User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Underworld

Underworld by Don DeLillo is a Great American Novel! One might say it is The Great American Novel. On my iPad it simply takes too long for me too fix the unholy mistake of it not being included in the wiki list of Great American Novels. I strongly recommend someone gets it included on there. I mean really, how is it not already on there??? Don DeLillo?? He is the great American novelists, and if only one of his novels were to on there, it is Underworld. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotePadz (talk • contribs) 05:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to find a reliable source that calls it "the Great American Novel" to include it. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Perri "Pebbles" Reid, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SummerPhD (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Who are you to give me a last warning ? You are NOT an administrator as you state atop this page. Edit collaboratively or not at all. Once of the rules of wikipedia is that your edits will be edited by others so if that bothers you dont edit. My edits are sourced and I discussed them on the talk page. But if you dont want to work together YOU need to stop editing the article. Dont ever threaten me again. You say you do not like people to talk at you so do not talk at me. I do not appreciate that at all. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I am an editor enforcing Wikipedia policies with legal implications: WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO. You have been warned about both and WP:3RR. In addition to my reverts, your edits have now been reverted by an administrator. I am not an administrator. That said, you are editing in violation of Wikipedia's policies. Until such time as you address those concerns, your edits will be reverted. If blocking you and/or edit protecting the article is needed to enforce Wikipedia's policies, that is what will be done. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is now under semi-protection. Only confirmed users may edit the article. If you do not have a confirmed account, you will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and establish a consensus to have the edit made. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Another one?

I happened upon this after an edit to was made to one of the pages on my watchlist, but thought nothing of it. Then it happened again (and again), and I discovered this. Related?

ʍw 20:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear to me, I've added them to the list. I'm not really sure where to go from here. A sock case would lead to worthless blocks on the abandoned accounts and do little to prevent more from popping up. I'll probably take it to an admin board for any ideas other than the ongoing game of Whack-a-mole. Any suggestions? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a one (I don't have any real experience with sockpuppet investigations or hardcore vandal-fighting). As far as I know, the only potentially productive outcome of a sock puppet investigation in a case like this would be a range block; but as those are reserved for only the most disruptive and damaging cases, I doubt one would be applied here. Might be worth a shot, though. ʍw 22:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/109.176.237.142 (previously at Horizontal Skyscraper – Vanke Center) (Eclipse Internet, London)

ʍw 13:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(BLP violation redacted) is racist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdhrPh09TX0 why cant i put it there if it is true. This video is very reliable. If i cant edit it, tell me how i can make a new (BLP violation redacted) post since i am new here. PS another video show roach lying about what he said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaisog (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

" Materialscientist (talk | contribs) blocked Isaisog (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎(Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia)" - SummerPhD (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Trivia

Trivia is a legitimate section title, the PROOF being that while looked down upon, it is both ***NOT*** outlawed, and there is in fact a "trivia" tag. Again, being honest about the title of a section in reference to it's content is, well, honest. There is NOTHING wrong with labeling "trivia" trivia. What is wrong is including trivia under the complete bullshit title "In Popular Culture".

Did I mention that there is absolutely no / zero / nadda rule that outlaws "trivia" at Wikipedia. It must be properly labeled and in fact there is a trivia tag for doing so. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You are being disruptive. The consensus, as repeatedly demonstrated,[1][Talk:Joni_James#In_popular_culture][2] is that these sections should be labeled "In popular culture". So far as I have seen, numerous editors disagree with you and none have agreed with you. You are editing against consensus, for which you have been blocked in the past. If you continue, you will be blocked again, eventually leading to a permanent block. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning

I appreciate your warning and will fold it into my consideration when I edit. I am not a bad editor, I am not bad person. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Burt Shavitz

I didnt think i needed citation...he's my neighbor... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.237.176 (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you do need a source. Verifiability is one of our core principles. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Help requested

