User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

IP editor yet again

Hi: I am of course perfectly ok with you following the IP around for a while and engaging with him/her on talk pages, and you're right, s/he has acquired a bad reputation and will be under extra scrutiny for a while - including the problem of being automatically reverted by people who don't realize s/he's not still blocked. But having told him/her to step back from the personal attacks, it would be unfair of me not to also ask you to stop rubbing his/her nose in that reputation, particularly on other users' talk pages. Assuming someone is vandalizing is pretty bad, even when it may arise from confusion between vandalism and block evasion. Thanks for spending the time to discuss the "best known for" and allision issues; Wikipedia will be better off for these disagreements having been aired and different solutions considered, even if we don't get a consensus on either; even if all we achieve is a useful new definitional link and a reduced incidence of churning by people of differing viewpoints on the two issues. But please keep it as un-snide and un-goading as possible, since sitting down together with cups of tea and coffee is not actually available as a calm-down option. (I suspect the three of us might get along pretty well if it were.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"...Please back away from the attacks." - Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to review his comments since then. He seems to be either unwilling or unable to resist commenting on me and other editors. These in particular seem to merit attention:[1],[2].

Yes, as he said, "someone" asked me to back off. Actually, it was him.[3] As a result, I have discontinued any attempts to make suggestions on his talk page.[4] His response was another personal attack.[5] Since then, he has made repeated additional attacks and has told several editors they are editing in bad faith.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SummerPhD&diff=next&oldid=633049892

He enjoys personal attacks.Saying he gets "more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same". As he has never been effectively blocked for behavior he enjoys, he will continue. If we were to sit down for coffee, he'd call me an idiot for asking if he has tea instead. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you thought this was hilarious. It wasn't. Stop harassing me. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You made a personal attack. I removed the personal attack and warned you. If there was any portion of that which you did not understand, please ask an administrator for assistance. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You carried out yet another act of petty harassment. The best thing you can do, for all of us, is to stay away from this editor and their edits 03:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.240.11 (talk)

WP:NPA - SummerPhD (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh crap.

It seems I really stepped in it at User talk:Matt200055 and User talk:AntiMatt200055. Upon seeing the new User:AntiMatt200055 I hastily created a sock investigation, under the mistaken impression that Matt200055. Yikes. In trying to put this right, I CSD'ed the sock case and asked for an explanation on the user's talk pages. He has given a rather strange response, which might require a brief explanation to the user. Not too horrible yet.

Unfortunately, another user has removed the CSD from the sock case and the discussion at User talk:Matt200055 seems to be going south. Can someone step in? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(Matt200055 and AntiMatt200055 have been indefinitely blocked.)

"Water ice"

this poster is also harrasing me and wont give me an actual reason for why, he says its for discussion about the topic, well it is, and he keeps saying the same thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsfly (talk • contribs) 15:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, article talk pages are not for discussing the topic, which is what you were doing: "The term 'water ice does not make any sense, you might as well just call it ice. I would punch someone in the face if they said 'water ice' to me in real life. It should not be on this page, and it should actually be nowhere."[6]

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. You think the term does not make sense. This conflict is too much for you to handle and makes you violent. Whatever. These are things you want to say about the term "water ice".

Your new version: "The term 'water ice' does not make any sense, you might as well just call it ice. and it should actually be nowhere. How can water and ice ever be one term, they are 2 different physical states of water. You can clearly improve this article by removing all references to 'water ice'."[7] actually makes a suggestion to change the article. I have responded to that. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Applejack

Why did you erase Applejack on the tattletale frog? --24.170.75.206 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

After making numerous disruptive edits, you added a character from "My Little Pony" in place of a named character in an episode of "Arthur". This seems extremely unlikely and -- as with all of your edits -- lacked a source. I assume it is vandalism. If you can provide a source for this highly unlikely crossover, feel free to re-add it. Otherwise, realize you are on your final warning before a block. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You'll blocked me for infinite? --24.170.75.206 (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to get blocked? If not, knock off the nonsense. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't do anything bad. --24.170.75.206 (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding nonsense is "bad". - SummerPhD (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll stop. --24.170.75.206 (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh well. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

24.170.75.206 has been blocked for one week for vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to blocked me again? --24.170.75.206 (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to get blocked? If not, knock off the nonsense. If you are trying to get blocked, please say so and we can give you a nice, long block this time. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

(Not blocked "for infinite" yet, but the IP was blocked for 48 hours on September 5, 2014; 72 hours on September 27, 2014; 1 week on October 29, 2014 and 1 month on November 21, 2014.)

