User talk:SummerPhD/Archive4

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Arrowoftime

Thanks for doing this: I had assumed this to be the case and thought of making the accusation, but I hate WP process side of things (and am plain lazy). Let me know if I can help. T L Miles (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I know I went through scads of articles a few days ago and took out numerous references and links to copyvio videos and left several warnings. I put the user talk page on my watchlist but didn't any of the articles. Thanks for updating me. Are you sure there isn't also a possible sockpuppet issue with this? The newer account, the one who is talking, was registered about 4 minutes after I left my last warning on the older account. Coupled with the edit summary deceptions and similarities, it looks prime to me. Also there is this [1] and [2]. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is sockpuppetry. In addition to the shared editing of articles, the identical edit summary style and being the only sources for the link (with identical article usage), there is the timing. As you note the time of the newer registration, also note the timing of other edits: Markieboy1989 was on today at 9:20-9:22, then disappeared. Pulsetech dropped by for one edit at 9:28. 12 June, Markieboy1989 8:50-9:40; Pulsetech 10:00-11:57. If that's really two different people, they should at least meet for coffee sometime.

At the moment, though, I don't see any sock issues that are enforcable. Once the spamming thing shakes out a bit, something might pop up. Or ze/they might simply disappear. Time will tell. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Robotshop

I have added some comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robotshop. I think that notability is now established by the current version of Robotshop. --Eastmain (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mack 10 discography

I noticed you made these edits [3] on Mack 10 discography removing the boldfaced record charts. I have also been trying to removed this based on Wikipedia:Record charts. Could you please help me out on Talk:Mack 10 discography? Thank you in advance, Aspects (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that won't be needed at this point.[4] - SummerPhD (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Vexorg

Hi. Would you be willing to sign an RFC/U I filed on Vexorg and actions at Christianity by country? The edit warring against consensus and removal of common-sense reliable sources is not stopping. He's a smart kid, whoever he is; I think and RFC might actually do some good in this circumstance. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a current/recent RFC on this one. I see the 3RR, but that's not the main issue. I'll check in on the article in question in a bit. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Won't Hold Back (album)

The deletion tag has been removed. There is no reason for deletion when the page fails in order. Sources are sources and you need to check something other than billboards. Sheard has been putting up snippetts of what will be on the album on her myspace.Usercreate (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To meet notability requirements under WP:MUSIC, the aricle needs coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Currently, the article has none. I was unable to find any. If you have any, please add them to the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of part of Herbert Shelton bio

I noticed you deleted some information I added concerning Dr. Shelton. You did not leave much comment as to why this was done. Please forgive my ignorance but I am still learning the way of Wiki.

The information I posted was correct information in all details. I not only read about these details but actually spoke to those who knew Dr. Shelton while he was still alive. I am assuming I erred in not posting my sources. Please enlighten me as to what would be necessary for me to include so that I may resubmit the deleted information.

Some have laughed at Dr. Shelton's slow death as an example that his theories of health were in error. This is not correct. There were outside factors that affected his health. Also it seems the article is extremely unbalanced. It quotes from an unprofessional online article (which was in itself unbalenced and for some strange reason ommitted Dr. Shelton's greatest accomplishments)and lists all Dr. Shelton's arrests and hardships as opposed to the many good things he accomplished. Many things he taught were far ahead of his time and are now being proven in the laboratory.

Please advise.

Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My edit summaries were "-unsourced spin"[5] and "-unsourced POV"[6]. The minus sign is common wiki shorthand for "removing".

By "spin" I mean the section that detailed several theories about Shelton's declining health.

"POV" is in reference to "Point Of View" as detailed in WP:NPOV, one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles.