Hello summer, I was wondering if you could help out with a very disruptive editor? I have noticed that you have had dealings with Johnny squeaky before and he seems to be up to his usual disruptive behavior yet again. Last night he started an edit war over an admin rollback on Leona Helmsley accusing others of being sock puppets and now he is reverting pertinent information on the Kleargear article with his usual comment of all I.P. Editors being a single editor using multiple I.P.s Others have tried to discuss but he just instigates and eggs people on. Any help would be appreciated166.147.80.218 (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest you review your options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If there is some particular reason you want someone else to do that for you, I'd want to know what. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Folk Nation

Can you help keep an eye on it and Lilsrlupq16? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:

Slap! This discution was in 2008! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alissa White-Gluz
Now is 2014 (without 16 days). Do you thing you banned Alissa for life? You are wrong. Alissa′s notability is incontestable, guy. XXN (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The article was redirected because she doesn't seem to be notable independent of the band. I see no indication that has changed. Your restored version made three changes: correcting two typos and adding categories. Notability for musicians for individual articles (rather than a redirect to the band's article) calls for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources demonstrating notability for activity independent of the band. Articles about the band do not demonstrate that. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sock Puppets

So, it's OK for that "editor" (actually, he's more of a reversionist) to claim I'M a sockpuppet because YOU don't like me? Sounds a little like bias to me. And in fact, if you took the time to look at his edit history and how long he's been an editor combined with the sophistication of his Wiki knowledge, you might consider that he is a sock puppet.

But again, why are you sending ME a nasty gram and not the other editor who continues to claim I use sock puppets? You don't like me so you play favorites? Wow. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You have repeatedly claimed the other editor is using socks without starting a case. If you do so again, I will report you for personal attacks.

The other editor made the claim about you one time (that I see). I notified that editor before your response here asking why I didn't. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question is a sock puppet. You may not wish to consider it, but it is fact. He edits under several accounts. I edit under exactly ONE account, all my blemishes, all my warts. So be it. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Start a sock case or stop making the accusation. Those are your options.

Incidentally, my guess would be that the sock puppetry accusation leveled against you was based on the edits under Special:Contributions/2601:1:B100:4E4:95D2:4ED3:8B20:4B34. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

After this, you'll have a lot harder time calling other editors on allegations of socking. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC) (Johnny Squeaky was blocked for sock puppetry, personal attacks and edit warring.)

Making a correction; need citation

I just saw this message pop up for the first time:

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Hulk Hogan, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall what the edit was (it would be helpful if you included it in the message). I am guessing that i may have corrected Hulk Hogan's billed height, as i see it is incorrectly listed as 6'7", when he was billed for many, many years as 6'8".

I don't know what qualifies as a reliable source, but there are probably 500 videos on youtube where they announce his height as 6'8".

Here's one of the most famous of them (skip to 5:25 for the 'tale of the tape'):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOCqV23VkXU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.107.119 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the edit in question. Yes, it was changing the height. The citation in the article was (and is) his WWE bio, which says 6'7". If you have a reliable source that contradicts this, I'd suggest taking the issue to the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Walter White (Breaking Bad)#Real life meth dealer named Walter White

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Walter White (Breaking Bad)#Real life meth dealer named Walter White. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Changes" by Faul & Wad Ad

Here is the stand-alone single article as required for listing is here Changes (Faul & Wad Ad song). The song is #1 on the German Singles Chart: [3], [4] and is also charting in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland. I dedicate the smash hit to you: [5]. I am adding back to the "Changes" list with the required link to the page. werldwayd (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Stalking

Your history of following be around Wikipedia is in fact claer evidence of "stalking". It's unfriendly, and really quite creepy. Please stop, it doesn't make Wikipedia better, it doesn't reflect well on you as an editor, and it is not proper "policing", which is not your job anyway. It is in fact "harassment". =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Johnny_Squeaky_and_.22Trivia.22 - SummerPhD (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC) (Johnny Squeaky was blocked for sockpuppetry, personal attacks and edit warring.)

Trivia

Discussions about me are entirely irrelevant to discussions about "trivia". You may attempt to change or deflect the discussion away from the actual topic, but in we are talking about "trivia" not "Johnny Squeaky". =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Johnny_Squeaky_and_.22Trivia.22, there is a clear consensus to the contrary. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC) (Johnny Squeaky was blocked for sock puppetry, personal attacks and edit warring.)

