User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Cassandra Truth must be deleted

This is a confirmed sock puppet of Censored Scribe and all the edits need to be deleted; unless the PhD in your name is just a gimmick. It sends a bad message if blocked users are adding information on the number of starving children in the world; homeless veterans, and Jesus being immortal in Islam. Have you seen the stupid shit she added to Stalin and Edward Teller? Since when was Joseph Stalin a bank robber? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.32 (talk • contribs) 18:13, April 28, 2014‎

Cassandra Truth Was indeffed 2 weeks ago. I'm not sure who is using 128.138.65.32, but I have a few guesses. If you're bothered by the few edits remaining up, feel free to revert them, preferably after logging in. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What happened? User added similar categories? I can't say that it was censoredscribe right now. You know many people wants to give Undue weight to Jesus' position in those islamic-subjects. OccultZone (Talk) 02:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not involved and don't intend to be pulled in by the IP, whoever it might be. All I know is that Cassandra Truth was blocked as an admitted sock of CensoredScribe.[1][2] - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those diffs. Feel bad for him :( ... His topic ban wasn't even critical. But as we know, when community spends more time in declining user's edits than accepting, it cannot be overlooked. OccultZone (Talk) 03:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

LGBT episodes of the 1970s

Hello, could you take a look,at the talk page for LGBT episodes of the 1970s? I have explained myself clearly, cited the sources and was hoping you'd agree with my additions to the page. Keep in mind, I have had those episodes listing on that page for quite some time now and JerryPepsi removed them suddenly by stating that they did not apply to the page. Hoping for your input. Thanks. 71.230.71.243 (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of Juilliard School people page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Keith Ferrazzi

Hi Summer,

You recently reverted an edit I made to Keith's page to a different version because of a possible conflict of interest I might have since I work for Keith. While I do work for Keith, I wasn't making "flattering" edits, I was just trying to undo several edits that removed the "Early Life" section of his bio and added a fairly amateurish looking sidebar featuring an image of Keith and someone named "Kekulov" who made the edit to his page. Keith doesn't know who that is and asked that it be removed. I understand that you want to keep the page as neutral as possible and as we are having difficulty finding third-party validation to several statements within his page so I appreciate that it needs to be reviewed, but how can I get amateurish edits that are meant to promote the person making the edit removed if I can't do it myself since my user page is flagged as only making "flattering" edits to my employer? Please let me know how I can have the edits made to Keith's page, or if possible, an earlier version reinstated that includes his "Early Life" section and removes that sidebar.

Dina del Valle— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dina del Valle (talk • contribs) 23:49, May 7, 2014‎

At the moment, I am trying to fix some basic problems with the article. The core problems at the moment are verifiability and notability.

All material in Wikipedia must be verifiable: It must be taken from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Anything from Ferrazzi or a company he is/was working with is not independent. Reliable sources are published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Common examples are major magazines, large newspapers, etc. If we don't have significant coverage from independent reliable sources on a subject, the subject is not notable and is subject to deletion for that reason.

I bring all of this up because I hesitate to put much effort into perfecting the photo, sidebar, etc. when I haven't been able to find the coverage we need. At the moment, I'm clearing out the unsourced fluff (where every article headline is an "honor", a local network affiliate is mislabeled as being the network, etc. When I'm done with that, I'll be looking for independent reliable sources. If I am unable to find sufficient coverage for a reasonably detailed biography, I will nominate the article for deletion.