The core issue in both edits is that the information I removed did not meet our verifiability requirements by citing reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Disneymania

I saw your comment on Hello Control's page ... he seems to have been away for a few weeks. Your problem looks like pretty typical mouseketeer edits. I'm having similar problems with Oky103, and Triping has been a constant source of these things. Many of these editors are pre-teens and have no clue about how to contribute constructively. They fabricate articles based on the blogs they read, and, when they get blocked, just pop up with a new account. I've actually been accused of reverting edits to Ashley Tisdale's page because I wanted Vanessa Hudgens to have a better looking article. If you want to try to isolate a bad editor, you can try, but my instincts tell me that we are dealing with about a dozen.
Kww (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Clearly there is a youth issue in some cases. In any event, the real question (in my mind) is how to best deal with this. Some day there will (it seems) be an sourced DisneyMania 7 or Princess DisneyMania article. Until then, though, we seem to be stuck with an ever evolving mess. We can reign in all of the would-be girlfriends of Chris Brown as the article is high profile enough to be on a number of watchlists. We'll always have hundreds of non-notable (but dreamy) pop singers waiting for someone to delete them. The ones in the middle, like these, are a constant problem. Is this the best of all possible worlds or is it just what we happen to have? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If I had a better option than playing Whack-A-Mole, I'd use it. Look at the fun I've had with Sneakernight, Sneakernight (Vanessa Hudgens song), Sneakernight (Vanessa Hudegns song), Sneakernight (Single), Sneakernight (song), and Sneakernight(Song).
Kww (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. I watched Sneakernight mostly from the sidelines (maybe an AfD or two, I don't recall) and been down that road myself a few times. It's just that bopping moles on the head doesn't seem to get the job done very efficiently. My uncle always used a bit more force when dealing with distructive critters... - SummerPhD (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lostprophets' fourth studio album

Would you have any objections in changing the page into a redirect to Lostprophets#Fourth studio album & Future (2007—Present) until more information on the album is released? This way the information on writing and recording would not be lost, and it would be easy to resume editing once a title and track listing are released. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Seems like a reasonable approach.[7] - SummerPhD (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion/Happiness Is The Road

Not sure why Happiness Is the Road is being proposed for deletion, when future albums have been regularly given Wikipedia articles (q.v.: Death Magnetic) There are already several references in the article to Marillion's web site that mention the album - I don't think you can get a more authoritative source. gotroot801 • _talk 20:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Happiness Is the Road has 4 sources: a blog and three cites to Marillion's website. This demonstrates that the album exists and that someone with a blog and Marillion think Marillion's upcoming album is notable. Death Magnetic has 40 sources, and most of them are not primary sources. This demonstrates that Death Magnetic is notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Checking article history

Howdy. I suggest you check an article's history before prodding it. This one was prodded back in December.--Rockfang (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, missed that one. Thanks for adding the old prod info to the talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Album

Hi... when you have a sec, I'd like it if you could respond at Talk:The Warner Bros. Album. I agree that most bootlegs fail WP:MUSIC, but I don't think this one does, for the reasons outlined there.—Chowbok ☠ 17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Untitled Dance Gavin Dance album

Hi, thanks for your message regarding this article, you are quite right I did miss it but have deleted it now. Thanks again for bringing it to my attention. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Emarosa

Emarosa : Why did you remove my picture? thisisyourwayout

Assuming you mean this edit... Look carefully, I did not remove an image, I removed a caption for an image when there was no image shown. Looking further back, the image was removed here. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Circular Link Question

I am a professional interventionist, and when I visited the page on "intervention (counseling)" I was pleased to see that another intervention referral service, a for-profit business, "The Intervention Center", along with another for-profit educational business had links there. "I'll put up my own," thought I.

Obviously it's a great boon for those in search of circular links for services such as we offer. Within a few hours my link had vanished, by way of your wand, not to any great surprise of mine. What was an remains a mystery to me though is why these other for-profit businesses were not deleted as well.

Isn't it the same rules for everyone? I mean, hey - more power to 'em if they can get away with it, but if you go to their websites, it's not hard to tell that these service sites are very much in the intervention "business," so what gives?

Curious and jealous. Am I able to get a link of my own? Thanks, (Gr8dna 13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC))—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8dna (talk • contribs) 13:31, 20 August 2008

Your link does not meet guidelines laid out at WP:EL.

If you feel another link should be removed, do it yourself. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mshasho Mos!

u insisted that i delete the page, whats wrong wit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enots86 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not insisting that you delete the page. I am suggesting that the page should be deleted. The reason, as explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mshasho Mos! is this: "Unreleased album, fails WP:MUSIC; not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found."