Thx + comments

"His too. The dispute had nothing to do with him and he used it to take a swipe at me. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)"

"Inappropriate behavior as a response to inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)"

First, I don't personally believe in the "two wrongs don't make a right" popular mantra. (I consider that dumbing down and a false rule, for example, the Japanese killed Americans at Pearl Harbor - a "wrong" - then we entered the War and dropped an A-bomb on them ... Why aren't the mantra people scolding *that*? On and on.)

But I'm not aware of doing anything "inappropriate" (if there was any implication), in spite of the user's accusation. To suggest the Chess.com article content is "nothing to do with [me]", is crass & foul ... I'm one of the first editors to get involved on issues at a related article Talk, and the recent Chess.com AfD, so it has been on my watchlist for that past issue and others. Second, for a user to accuse me of hidden motives, or to even announce he is able to discern and act on such suppositions, is both also crass, and illegitimate. (But it is apparently tolerated on the Wiki. Thanks for stepping in to warn him; too bad you are not an adminsitrator with some power to do something about that editor's hostile and out-of-bounds incivilities [such as, his righteous claims to anti-incivility on his User, followed by hypocritical examples, and there are many others, like the above].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Cusack

Hi Summer. Thank you for your corrections of my inexperenced additions and my lack of good manners in getting back to you sooner. If you have no objections I'll take Donner60's, who seems to keep a watching brief on 'Cusack', suggestion as outlined below.

Cusack Ancestry[edit] Putting the information in a full sentence or perhaps as a clause at the end of a sentence would have been better form. This is a minor issue, of course. The main problem here is that there is no reference to the person(s) being "Norman-Irish." They are listed in the Notable Modern Cusacks section but I don't think the article establishes that all Cusacks were or are of "Norman-Irish" ancestry. Without citing a source that definitely links a modern person to a "Norman-Irish" lineage, it is technically correct to challenge the addition of that fact. If there is no definite source among those cited in the Cusack article or otherwise, I think another approach, or perhaps compromise, would be to find a stand-alone word "Cusack" in an article on an individual person and link it to the "Cusack" article. The reader could then see the information presented there and draw their own conclusion from it. Donner60 (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Best Regards for 2014 C.Cleeve — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Cleeve (talk • contribs) 12:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like an attempt to include a claim without a source. I'm not sure how inviting an unsourced assumption is better than making an unsourced assumption. For Martin Luther King Junior we do not link Martin, Luther, Martin Luther or King without a sourced reason. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Content editors need your support, not your lectures

Save yourself the trouble of lecturing me, I've been around here longer than you have. Go bother that little tendentious troll who is on a deletionist spree. Have you looked at his contribs? That's almost all he does! I've got better things to do than to spend any more time defending something as dumb as Charlie's Angels, but I will NOT be snarked at by trolls and someone needs to get that little twerp to slow down and start being constructive instead of taking the lazy route and insist on article deletions that contribute to the anti-woman systemic bias the wikipedia is just loaded with. I'm absolutely fed up with the ongoing harassment that content editors get when they try to add content and have to endure this sort of stuff from people who wouldn't know how to write a featured article if it bit them. If someone can't be bothered to rework an article and save it, then unless it actually violates policy, they need to just pop on a couple appropriate tags and go on. Now leave me alone, I'm done with that stupid situation, and if the other editor keeps snarking at me, then why don't you go and lecture him? Montanabw^(talk) 07:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't care how long you've been here. I don't care who you think started it. I gave the other editor the same reminder I gave you. You were part of the problem, now be part of the solution. Discuss content not editors. If you believe another editor's edits are problematic, whining about it at an AfD, on your talk page and on mine will accomplish NOTHING. If you are unsure where to address the issue, ask. Otherwise, address the issue or drop it. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't worth an ANI or some other drama board, because nothing will be done but waste more bandwidth. And Pleses, spare me the "if you are unsure" crap. If you can't recognize a troll when you see one, I can't help you (I don't see you weighing in on either side of the actual deletion issue, by the way, if you want to be part of the solution). Frankly, sometimes it IS the person, and we all know that the bullies of wikipedia use these policies as WP:BAIT. Sorry to get off on such poor footing with you but I've had it with the bullies here, we just saw the resignation of the highest vote-getter on ArbCom election (28bytes) largely because of trolls, and I'm just tired of these twerps. Oh well, happy new year, I guess. Nothing changes on New Years' Day...sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 07:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The collapsed section of the AfD is troll food. If the other editor is, as you say, a troll, you are making it worse, not better. And no, nothing changes on New Year's Day unless you change it. If the time is right, you can break through. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, per this, I will take back what I said about not warning the other user. So sorry about that. As for feeding the trolls, I guess my feeling is WP:ROPE; if they escalate, they will get blocked. I don't care to be bullied and I'm not much good at ignoring personal attacks. Montanabw^(talk) 22:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(Montanabw discontinued the personal attacks, Jerry Pepsi did not. Charlie's Angels film characters was deleted, Jerry Pepsi was blocked for personal attacks and edit warring. Pepsi was later indeffed as a sock of a banned editor.)

