User talk:SummerPhD/Archive5

Lip Service

I am grateful for your vigilance and contributions to Wikipedia. The external link to the Lip Service website was added as a convenience. I have no issue with the website link being removed; however removing the disambiguation reference seems to be somewhat extreme. As Lip Service, referring to the clothing brand, is referenced at least twice on Wikipedia (Hot Topic and Torrid), it needs to be distinguished from other uses. The disambiguation reference will be re-inserted, pending further discussion on the talk page. I will not re-insert the website link.

Also, for future communication, I prefer to not have templates pushed on my personal user talk page, unless it is posted by an administrator. I find personalized communication to be much more productive.

--Digitalmischief (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Lip_service#Non-article listings - SummerPhD (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Philly edits

Ah, I just realized that the South Philadelphia page is under construction - I'll hold off on editing after I add one more thing WhisperToMe (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm only working on the Famous Residents, at the moment. The TM doesn't allow for specifying just the section. I have a lengthy, sourced list (sowewhere!). For now, I'll just restore what I can find sources for close at hand. Cheers. :) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Templating regulars

I noticed your comment here. In the future, you may want to not template long-time contributors, because in my experience they often take it to mean you think they're a novice. So to avoid offending, I prefer to write a customized note to them (like this) unless I'm sure they're new. Just some unsolicited advice, hope you don't mind. -kotra (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Milestone?

I take it some kind of personal educational milestone has been achieved?—Kww(talk) 11:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. Actually, I'm an ABD at the moment, but an admin was uncomfortable with a (hopefully) short-term change. My defense is actually in two months, but I'm fairly confident. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Death Metal (Possessed demo)

Could you please create the afd subpage. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm not sure where that went wrong. 2nd noms are kinda messy. In any event, the page is there now. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Kaya Scodelario

Hi, thanks for your recent edit per WP:MoS. You changed the name of the magazine in question, I presume by accident, from SuperSuper(website) to Superstar. I thought I would let you know I've changed this back. Many thanks. Pretzels^Talk! 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Concept album

If you have a chance and the inclination, could you stop by concept album and drop some suggestions on the talk page? The article is an unholy mess and I don't even know where to start. Thanks in advance! —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Live at Donnington 1980

Hi! To me you can delete that page, but as far as I'm concerned that album is not technically a bootleg album. It was launched by two Saxon former members, Graham Oliver and Steve Dawson, under the label of their current band Oliver/Dawson Saxon. So we have a complicate situation due to the fact the album came out under the Saxon monicker (because it includes a performance by Saxon in 1980, when Oliver and Dawson were part of the band), but it is not part of the official Saxon discography because it wasn't pubblished by any current or former Saxon label and with present Saxon members consent. Cheers. --Furyo Mori (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Live at Donnington 1980 is "an unofficial live album", while a bootleg is a "recording...not officially released by the artist". Live at Donnington 1980 is not official, thus it is a bootleg. Q.E.D. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alleyezonme.jpg

I added to the fair-usage for one of the articles and removed it from 2 others (I may have acted too quickly with that, but the articles i removed it from were a mess anyways). Good enough? -Wakamusha (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't fair use for Ambitionz az a Ridah either, as it is the cover of the single, not the album (which is the topic of the article). So I've removed that use too. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to use for Ambitionz az a Ridah then; its not a single with its own album cover, its a song off of the album. -Wakamusha (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is unlikely there is an appropriate image for that article. In fact, it is likely the article shouldn't exist as it does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Goddammit I Love America!

Could you please create the afd subpage with your reason for deletion. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was briefly side-tracked. It's up now. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Black Dynamite

Thanks for the notice, but seeing as I did not copy and paste text from an outside source and did in fact rephrase the plot outline, I am going to revert your edit and put my work back in. As an admin it might be a good idea for you to do actual research first before randomly removing information. Kuralyov (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I had twice previously removed direct cut-and-paste jobs from that section. The in-universe term "Honky House" and unencyclopedic wording of the last part of the plot summary threw me. I've adjusted same and added a cite.

As follow up, please note that I am not an admin, I did do research, do not remove things randomly and request that you limit your comments to content rather than editors. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war..?

