User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Hello

Resolved

User:MaxBrowne has been obviously baiting me with unwarranted accusations, insults, personal attacks, and attempts to defame on a project discussion page, as a result of my good faith contribution on the thread topic, which clearly he did not like (but, that isn't my problem, and, I don't deserve the crap from him that I have received there). So I'm curious to know, who are you to decide where civility is and isn't, and how do you do that (names only? what about other forms of incivility such as harassment, baiting, false accusations, attempts to defame, as well as the personal attacks I received on that project discussion page?), how do you find consistency reverting my post on his User but not reverting any of his baiting and inappropriate, baseless, and harassing posts on WT:CHESS and my user Talk? And also, are you watching that user's page, or watching my edits? And if so, why? Last, you are not an administrator, why are you acting as if you are one? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your comment stated, in part: "I have a right to say that I think you are a 100% asshole ... I don't respect you ... So I have good reason to think you are a slimeball." This is clearly a personal attack. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Who am I to decide? If you believe that was civil and post material like it again, you will be discussing this at AN/I. I am quite confident others will find it was not civil. Whether or not you were responding to personal attacks is irrelevant. Inappropriate behavior in response to inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior. That I warned you for this edit does not mean that I find all other comments made by or to you were acceptable, only that this one clearly was not. Comment on content, not editors.

I am not "acting like an administrator". You made a personal attack, I issued a standard warning. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You're insulting my intellgence (do you realise?), by suggesting that I might not know that a name-call is uncivil. (I do. And I don't need you to point it out to me, or explain it to me.) Whether or not you were responding to personal attacks is irrelevant. I don't agree. You're taking the remarks out of context if you think that. Your philosophy Inappropriate behavior in response to inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior is trivially true, but sidesteps a deeper and more significant truth that I am a fucking human being with limited patience, and after taking too much unwarranted crap from somebody like MaxBrowne, I tend to tell them what I think. So forgive me for being human. It seems to me you're getting a kick out of looking for incivility infraction and inserting yourself like a self-anointed Wiki civility "policeman". That is pretty shallow, as it seems to support enforcing brittle rules blindly, out-of-context, that are dysfunctional to begin with because other forms of incivility that precipitated a remark go unnoticed and unpunished. (What kind of thoughtful, intelligent human being would subscribe to such a system?) If you expect me to be a robot and have unlimited patience after a series of insults and attacks, then you expectations need adjustment, not my behavior. You pomopously tell me Comment on content, not editors, which is again something I did not need to be told, and, if you peruse the WT:CHESS thread in question, you'll see I did just that, and the other editor initiated a series of baits and unwarranted personal accuses and remarks which you did not respond to in same fasion. So I question your consistency. I'm also wondering who you think you are still, and why you decided to insert yourself. Enforcing rules according to shallow, brittle policy, is a form of incivility, or, haven't you thought about it? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. Ever heard of Malleus? He has called editors "cunts", and he always gets unblocked early, if there ever has been a block for what he has said that was "uncivil". Do you like to pick on me instead of him, because I'm a less-known editor? Or how about your objective and fair and rationale comparison of it?

Recognizing that your behavior was uncivil is a first step. The next step is to be civil.

I do not expect you to be a robot. I expect you to not make personal attacks. If personal attacks are directed at you, I would encourage you to warn the offending editor with escalating warnings designed for that purpose, culminating in administrator action if required. Inappropriate behavior is inappropriate behavior regardless of any justification offered.

I do not intend to respond to blanket characterizations of unrelated situations.

I am an editor reminding another editor of our policies. If you feel this is inappropriate or a personal attack, I can only offer my assurances that it is a central part of our editing process. Otherwise, there would not be a large stock of standardized warning templates, such as the one I used. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You are expecting me to behave like a robot, if you expect machine-perfection of "never not being uncivil" in response to a series of accusations, insults, personal attacks, that I was subject to. You expect perfection from me, because of an easily-spotted name-call, but you grossly overlook all the crap sent my way as explained many times to you already. (So, you're enforcing policy? That includes enforcing it unevenly? Because that is easier for you?)

As far as warning the other party of the personal attacks and incivilities he sent to my attention, tell me Summer, what good is that? (How does that get administrator solution or involvement? At ANI? ANI is a cesspool most usually. Many editors go there to be the first to say "BOOMERANG" and feel puffed up about themselves. Editors who like drama are attracted to contribute many times to ANI, making it a cesspool of irresponsibility. [I am not alone for having this opinion of ANI -- the same disgust with ANI was shared by many experienced & respected editors before I ever even signed up to be a WP editor.] So, I will never go to ANI or open a thread there for any purpose, whatever, ever. Simply because I refuse to allow myself to be subjected to unwarranted abuse. Many of the arguments there are irresponsible attempts at mud-slinging and lynching, adding to the stench at ANI.) So without ANI to go to for assistance to stop harassment by another editor, what do you recommend? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. BTW just because templates exist, does not mean it is civil to use them. Some regular editors take offense to being templated. (Am I considered a "regular" yet? [I dunno.]) And you know what? Essays exist and are bandied about as wikilinks, and many of those are down-right uncivil by their very nature, for e.g., WP:DICK. I'm curious what you have to say about that, seeing that it is an uncivil name-call even by its very title.)