Girard College

Where is the source for the assertion that 80% of the students are African-American? In the absence of a citation to a source, is that not "original research" as well?John Paul Parks (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your addition was original research. I removed it. If there are other problems with the article, feel free to correct them. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

How to make a reference?

I want to add a citation to an article so I can correct the information in it. How do I do so? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.228.229 (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITEFOOT. If that isn't clear, feel free to ask for help. Once you've added the cite, drop me a note here if you'd like and I'll take a look at it to see if everything looks good. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello-I'm Claire and created a Wikipedia account. I wrote to you in this section prior to confirmation of my account. Do I need to re-write my message to you or will your reply (if you reply) still reach me? thank you--Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire Bonan (talk • contribs) 08:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Claire Bonan glad you've decided to stick around. Responses to your comments under your IP address would still go there, anything new should go to your new account.

I hadn't sent you a message about your new citation as you hadn't asked for comment.

I did check your reference, though. You formatted it correctly and everything was displaying correctly. Unfortunately, the source you cited is a blog. Blogs are what we refer to as "self-published sources". Basically, because anyone can write pretty much anything they want in a blog, we do not accept them as reliable sources. I made a few changes to hopefully cover the facts of the situation. To see what those changes are (and why I made them), please go to the article, Harley Flanagan, and click the tab labeled "history" at the top of the page. Next to each edit, you can select "prev" to see changes from the previous version or "cur" to see how that version differs from the current version. If you have concerns about my presentation of the facts, you can certainly make additional changes or discuss the situation on the article's talk page. Thanks and happy editing! - SummerPhD (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Jerry Pepsi

FYI. Chunk5Darth (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Tick...tick...tick... - SummerPhD (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(Jerry Pepsi was blocked for personal attacks and edit warring. Pepsi was later indefinitely blocked as a sock of a banned user.)

Idina Menzel

Hi, so I edited the Idina Menzel page and didn't provide a source which you said I needed. The reason for this is because I am the source, I have loved her for years and everything I added I know 100% to be true just from years of being a fan. So I am not sure what to do so that my edit doesn't get removed, can you please let me know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serina1222 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Serina, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Your edit stated, "Idina's powerful voice, passion, and broadway history (mainly in Wicked and RENT) has made her a legend on the broadway stage. She has a very dedicated fanbase who refer to themselves as Fanzels." Wikipedia aims to provide neutral, verifiable information on notable topics. "Verifiable" is part of the problem here: Readers need to be able to check that the information came from an independent "reliable source". If you take a look at the references currently used in the article, you'll see a long list of such sources: the New York Daily News, New York magazine, Entertainment Weekly, the Times Herald-Record, The (London) Times, The Toronto Star, Variety, etc.