What do I put on the page? Id rather some else resolve this because its across two pages NISL and PASL-Pro and this will not end with just us two. (Bes2224 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

Either discuss the issue on one of the talk pages (such as Talk:Professional_Arena_Soccer_League) or put the issue up for a third opinion here. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Good day, SummerPhD. I was wondering if you could give your opinion at Talk:Hoagie so I'll have a better view of the keepers & the mergers. It would really help ;) --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Adairsville High School

see talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.29.208 (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What's Up

You are wrong about the acussations you told me about me being a "puppet" of the user "verecetticarl". I don't even know this guy, the reason i'm only erasing those deletion tags from vercetticarl's articles is because i admire his work, and all that he writes is true not false, so the articles he writes should not be deleted, thank you have a good day SummerPhd Vercettiboy (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The coincidences are beyond remarkable. In addition to showing up a mere four minutes after his last edit to repeatedly remove AfD tags from three of his articles, you've also no recreated Baby Ranks, an article he has created twice. (Incidentally, how did you happen to notice this particular article of his was gone?) - SummerPhD (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 in music

Thanks! Ros0709 (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

El Patrón

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from El Patrón, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please note that I have brought the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Patrón - feel free to comment there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Mummer's Parade

You forgot to include the reference for why the 2009 parade will be "shorter". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mummers_Parade&diff=258166625&oldid=258165753 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.252.248 (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. The source was there, I just had the wrong ref name. Fixed, thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fun alternate sayings

Here are some alternate sayings to use instead of "Bless you" or "God bless you."

"Godzilla."

"You are so good looking." (From the 38th Seinfeld episode, "The Good Samaritan")

"Scat, scat, pussy cat, your tail is in the gravy." (After practicing this several times, it becomes easy and fast to say.)

"Scat (there) Tom, your tail is in the gravy."

"Choo, bezzoo."

"Dog bless you."

"Congratulations."

"Are you okay?"

"Can I go through your pockets?"0

"Cover your mouth."

"May your personal deity enhance your well-being."

"Hey...clean that up, will ya?"

"Need a tissue?"

"Science bless you."

/////

Yesterday, December 28, 2008, I added (the above) to what I thought would be a valid addition to the Wikipedia web page “Bless you.” I added alternate responses which I found online or friends of mine use. These alternate sayings were removed from Wikipedia with lighting flash speed by “Deor”.

No email was sent to me explaining why it was removed. As a printer, graphic designer, web designer and activist for equal rights, I certainly did not intend to offend anyone with my entry. I'm trying to say, that I did not enter this addition to Wikipedia as a flippant entry.

However, the person who deleted my entry gave no reason why it was deleted. I then posted a question in the discussion area of the “Bless you” page (with the entry I added, so others would know what my entry was) and my discussion entry was deleted—without discussion—from “SummerPhD”. No email was sent to me as to why my discussion was not discussed and why it was removed.

The only message concerning what I did wrong from you, “SummerPhD” was: “However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to ‘Bless you,’ are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted.”

Vandalism? Geez, I think the word “inappropriate” or “does not meet Wikipedia submission guidelines” would be a better word choice/phrase, don’t you agree?

As a potential new editor for Wikipedia, I would have preferred a direct answer to my entry. Or at least the discussion by several people.

After having searched more topics about “sneezing” on Wikipedia, I see you have a “Sneeze” page and “Bless you” page. Both pages list common responses to people sneezing in many different countries around the world. In some countries people don’t respond when someone sneezes.

I have found in the U.S. there are many sneeze responses such as “Bless you,” or a funny phrase (or not so funny phrase) will be stated or some people say nothing. There are multiple responses to sneezing in the United States. This is verifiable by simply interacting with people.

As the phrase “Bless you” was derived from the lack of scientific knowledge over one thousand years ago (which is noted in the “Bless you” Wikipedia web page) and as science has advanced--the number of various responses to sneezing has been changing for years (20, 30, 40 years or more?). I find it hard to see how alternate sneeze responses would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. A friend of mine in the 1970’s used to always say, “Bless me” when someone else sneezed.

The responses I wrote about are either ones that myself and friends use, or ones which others have written about online. Who knew that some people say, “Scat, scat pussy cat, your tail is in the gravy”? I found this response online and now it’s part of my sneeze response to others. I say this to people at work and in public and most people laugh when I say this. People get it.

With that said, is there any possible way my additions would be considered in the Wikipedia "Bless you" or "Sneeze" web page? Or is this just beyond the scope of Wikipedia? As another suggestion, is it possible that a separate Wikipedia page be created for alternate phrases when someone sneezes?

I would appreciate a response concerning this matter.

Added by Mikecoruscant (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)mikecoruscant (Here is my email address: (blanked by SummerPhD). I live in San Diego, California, USA.)

There are several problems with your entry. But before we get to those, let's deal with your assertions of being wronged.