If you have specific concerns with anything I am removing or adding or have suggestions for the article, please address them on the article's talk page so that any other editors who might become involved with the article can review the information. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Princess and the Pea

Thank you for catching this :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTAFORUM

On Talk:1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, you can remove anything that is off topic. OccultZone (Talk) 07:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. However, in my estimation this particular editor is likely to see it (incorrectly) as suppression of "The Truth" or similar, especially since they've been running around unwarned for a while. I'm taking it slow. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Dinosaur Train

Thank you for clarifying the user about his/her edit on Dinosaur Train on the Talk Page. Unfortunately, the user is at it again. He/She asked on the talk page if there is a way to verify its edit and I kept saying No there isn't. It would appear that this user is not giving up on adding her unsourced edit about this whole romance subplot to the article. Would you mind clarifying the user again, please? - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Look, first of all, I am a male, and second of all, I'm not being persistent about adding an unsourced topic. I'm siincerely trying to get it sourced and proven, but I din't know where to look. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello there, this is CharlieBrown25, the only reason I keep reverting this, is because FilmandTVfan28 is being very uncooperative about reaching a new concensus. I don't know what else to do - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

1) Stop adding the material.

2) Attempt to build a consensus on the article's talk page. Saying you do not understand what you are being asked for -- especially when it is one of our core policies -- does not mean you can ignore the request.

3) If you are unable to build a consensus, consider that you might be wrong: You might be mistaken about the "crush" and/or you might be mistaken about what should or should not be in the article.

4) If you still believe you are correct, review your options at WP:DISPUTE. Of the options spelled out there, the most likely next step (in my opinion) is Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, though I honestly don't think you're going to get a different answer there. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Dinosaur Train". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 05:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Information

This is CharlieBrown25 here, I just wanted to inform you that I hve made a proposal to the dispute resolution noticeboard - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That is already noted directly above this. I have responded there. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Summer,

My name's Arjuna. I'm new to editing, am afraid.

Please don't discard my edit though, as I'd like to discuss it. I feel it was legitimate & redressed an imbalance in the article. The two topics in question were out-standing (in terms of not really fitting into the body of the article seamlessly; they were quite 'jarring').

Also they were quite sensationalist. I've used the words defamatory & libellous, and I think they're apt.

I think my edit integrated the topics in question better, into the corpus of the article.

With regards,

Arjuna

5.64.20.178 (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edit to Rajneesh is problematic in a number of ways. As two editors have challenged you on this, you will need to discuss them on the article's talk page to explain what you feel should be changed and why.

In the meantime, if you feel there is poorly sourced libelous information about living persons, feel free to remove that immediately. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Email Suggestion

Hello there, this is CharlieBrown25 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC). Since you are the most recent member of the Dinosaur Train dispute, I would like to propose an idea. Because there is no reliable source that states the crush, could you or someone you know email The Jim Henson Company and ask them if it is true or false. If you can get an administrator to do it, it would probably be answered. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

An email is not a reliable source. Additionally, any information you have to track someone down to ask is trivial. Please drop the stick, step away from the vaguely horse shaped pile of fetid remains and move along. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's All Over, Phew!

Hello, this is CharlieBrown25 (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC) here, I'd like to say that I've decided to forfeit my attempts to put the Shiny/Gilbert romance plot on the Dinosaur Train page. I still hold a firm belief that it's true, however, Mz7 has convinced me that the tidbit is not neccesary to the article, because they should be written from a real-world perspective. In fact, once the block is lifted, I'd like to change the article and remove all of the fiction elements. Sincerly - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A note on 74.89.93.121

Hi SummerPHD,

I noticed your reversions of 74.89.93.121's edits, and I saw that you said on their talk page, "I am assuming all of them are vandalism and reverting everything as vandalism." Assuming that this user's edits were all vandalism doesn't seem to be in accordance with WP:AGF. In addition, none of the reverts you did actually constituted vandalism, but were just unsourced additions. This means that this IP did not vandalize after the 4th warning, but merely added unsourced content after a 4th vandalism warning. This is not grounds for reporting this IP and my suggestion is that the report be removed (unless of course the IP does do something that actually constitutes vandalism). I would be happy to hear your thoughts on this issue.