The second part of the problem is neutral point of view. Wikipedia aims to present material without bias. Your edit contains strong pro-Menzel bias. "Powerful voice", "passion", "legend", "very dedicated", etc. are all your opinion. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dania Ramirez

Dania Ramirez, is married to Bev Land! But on your wiki for Bev Lands ex wife, you have that they're still married which isn't true. Since hes married to Dania. I tried to sort it out but you keep removing it, so have an incorrect wiki. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.130.241 (talk) 04:17:, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the core principles of Wikipedia is verifiability. IF you add information -- especially claims about living people -- without citing a reliable source for the addition, your changes will be reverted and you will receive notes on your talk page (as you did) explaining why. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Its a little odd then how Dania has Bev Land Married 2013 on her Wiki and Sharon does? A little weird if they're both married to him..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.130.241 (talk • contribs) 04:35, January 13, 2014‎

You need to cite a reliable source for any information you would like to add. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

National Monument to the Forefathers

Sorry but I don't believe you have ever watched Monumental. It is a very eye opening movie! The summary of the movie is that the further America gets from Judo-Christian values the more liberal( pro-gay & more violence) it becomes. Also NO ONE HAS AN UNBIASED OPION Sincerely, Truth Seeker ( I don't believe everything I hear NO MATTER THE SOURCE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.209.247.188 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that Professor Doctor high school graduate Cameron PhD MA BA AA has done a careful, unbiased analysis of a statue constructed by late 19th century Masons based on their interpretations of 17th century Brownist refugees' ideals and determined that the ideals of those religious separatists hidden in the Mason's statue represent the guiding principles of a country founded by Deists that two centuries later subsumed the territory they had formed their enclave on.

Cameron found what he set out to find. (I don't doubt you'll find "The Truth" you expect to find.) He is not a relevant academic for the National Monument to the Forefathers. He is clearly biased in favor of a conservative Christian interpretation of anything and everything he speaks about. If you feel this former actor's opinion belongs in the article, you'll want to discuss it on the talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon Your recent editing history at Perri "Pebbles" Reid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ''PLEASE discuss the issue on the article's talk page. SummerPhD (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I posted section after section of the discussion page. You NEVER replied. The posts are in the archive if you have forgotten. Now you saying 'please post on discussion page first' when YOU DONT DO THAT. For months you just reverted every edit I made but did nothing to expand the article. i have expanded the article ( the whole 'early life' section is my work--you didnt even know about her teenage pregnancy and marraige-- and yet you still revert.

Get an admin to be our intermediary again because I feel you dont know what you are doing. You are going to keep reverting, then 'warn me about 3rr", revert the page to your version, then get the page locked. I dont have time for your games. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the discussion on the article's talk page discussing the problems with the version you are replying to. I asked you to discuss these problems here, here and here. You responded by reverting to the problematic version without explaining why you were making most of the changes here, here and here. Your explanations for the reverts, without commenting on the issue on the article's talk page were "you dont discuss on talkbut want me to. gtfooh. i added so much meat to this article while you just revert."; "yahoo and its blog are credible."; "i added that she is 1 of 4 kids of a divorced mother, that she was preg and married at 16, and more. you didnt. just reverted. and you are still doing it. go away." and "dont write to me when YOU DONT DISCUSS. I had questions posted on the talk page and you never replied!"

Yes, you have asked me not to write on your talk page. I respect that request as much as I can. However, for a WP:3RR warning, I have no choice. Saying you asked questions that you say I didn't answer (whenever that may have been) does not give you carte blanche to make whatever changes you wish. This is still a colaborative project. (I am not sure which specific issues those are and the archiving you requested moved them to the archive before you addressed the issue.) There are numerous problems with your edit, some you will likely disagree with, some you will likely agree with. Please discuss the issues on the article's talk page. Page protection is an option if you continue to not discuss the issues. That will, however, block you from editing. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(65.205.13.26 was blocked for edit warring.)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Britewater2

Hi SummerPhD, I appreciate you filing all these SPIs, but if you could add a few words of explanation about the similarities between the users you report it would probably help your cases be handled much quicker. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thanks for everything! - SummerPhD (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(Sockpuppets were blocked.)c

A kitten for you!