If you do not follow WP:NPA, you will end up at AN/I, it's that simple. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." - SummerPhD (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't need your reminders or warnings or admonishments. I see now that you are non-responsive to any thoughtful question I have, and simply repeat stridently "You broke a rule!" That's so brittle and thoughtless, I don't know how to respond to you. I told you at least twice that your informing me of something I already know, is insulting. Your selective templating is biased, and seems to be based on "bad words", which is an incomplete, shallow, and dysfunctional view of incivility. Your warning me about taking me to ANI is also problematical, since, aggrieved parties go there with their issues, not 3rd-party parties on behalf of aggrieved parties. (Otherwise I've seen the 3rd parties questioned as to their motives from bringing ANIs where they are not involved.) You seem to have a thoughtless and shallow "wiki-cop" mentality of enforcing rules based on brittle and shallow interpretation of incivility, and frankly, that's boring and a waste of time and attention. You go in circles and never discuss anything except your shallow rules interpretation and making threats. All of that behavior is uncivil, I don't suppose you recognize that? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As you have acknowledged, you made a personal attack. Your numerous arguments as to why your breech of our policy is not a problem do not change this. Don't do it again. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course I acknowledged that. But, is this a joke? Or simple harassment? I feel like I'm talking to an automaton. This might come as a big shock to you, but this has not been a conversation or discussion. You have nothing important or interesting to say. Your selective interpretation of WP:CIV by willful unrecognition of obvious baiting and construction of unnecessary and out-of-bounds attack page on a WP project thread demands none of my respect. You are not my boss. You seem to have a self-perception of "Wiki-cop", and quite frankly, that's boring and not interesting or a good use of my time paying any attention to you. Please go away and convince others you are as important to WP civility enforcement as you seem to think of yourself. And I don't want you coming to my Talk page anymore. This has not been a conversation. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. Are you a bot?

As a general rule, when discussing your personal attacks in violation of our policy, it is a bad idea to make personal attacks. Per your request, I will not visit your talk page again unless it becomes necessary to take the issue to AN/I. At that point I am obligated to notify you on your talk page and will do so. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That is so insulting! "Our policy" As if you are some fucking owner, and I'm some fucking visitor. (Jesus!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if that part of our conversation confused you. We -- you and I -- are both fucking owners. Even if you feel you are exempt from one of our policies, so long as you are part of Wikipedia they are equally your polices. My final note to you: You have been repeatedly warned by numerous editors not to make personal attacks. You have acknowledged that you are making personal attacks. If you honestly believe any of your justifications for ignoring our policy will suffice at AN/I, you might have to learn the hard way. I'd prefer it not come to that. It's your choice. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Preachy much? And how many times did you push words in my mouth in your above paragraph, that I never said or implied? (That is also uncivil, hello!) You ignore what incivility you like to, and go around pretending you are important by tagging obvious bad words, because that is convenient and easy. The WP:CIV policy is egregiously flawed, if you have any sense with what has been currently going on in the WP for the last years. Your shallowness and brittleness is headache-inducing. What an annoyance you are! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Couple theoretical Qs for you, Summer (since you are so expert at picking out personal attacks): 1) Is calling another editor a "bully" a personal attack in your view? 2) If answer is yes, then: Is telling another editor to "stop your bullying" substantively the same, or substantively different? (I'm not meaning the grammatical answer, as from an English teacher on a grammar question; I'm meaning in the real world of WP civility enforcement, of which you are an expert. [Unless of course, you base your civility envforcement efforts on grammatical details rather than meaning and message, etc.]) Are my Qs clear or have I confused you? Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This, of course, is another way of saying you were justified in your attacks because you were merely attacking back. Arguments as to why your breech of our policy is not a problem do not change anything. Don't do it again. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)c

I have no idea how you got off to a tangent like that, or even what you mean. My Qs were straightforward, and didn't hint or suggest anything under cover as your paranoid thinking apparently likes to imagine. There is nothing wrong with my Qs as is, you shouldn't see ghosts in every sentence as you do, it makes your message and communication incomprehensible. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. You took good-faith Qs, and somehow turned them into a need for another pointless warning. How the hell you did that, I'll never know, and quite frankly, don't want to know, because knowing how you got to such dysfunction won't help me any in any way.