The alternate suggestions you (as "Mikecoruscant") say you researched and are used by your friends were first added by "Mikewestmikewest" on 28 December at 18:15[1]. This was reverted by Dekisugi and resulted in a warning that it was original research at 18:16[2]. As "Mikewestmikewest" you ignored the warning, and re-added the material at 18:19[3]. That same minute, BarretBonden reverted the entry[4] and at 18:19 warned you that ignoring the concern and re-adding the material was vandalism[5]. Apparently to try to get around the warnings, at 21:19 you registered a new account (see WP:SOCK), "Mikecoruscant"[6]. At 21:32, you re-re-added the problematic material[7]. Deor reverted this. You re-re-re-added it and Deor reverted it again.

Yes, Deor should have warned this new user name after the first (really, 3rd) revert. After the second (really, 4th) revert, "Mikecoruscant" should have been permenantly blocked and "Mikewestmikewest" should have been blocked for a couple of days. That didn't happen. I think it should have. I have now given you final warnings under both names. The next step is up to you.

If you were supporting your own protestations on the talk page[8] that isn't particularly endearing, either. (Without a check user, though, I won't know if that's you. One of your amended edits said you're in California, but the IP address for that edit is in Western Pennsylvania.)

As for the material, as the first warning made clear, the addition was unverifiable and/or original research. Wikipedia cannot simply accept whatever material anyone and everyone wants to add. We insist that material be verifiable, based on citations from reliable sources. To the extent that you can provide citations from reliable sources, I think a brief mention would be appropriate in the Bless you article. If you need any further assistance on this, I would be happy to help. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I now doubt the IP edit was yours, as you did make this edit from San Diego. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Geez... you people are so paranoid. No offense, but this was my first reaction to your above response to me.

I added a user name of mikewestmikewest without including an email address for the simple reason I would rather not include an email address when logging into a new web site. I then proceeded to edit the "Bless you" section (as I thought my material was appropriate); however, my edits would not take. In other words, after I tried to edit the "Bless you" page (And I tried this several times because I thought I was doing something wrong.) and I did not see any of my additions uploaded to the "Bless you" web page. I thought the edits did not take because I had not included an email address when I created an account using the logon name: mikewestmikewest.

I decided to forget the old logon name and start fresh. I decided to create a new logon name and included an email address with my new logon name. I wanted to choose a logon name that was similar to my email address. After I made a new logon name, password and included my email address, Wikipedia gave me a link to confirm the email address was mine. Then I uploaded my additions to the "Bless you" page and at least for a minute or so, the edit took. I thought, ah ha, the only way an edit can take place with Wikipedia is if you start an account with an email address and then once the email address is verified, editing can begin. Then, my edit was deleted. I thought that I did something wrong again and I thought that Wikipedia software was deleting my edits. I probably reposted again, thinking that I did something wrong. I really can't remember. Then looked around Wikipedia (As I am completely new to editing to Wikipedia.) and then I realized that it was probably a person deleting my addition.

This is why the two logon names and why I uploaded multiple times to Wikipedia.

Now, you say, that my sources are not verifiable. To quote you, "We insist that material be verifiable, based on citations from reliable sources." Okay. So be it.

My question to you and others who are part of Wikipedia: How does Wikipedia verify that people in the United States say "Bless you" when someone sneezes? It is my guess that people have heard other people sneeze and then hear someone else say, "Bless you." Is this how Wikipedia verified the phrase "Bless you" for a sneeze response?

I can give you my work phone number and you can talk to my managers and co-workers and they can verify that when people sneeze, that I respond and say, "Scat, scat, pussy cat, your tail is in the gravy." It's true. And I'm not being flippant about this.

Are you and other Wikipedia editors saying that you have never, ever heard the following sneeze responses from people in the United States: Cover your mouth.; Need a tissue?; Are you okay?; And you have never seen people ignoring someone else's sneeze and not saying anything to them?

It's a fact there are multiple types of responses to people in the United States, when they sneeze. Am I incorrect?

My question boils down to this. What do you consider a verifiable source for information on word or phrase usage in the United States concerning how people respond to a sneeze?

For example, do you consider blogs, websites or news articles a verifiable source? The reason I ask this last question is that word usage or slang people use is ever changing. I mean, how many articles in the news state that someone sneezed and the response from so-and-so was, "Bless you?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.205.108 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

75.3.205.108 (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)mikecoruscant or (blanked by SummerPhD) on December 30, 2008

If I was too quick to judge, I am sorry. To clarify the situation, you may want to address the first account, as explained here.