Hi, this is the first time I'm sending a message, so the kitten thing is weird for me, but here you go. This is in thanks for your contributions to the CBD entry. I read the entry when it stated "CBD is psychoactive but not intoxicating" and I went and got some high CBD flower (from a dispensary, so the CBD content was somewhat trustable), smoked it, and proceeded to get high as fuck. And if I've done that, surely other people have, too. So I appreciated your correction, when I saw it on the talk page, which I visited later, specifically wondering where that sentence had gone. It's so important that that information's as accurate as can be. Thanks a lot!

Zaraaxelrod (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(The trouble with a kitten is that eventually it becomes a cat. - Ogden Nash)

lil twist

you removed my edit of lil twist even though i quoted a cite, there are multiple cites too including tmz that report lil twist was IN FACT ARRESTED FOR DRUGS AND FOR DAMAGING THE PHONE i cited a website. i guess wikipedia does NOT CARE about the truth!!!!! RESTORE IT there was nothing saying anything but the FACTS— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.132.144.189 (talk • contribs) 18:39, January 19, 2014‎

Lil Twist: "Christopher Lynn Moore (born January 11, 1993), known by his stage name Lil Twist"

The source you cited: "Xavier (Lil Za) Smith, 20". - SummerPhD (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

May I bring your attention to...

this? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Coconut oil for deep frying

Hello!

First off a pre-emptive apologies if I muck about the formatting!

You posted on my talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienceandFitness - RE: "Coconut oil should not be utilized for deep drying, as multiple use may be associated with production of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, a carcinogenic compound"

I'm not really sure how to source this? It's more of a general-truth that you deep-frying (multiple usage) causes fatty acids to degrade. It's kind of the same issue found in BBQed meats, but in a lesser amount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceandFitness (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, if reliable sources do not discuss something (directly discussing the topic of the article), it doesn't belong in the article. Please see WP:OR. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A little late, but I have added an appropriate citation!

ScienceandFitness (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Categories

I was going through the page list of fictional terrorists; perhaps that page should be deleted given none of it appears to be sourced? I'm not familiar with most of these characters, if their pages do not include the word terrorist I will remove the category. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It is becoming clear that you do not know how to create a category, much less when you should. In addition to your additions to the new category being original research, the category has been deleted repeatedly. Had you checked the page Category:Fictional_terrorists, you would have found that the category has been deleted after a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_23#Category:Fictional_terrorists. Your "new" category has exactly the same problem. Please remove the category from all of the articles and seriously consider whether or not your category creations are worth the headaches they are creating. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I tagged the page List of fictional terrorists for deletion. I will be posting a very serious concern on the talk page for terrorism; this term is undefinable, and therefore unencylopedic. Rapist, arsonist, spy, soldier, criminal and murderer all have actual definitions and both real and fictional people are categorized as such. The class for the terrorism page needs to be lowered. Also it might take a day or two to remove all the characters listed as terrorists; but I will do so this weekend. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, creating more categories at this point would be a bad idea. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe

For the love of god send him to ANI again. He's creating so many shit categories that the effort I'm putting in to empty things like Category:Slave owner (added to the pages on the first 4 American presidents), Category:Fictional heartless, or Category:Fictional religious figures is causing my computer to screech to a halt. He needs to be stopped.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In a strange twist, he sent me to ANI after I found him crying to Jimbo.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

List of gangs in the United States

Hello. Your edit to the List of gangs in the United States is understood. It turns out that "Tango Orejon" is the "Tango" gang name used in San Antonio, TX and the gang is already mentioned on this page: Puro Tango Blast. Thanks, Suzanne 30 Jan 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzanne Astorino (talk • contribs) 07:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive user 108.48.144.42

Hi SummerPhD, I believe you previously commented on an AN/I report involving IP 108.48.144.42, but nothing came from it. I have re-reported the user, so if you have any input or just wanna gripe, the report is (for now) here: WP:ANI#Disruptive editing from 108.48.144.42. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit summary of yours cracks me up every time I read it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'm glad you enjoy it, I was trying to be objective. I think I came about as close as a mere mortal could. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Heheh. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