It's interesting to see how you template me on my User talk with "Comment on content, not on the contributor", but then when you see other editors sending derogatory personal comments to my attention in the WT:CHESS thread (accusations of "bullying", falsely and without basis accusing me of "bludgeoning anyone with a different opinion", name-calling me a rude person, "having thin skin", commenting on what the user thinks my personality is like e.g. "not a comfortable combination", etc.), you call it "bickering" and collapse it and call it a day. (Consistent much!? Why haven't you templated those users since they have clearly engaged in personal comments and insults and attacks?? Where's your consistency?? Do you think their comments weren't derogatory towards me?? Do you think their comments weren't personal towards me?? Do you think their comments weren't insults and personal attacks?? How do you justify templating me to "comment on content, not on the contributor", then at same time take a blind eye to the shit thrown at me that is personal and derogatory/insulting?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I also take offense to you characterizing my response to User:MaxBrowne's baits and taunts and personal accusations and insults as "bickering". (I do not "bicker". I make my case, and in my response, I didn't get personal or attack him as he did me. The fact is his taunts and accuses and personal stuff was baseless and no doubt intentionally inflamatory, and I don't take baits like that and lower myself to get in pointless emotional squabbles as he clearly was trying to trigger. I think I'm better than that. But I did point out he was issuing personal derogatory comments again, that were unprompted and without basis. How is that "bickering" exactly according to you?? Do you realize that you have insulted me by asserting that I would choose to "bicker" with such an editor? Does it make you feel good to play the superior role while insulting me that I'm a lowly "bickerer"??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ihardlythinkso, if you have a problem with a user you can find acceptable ways to handle it. There's RfC/U, there's ANI, there's old-fashioned hate mail with a stamp on it. Cussing and yelling on Wikipedia is not an appropriate way. Whatever they did, however wrong they are, you're wrong too. So drop all this commentary here, which is starting to sound like harassment. I'm not kidding: consider this a warning. Suck it up and move on; I'll be glad to look into some dispute, but first you have to leave Summer alone. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I hear you Drmies, I've concluded Summer is over her head with understanding the inconsistency of what she thinks she's doing, the reason I continued is that I liked to think that wasn't the case and this editor could round out a bit rather than continue with all the brittleness. But I disagree with you on the point that to respond with a brief incivility to editors who initiate obvious baiting and taunting and personal attacks, is wrong. (The "two wrongs don't make a right" thing is oversimplistic view of things. For example Malleus has many times told such editors where to go. Have you advised him the same as you have advised me?) Also I need you to know, ANI is off limits to me as venue for anything, it is a completely broken cesspool of irresponsibility. And the RfC/U's I've seen haven't impressed any better in fact they have been worse. There is an overwhelming recognition on the Pedia that WP:CIV is incomplete, inept, unevenly enforced, and used as a club against editors one doesn't like. You know all these things, I know you do. I did not know anything about user Summer so my attempted dialogue with her was very informative for me. But again I understand what you're saying and thank you for stopping by. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You may or may not be hearing Drmies. To clarify, he's clearly not your biggest fan. Hell, he's made it quite clear on your talk page that he does not appreciate your personal attacks. This makes it pretty clear as well. Consider this my final word on the issue: Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. You feel you have no option because taking the issue it AN/I is to boomerang. You're probably right. However, you do not have the right to make more personal attacks in an attempt to avoid discussing your prior personal attacks at AN/I. Let's make this simple: The next personal attack I see you make won't be condensed, hatted, warned and forgotten. It will be discussed at AN/I. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Pathetic. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett just today called an editor "asshole" on that user's Talk. Are you going to template Eric for making a personal attack (as you did me)? Don't you think calling someone an "asshole" is making a personal attack?! Are you going to threaten Eric with taking him to ANI if he does again (as you did to me)? Or is it that you think Eric deserves none of your reminders, admonishments and threats, but on the other hand, those are fine for you to issue to me, instead?! If you have an answer or rationale, could you please explain it clearly. Thanks! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC) p.s Or if you don't want to do that, then can you agree to leave me alone, as you have to-date left Eric alone? Some consistency would be nice (or don't you think so?).