If you would like assistance in becoming better aquainted with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, you can read some of the links in this note to you or you might consider having me or another experienced user help you out through the Adopt-a-user program, explained here.

Whenever anyone posts to your talk page, every page you view on Wikipedia will have a note at the top telling you that you have new messages.

This only works, however, if you are logged on (you weren't when you added your most recent note to this page. Logging on connects all of your edits to your user name and allows other users to contact you.

Wikipedia is a fairly high exposure site. Posting your email address here is probably a bad idea in terms of generating spam to that address. I've removed your address above for this reason.

When you post to a talk page, end your posts with ~~~~ and the system will automatically sign your post with your user name (assuming you are signed on) and the time you posted.

What Wikipedia finds acceptable in terms of article content depends on a few key factors. First is notability. Notability determines what topics should have an article. George Washington was notable. My elementary school gym teacher was not. It also determines what should be in an article. What George Washington ate for breakfast on December 25, 1776 is probably not notable. We determine if it was primarily through verifiable substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. If no one (other than, say, Washington or his cook) wrote about what he ate that day, it wasn't notable. Numerous sources, however, discuss his crossing the Delaware.

Verifiability is very important. Lots of people want to put up information supporting their views (band x is the greatest/worst band ever, eating a particular diet is great/horrible, political party y is evil/the savior of humanity, whatever). Saying a reliable source exists isn't enough. Cite it.

Reliable sources are important for similar reasons. Ignoring the quality of the sources, I can document that George W. Bush is an alien lizard, we live on the inside of a hollow Earth and Nazis escaped the end of WWII by flying to Antarctica in a flying saucer. Wikipedia's policy requiring reliable sources allows me to show that a significant number of people believe such crap, but that mainstream society does not. So what is a reliable source? It's a bit of a slippery concept. Some sources are pretty much always considered reliable: major, independent newspapers (New York Times yes, Pravda not as much); respected, peer-reviewed journals (Science, NEJM, etc.) and such. Others are generally reliable in their field: Rolling Stone can be trusted for their reporting on when a new album is scheduled for release, but not quite as much for reporting on issues outside of pop culture. Others are case-by-case. Blogs generally are not reliable sources: I can start a blog and say anything I want quite easily. The only major exceptions are when the blog is notable, in which case the blog's statements can be used to document what the author says. So, an actress's blog giving the name of her hometown or stating her reaction to a story about her is fine. Stating her new movie is the best film ever because her blog says so is not.

What this means in the present case is pretty straight forward. What you say when you sneeze is not notable. (And a phone call to whomever is neither a verifiable nor a reliable source. That people do say "Do you need a tissue?" or some such is not notable as it is plainly obvious why they say it. Why someone says "Bless you" is not as obvious. How do we know (other than our own experience) that lots of people in Western countries say "Bless you"? We have reliable sources discussing the phenomina. If you or anyone else doubts a particular claim in Bless you or any other article, they are free to remove unsourced material, challenge the reliability of a cited source or request better sources by adding {{fact}} immediately after the challenged material. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I do appreciate it.

After reading your note, the first thing I did was log-in. (I will delete my mikewestmikewest account sometime this weekend.) And... I have two (2) questions for you.

1) I feel that I would like to make additions to Wikipedia on a part-time basis, that is, if I feel a Wikipedia page is lacking information. Can I send a possible addition directly to a Wikipedia editor to see if they feel my additions would be appropriate for Wikipedia?

2) Concerning the "Bless you" and "Sneeze" web pages. As I feel that people in the United States have multiple responses to sneezes, would adding several of these sneeze responses be something an editor for Wikipedia would deem as a valuable addition?

(Obviously, I feel this addition would be valuable as I go to Wikipedia and find its information valuable. In other words, I was looking online for a list of alternate responses to sneezes and I went to the Wikipedia web page first--for this information--before I tried other web sites. As a reader of Wikipedia, I expect [possibly incorrectly] that a vast amount of information will be available from Wikipedia for me to digest.)

Mikecoruscant (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)mikecoruscant

1) Generally, you would need to make your own edits to pages. Other editors would then review the edits. If an edit is likely to be controversial, you might want to discuss it on the article's talk page first. Additions that don't cite reliable sources are just a flat out bad idea.