My gift for you

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

for starting an SPI into me without bothering to do the slightest research. See my reply at the SPI....William 15:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It must be tough living in a world where everyone else is wrong and out to get you. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Winx club

You sent me a message that asks why did I deleted some contents in the page of Winx Club. To answer your question, I deleted the contents because they were false. I have a request for you which is to remove what you have restored please. I apologise if I deleted them unexpectedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristi Islam (talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not know if the information is correct or not, so I cannot remove it. If you believe the information is incorrect and wish to remove it, you may do so. Explain why in the edit summary. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

IP 24.7.211.135 on Bane in other media

I saw you warned this IP on the 27th - they went ahead and re-added the OR yesterday. Just FYI. --64.134.186.78 (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Nazareth, Pennsylvania‎

Hi. We seem to have disagreeing guidelines here; not at all an unusual situation on Wikipedia. You referenced some talk, but I did not see any at the article's talk page. WP:USCITIES#External links seems to approve of using convention and visitor's bureau links; in many cities the CVB and the chamber are the same organization. I really didn't see the relevance of #13 in WP:ELNO. It is commonplace to have chamber links in settlement articles, although some of them can be very commercial. So I guess my question is, are you objecting to links to chambers of commerce in general, or to something specific about this one? John from Idegon (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you have now created a section at the article talk page so I will copy most of this to there. John from Idegon (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your deletions at Talk:AC power plugs and sockets‎

I reverted you. I sympathize, but WP:DENY is merely an essay. WP:TALK is a guideline... not policy, but it's still ranked above any essays. WP:TALK pretty clearly says we're not supposed to delete or edit others' comments from talk pages, except in one of a very clearly defined set of circumstances (like copyvios or BLP issues), and none of those apply as far as I can tell. WP:DENY does not suggest deleting material from talk pages. Nor did I really see "recurring vandalism". If talk page abuse continues, the right thing is to take it to RFC/U or ANI. Jeh (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the trout

I agree with the trouting but because I don't care about getting blocked I am going to call you out here. What you did was nothing more than personal attacks intended to discredit me plain and simple. I told you specifically who I was at the ANI and you still submitted to SPI. So to me this SPI is nothing more than an attempt o discredit me for calling out 2 administrators. Whether you want to admit it or see it admin abuse is rampant on this site and its driving editors away. Nyttend and Orlady have both acted abusively working as a team to show WilliamJE how editors are dealt with when they fail to address admins in the manner they feel like they deserve. Its disgraceful and in violation of policy. They both have had issues in the past, they both have been sent to ANI multiple times and they both have been mentioned in Arbcom sanctions multiple times and let go (admonished). For you to jump to conclusions here without doing the slightest amount of research does you discredit and makes you look stupid. I highly recommend in the future if you are going to submit someone to SPI make sure its a valid complaint and not just a message to discredit them for submitting admins to ANI. If policy was actuall followed on this site that action could get you blocked. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It must be tough living in a world where everyone else is wrong and out to get you. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm wrong just as much as anyone else and I don't think everyone is out to get me. Unfortunately quite a few are and Wikipedia doesn't do anything about those folks if they are admins. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It must be tough living in a world where almost everyone else is wrong and out to get you. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your mistake "SummerPhD", it'd look better for you to say "oops, my mistake, sorry about that." The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the rules of civil discourse...[6][7] - SummerPhD (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of which, 108.48.100.44 has been blocked for personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

THC 2

I responded to you here in case you didn't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Skin (talk • contribs) 02:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Big Bertha other uses

Can you please tell me why you removed my addition to the list of "other uses" for the term Big Bertha? I had listed an Estes model rocket by that name, and you removed it. I look forward to hearing from you. GungaDan (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC) GungaDan, 7 FEB 2014

Your edit added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, an item on a redirect list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. For example, I have a friend named John Smith. He's a nice enough guy, but he's not (so far) WP:NOTABLE. As such, he shouldn't be listed on the disamb page John Smith, the list page List of people from New York City, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)