{...and for 3 months December 28, 2014.)

November 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:DanQuigley. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. For templating someone when a google search would have proved notability. ...William 12:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to feel that using a consensus automated notice for adding a non-notable person to a list isn't assuming good faith. You are clearly incorrect. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(See also| Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#What_a_mess. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC))

Matt200055

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The previously archived ANI indicated above has been continued at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Matt200055.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello SummerPhD. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved from your user page

we really need your help to add Levon Telian to the list of notable Armenians named Levon.... sorry we're not tech savy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendsofstretch (talk • contribs)

Levon Telian does not have an article on Wikipedia. As a result, we cannot add him to Levon. If you feel he meets our [[WP:N|notability requirements, you might want to request an article about him at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Eton College.

Thanks, I am struggling here because I rarely edit a wiki page. I am confused as to why you have twice removed the link that I added to the Eton College page. It seems to me to be a reasonable link to an alternative view of Eton College. I am perplexed as to why you have taken so much trouble to repeatedly remove the link. Do you have an association with Eton or are you paid to monitor the site?. If not why do you think you have a greater right than me to censor an open source encyclopedia. I have been a long time financial supporter of wiki and I always assumed it was open and unbiased. Why are you doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delsmith444 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a conflict of interest involving this article or the link you are attempting to add. I am not paid to edit. I do not have a greater right than you or anyone else to edit the article. Removing inappropriate links is not "censorship". I have removed the link because I feel it fails our guidelines, specifically WP:ELNO#EL11. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page to establish a consensus on this issue. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Gregory House

Hi SummerPhD,

You recently reverted one of my edits on the 'Gregory House' page and cited "Needs coverage from an independent source". Can you please clarify to what you mean by this comment?

Thanks,

SR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickroger (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Reviews for a fictional doctor to a site like Ratemds.com ‎are essentially forum postings. That someone added a review to the site tells us nothing encyclopedic about the site (or the fictional doctor). Anyone can add anything to the site. I could add a notice to craigslist offering the Brooklyn Bridge for sale or a review of Dr. Frankenstein to Ratemds.com... Any of these would be trivial in the associated articles unless an independent reliable source discusses them. Then there might be something to add. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Veganarchism

I recently updated a reference that is showing as a dead link on the Veganarchism reference 16 that you are stating is not a dead link. After checking the link again I am directed to a page not found. Is this not a dead link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscctx (talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. The fruitarian link you swapped is still working. I don't know what happened with the other, which is showing as not found for me now. I've replaced it with a working archived version as I feel the Vegan Society is a better source than "ringringpromotions.com". - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

bloggs

Thanks I have just found your explanation re removal of Eton blog, external link. and I accept it. I found it difficult to follow up the editing process and consequently caused a nuisance, apologies for that. But expert editors do expect a lot from elderly novices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delsmith444 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

List of films considered the worst

It wouldn't let me reference the rotten tomatoes page, it was trying to. It features information that backs me up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunaboy45 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what problems you were having with citing RT (try <ref>{{rotten-tomatoes|left_behind_2014|Left Behind}}</ref>). In any case, the closest thing I see there is one critic saying "easily one of the worst movies of 2014." Please see the article's talk page for a better idea of what we need to include a film on this list. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Editorial Notification from Zucat