If you see an editor making a personal attack, feel free to warn them. That's how Wikipedia works. Your continued belief that you should be free to make personal attacks because either "he hit me first" or "but he's doing it too" is immaterial. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't enjoy you paraphrasing what I said according to your own over-simplified memes that toddlers use. Your "that's the way Wikipedia works" translates to "that's how Wikipedia demonstrates the moral ineptitude of its CIV policy and ongoing support for kangaroo court lynchings at ANI". And why are you stalking my edits, SummerPhD?? (You just admitted you didn't "see" Eric's edit, yet you "saw" mine.) I also notice that YOU have violated WP:CIV in ... what is it ... six or seven different ways. (Why is it you've been blind to that, and only attack others with your prudish admonishments and pointless threats? [Such as, taking an editor to ANI as a third party observer.]) Do you think you have any credibility, Summer!? You apparently believe in third-party action. Fine. I just alerted you to Eric's name-calling an editor an "asshole" on that user's Talk. So time for you to rev-up your third-party Wiki-police motor and go template and threaten Eric the same as you did me. Why is it that you are not interested to do that? Because you weren't witness to it? I just made you aware of it. What's the difference in substance? A breach is a breach, you don't think so? I think what you mean "That's how Wikipedia works" is that you are free to selectively harass if you want, or do any other selective and inconsist thing that you want, without complaint, as long as you do not name-call someone, but it is just fine if you are uncivil in many other less obvious ways. "That's how Wikipedia works" ... as though it works well. (Funny.) Do you mean like never in the history of WP an admin being blocked for making personal attacks!? Wikipedia can "work" for you apparently, as long as you can continue your selective stalking, pointless templating, and pompous threats. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Your choice, not mine. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And just how is that any kind of intelligible response to anything in my post?! Eric called someone an "asshole". Go get him. Go template him. Like you did me. Go threaten him, like you did me. Go admonish him, like you did me. Or explain why there is any difference whatsoever in this wiki-world. (And do make your explanation clear and plain, if that is possible for you to do. Else clearly and simply keep your stupid comments off my Talk once and forever.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comment above contains personal attacks. This is not your Talk. Your choices are to not make personal attacks or leave the project (whether voluntarily or not). That is not a threat, that is a choice we all have. If you see another editor's behavior as problematic, address it yourself. I have nothing further for you. Now it is your choice. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comment above contains personal attacks. Are you sure you know what you're talking about? And assuming you do, are you suggesting that personal attacks are OK if they are made on a user's own Talk? (It seems you are. Can you point to policy on that?) I'd like to see you go tell Eric Corbett what his "choices are". (And then, how he responds to you!) I'm glad you have nothing further for me, because this thread has been awesomely boring and headache-inducing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"And do make your explanation clear and plain, if that is possible for you to do. Else clearly and simply keep your stupid comments..." Personal attacks are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

All that shows is that you do not understand what constitutes a personal attack on the Wikipedia. (More headache from you. Thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You have argued your personal attacks are justified and therefore acceptable. You are mistaken. You have argued I have no standing to warn you for personal attacks. You are mistaken. You have argued that fear of an AN/I boomerang somehow has bearing on this. You are mistaken. You have argued that unless I am policing everyone you should be exempt. You are mistaken. You are not arguing that your personal attacks are not personal attacks. You are mistaken.

You seem be spending MUCH less time on talk pages discussing other editors since I warned you that your next personal attack would result in an AN/I thread. This seems to indicate understanding. This is progress. The fact remains: Your next personal attack will result in an AN/I thread. All further comment from you here defending your personal attacks will receive only this response: WP:NPA. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You draw wrong conclusions, Summer. (I don't think any of the things you said, nor have I made any of the arguments you've attributed.) I'd rather listen to someone scratching a blackboard with fingernails than anything you think you have to say. You've selectively targeted me in your self-appointed Wiki-cop activity, you disregard incivilities and personal attacks from others and from yourself, while clamoring loudly about me. You've already demonstrated faulty understanding what constitutes personal attack, and faulty understanding of who brings a case to ANI and for what. You bore me to chicken litter. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. (Look up earlier in this thread. I referred to lack of thoughtfullness in responses as though from that of an automaton. I could program an automaton to "speak" with only templates and WP:XXX in its vocabulary.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) p.s. I asked you earlier if you thought WP:DONTBEADICK is a personal attack in your estimation. No answer. (Why?) I see now there is also WP:DONTBESUCHAPUSSY and WP:DONTBEANAL. I did not create or support them. (They seem inherent PAs to me.) I merely asked you what you think. (Personally I think if WP is serious about NPA, it s/ start with removal of those essays, which are out of tune with NPA in addition to CIV.)