I'll spell it out. Mshasho Mos! is an unreleased album. Per guidelines at Wikipedia:Music#Albums, "...unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." The article does not show "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" and I was unable to find such coverage to add to the article. If you feel the article should not be deleted, please discuss your reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mshasho Mos!. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Rock 2 (film)

Ran across this at AfD. How about we just redirect it to Camp Rock#Sequel? It could be restored, with sources, once filming begins. Cliff smith ^talk 18:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that in the AfD and that's probably what will happen. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Review Requested

I got a message pleading for help, but, when I looked into it, I found that the requestor was actually the problem ... inserting absolutely ridiculous figures and numbers into The Cheetah Girls (recording artists). I pulled her stuff out, and let her know my conclusions. A few minutes later, a new editor, Maimaiiihawaiii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gets created and tries to revert the same nonsense into the article. My suspicions are obvious, but I haven't written a SSP report yet. Looking over the articles, the whole area looks like it needs a cleanup. Single articles for singles that never charted anywhere, inflated chart figures, contradictory chart figures, etc.

I made my first major pass done TCG (album). Redirected Fuego (The Cheetah Girls song), TCG EP, and cleaned up the redirect on So Bring It On at the same time.
Any feedback you can give me on the quality of the merges, whether the merges were actually justified, etc. would be appreciated.
Kww (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest my typical approach:

1) Request semi protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection to prevent new editors from editing the article.

2) Demand sources for any numbers cited in the article and tag the talk pages of anyone who posts unsourced figures.

3) Request blocks for any editors who continue posting the bad info anyway.

4) Any articles where removing the redirect is a problem should go to AfD. (Sock puppets might make themselves obvious in debates.)

In the end, you might find that it (suprisingly) is not one editors and hir socks, but a bunch of single-minded editors discussing the issue on a forum somewhere. Or not. Either way, this approach usually sorts out the problem(s). - SummerPhD (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Radio Disney charts

Do you know of any source where these Radio Disney chart figures can be verified?Kww (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but I've never looked. Radio Disney charts are meaningless for any context I've seen. Review WP:CHARTS &ct and see if there is any indication that a single radio station/networks charts for its own artists have any merit at all. We don't take HBO's word for it that one of their shows is notable or successful, for example... - SummerPhD (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it fails charts, but it has that "common-sense exception" language in it, so I started a discussion here. It's clear to me that it doesn't convey notability ... I'm more worried about trying to maintain the column in articles where notability has already been established. If I could find a verifiable source, I wouldn't bother to push it, but my feeling is that I'm going to start taking it out of hundreds of articles. Before I do that, I like to have the feeling that there is support for that decision.Kww (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert O'Connor (singer)

Thank yo for your message. I didn't (or didn't mean to) start the article, User:MRUM08 wrote it onto the dab page 'Robert O'Connor', so I moved it to restore the dab. I'll leave a message on the user's page and certainly won't be challenging it. Thanks Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. This article has been deleted a number of times. Though MRUM08 is "new", I'm sure he won't be surprised that his article is being deleted again. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheetah Girl socking

This edit makes it pretty obvious that Cheetahbrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Brianyau323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same editor. If I tried, I could get them blocked for sock-puppeting, but I seem to have gotten the Cheetahbrian account to start at least trying to make useful contributions, so I'm not going to right now. Still, something to be aware of when working in that area. If he stays well-behaved, I think we should let the socking slide, but if I find that Cheetahbrian cooperates while Brianyau323 stays with his old ways, I'll file at WP:SSP.
Kww (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

rfc

As a frequent contributor to articles related to music, you are invited to review this RfC and comment, if you see fit! Best regards, --Winger84 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Apple cider

"NYTimes sells it". What do you mean? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignore that, I'm an idiot. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikayla12‎

I went ahead and reported her, she should be blocked any second now. Some people just can't take hint. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew it was coming. If her user page is at all acurate (and some of it clearly wasn't), she's pretty young and might just need some guidance to get a handle on wiki policies. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Skyler Samuels

Thanks for notifying me about the deletion tag, I'll try my best to improve the article. QuasyBoy 1:03 AM, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Vanguard Group

Is Vanguard's business model less common knowledge than I thought?