Hello SummerPHD, I'm Zucat. I'm the creator of the artical entitled List of Stuart Little characters. I couldn't help help but notice that you edited the artical by fixing the grammer and spelling, and by removing some uneeded information. I thank you for being concerned about my articals errors and for fixing them. However i couldn't help but notice that some content you added does not seem to add up or make sense. For example. You added that Geena Davis VOICED Eleanor in Stuart Little 2. Stuart Little 2 is NOT an animated film. Geena Davis played Eleanor in live action. And second, you added a scene in the Martha Little section, that I'm not sure that happened ANYWHERE in the series. (WHERE in the Stuart Little Media media franchise did Eleanor try to get Martha to say Juice!!!!?, a deleted scene? an outtake?. ECT). And lastly you removed minor words about the events of the Main Characters of the series. Wikipedia is a website for SPECIFIC information about wikis. I'm NOT mad at you for changing the Artical, I'm just saying that there is some minor content in it that I want other users to know about. So unfortunately I'm gonna have to edit some parts of the artical so that way it displays the info I want it to do so. But don't worry I will NOT get rid of the edits YOU made. So anyway.... I thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zucat (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you check the edit history a bit more carefully, you will see I did not add a scene to the article. I haven't seen any of the films or read the book. This also explains my error regarding Davis. My intent in that particular article is to clean up the grammar, spelling and punctuation and trim a lot of the in-universe trivia, nothing more. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You might remember this user

Hi a while ago you opened a case at SPI against a user name Troydevinny545. Well he has created tons of accounts since then and now it's harder to track what he does on Wikipedia. I found some of his new accounts and re-opened your case at SPI. I have a feeling that he might target your account as you were the one to notice his disrputive behaviors for the first time. I also created a new thread at AN/I. Just wanted to let you know. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Probz page

Hello,

I'm not really sure how this works but here it goes.

My name is Dennis Stehr (p.k.a. Mr. Probz) and I just read your feedback on why you've changed the page back to how it was. The reason I've updated it was because of way too many inaccuracies and false facts and it frustrated me for some time now and forced me to do a little reasearch and finally try doing it myself. You can easily look up any of the facts stated in my new bio (which I haven't written myself but hired a writer for) and verify them. When I said it was my page I meant the content not the page itself. You said it had to be a neutral point of view and that's exactly what I I tried to uphold. If there's anything specific in the story you can point out that's out of line I'll be happy to fix it.

Best,

Dennis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DStehr (talk • contribs) 00:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

While you may be trying to be neutral and might hope that a writer you hired would be neutral, you have a clear conflict of interest. Whether consciously or not, you are likely to write about yourself in way that tends to emphasize the positive over the negative. I would strongly encourage you to step back from editing the page yourself and instead discuss the issues on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So in the meantime I have to sit back and watch how most of the stuff that's on the current page is false? That's my own personal information which people will take as the truth because it's posted here! I've asked you to show me what it is that's not acceptable and I would try to fix it myself. I just don't want to keep staring at a long list of lies anymore. You can throw a big stop sign at me or help me fix the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DStehr (talk • contribs) 00:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss the issues on the article's talk page. If there are specific concerns, please clearly state what is wrong. If the material does not cite a reliable source, we can remove it immediately. If you have concerns about a source, please state what the problem is. If you have independent reliable sources for information that we do not yet have, please discuss them on the talk page as well. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know what that means. To change everything that's on there now is way too much work. Someone helped me make the page that I copy/pasted in the textbox and that's as far as it goes for me. The info in the update contains all the correct info of the previous content. I don't know how this works I just want to fix the page or rather not have one at all. This is me saying that whatever is on the page now is unreliable but then you tell me the more specific and extended info is a conflict of interest? You just changed my whole view on Wikipedia. I normally go here to do my research but have to find out like this that it's nothing more than a website based on opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DStehr (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is you are saying that everything in the article is wrong. This is obviously not the case as some of the information in the existing version is in the version you are offering. You also state that you have written a correct and unbiased article about yourself. I've already said this is questionable. In any case, we need reliable sources for any material in the article (I'm in the middle of removing some unsourced material in the article right now). If there are specific things that are incorrect, please explain what they are on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying everything is wrong. I didn't write the new bio but only supplied the right info. Indeed, some of the facts that were in the old page are true but I've let them be added to the new one. It's only about the bio but also songs that are in the discography that were released online without my permission. Legal action is still pending with some of these titles. It also says that I'm signed to Repblic (which I'm not). If you take a look at the updated post you can see that all the chart info is linked to sources and more elaborate. If you tell me what to remove from the bio I think it be way more efficient than taking a hundred steps back. I still would like to have a wiki page with more than just 2 paragraphs and a train of charts or discogs that are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DStehr (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss the issues on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We're already talking so what would diference would that make? You're the one that keeps making the changes and this is your page.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DStehr (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Anything you and/or I do can be edited by other editors at any point. As you'll note, other editors are already involved.[8][9][10][11][12] By discussing the article on the article's talk page, other editors will know what we are discussing and will be able to weigh in. Please discuss issues with the article on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand that but all it would do is give the people that added all the static more fun if they see it only adds to my frustration. All I'm trying to do is eliminate the chance that I'll be correcting stuff in interviews where info has been taken from this page like I have been doing for the past year. You don't know how annoying this can be, believe me. Can't we just post the update and build from there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DStehr (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You want to replace the entire article with your version without explaining why. That is not collaboration. If I agreed to that, other editors would be within their rights to simply revert it again. From my experience here (8+ years, roughly 100,000 edits), conflicted editors who work with the project generally end up with articles that reflect their public image. Editors who fight against the project generally end up blocked from editing with an article written by editors drawn into the fight, some of whom come to believe the subject is trying to hide something.