2) Again, if you can source those alternate responses to reliable sources, there might be a place for the info on Wikipedia. Without such sources, you're wasting your time. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

My personal accusations towards you were because you personally attacked me and accused me of being a "sock puppet", whatever that means. You've listed a number of different people JUST ON THE sock puppet website you created, which was denied by the administrator. Add another atleast 1 more person named JamieS who also deleted the information and you have atleast 8 people right there. These 8 users are located in over 4 states as you would find out if you did the research (Mack Money, Denny Hits, My IP, JamieS, the other IP's etc etc down the line). The people you listed on the sock puppet site are different people, they are not 1 person, the administrator agreed with me. The people you listed on the sock puppet site and the people who have removed the information you and your other sock puppet names have been putting in there are different people, atleast 8 different people, it doesn't matter whether your "imagination" is being "stretched" it is a fact, they are different IP's and different Usernames and the administrator agreed that even the dialect was different. I am not going to do your work for you, I'm not here to argue with you I'm simply here to keep the integrity of Kevin Rudolf's wikipedia page, which the whole world reads, at the highest it can be. That means absolutely NO unverifiable and extremely weak and poorly sourced material on there which you have repeatedly listed and which has been repeatedly removed by 8 different users (most of which are listed on the sock puppet site you created).

Finally, YOU were the one who created the sock puppet site about ME. You accused me of being a fake a phony and not legit. You initiated all of this, I couldn't care less about banning you, it won't bother me either way as I am not concerned with any other wikipedia pages which you dabble in. The only reason I simply just asked the administrator you be banned is to protect other wikipedia pages which you might end up putting illegitimate information on and to protect the integriy of wikipedia as a whole by people who persist to look beyond given facts and create their own realitys while they put other peoples lives and hard work on the line for their own self interests.

Please just stick to the given facts as the whole world goes to his wikipedia page to find out more about him, they should be given the correct and same information as listed by not only his Multiple Record Labels but also by his publicist, agent, manager, and personal website.

The website address is www.KevinRudolf.com if you would like to know his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.78.190 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

chart guide

You might find User:Kww/goodcharts a useful reference. I'm interested in getting feedback before I start trying to make it a component of WP:Record charts.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Let It Rock (Kevin Rudolf song)

Your source is outdated, I won't allow it. THe single is well over 2,500,000 downloads.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.78.190 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 January 2009

Verifiablilty is one of the pilars of Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, a song is certified double platinum when an independent, reliable source says it is. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what I'm going to discuss, I'm going to discuss the fact that you should be banned from anything having to do with Kevin Rudolf on myspace, you have repeatedly attempted to put in false information ranging from your theoretical idea of what his past is to listing the wrong singles etc. Almost none of the information that you have attempted to put in his combined pages is still up there, considering your horrible history in editing his wikipedia please do not keep putting bad information in there as journalists from around the world check these pages and might actually use your bad and outdated information as facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.78.190 (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with myspace (?) or Rudolf's past recordings under the name "Binocular". This is about one of Wikipedia's core content policies: Verifiability. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." That the album has been certified double platinum has been challenged repeatedly. You have continued to restore the information without a citation. This is in direct violation of one of Wikipedia's core policies. Do not restore this claim without citing a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm finished talking with you, for good, just know that any bad editing of any of Kevin Rudolf's wikipedia pages will be deleted within 5 minutes of its posting. I suggest you find a new page to tinker. Good luck & Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.78.190 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the talk pages for the approriate articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yoo the singles almost 3,000,000 Downloads in the US alone so it is without a doubt Certified atleast Double Platinum (which is 2,000,000 downloads incase you didn know). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CashMoney09 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've been telling you all along, you need a reliable source showing that it was certified by the RIAA. You saying it sold 567 trillion copies will not replace a reliable source showing the certification. A reliable source saying it sold 3.9 quintillion copies won't allow us to say it was certified. Only a reliable source saying it was certified will allow us to say it was certified. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stock Puppetry

I only have one account and have yet to edit a single thing since November 2008. So this false accusation can be removed from my persons. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks MoneyMack™ (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC) MoneyMack™

J. Kim Sessums

Thanks for creating the article and nice job. Jmerchant29 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It can certainly use a bit of work. Anything you might have to add would be great! - SummerPhD (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Kilgarvan

Can I get your help to make the Kilgarvan article more wikified and get the tags you added previosuly removed?, I have written alot on it recently and if you can highlight what you think needs fixing on the article that would be great --Dodge1884 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added some tags, yanked some POV, etc. Take a look. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have overhauled the article and provided more references, perhaps you could edit as necessary and remove the tags. It is hard to provide citations for the history as not much was written on it and practically nothing exists on the internet. Thanks for your help --Dodge1884 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad AIV report and BITE