Regards,

TheCascadian 02:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit - Never mind, just saw the edit war by this IP. TheCascadian 02:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

All of the material I personally checked was easily verifiable. There is no question, for example, that the IP's repeated claim that Al Pacino did the voice of Jacques in "Finding Nemo" is incorrect. That could be a mistake. However, making similar "mistakes" across 18 articles in under an hour is extraordinarily unlikely. Additionally, the IP is ignoring talk requests regarding these obviously incorrect edits. Two possibilities: This IP editor has stumbled upon a rich vein of incorrect easily verifiable basic information somewhere and is changing sourced material at a rapid clip to match that source or they are vandalizing articles. The first of those possibilities doesn't pass the sniff test. It's not assuming good faith, it's asking to be swindled. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, good point. Keep up the good work! TheCascadian 20:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Cynthia Nixon

Summer, I added a comment about Cynthia Nixon always talking with her mouth full of food. You removed the comment as it was not constructive and I agree with you; it wasn't. I was just sick of seeing her in almost every episode of SATC saying something with food in her mouth and I wish she knew that it's TIRING. Then I saw her on an episode of House doing the same thing. Why must she put food in her mouth and then start talking??? She must think it's some kind of good acting technique and it's simply annoying. I figure she reads her own wiki page once in a while and that's the only way I can get through to tell her: STOP TALKING WITH YOUR MOUTH FULL OF FOOD!!! I'm not Miss Manners and I sometimes talk with food in my mouth too; I'm just SICK of her doing it in EVERY episode and when she's being filmed she's obviously planned it. It's not that she has to respond to something and doesn't want to keep the person waiting while she chews: she puts food in her mouth and then promptly brings up a protest against whatever the person she's talking to is saying. If anyone reading this post knows Cynthia Nixon, please TELL HER!! I appreciate that you don't want it on her wikipedia page (though I don't understand why you'd care) and I'll leave it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.246.18 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, um, good luck with your vital campaign. I wish you all of the best in this earth shatteringly important endeavor. You have restored my faith in humanity and inspired me immeasurably. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; and all the best to you removing comments you don't like from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.246.18 (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

My concern certainly pales in comparison to your mission. In retrospect, I cannot justify my actions. You clearly have the best interests of the project in mind. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Invite

Hello, SummerPhD. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Baby Jesus (film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As I found sources dated 5 months after the supposed cancellation that gave us information on casting and production,and while almost tempted to improve the darn thing and argue a keep under WP:NFF (paragraph 3, I do feel enough sources are available to justify it being written of somewhere within these pages even if not in its own article. I thus added a well-sourced short paragraph at Peter Hewitt (director)#Career, and ask that you support a redirect. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Explain

I saw the commercial of the new season of "Pac-man and the ghostly adventures" coming on June 9, 2014. So that means that page talking about season 2 coming in spring 2014 is wrong. If you don't believe me, then see the commercial yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLS3rd (talk • contribs) 05:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

June 9, 2014 is "Spring 2014" (in the Northern Hemisphere), so it isn't "wrong", it just isn't as exact. This is not about whether or not I believe you, this is about verifiability, one of our core policies. I cannot simply "see the commercial" myself, commercials don't work that way.

Incidentally, you seem to have popped up out of nowhere when another user name was blocked. I'd suggest you reconsider your current approach on this. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just saying was I didn't mean to mess it up, I was just trying to correct it and make it true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLS3rd (talk • contribs) 14:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edits were not sourced. You refused to discuss the issue. You are currently blocked. Your next edit to any page will lead to a sock puppetry case. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Explain pt II

I didn't mean to mess up, all I wanted to do is to bring the real truth of when season 2 of pac-man and the ghostly adventures shows up. Also, do you need proof to make the edit permanent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLS3rd (talk • contribs) 07:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

While editing as 99.248.44.176, you repeatedly changed the date for season 2 from "Spring 2014" (which is what the source says) to a date in June without citing a reliable source for the change. The edit summaries each time I reverted your change explained why, both at Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures and List of Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures episodes. Your were repeatedly warned on your IP's talk page and asked to discuss the issue on the Talk:Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures and Talk:List of Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures episodes. You ignored all of the warnings and talk requests and continued to make the change. You were then blocked from editing. After all of that, you have no idea what the problem is or how to fix it? Really? Take a look at the links in this posting and see if you can't figure it out. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Foodfight!