My goal is an objective, verifiable article that will remain objective and verifiable. Please discuss the issues on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you just put it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DStehr (talk • contribs) 04:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as explained on your talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What's your problem? All I was trying to do was correct the page.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DStehr (talk • contribs) 04:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss the issues on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

IP editor above

Hi SummerPhD. Whilst I'm quite sure that you can 'fight your own battles', I noticed the above as your Talk page is on my watchlist as a result of recent actions by another editor. Since this IP editor is engaged in the same behaviour as I dealt with previously, I felt it would not be fair to the earlier editor to not also advise this editor of the same problem. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As previously advised at User_talk:Jeffro77#Careful, much of your User page (the first eight sections) appear to fall within the scope of WP:POLEMIC. If you need to maintain these lists, you should probably do so in a separate document on your own computer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Initially happified by your effort to rectify the first section, the kittens are still saddened by the several sections of 'laundry lists' of perceived wrongs on your User page. Alas, they cannot yet frolic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Gee, I'm really happy to hear that you are pleased with my efforts. Stay tuned and I will ensure that nothing asinine remains. I want the kittens to be so happy their fucking heads explode. To do otherwise would be asinine. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Very amewsing. It's all fun and games until kittens' heads start exploding.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I see you're still actively working on your 'laundry lists'. User:Velella felt it was inappropriate of me to remove the violations of WP:POLEMIC from your User page myself, despite having given you substantial notice of the violation. I'll give you a little longer to cease the behaviour and remove the lists of perceived wrongs before considering admin action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to believe the material is a "laundry list of perceived wrongs". These are issues I check periodically to see if particular issues have resurfaced, articles I am sporadically working on, on-going discussions, etc. Once I am satisfied the issue is resolved, a talk issue is concluded, I've done as much as I can with an article, etc., I don't need them and remove them. No one has complained about anything on the list until I suggested that calling an editor "asinine" wasn't particularly civil.

Actually, everything above the section called To check appears to falls within WP:POLEMIC, not just the single section to which you refer. It certainly would be unfair of me to employ a double-standard in regard to these lists. If you want to maintain such lists, you should really keep them in a file on your own computer (but as a show of good faith, you could at least relegate them to a subpage). Your incorrect labelling of my description of asinine behaviour as 'uncivil' was a minor error on your part and has no direct bearing. The only relationship between those events is that I only became aware of your User page content after that time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"Everything" is a big word, covering links to on-going talk page discussions, simple links to articles I want to come back to when I'm not wasting time on other stuff, and a lot of material that has no conceivable connection to anything on WP:POLEMIC. Linking to Talk:List of McDonald's ad programs is part of a "laundry list of wrongs" but calling someone "extremely stupid or foolish" isn't "insulting or disparaging". Got it.