WP:NPA - SummerPhD (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Summer, User:Eric Corbett just within the last few hours called an editor "fucking idiot", which I'm abosolutely sure is a PA in your book. No one is doing anything about it. So why aren't you defending the WP from PAs, since no one else is?! Why aren't you templating and admonishing and threatening Eric with ANI, as you did me?! How do you explain the consistency of picking on me?! Because I am a "nobody" and he is a "somebody"? Is that your standard? It is OK for him to issue PAs with liberal abandon, and you don't lift a finger, and no one else does either, yet you want to come down on me hard for any name-call? Do you like to pick on the weaker editor, and avoid the stronger editor, because that is easy for you? (Hey! Bullies like to pick on the weaker guys, they avoid the stronger guys, because they might fight back and give the bully a "black eye". Is that your same rationale that explains why you pick on me and ignore Eric's transgressions against the CIV & NPA pillar? I am just trying to understand the innermost inconsistency of your putrid set of principles that you so zealously uphold ... will you help me in that endeavor?! Or will you continue to avoid and deny and avoid and deny?!?) If someone else was doing something about Eric's clear transgression of NPA, then I could understand your reluctance, since then someone else would be "handling it", wouldn't they. But that is not the case. No one is. So why aren't you on Eric's Talk page right now, with your template warning and admonishment and threat, same as you did to me. If you don't do it Summer, no one else clearly is. What about that? How do you explain and defend your selective interest in CIV and NP according to the user?! I really want to know. Please give me some semblance of a logical answer. Your other option is to hide behind your WP:NPA template response. Go to it. Show me your best. I'm waiting. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA - SummerPhD (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ihardlythinkso, by now you're just baiting and it's time to stop. Half the world has already visited Eric's talk page in the last few days; there is no conceivable reason why Summer should do so. You see something wrong? WP:SOFIXIT. You warn him, if you think he needs to be warned. Now, Summer is a nice person and hasn't asked you to refrain from posting here, so I'm doing it. Please refrain from posting here if all you have is personal attacks (the bully commentary) and baiting. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, you seem to be missing the point also. The point is one of consistency -- how inconsistent CIV enforcement is defended and supported. I would expect a person like Summer, who seems to go by the "letter of the law", would see it fit to rethink consistency issue when presented to her. (I never suggested she wasn't a "nice person". This is about ideas and how an editor justifies possessing them loudly. Nothing personal. I was really interested in a thoughtful response. [She only issues threats. How nice is that?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA - SummerPhD (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're kind of missing my point. The very first section in this thread is about your claim that you were being baited, and now, I maintain, you are doing the same by basically challenging her to go issue some warning to someone unrelated to this affair. The civility policy may well be applied inconsistently, but that's not Summer's fault and at any rate situations are often incredibly different--as you should know, since you yourself argue that you had a right to use profanity because you were baited. What you call "inconsistency" may also well be a different set of circumstances judged to be worthy or not worthy of a warning or a block or whatever.

But why don't you just show a better side and leave this be? Summer is not an admin, she won't block anyone, and she can hardly be made a party to the supposed inconsistent application of our civility policy. I can be--and here my judgment is that you need to stop this, since you're badgering the witness. Summer says she already answered your question, and that should suffice. If you're not satisfied with the answer, what good do you think this thread will do? You think after all the derogatory comments you heaped on her she would have a sudden change of heart and say, oh, yeah, they must have a good point after all? That is unreasonable. So stop pressing the point, please. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that CIV is applied inconsistently, in my view, s/ give anyone pause that chooses to loudly enforce CIV arbitrarily and selectively. I was insulted and a user took a project Talk page and attempted to create a personal attack page out of it, to defame me. The same editor removed posts by another user on that page that spelled out some of that user's behavior and illustrative post(s). Since no one gives a damn about me when I'm attacked, and I will forever not allow myself the venue of ANI out of disgust with the environment there, I'm left to defend myself from the crap, which might include telling someone where to go. (I'm sure you understand all of that.) The question on my mind with Summer wasn't simply inconsistent enforcement of CIV between users, but also topic of what constitutes CIV and NPA re inappropriate use of Project space to attack and attempt to defame a user. I never said or argued that I "had a right to use profanity". No one ever asked me what my defense is for using it (p.s. is "slimeball" profanity? I'm not sure but don't think so). I've already "let this be" as you requested, Drmies, the last post was not to Summer's attention. Since as you say "different set of circumstances judged to be worthy or not worthy of a warning or a block or whatever", that is all find and dandy, but I think you are describing an evaluative process that an admin makes, not a user like Summer. Even though this message isn't for Summer I would like to apologize to her for rude comments I did make. (My obective was to get her to think more about the fallicies of a broken CIV policy and consequent brokenness of enforcement endeavors, especially a black-and-white and selective one, and you are right, I blew it by being rude.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC) p.s. Drmies, Summer has on several occasions threatened (guaranteed) she'd open ANI against me on any NPA she deems she sees from me for future. Could you advise her, please, that that isn't the thing to do? (Thx.)

