User talk:SummerPhD/Archive8

Italian ice

Should this page be protected? There seems to be a lot of vandalism, and constant back-and-forth about facts without any sources. And as soon as a source is added, it gets deleted. Your thoughts? Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I got invovled with this problematic stub about a year ago. It was in pretty bad shape. Since then, there's been a good bit of back and forth, some spamming and a whole bunch of "this is what I know"-style editting. The stub still sucks out loud. It needs sourcing and a top-to-bottom rewrite. I don't think protecting it will solve anything, it will just prevent the creation of a rotten version in favor of the current rotten version.

Maybe I'll give it some attention and see what happens. Maybe you will. Let's see. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of problem I was talking about. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's been through a few times (as I'm sure you can see). I don't think temporary semi-protection would stay up long enough for this one. Longer term protection doesn't seem to be worth it. That's just my opinion, though. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stonyfield

Can you please explain to me in more detail why you deleted my link?

I do not believe you are right to delete my link in the name of good faith. My website is not intended to harm the company in anyway but to keep a record and stand as a public service to consumers in hope that they become more aware of the possible dangers that may be lurking in their food. My website does nothing to attack Stonyfield, and is written completely without malice, but instead, it is a factual account of an unfavorable incident that I believe should be public knowledge.

I believe my website complies with all of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the link is appropriate.:

Stacyfeldman89 (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal web page falls under Wikipedia:Elno#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #11: "Links normally to be avoided...Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites". Your one-time, personal experience (which, based on the info on your site, seems to have little to do with Stonyfield) is no more relevant that someone saying "omg! stoniefield r best evr!" or "i h8 stonyfeeld". - SummerPhD (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the fact that two editors disagree with your link does not support your case.[1][2] - SummerPhD (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vampires Suck

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

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

Careful....

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

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

About the "Molly Ringwald" talk page

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

P.S. - Are You Watching Me?

List of Columbia Pictures films

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

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

Please don't vandalize my talk page with oxymoronic requests

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

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

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

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shyamalan Twist

What I'm thinking... is that with use of available sourcing,[3][4] the author might be convinced to merge the information to the M. Night Shyamalan article in a section describing Shyamalan's own use of twist endings... and then we might consider a redirect... but only if sourced and only if the term "Shyamalan Twist" is kept where it has its sourcable context and not mis-applied to films that are not Shyamalan's. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

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

So called vandalism

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

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

Re-creation of Coy Stewart

I recently posted this article for deletion review and I was given the go ahead to re-create it. Since you were the nominator to have it deleted, I letting you know that I am re-creating it with the proper sources that I have obtained: [5] [6] [7]. Quasy Boy 19:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi,

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

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

GBC Asset Management - a division of Pembroke Management

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

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

SPS

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

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

Grant and Tori

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

Criticism of reversion

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

THOMAS (neuroscience)

I see you have proposed THOMAS (neuroscience) for deletion. I did the same last year, but since that was removed [8], you may have to go through the WP:AFD process --Rumping (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of THOMAS (neuroscience) for deletion

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

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

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

Smoking ban

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

Season's greetings

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

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

Soccermeko socks

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

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

Fat Albert

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Censorship

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

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

Whoa!

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

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

Smegma

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

User:The JPS/Differences from the novel

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

RfC

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

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

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

Affiliate Marketing Awards

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

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

"Test" edits

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

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

Needs work MisSiss

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

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

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

Quick question

Hey there. I noticed you reverted an IP's attempt to blank their talk page and purge any warnings/blocks from view, and your edit summary said they could register for an account to get their own talk page. While I was generally aware that editors were free to delete messages (and, yes, warnings) from their talk pages at will, does the same privilege extend to anon IPs? I am dealing with a similar issue with another IP and wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing. Any info/links would be appreciated. Thanks. --McDoob AU 93 00:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: May have answered my own question. --McDoob AU 93 01:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SRI

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

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

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

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

Young Artist Awards 2011

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