I am regularly sending new IPs for Joshua_Raymond_Hahn/The UPN Vandal to ARV, along with IPs making random changes to dates on PBS shows. Neither of those are in any way resolved and the on-going nature makes them -- so far -- timelessly timely. "Everything", as I said, is a big word. A couple of the subsections are stale and I simply haven't bothered to delete them but you aren't complaining about them, you are complaining about "everything". It would be stupid or foolish of me to bend over backwards to try to figure out what is bothering you when you seem to be throwing darts blindly to see if you can hit anything. If you have specific concerns, rather than a general sense of "let's delete the whole thing and let god sort it out", please explain. Until then, I will periodically add to and subtract from the page, when I'm not doing something else. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the other 'big words' I used was appears. It was not a categorical assertion of every single statement. (Everything was used fairly broadly in reference to the sections.) It is dishonest and pointless to cite a link to a Talk page about McDonalds as typical of the content in your lists—several of which are composed solely of diffs or User Contribution pages of editor contributions you've deemed inappropriate. Since you know that some of the sections are stale, you already know what you should do. (However, your User page is not the proper place even for the current ones.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"It is dishonest and pointless to cite a link to a Talk page about McDonalds as typical of the content in your lists" It is pointless to tell me that something I didn't do is dishonest and pointless.

There are links of various types throughout the list. If there are specific items or sections that you feel are negative information related to others that are no longer needed, please clarify. I am always working on several issues. Removing stale issues here is one of them. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

All of the links to User Contribution pages should be removed because they are not appropriate for User pages, and do not provide you with information about articles you are working on. The entries you have commented out should also ideally be removed. Any entry intended in a negative way, including the entire section called NOT (from which you recently removed diffs with some prompting but was always intended as a record of sleights against you) is inappropriate. All of the diffs to individual user edits are not appropriate. The sections Friends of Oceanhouse Media, Fictional ages, Motel for Cats/Malcolm in the Middle vandal, Don't block me, Dynamic IP WP:ENGVAR vandal and User:Paulbecker in their entirety also have no apparent purpose other than 'laundry lists'. Any such material should be stored on a file on your own computer if you need a record, and at the very least should be moved to a subpage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

RPP for Ben 10

Hey Summer, I've filed RPPs on four Ben 10 articles to hopefully stop that IP-hopping loon from adding that unsourced marathon stuff: Ben 10 (TV series), Ben 10: Ultimate Alien, Ben 10: Omniverse, Ben 10: Alien Force. I may not have gotten them all, so if you spy any more, lemme know and I'll file them. I'm asking for a 30 day protection on all, which should get us through the alleged airdate. Seems better to do them all at once so we don't have to worry about staggered protection. La la! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. He will be back, but a break will be nice. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Destructive Destroyer

I have blocked that IP for another six months, so we should be OK through summer. If they start using other IPs or register accounts, then it's time to open an SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Echosmith genre

Can you comment on Talk:Echosmith#Genre please to solve a genre dispute? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have an appropriate interest there. I'd suggest finding reliable sources and, if needed, requesting a third opinion. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's the thing. I am using Echosmith's record label's site and a review as a source, and they are using SputnikMusic, which is a unreliable source, I think. But yet they feel the need to dispute it. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, then -- if needed -- WP:3O. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you from Zucat

Hi SummerPHD. I'm Zucat, the creator of the article entitled List of Stuart Little characters. I would like to thank you for your recent editing to my Article. This was the first Wikipedia article I ever created and I would like to thank you for helping me keep it. Your frequent collaboration with the page really helped me. I am now finished with the Article and adding the characters to it. My only request is that you don't edit the article anymore, but let me know how I can improve it (anymore characters I missed?, should I add a photo?, put more references? Etc.) Your past edits really helped me get the article to Wikipedia standards and encolpedia friendly standards. So with that said, I once again thank you.Zucat (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. You do not own the article. Other edits can, should and will continue to make improvements to the article. I will try to make it reasonably clear on the article's talk page to clarify what I have changed and why. If you have concerns about any changes to the article, I would encourage you to discuss them there as well. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, SummerPhD! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...

	Happy Holidays...
	and may the coming year bring peaceful melody accompanied by joyous harmony. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop stalking and harassing

It might take a while but eventually you'll get what's coming to you if you continue with your ridiculous campaign. 82.33.71.205 (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

As an editor who has repeatedly demanded that people make a distinction between your years of personal attacks, edit warring and block evasion and "vandalism", you really need to stop using "trolling" when you damned well know I am not deliberately and intentionally trying to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia. Instead, I am deliberately and intentionally attempting to have you comply with our core policies, which you repeatedly fail to follow and have said you enjoy violating. If you seriously expect people to pedantically follow a strict definition of "vandal" at all times, you really need to tighten up your use of words such as "trolling".

