-ish. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Mark Wahlberg[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Mark Wahlberg shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 before you revert or change.--A21sauce (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A21sauce: This is a contentious claim about a living person. Under WP:BLP, removal of such material is exempt from WP:3RR. Please establish a consensus before restoring the material. If you believe that the material is sufficiently sourced or is not contentious, please take the issue to the BLP noticeboard. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I have a few problems with this template, A21sauce. Firstly, it's not good form to template the regulars, but more importantly, Summer's concerns are legitimate. You've stated as fact that Wahlberg was "known for his homophobia". That is potentially libelous and Summer is correct to err well on the side of caution. The bio.com article doesn't say that he was "known for his homophobia". The Independent article says "Watching his powerful sponsor squirm helped Marky Mark to grasp that - ironically for a rap star - a reputation for homophobia and racism could spell the end of his career." He made some dumb comments, but that's not the same thing as "Marky Mark is known for being a homophobe". He was known for being an underwear model and a rapper. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Very selective reading of my reference. Well-known within the gay community: He was a Southie for chrissakes; don't play dumb. And SummerPhDv2.0 erased my edit twice, I don't see how that's not edit warring especially with selective reading of my source. Brought it up on a noticeboard, thanks--A21sauce (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The sources do not unequivocally state he was homophobic (or, for that matter, anything about his opinions on same sex marriage "evolving"). In cases where there is a dispute over a controversial statement about a living person, our policy is quite clear: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In support of this policy, such removals are not subject to the 3 revert rule for edit-warring; the material is removed from the article unless and until a consensus is established that either WP:BLP does not apply for some reason or that cited reliable sources clearly support the material.
You are certainly correct that edit warring is a serious problem on Wikipedia, which is why we have the 3 reverts "bright line" rule. That said, potentially defamatory statements about living persons potentially expose Wikipedia to significant legal issues that eclipse those concerns. BLP does not allow edit warring, though, as the exception merely allows for removal of the contentious material and editors adding the material are still limited by 3RR. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
What is well-known in the gay community, unfortunately, cannot be printed as fact, largely because it constitutes original research. As for the edit-warring thing, per WP:BRD, once you were reverted, A21, it was your responsibility to seek consensus via discussion for the inclusion of the content. Slapping an edit-warring template on another user's page doesn't mean that your own edit warring will escape scrutiny. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

List of films considered the worst[edit]

Hi, just wanted to note, List of films considered the worst includes the Adam Sandler movie Jack and Jill (2011 film), which has the term "widely panned" in the lead section without sourcing - it is appropriate for lead sections to include a brief summary of reviews. I believe it's consistent to summarise the Pixels movie as "panned" in the lead section. -- Callinus (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

We have sources showing the percentage of critics who gave it a "positive" or "negative" review. Some of the critics gave it positive reviews (which is clearly not "panned"). The rest gave it negative reviews which may or may not have individually qualified as "pannings". We have another source which gives a numerical score which digests several hundred reviews into a number which does not indicate what the individual critics said and whether or not they "panned" the film.
  • In the critical response section, we give both of those sources. What those two sources say individually is verifiable and can be objectively worded to report what the sources say. Combining those two sources -- with or without others -- to come up with "was panned by critics" is WP:SYN implying that all critics hated it. Some of the 82% did. Some might or might not have. Some (the 18%) clearly did not.
Yes, there are other articles on Wikipedia. Some of them are shining beacons of objectivity that we should strive to emulate. Others are turds that should be flushed away as soon as possible. Most are somewhere in the middle. Rather than identifying articles that do what you would prefer and assuming it is correct, please refer to our policies and guidelines which represent broadly held consensuses, rather than what the editors at one particular article tolerate or prefer. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jane Milmore, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Martin and People's Choice (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) 09:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Garfield: The Movie 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:
  • [Roger Ebert]] gave the film a "thumbs up," saying the movie was "charming."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://rogerebert.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it thanks. No need for concern, not a breech of privacy, no connection to me. Thanks again. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)