The budget for this film really was 65 million, so saying that my edit was 'unconstructive' was a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.127.206 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The source cited says $45 million. There is a warning not to change it without a source. Changing it was a mistake. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Soylent

I do not understand your objection to my lack of a 'reliable source'. I cited the Corporate page, and I referenced the USDA approved food label (now removed). Dobbs (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Versions of Blade Runner

I could hug you, I swear. It looked easier for you than I suspect it would have been for me, so thanks for beating me to it. Millahnna (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but actually it was much easier than I thought it would be. Half listening to two friends discuss it a year or so ago probably helped. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted BLP recreated

Copy User:Cirt, FYI Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Benson recreated at Dan Benson (actor). IP removing delete template. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Guthy-Renker

Thanks for that. I was trying to think of whether I can revert it as vandalism, or if they had just not completed their editing session. I was surprised not to see you participate on the Talk page when I was working on it in a COI role given that you probably had frustrating experiences on the page previously, but I thought you might like to know (if you didn't notice) that it is GA-ranked now, so it's in pretty decent shape. I might get some better photos for it soon. Thanks for keeping an eye out and cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 06:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant to compliment you for adhering to the principles of wikipedia, especially how you worked with me. - Sjrsimac (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Mayfair

I am dying to know---do you get paid to edit Wikipedia?? Please indulge me, I am seriously curious. I can't imagine that anyone would care about someone listing a few local businesses in their neighborhood in order to promote (yes, promote) their community. For the record, I do not have any affiliation with the businesses I've listed under "notable places" in Mayfair. They have no idea I even did this. I was simply enhancing a page about my own neighborhood by listing some "notable places" (a category I did not even create--it was there already, with a poorly constructed sentence about Chickie's and Pete's and the police precinct. Boring. I cleaned it up and added some more places--and got rid of the police precinct as it is not, in my opinion, a notable place). No one knows more than I do about citing sources, by the way. I actually hold what you use in your username, sans "summer." The way my entry for Mayfair reads follows two accepted citation guidelines: primary source and common knowledge. E.g. you do not have to cite a source for the date of Michelangelo's birth year since it has been cited in several places and is considered "common knowledge." Also, if I know something to be true because I saw or experienced it personally, it is considered a primary source when I myself write about it. I look forward to hearing your response. 2601:B:B500:33D:AC9B:1848:C141:41B7 (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

After this, I have no interest in indulging your curiosity. Learn to live with disappointment, pumpkin.

If you believe fluffing your neighborhood is inline with our core principles, I invite you to take the issue to the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Mayfair_2

Also, the "history" section of the Mayfair page does not cite any sources, even though everyone knows that Mayfair used to be nothing but orchards, so why didn't you mess with that section? My contribution stated that a few business exist on a particular street. This is fact. How exactly would you like me to cite a reference for the fact that something exists. It simply does. It's provable by looking them up in the phone book. Shall I cite the Yellow Pages as my reference? 2601:B:B500:33D:AC9B:1848:C141:41B7 (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just some asshole messing with "your" page. I'd probably just want to saturate the page with the serial rapist, teachers molesting students and bombs in vending machines. Take it to the talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

And after "this" I see that I was right with my comment. So disappointed. I was hoping for a more intelligent reply. Nothing relevant to my comment in any if that. And it seems ironic that someone who has proclaimed themselves as one of the accuracy police could be so misinformed. And unprofessional. Seems you've chosen me to pick on. I'd kill to have that much time on my hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:B500:33D:AC9B:1848:C141:41B7 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I see another editor reverted your promotion before I had the chance. If you'd care to defend the piece, I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. Other than that, I believe we're done here. (If you'd like to promote your neighborhood, I'd suggest that adding bluster to Wikipedia should rank lower than ridding the area of rapists, pedophiles, racists and terrorists. Seriously, even Swiss cheese isn't safe from the crazies.) - SummerPhD (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the rules yourself