"Stalking" is another word you are misusing. "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause... Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) ... violations of Wikipedia policy". Your repeated personal attacks are violations of policy.

As for "harassing", repeated personal attacks, such as those you have been making for years, are harassing. Please stop. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Larry Ellison

As you've probably noticed, I rewrote the lead, which somebody wanted done in April 2013, and that seems to have stopped the argument. Can I just politely advise that this edit probably causes more harm than good, I'm afraid. If you sincerely feel somebody is a troll, don't feed them. I've had the odd unpleasantry posted on my talk page, but I don't think I've reverted anything on it ever. Just ignore it and read some of the good articles we have on here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. I have never called him at troll. He has, however, called me a troll, called another editor a dick, accused other editors of trolling, stalking, dishonesty, ignorance, rambling on incoherently, dishonesty and immaturity. Additionally, I know they enjoy making personal attacks and don't give a damn about being blocked.[13]

IMO, the way you handle personal attacks is to warn the editor. If, after several years of ignored warnings, they persist, they should be blocked. Apparently not.

After accumulating several years worth of blocks for personal attacks, edit warring and IP socking, another AN/I thread left them blocked. Discussion with two admins who felt he deserved yet another chance, he was unblocked after promising not to edit war and stop making personal attacks. Blocks don't matter. Personal attacks don't matter. Edit warring doesn't matter. Maybe I should start calling him a troll, a dick, a stalker, dishonest, ignorant, incoherent, dishonest and immature. It seems some consider this to be acceptable behavior. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir: Renewed personal attack[14], despite your request. The comment has been removed three times by two editors. AI/V was "put on ice". The editor has been warned and blocked for personal attacks several dozen times that we are aware of. He enjoys doing it and sees no reason to stop. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked it out and that pre-dates my reminder. I see the editor has since posted in response to me and have just reiterated that they shouldn't be using such words. Please ping me if they do so again. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir: Check those dates again. Your "reminder" was 20:02, December 23, 2014. The restoration was 08:39, December 24, 2014. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I have to comment on this. With regard to personal attacks, IP User 82.33.71.205 persists in re-inserting the attacks made in the edit you reference above. Summer is correct in their assertions as well. If this has been going for some time, its WP:BATTLE and complete abuse of WP:COMMUNITY. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: There are a couple of AN/I sections about this editor, formerly known as the "known for vandal". I am one of the admins who brokered an agreement to try breaking the cycle of blocks and reblocks, and I hope I've now got him/her to stop throwing this insult. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Great to hear Yngvadottir, I'm not trying to stir things up, but persistence is with attacks or just griping in general is both WP:NOTHERE and definitely lacking in WP:STICK. I posted a warning template to the IP's page, but did not revert their re-storation of the attacks. I guess its better to have an easily traceable record of bad behavior. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You posted an inane template telling someone not to edit or remove talk page comments, when it was you that was repeatedly editing and removing their talk page comments. You don't think that was trying to stir things up? Grow up. 82.33.71.205 (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"Grow up" is a personal attack and likely to "stir things up". - SummerPhD (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

As explained above, he violated the agreement several times, including [[15] the one] after your "reminder". Since then, we have another, with this added to the mix. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had indeed missed that that was a later reinstatement - I've left the IP editor another message. However, I disagree with your assessment of the Christmas Eve edit summary (although personally I believe what he removed was there as an Easter egg rather than as elegant variation), so I'll leave him and the editor concerned to talk that through. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone's actions "the height of stupidity" is civil? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello SummerPhD, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Tory Belleci