WP:PROVEIT says:

editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}}

I agree that "Common knowledge" is not entitled to stay in Wikipedia forever, but unless it is affected by WP:BIO, it should be allowed a few weeks grace: after all, almost the entire Wikipedia from 2001 to 2005 was unreferenced.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No company's business model is common knowledge outside of that industry and its followers. People with no active involvment in mutual funds or residing outside of the U.S. may have little to no awareness of Vanguard at all, let alone its business model. The edit I made removed the claim that the change in leadership did not change their business model, which is a more extensive claim than what there model is, it is an unsupported claim that that model did not change. If this is a significant fact that is as widely known as you suppose, it should be equally easy to cite. (As an aside: That grass is green is general knowledge, easily cited to any number of sources explaining why grass is green.) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure: it is not as crucial to the article as it appeared to me to be from the diffs, though I suggest you consider conventional weapons to achieve your objective less contentiously. I am thick-skinned, but I know other editors react badly if you go nuclear when a dated fact tag will do the same job, particularly when they have asked you to give the article's watchers time to find a source. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this compares to this, but here are the basics: 17 days ago, I removed the claim that "Bogle retired from Vanguard as chairman in 1999 and was succeeded by Jack Brennan. Nevertheless, Vanguard has continued to follow Bogle's emphasis on index funds and low expenses to share owners." There are several problems with this statement. First, it assumes that Brennan would have been expected to change the emphasis on indexing and low expenses ("Nevertheless"). Next, the unsourced claim that VGI does and did emphasize indexing, despite continuing to create new actively managed funds on a regular basis. Heck, Gus even does some active management now (so much for the trained monkey hypothesis).

Yes, you have said this should be easily sourced. Then, saying you were going on a wikibreak, you asked that it be left in place in your absence... I'm not sure how much time you've spent restoring the claim and telling me how easy it will be to cite it, but it would seem to either be that it's not-so-easy to source or you've misspent your time. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

?? I spent less than 60 seconds in total. I spent another minute or two encouraging you to follow the spirit of WP:V, which seems to me to favour fact tags. To be honest, I don't care much about Brennan (as long as my retirement money is safe) but I would like to see someone research the business model of Vanguard. When I get 5 minutes I will have a stab at a first cut. As I attempted to say above, I am now convinced that the phrasing you deleted was problematic, and I won't restore it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

DTV

Hi, you have suggested the deletion of Deakin TV, the student tv-production society. You also said that I could remove something along the lines of the {{date:prod}} tags, as to remove a deletion notice, but I couldn't find them. I have explained why the article should not be deleted in the discussion page, and I have added some more information to the article to give you some perspective about the significance of Deakin TV. Thanks. Theradu123 (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Somehow my edits got lost. In any event, please see the talk page re this issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Article needing attention

I posted about an article in dire need of attention at WPP:MUSIC. Dunno if you'd be interested in working on it but I know you as a strong editor of music-related articles. I just can't find the energy or time myself. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Spammer

Can we get some sort of blocking effort started for user 78.15.170.84? Their spam efforts on the Michelle Rodriguez article are getting old. I'm not familiar with the process in doing such. Are you? 2012Dance (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not coming from one IP address. If it was, warnings and blocks would do the trick.

So far, They've made the same addition three or four times and we've reverted it in less than an hour each time. If it continues to be a problem, I'll put the article in for semi-protection until ze loses interest. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! 2012Dance (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hola. Same deal again, multiple times. I undid the edits, but this is getting annoying. 2012Dance (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I requested temporary semi-protection about a week ago at AIV and was denied because the vandalism wasn't frequent enough. I'll give it another shot, or you could. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty new here so I'm no familiar with that process, but I'll check into it for future use. Thanks! 2012Dance (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Brown (yo-yo player)