You issued two final uw-4 warnings to 86.135.1.202 (talk · contribs) without any previous interaction. Then you reported the editor to AIV. I have yet to find any WP:Vandalism. This looks like a serious case of WP:BITE and needs to stop immediately. I've removed your illegitimate uw-4 warnings and replaced them with a welcome. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I understand your concern as my AIV report was not very clear about the history. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/81.159.62.194 and my notification of the case on that IP talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes much more sense. While on the surface, it looked like a serious case of WP:BITE, I wouldn't have come to that conclusion if I had the rest of that info. I've struck my comments above that imply that you acted inappropriately, I've restored your (very legitimate) warnings and blocked that IP. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, my bad for not being clearer on the AIV. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing help

You cleaned up the Balance Consulting article - thanks for your objective edits. I'd appreciate any direction on sourcing the Business Areas of the company. Thanks Rsmcphail (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

With reference to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/81.159.62.194 person....

Does Mr.s86 (talk · contribs) look like another one to you? I'm hearing some suspicious quacking... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Some of it fits, but the new article seems to be a first. This issue started at AN/I, was moved to SPI, resubmitted at SPI and is now back at AN/I. I've added Mr.s86 there. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Homeland Security (Mixtape)

The article probably needs to be locked. The article's creator and subsequent IP address have been deleting the PROD. JamesBurns (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A favor to ask

Could you cast your finely tuned bogus reference eyes upon Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie and see what you can do with the article. An AfD might be indicated. I got into a bit of an edit conflict with the article creator and would like another opinion. Thanks. --NrDg 20:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)

Your prod was removed, you might like to take it to AfD. Best. — R² 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Glad to Be Live, Volume 1

Delete if you want because I can care less about the page. From what I see, nothing going to happen with that page, so delete it. I think it shouldn't wait five days, go ahead and delete when you have the chance. Tarysky (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I help reduced the problems of removing the links from the page. The rest is up to you. Tarysky (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WGW

Information was taken directly from the site. Deleting it was premature, a simple {{fact}} would have sufficed. Restored with reference (permalink to the announcement). Exxolon (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Somali female models

Hi. Thanks for contacting me. I understand your point. However, in this particular case, I don't think it applies. You see, all of these women are not just high profile Somali models. They also know each other. Iman is a mentor to Waris Dirie, who are both idols and inspirations for Yasmin Warsame and Hawa Ahmed. Yasmin, Waris, and Iman have also worked together on several occasions. They're not just passing acquaintances. There's even a commonly held belief that Waris is Iman's cousin. That's what I meant by they're related.

Having their names listed under "See also" does not explain any of that. If Iman is a mentor to Waris Dirie, that should be mentioned in their articles with sources and an in-line link to the other article. Instead, we have a "see also" section that lists seemingly random people. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)(restored after following edit)

Here's the official WP:SEEALSO policy:

A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical "perfect article" are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one.[5] Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. A "perfect" article then may not have a "See also" section at all, though some links may not naturally fit into the body of text and others may not be included due to size constraints. Links that would be included if the article were not kept relatively short for other reasons may thus be appropriate, though should be used in moderation, as always. These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links).

As you can see, the links are relevant. It's also a matter of personal judgement, not a hard and fast rule. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your argument. That said, I do not see any sense in including the name of a model that another model knows/has worked with/is thought to be the cousin of/etc. as an unexplained link in their article. Suppose, for whatever reason, I wanted to include Alice Cooper under the "See also for Iman. At present, there would be no apparent differentiation in the article between including him and Waris Dirie. The inclusion of Mononymous persons, on the other hand, is self-evident. If you would like to include them, I would suggest either including them in the text or inclucing something to explain the connection in the "See also" section, as the guideline you cited above recommends: "Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent."Wikipedia:See_also#.22See_also.22_section - SummerPhD (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think I'll add an explanatory "Other Somali models"-type phrase in the See Also sections. Thanks for the advice, Middayexpress (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is just that they are all Somali models, it is redundant with the category. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion on this, to be addressed under Talk:Iman_(model)#See_also. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigrid Åhs

• For some unknown reason you have informed me rather than the author of your PROD on the above. I would agree with your action completely. Regards--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the confusion. The author of the article was indefinitely blocked a long time ago. Rather than notify no one, I notified the second person to edit the article. I know your edit was a minor clean-up kinda deal ages ago, but I felt I should notify someone involved with the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

Please do not misuse rollback, as you did here. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 20:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I was rolling back the random fansite links added by an editor who was recently indefinitely blocked for similar problems. To me, that is vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Perfect Symmetry (Song)