You may not like ANI but it's really the only place for certain things--at least after other options are exhausted. Instead of saying "you're a 100% asshole" (difficult to quantify anyway), you could have slapped a personal attack-IV warning on their talk page, maybe, and then alerted an admin. (Or, if this is a pattern with the user, start an RfC/U--but I say this only for the sake of completeness, not because it applies.) Lots of people don't like ANI, and in part that's possibly their own fault, but ANI does sometimes achieve result--but only, of course, if the complainer keeps a cool head. Now, don't say that no one cares--Summer warned the other user as well, and I would have done the same thing. (And I'm sure she's got better things to do than to start ANI threads.) Ihardlythinkso, typically in such a fight, where outside judgment and arbitration are necessarily involved, guess who wins: the one with the cooler head, the one who makes the better argument. Let me know if you run into more problems with that editor: you know, I hope, that I'll give you (and them) an honest opinion and won't be afraid to act on it. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Admin TParis took User:StillStanding-247 to ANI over an ill-advised off-color joke he attempted to make, all the while wailing and moaning and bellowing emotionally how his equanimity and/or life was shattered and demanding his head on a pike. He got his way in addition to a flood of support, while the cool-headed StillStanding got banned. (So much for your theory of hottest head not prevailing; or does that apply only to non-admins? Another problem with the theory that coolest head prevails, it suggests that an editor with unclean motives and zero basis can get away with murder there by being the coolest head. And I've seen a lot of that kind of dirty expertise already.) I really despise ANI and will never go there. The only thing MaxBrowne has ever complimented me on is that I "at least don't template" other users. (!) My understanding is that a worded message is equivalent if not better than a templated one!? If I alerted an admin that means I'd have to choose one, and even if I liked said admin I'm sure she/he wouldn't enjoy getting involved in the dirt. And if I asked a specific admin for help wouldn't that be considered canvassing?! And recall that I did ask for help from the only admin I know at WP:CHESS (Sjakkalle), and it is clear to me he went out of his way to find a spot on me which he then proclaimed in ANI-like fasion was sufficient cause to conclude both parties were equally at fault and to do nothing. (Besides BS, that was offensive as well, and I'll have no more to do with that admin in future as result.) I've looked thru MaxBrowne's User Talk history , and there's nothing there from Summer to MaxBrowne over the personal attack thread he created at WT:CHESS that I found tacky and underhanded and offensive and caused me to go tell him off. (I think you are confusing her post at his Talk from an earlier additional incident of personally offensive remarks directed against me by that user.) So I was right when I said no one cared in the current incident. If Summer has no interest in starting third-party-initiated ANI threads then isn't it reasonable that she should stop waving it as warning/threat? As far as turning to you if MaxBrowne continues his illegal smear campaign against me, well, though I have some decent respect for your objectivity when you need to call on it, you've already expressed your opinion (bias) that you think I'm "worse than MaxBrowne", which is really an insult because I feel that editor is an underhanded and unethical cheat, so, would it be rational for me to expect objectivity from you unless I felt your expression against me was not genuinely sincere and made out of spite!? (Actually I think your remark was probably made out of spite. But one additional thing you did was to utilize MaxBrowe's illicit Project page attack thread with same purpose/intent as MaxBrowne.) I know you hate me from the beginning, Drmies, because I criticized your friend admin Dennis Brown. And several of his friends, not only you, have unleashed their displeasure against me in various ways at various times for that (though Basalisk for one did finally recognize the faultiness of that and apologized) and these admins I never had any interaction with at all in any venue. (Admins hang together in friend-cliques, and with the crudgels held ... it has probably produced the most detrimental and poisonous aspect currently existing in the WP today. That and a hostile and abusive environment unable to be controlled, and when attempted to be controlled by individual admins, produces not only uneven attempts, but enforcement at whim, which has created a cover too, for selective grudge-blocks under guise of "helping out".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The process is unfair to you. It is so broken it should be ignored. When someone attacks you, it is best to attack back (because life is exactly like chess). AN/I is a joke. Personal attacks don't matter. Your personal attacks are justified and aren't personal attacks. Warning you about personal attacks is a personal attack. If you keep repeatedly stating how right you are about having been so wronged people will begin to see the world your way. And anyway, you've done nothing wrong. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you wanna spank my bottom mommy? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to tempt a person who was bodily thrown out of the WWE for misinterpreting the "Gory Special" as "picking up your opponent and folding him in half like a piece of fleshy paper." Just saying.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

why ?

why you change kimi finister year born in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:90B9:9C2F:99AE:387 (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