It really wasn't all that difficult to find sources on him, though looking through the history the article was admittedly a hot mess. All I did was plug "Steve Brown" (in quotation marks) and yo-yo into google news archives and voila. Not sure why I felt the need to save this article. I guess it was curiosity about why someone would actually create an article about someone as ridiculous as a professional yo-yo player, and I honestly did the search expecting nothing and thinking I would call for a WP:SNOW close. And when I saw a reference stating he was the "Elvis" of yo-yos... Anyway, searching google news archives is an excellent way to easily establish notability or at least verifiability, though a little more time intensive than removing everything unsourced from an article. AniMate 00:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the difference was between our searches, but I found virtually nothing, save the one site of some unknown organization tracking unofficial records and a blog or two. Oh well. All's well that ends well. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Marriageable age Old City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Girard Avenue Dangerous and Moving (song) Late trading Guillemot Humpers West Kensington, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Heidi Range Boston Market School District of Philadelphia Kama Sutra Records Ian Abercrombie Amoroso's Baking Company Gloria Dei (Old Swedes') Church National Historic Site Bell Atlantic Tower Roosevelt Boulevard (Philadelphia) O Dem Golden Slippers Simon Gratz High School

Cleanup Discounted cash flow El DeBarge Eloi Merge Benjamin Graham Submarine sandwich Scouting in Pennsylvania Add Sources WHHS Granoff School of Music Stoner film Wikify Shirley Caesar Robert R. McCammon Dude, Where's My Car? Expand Bank of Ireland Little Flower Catholic High School for Girls Family reunion

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

School of the Future

Thanks for the suggestion, question though, if I work at the school and am trying to correct the information on a page - is that considered a conflict of interest - or is it more of a guideline to not "promote" the school? Thanks I'm new at this!Schoolofthefuture (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of potential problems when editing an article on the school you work at. Yes, a possible tendancy to "promote" the school is one of them.

Another possibility is an unavoidable tendancy to read sources as saying more than they do. Since Wikipedia demands that all material be verifiable, editors close to a topic often know things not reflected in their source. If the topic is particle physics or 17th century weaving or such, it is likely that the editor is simply more knowledgable than the given source, but that a better source is available. In the present case, however, some information you have might be unpublished (and, therefore, unverifiable). While the Inquy might run a blurb on a significant change at the school, you might have some idea why the change is being made. Your understanding of the situation -- whether it be right, wrong or somewhere in between -- is not verifiable and does not belong in Wikipedia.

Additionally, there is some bias in anyone's writing about something they are particularly close to. Not all of it is simple "boosterism" ("promoting" the school). As the article we are discussing right now stands, for instance, there is a whole lot of useless trivia. Yes, the article should give basics about the school that we would expect to include about any school and yes, we should include info on what makes the school unusual. That said, we do not need to know the names of most of the companies and project managers in the building of the school. It is likely that this info was included by someone fairly close to the school (then or now). When you are close to a topic, trivial details look larger than they are.

In general, you should feel pretty comfortable correcting basic, factual errors in the article. If we had the first class graduating in 2012, for instance. The further you get from the bare bones basics on an article you are so closely connected with, the more caution is advisable. Wikipedia's full policy on COI is available at WP:COI.

If you're looking for something to really dig into, there are certainly gaps in Wikipedia in a number of areas. Depending on your interests, there is a lot of missing history re Memorial Hall, the Centenial Exhibition, East Parkside, etc. There are notable individuals working/who have worked in and around the area who do not have articles, and so forth.

Hope this helps clarify things a bit. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Xtreme Soccer League

The Xtreme Soccer League is a legitimate organization. It is notable as one of the successor leagues to the Major Indoor Soccer League. On outside reference from a third party newspaper was put in the article. There are many other sports leagues that have less information on their articles than does the XSL. KitHutch (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing the notability and primary sources tags twice did nothing to support your claim. Adding one reliable source helped. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Severed]

The NYTimes source actually IS a Reliable Source in this instance. It certainly does contain a review written by Jason Buchanan of All Movie Guide, but All Movie Guide does NOT contain that review. The NYT did not duplicate a review. AMG has their own concerns for COI and AMG reviewers often write outside reviews that will never be used by AMG themselves. This is such an instance. That makes this review independent and unique from AMG, and provided by someone independent of the film who has the knowledge, experience and ability to write that review. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, allmovie does host that review. Please keep the discussion on the AfD page. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a G