Here are two links to his date of birth. First is from IMDB [16] Second is from his Twitter when he thanked fans for birthday wishes [17] Hope these can be of help. Mikepellerin^talk 06:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mikepellerin. Unfortunately, this doesn't solve the problem. IMDb is a user edited site and is not a reliable source from much of anything (though most editors will accept it to confirm credits from released films). The tweet does confirm that his birthday is either the 30th or shortly before that (he could be thanking people a day or two after his birthday for earlier wishes. In any event, it does not give us a year or location. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are other links for his birth date:http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/tory-belleci.html http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/tv-personality/tory-belleci-net-worth/ -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, both therichest.com and famousbirthdays.com have failed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Both have been judged to be essentially blogs with no demonstrated history of fact-checking and reliability. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't even find a reason he would be notable enough for an article, in fact. If you can't even find info on a birth date. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Not having a solid source on his birth date is, IMO, minor. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about his notability. I note a deletion discussion 9 years ago was closed with no consensus and briefly resurfaced as an effort to redirect. (I can't say I understand how the discussion was judged "no consensus" as it was 3 deletes and 3 redirects) I'd hang it on whether or not he is notable for anything other than Mythbusters and availability of independent reliable sources. If both are fails, I'd be for killing the article. I'm a bit on the "keep" side at the moment.

Current sources all connect to Mythbusters, but the brief redirect discussion felt he was also notable (in some vague way) through his ILM work. Additionally, co-hosting "Punkin Chunkin" weakens any "delete" case a bit. The sources, while not fantastic, aren't poor.

In any case, the prior discussions are ancient (in WP terms). If you feel he isn't notable, start a redirect discussion or an AfD case. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Crazy reference person

I'm gonna say this in the nicest way possible, you are going a little insane with the references. Not every fucking line and every fucking date needs to be referenced or else the page gets cluttered with blue numbers. I added the reference you asked for on Meek Mill discography, but every person I know that edits here say they get shit from you about stupid references. I personally have never added false or unconfirmed information to this site, and I also understand that some people add false information. But when I change the stupid date from 2014 to 2015 when anyone with a brain knows that it won't come out in that time. It's literally impossible to distribute CD's to retailers in less than a weeks time. If you choose to be all anal and crazy about the references that's fine (weird, but not my business) but I don't wan't to hear about it again. Don't write on my talk page. This is not a demand, this is a man telling another human being that I don't want to be bothered by you when I've done nothing wrong and you have no authority over me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkatastic (talk • contribs) 01:59, December 28, 2014‎

Times like this I like to quote the great Dale Carnegie, "Specificity leads to credibility" --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Funkatastic: The "nicest possible way" would not include calling me "crazy", "a little insane", "all anal and crazy", "weird" and question whether I have a brain. Please do not make personal attacks.
Let's assume it is impossible for CDs to make it to retailers in under a week. Does that prove the album isn't coming out on Tuesday? (Yeah, I know: You know everything and would know if it were.) Perhaps with the delay due to his imprisonment, it will be a 'net only release. Maybe it won't be released at all (popular music is littered with albums derailed from a scheduled release that never saw the light of day). How do we sort out the absolute bullshit added by random vandals from facts? We call it verifiability. It's kind of a big deal here.
As with others who have warned you about unsourced additions, I will notify you as necessary when there is a problem with your edits. That's part of accountability on a cooperative project.
You are correct that I do not have authority over you. You are not correct that you have "done nothing wrong". You made a mistake, I requested a cite, you provided one. That is how the project works. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not leaving a reference is not a mistake, you think it is because you're either an OCD maniac or an internet troll. I don't care for either. It's actually quite laughable seeing your lack of knowledge on the subject itself. An imprisonment doesn't terminate a record labels ability to release an album, if the album was scrapped then Meek Mill wouldn't be continuing to hype it's release. We know the years 2015 because HE SAID IT! Just because you're too out of touch to notice when the man updates his release date you're not fit to be editing the page at all. But my guess is that you're the OCD maniac and you just search every page for missing references. That's weird, and I don't care I just don't want you bothering me which you are doing a second time now with your messages. If you're too stubborn to admit that you're wrong that is also fine, that doesn't bother me, but don't go pointing a finger at me. So I ask you, please, LEAVE ME ALONE. Please do not send any more messages. Hell, delete this entire conversation from your page, that's fine. All I really care about is that you never message me again, you out-of-touch anal computer owners ruin this site for me and I'm just trying to contribute positive and accurate information for a site I read almost everyday.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkatastic (talk • contribs) 05:11, December 28, 2014‎

Funkatastic: Do not delete discussion from my talk page.

Yes, I added another warning to your talk page. Personal attacks are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia.

You added an unsourced release date. I removed it as unsourced, as ANY editor may at any time. You restored it with a source. Your personal attacks are neither helpful nor acceptable. Please stop. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)