When someone undoes one of your edits, check your talk page: User_talk:2601:E:1980:532:90B9:9C2F:99AE:387 and their edit summary: [1]. Additionally, it would be helpful if you would use edit summaries explaining why you are changing what you are changing. As it stands, it looks like you are simply undoing anything you disagree with. Wikipedia does not work like that. We need you to cite sources for material you add. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

But I though Kimi Finister was born in October 5, 1999. and she was 1 years old in 2000 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:90B9:9C2F:99AE:387 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to show a reliable source that says that. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is the Page Deleted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:90B9:9C2F:99AE:387 (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to. What page? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Kimi Finister page is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:90B9:9C2F:99AE:387 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I see now that you were recently blocked from editing and are now editing from a different connection. This is not allowed. Please see the note on your talk page regarding "Sock" editing before continuing. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to be blocked again please don't block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:90B9:9C2F:99AE:387 (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You were blocked for a short time before. Until that block ends, you are not allowed to edit. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wonder Woman

[2], check? OccultZone (Talk) 14:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Evans1982 added it. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk) 14:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Julian (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matthew Moore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Waterford Kamhlaba

I noted with curiosity your latest comments on the talk page of Waterford Kamhlaba. On 13th Feb I removed a whole list of unsourced and unreferenced alleged alumni and subsequently you also reverted some further re-additions for which I was grateful. My belief is that the list is more or less genuine and I haven't found any obvious howlers amongst them. I am however interested in your comments about Sally Field who I cannot locate in any recent revision. Because the list looked genuine, I have been trying to find suitable sources to demonstrate to editors who know about the school, how they might improve the article and re-instate some of the names. However, your latest comment seems to be unenthusiastic about these names. Rather than debate a potential disagreement in approach on the article page, I thought it better to address it here in case I am way off beam and missing a critical issue. Clarification would be most welcome. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sally Field is an actress who is, to my knowledge, not in any way connected with Waterford. She is notable. She meets half of the criteria for inclusion as a notable alumnus.

The red linked names are, to my knowledge, not notable. They are alumni of Waterford. They meet half of the criteria for inclusion as notable alumni.

The point is this: We should not list non-notable alumni under "Notable alumni" any more than we should list notable non-alumni. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly - alumni must meet notability guidelines and must be demonstrably alumni. What is not required is that the person has an article. There is no current requirement that all alumni should be blue-links. Thus a senior political adviser to the President of Mozambique for which there is a reference who is also demonstrably an alumnus of the school, meets the required criteria. Would you agree ? So for Alan McGregor we have a Guardian obituary which confirms his status as an alumnus plus the assertion that he is a Professor at a highly respected University (my own Alma mater). Since true Professors are de-fact notable in Wikipedia (I have no idea why or how that is justifiable , but it seems to be the case) then this one source establishes notability. Similarly, the reference for Fernando Honwana demonstrates he was an alumnus and that he was notable - any very senior diplomat and special adviser to a President would almost inevitably be notable. Here however there is an issue of unintentional Wikipedia bias. Because of the circumstances in sub-Saharan Africa, the level and extent of documented notability for many of its people is very sparse and because of this they are poorly represented in Wikipedia. It is my belief that we should apply the rules with some degree of compassion to reflect the need to address this systemic bias. I would therefore agree, were you to make the assertion, that the reference source for Fernando Honwana is not of the quality that might be expected for an American, European or New Zealand politician but it is a reasonable source and my belief is that we should accept it and other similar sources in allowing this particular school to provide an encyclopaedic record of its truly notable students. I do agree however, that the generalities of notability guidelines still hold sway; and it was me, you may recall, that savaged the list in the first instance. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of children's television series by country may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

You've been mentioned in a rather unflattering way here. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Alissa White Gluz

Can you please explain your deletion, the article had been successfully peer reviewed and surely meets notability guidelines. Thanks. TheWarOfArt (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Per the community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alissa White-Gluz, this was redirected to the band's article. This is the reason for the redirect at Alissa White-Gluz and my reasoning in redirecting Alissa White Gluz. Please address this at Talk:Alissa_White_Gluz. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a completely different article than the one created in 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWarOfArt (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please address this at Talk:Alissa White Gluz. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Palm Beach, Florida