I have undeleted the page I'm a G, which you proposed for deletion and was deleted as a result. I did this because the deletion was contested after the fact. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The same issue applies to DJ DMD. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Methacton High School

Dear Nobody, leave my contributions alone!!! Who are you to judge what belongs and what does not. These two individuals are well known in our community and deserve to be on this crappy website. I expect you will do the right thing despite the lack of known sources and articles. love, your fellow warrior —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.14.10.22 (talk • contribs)

1. Refering to a user as "Nobody" seems to me to be quite uncivil. Please don't refer to other Wikipedians in this way.
2. In a section of school alumni, only notable alumni should be listed. SummerPhD was following the general standards of inclusion here on Wikipedia; she's been around for over 2 years, and she knows the rules. The "right thing" to do in this case was explicitly not to include these people on the list, precisely due to "the lack of known sources".

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Dennis Wolf

You might want to ask the person who wanted it restored (see User talk:Rjd0060#Request to restore Dennis Wolf article). - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Apple Cider article

Greetings, SummerPhD:

It is clear you have a great passion for pathogens in apple cider but your passion threatens to skew the article on that topic. If you would like to create a page on the subject, please do. But let's not get caught up any further than we already have been in an edit war on the matter. Though I did not agree with it, I accepted your edit of October 7th in the hopes that it would settle the matter and both of us could go on to better things with our lives than quibbling over the contamination potential of apple cider. May we not exchange olive branches and leave it as an acceptable peace? Thank you.Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You proposed for the Dallas Toler-Wade page to get deleted.

Tomorrow is the 5th day it's been tagged with that heading. However, please don't let an administrator delete it just yet. I've been working on the article today, trying to make it notable. I can't do anymore today, though, because it's the end of the day for me. I plan to work on it some more tomorrow. Thanks. BT^C 02:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just Getting Started (song)

I really hated pulling the speedy off of that thing. I warned the creator, and I'll put it up for AFD or prod in a couple of days if he can't source it.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the speedy was mine, but there is no signe of notability there that I can see. It's a shame we'll need to waste so much "process" to get rid of that thing, but at least it will probably go quietly. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Cash Money Records, YME, UTP, Juvenile, etc. Pages

SummerPhD,

Hey sorry about not adding new sources to each and everything I fix because most of our info at CMR never see's an article on the internet. I meant nothing against ya or non a that. I just got a membership not long ago and didn't notice the messages ya sent me. The thing with my info is that is it solid and I would like to continue my updates regularly. If I do get internet worthly sources they will be added to as soon as possible. Just understand I will continue to do the updates if it's ok. Otherwise everyone who knows nothing will constantly mess the pages up. Please let me know what you think so we can move forward and continue to make those pages reliable. Thanks for ya time.

MoneyMack™ (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia demands information that is verifiable and from reliable sources. They need not be on the internet, but they do need to be reasonably easy to verify. What you know to be "solid" is immaterial. Also, keep in mind that, because of your clear conflict of interest, your edits are suspect. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I'll give better info when I can. Thanks for the time. MoneyMack™ (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated chart guideline

Your input is welcome at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Deprecated_charts.—Kww(talk) 01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Julie Gonzalo bio

Hey,

I noticed that you deleted the biography section for that article for being unsourced and possible copyvio. Your intuition is right; I came across the article about a week ago and the section in place at the time was plagiarized from somewhere (I never did figure out where—there was another site with the same wording, but that site had been copied from this article, not vice versa...it was just obvious, because of formatting and quotations, that it had been copied and pasted from somewhere). I rewrote the section, basically summarizing the plagiarized content, and tagged it as unreferenced. Would it be ok to re-insert the section (without the quote—I should have taken that out on the first go, and you were right to have removed it) with the {{unreferencedsection}} tag, as there is no controversial or potentially defamatory content there (at least, as far as I can tell) and the rewriting has hopefully taken care of plagiarism concerns? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has been home to a whole pile of unsourced cruft since I first hit it. Rather than adding material summarized from unsourced, possibly plagiarized content, please find a source before adding it. Otherwise, you are simply adding unsourced material from who knows where. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)