Hey, I don't find the notability article very clear when it comes to singles. Anyway the single was on the Radio 1 A Playlist at its release and a video was made. It didn't manage to chart of course, but I personally think this single is as notable as the previous singles from the album. I understand if you think otherwise though since you're on here quite a bit more than me. - Andymc1989 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The essence of WP:MUSIC#SONGS is:

1) Most songs are not notable

2) Songs ranked on national music charts, that have won significant awards or have been performed by several notable artists might be notable

3) A separate article is not appropriate unless there is reasonably detailed material

4) All articles require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"

This song doesn't cut it, nor does Better Than This. The Lovers Are Losing doesn't really have much detail to it, but many tend to ignore #3 when a song has charted. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa White

Hi there. Do you mind explaining why you continue to delete and redirect the article for Vanessa White of The Saturdays? Are there specific guidelines that would support it's deletion? She has, in a sense, separated herself from the group with her voice, has gain notoriety as a theater performer (child star) prior to entry into the group, and there is sufficient information in the article, with sources. Plus, all other members have articles. Orane (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Vanessa White#Notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pretzky

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pretzky. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jemma McKenzie-Brown

Hi, I noticed that you tagged the date of birth as requiring a citation. I recently added it back after checking the GRO Index - details of the entry are on the talk page in response to your request for information. Keith D (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Explaining it on the talk page is not the same as [[WP:CITE|citing}} it. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pretzky

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pretzky. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

sources on Arias

Hello SummerPhD and thank you for give me a welcome to Wikipedia (nobody has told me that since three years, ten months and 24 days ago). In that case, I feel the duty to say the same for you :) "Welcome to Wikipedia, SummerPhD". As for Moises Arias, I put the references. Just a curiosity: you removed the information I placed arguing it was not consistent with our policy of verifiability. The facts you removed were that his parents were Colombians, he was born in New York on 18th April 1994, he was a Colombian-American and he was a 1994 births (these two last the categories). However, you did not remove other data that was lacking references like he participated in television programs like Hannah Montana and the other productions, one by one. Fortunately, the interview he gave to Caracol Radio on 22 March 2009 from Guadalajara in a perfect Spanish (that evidence was also removed), clarified our doubts about the Colombian origin of the Arias' parents and his Colombian-American identity (he himself said to Caracol he feels such.) Thank you for your recommendations about reading again our policies. I would like to make a friendly and humble recommendation as well: in dealing with content that at first hand does not provide a reliable source, the best would be to make it notice to the editor before taking any definitive action as deleting, so he will take time to provide the results of the research and work and time will be saved. Great to have this opportunity to meet you, SummerPhD and I hope we can work together in our dear Wikipedia. Yours, --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano 14:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for templating you like a newbie! In any event, the edits in question are yours: [9][10]. Together, they give his birth name, birth date, place of birth, state his parents are from Columbia, state he is fluent in Spanish and state that his fluency in Spanish is because his parents are from Columbia. None of this was cited to a reliable source. Yes, I could have simply littered the page with "cite needed" templates. However, this article is a biography of a living person, so I elected not to. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List of collective nouns by collective term L-Z

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 18:45, 26 March 2009

Please have a look at a few questions here. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bel Powley

Hi. I restored some of the changes which you had deleted wholesale in rv to your prior version. I accept your point re the tagging and the invalidity of using a blogsite as a link, but I believe you were a tad reckless in simply deleting my constructive edits. I believe the page as it stands now adequately reflects your concerns. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ill Na Na 2: The Fever

Just to let you know that this article, which was deleted after a PROD which you previously added, has been restored after a request from Andrewlp1991. You may wish to nominate it for AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Iman

Maybe I've missed something, but the username suggesting on the Talk: page that "Iman Abdulmajid" is the correct name for the article isn't the same username that actually moved it...? No need to reply, just a heads up... 58.8.211.110 (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Charlotte Arnold