You just deleted this text: "Palm Beach, like other areas of extreme southern Florida has a tropical rainforest climate, defined as having no month with mean temperatures below 64.4 °F (18.0 °C) and no month with with less than 60mm of precipitation.[5][6]" saying that it violates Wikipedia:SYN. In seeking to understand this I looked at the climate descriptions of Miami and Fort Lauderdale where it seems they have similar sentences. Could you please explain how SYN is involved here? - GroveGuy (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources sited doe not state that Palm Beach has a tropical rain forest climate, nor do the sources state that Palm Beach's climate is like other areas of extreme southern Florida, nor do the sources give the ranges cited. Rather, the source give raw data for Palm Beach and raw data for other areas and other sources (not included here) might put that is the "tropical rainforest" category. A + B = C is WP:SYN. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right! That's exactly what I did. Except backwards. I saw some guy change it from "tropical climate" to "tropical rainforest climate". Then I investigated and found he was right. Except it needed that bit about the rain to substantiate the word "rainforest". My investigation turned up this map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koppen_World_Map_Hi-Res.png If you look you will see a tiny deep blue dot at Palm Beach. Can we use this map as a source? - GroveGuy (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where that map came from, so I can't say if it's a reliable source for anything. Even ifI don't see a label for Palm Beach nor a key sayng "tropical rainforest climate". You need a reliable source that unequivocally says "Palm Beach has a tropical rainforest climate" in order to say that Palm Beach has a tropical rainforest climate. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hope to help Hero2316 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You agian

What State are you from ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:6D2E:7E09:4D67:3DD8 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Where I live is not relevant to the project. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I know but U just want to know where you live.anyways Im from A North State Are you from New York ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:6D2E:7E09:4D67:3DD8 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in sharing, thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. So you are from New York. im interesting in anything. IM from Illinois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:6D2E:7E09:4D67:3DD8 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not say I'm from New York. I said I am not interested in sharing. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

karate kid vs spongebob is good.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:e:1980:532:645a:c5a4:ab5c:68dc (talk • contribs) 01:00, February 28, 2014‎

The giraffe in the bathtub with the socket wrench. - SummerPhD (talk)

List of Italian-American mobsters - you removed my edit and emailed me.

Please explain how I might show verification for my addition to the list of living Italian-Mobsters. All I have is his prison record and his information showing in the records of NJ DOC site.

I am new to this editing and not sure how the site or all of the this works. I feel strongly that my edit/addition is correct since he was tried and convicted of being a mob hit man, working with Ritchie the Iceman, Gotti, etc. And is doing a 30 to life sentence for his mafia association.

The DOC has him down as Organized Crime mob association. Thank you, SourceResearcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceResearcher (talk • contribs) 01:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally "List of..." articles, such as this one, do not include every possible member of the list. We generally use a straight forward test: If the item/person has an article on Wikipedia and fit the article's criteria (i.e. for "List of Xs", are they an X?), we include them. If not, we don't. At present, the person you are adding does not seem to have an article. (Everyone else in the list does.)

If you still wish to add him to the list, you will need to create an article for him. For the article to survive, it will need to cite substantial coverage about him from independent reliable sources. As you have indicated that he is known for criminal activity, I should point out that primary documents (court transcripts, arrest records and such) are not useful in this regard. Lots of people have been arrested, tried and jailed for lots of crimes. Most are not notable.

As this concerns a living individual, please note that contentious claims will require strong sources, per our policy on biographies of living persons. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

TTTS BOOKS

Why did you remove Smith's and Bruch'S books on TTTS? I've read both they cover and explain it in layman's terms.

Hero2316 (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Hero2316Hero2316 (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither book is a reliable source as both are by otherwise unknown authors, published by vanity press. Please see WP:SPS. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes they come back, return and resurface

Howdy! The Disruptive, Destructive, Destroyer editor (or the Flowery, Embellished, Festooned editor...take your pick) is back at it. If you recall from whence last we met, encountered, and crossed paths, we were discussing IP 108.48.144.42 and his/her needlessly repetitive writing. Their most recent edits are in vio of a 1 month block on their other IP. Just a heads-up. Here's the new one: Special:Contributions/108.48.85.180. Here are the two ANI reports I'm aware of: [3] and [4]. Have a great, wonderful, terrific day! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society/Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society, March 2014

I know that I am making a number of assumptions based solely on your username, so many apologies if theses assumptions are wholly or partly unfounded. However, on the chance that they may be correct, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society/Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society, March 2014 - not in participation on the day (wrong country and all places booked) but in general experienced Wikipedian support. Just a thought. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Days in the Desert

User:Erik brought forth a source showing that principle filming has begun, and the topic meets WP:NF through WP:GNG. Good enough? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As another editor is still !voting delete, I can't really withdraw anyway. I'll take a look later and see if I want to change my !vote. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've commented at the AfD. No change to my !vote. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

welcoming me

Didn't you read my user page? I've been here for 4 years!!! --MegGriffin55 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, seeing you edit warring over garbage like this convinced me you're new here. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The Green Mile

In the movie he actually spells his name with a Koffey...So its not vandalism, maybe you should check the movie out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OkMonika (talk • contribs) 21:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

All of the sources cited at Michael Clarke Duncan and The Green Mile disagree with you. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)