Please do not remove the date of birth and her birthplace from the article Charlotte Arnold. That's from the information on the Internet Movie Database, I went to the Internet Movie Datase on Charlotte Arnold, and there is information on it's date of birth and birthplace, you remove editing information from the article, I edited back it's date of birth and birthplace of Charlotte Arnold. I am not going to be mean to you. Please do not continue to remove it's information on Charlotte Arnold (i.e., birthplace or date of birth). Steam5 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source for this information. Please see the article's talk page for further discussion. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I check Charlotte Arnold's page on IMDb one more time and she was still born in 1989 and she was born and raised in Toronto, that's what the information says from IMDb, Once again do not remove it's date of birth and birthplace only. Steam5 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I check the the German Wikipedia article of Charlotte Arnold and the German Wikipedia article says she was still born in 1989, that's what the German Wikipedia article says and you remove it's information, Do not remove it's date of birth from the English Wikipedia article, I have it's biography sources. If you continue it's information you will be blocked by editing so please stop! Steam5 (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Let me make you a deal go talk to a user that could speak German and English or a user speaks Finnish and English to check it's Finnish or German articles of Charlotte Arnold of Wikipedia and stop saying "Please see the article's talk page." many times, repeating comments bothers me. Steam5 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I continually refer you to the article's talk page because that's where this discussion belongs. Please see my response there. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • I check on TV.com and there is her date of birth that she was still born in 1989 and so does IMDb, the date of birth and birthplace is important to the Wikipedia article of Charlotte Arnold, if not leave it or go to IMDb page, TV.com page, German Wikipedia Article or Finnish Wikipedia Article. Steam5 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, this discussion belongs on the article's talk page. Please see Talk:Charlotte_Arnold. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You're repeating you're comment's over and over again! You are the meanest user and worst user history! You remove it's information from Charlotte Arnold do not remove it's date of birth and birthplace! TV.com, German Wikipedia, Finnish Wikipedia and IMDb says July 27, 1989 and Toronto, Ontario Do not made up comments from Charlotte Arnold's talk page You said "February 23, 2019" and "Mars" there is no such thing do not talk me and do not remove it's date of birth and birthplace ever again! Steam5 (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the talk page for the article in question. I will answer questions there, NOT HERE. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawyeruniversal2

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawyeruniversal2. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fruitarianism

SummerPHD, on some edits you have been making to the Fruitarian article:

1. I provided the source on thicker enamel for fruit-eaters. Okay, I'll accept that it doesn't specifically state that the thicker enamel is for fruit, however that's what I read. In fact, orangutans eat almost 90% fruit and I read it was the chimpanzees and especially gorillas who had harder and different-shaped teeth for eating more herbs and vegetables. I was surprised looking at that as well. My understanding is that thicker bones and structure are required for hard foods while thicker enamel is for acidy food such as fruit, it makes sense doesn't it?

2. Given that vitamin b12 isn't available in any fruit or vegetables OR animal products: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_Vitamin_B12_in_fruit_or_vegetables I severely doubt anyone is going to be sick eating a fruitarian diet. It's not easy to find good sources in a reasonable time and any sources provided of course you will probably say don't count. That's what primates prefer. As has been the case with vitamins such as calcium, zinc, and others, it's often NOT that we need to intake huge quantaties that our ancestors never had, it's that we're missing the other nutrients to help them work together. I think some people have something against the entire concept of fruitarianism and I can sort of understand that, it can sound a bit ridiculous/idealistic. But if you were a paleo person and fruit was available all over, that's what you'd eat, that's what all primates prefer. Happy editing, but it is annoying when you have to use time to provide sources for everything and suddenly the sources are often dismissed. Anonywiki (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1) The cite you provided specificly compared orangutans and chimpanzees, clearly stating that both had high fruit diets and differing levels of enamel. The article specifically stated that the thicker enamel correlated with tougher foods in the diet when fruits were not available. The cite in no way supported the claim you made. If you "read it somewhere", go ahead and re-add it with a citation to a reliable source that actually supports the claim.

2) Even the unreliable wikianswers cite you just gave clearly states that B12 is found in "...liver. It can also be found in soymilk, soybeans, eggs, clams, salmon, crab, milk, dairy products, and more." Your source says that B12 is "is a microbe -- a bacteria", which is simply wrong. B12 is a chemical compound produced by bacteria, not the bacteria itself. The fruitarian article contains a links to several reliable sources explaining that B12 is produced by bacteria in many animals (and, as recently misconstrued) low in the human gut. As a result, B12 is found in many animal foods: eggs, meats, milks, etc.

In fringish topics like this, there are often "true believers" who take minor and/or irrelivant details as proof that they are right and the majority of the world is wrong. Vegans and fruitarians have a few of these making arguments that B12 is completely unnecessary for human health OR produced by the human body in a useful way OR found in various fruits/veggies in complete violation of test results. Some vegan/fruitarian sources do a reasonable job of debunking these claims and urging caution. Too many others pass along poorly documented "evidence" leading to potentially serious health problems among their readers. As a result, I am demanding reliable sources for all such claims. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)