"[Certain edits are] generally frowned upon because it tends to irritate..."? Now who's not following Wikipedia guidelines? It's cute though, I have to say. You have no idea how much entertainment you've provided for so many people in the last 12 hours. Thanks! And surprise surprise, look who has feelings! Awww, I've hurt them. To quote you, learn to live with disappointment pumpkin. Geez, obsessed much? I had no idea I was this interesting. Whatever will you do when I leave this Ping-Pong match, which I'm doing now? All the best weirdo, whoever you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:B500:33D:AC9B:1848:C141:41B7 (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your whitewashing and gave you a standard warning. In that warning, you found my feelings. That's interesting. I won't harp on it though. You've chosen a tough row to hoe. Being the press agent for Mayfair is akin to working to popularize acne. Good luck with that. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(2601:B:B500:33D:AC9B:1848:C141:41B7 has been blocked for personal attacks and disruption.)

Hello :-)

Normally I don't do this, but "6) The possibility that the blog/myspace/youtube/sign on a telephone pole you read is a reliable source is roughly equal to the chance that I will be the next Pope. I'm a lesbian. You do the math." made me giggle. With your permission I'd like to use that on my talk page :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, I should point out I meant it to express that I can't be Pope. Then there was this. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I took this "if you did hear it from your best friend that her next-door neighbor's cousin knows this guy who once dated someone who went to high school with a roadie for the band, we still need a reliable, verifiable source." too, I just love your wit! <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Dear SummerPhD,

I have received your notification about the Wikipedia article about the fictional 1970s character Archie Bunker about adding misinformation to his article earlier today. Part of the message that you left at my talk page said the following;

...if you think I made a mistake, you can leave a message on my talk page.

I appreciate your invitation to correct you and I am going to take it.

I believe the edit that you are referring to is that of the section of the spouse of Archie Bunker. The edit I made to his page is listed below;

| spouse = Edith Bunker (1949-1980), her death (note: my edit is in parenthesis).

The reason I put that there was because I saw that you put that the two were married from 1948-1980. On the first aired pilot episode of "All in the Family" entitled "Meet the Bunkers" which aired on January 12, 1971, there is a scene where Gloria has a conversation with her husband Michael before Archie and Edith return from church. Gloria says to Mike, "Now Mike, please, for their twenty-second wedding anniversary...". This means that Archie and Edith were married on or around January 12, 1949.

There was also a part of your message that said the following;

...you didn't provide a reliable source.

Could you please tell me what would be the proper way to cite my reference as that reference I have in mind is the name of a "All in the Family" episode. How would I put that in reference form. Please reply back. Mr. Yondris Ferguson (Leave a Comment) 14:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

The dialogue in that episode does place their wedding 22 years (give or take a few days or so) from the date portrayed in that episode. There are several problems, though. In the days before the Internet, shows were a bit less cautious about continuity (without legions of fans poring over every detail of every episode from their collections on VCR/DVD/DVR/Netflix, it wasn't as much of a concern). several years later, they were said to have dated for about 2 years "in the mid 40s". 1947-1949 the "mid 40s"? Additionally, your calculation relies on the episode occurring on the date it was aired. The episode has them coming home from church. January 12, 1971 was a Tuesday. Further, we have no indication what the assumed air date was when the episode was written. I don't know what their production schedule was like (how far in advance the first episode was filmed). I don't know if the Bunkers went to church on Tuesdays (seems unlikely). I don't know that the writers generally considered the Bunkers to have married in any particular year. So far, we don't seem to have a source that knows either. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

John Philbin

I deleted your PROD - it has then been disputed, so it had to be restored - I suggest a candidate for WP:AfD  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Blokus

Hi. I'm curious and don't understand the reason you gave: Reverted good faith edits by Denisarona (talk): Off topic; not a minor edit for reverting my edit to the above article on 25 June. Regards Denisarona (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry, my mistake. Your edit was fine, correcting a spelling error to the IP's addition. The additon by another editor was off-topic (a WP:POV comparison to another game). I've corrected it. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Initially I thought that maybe they were referred to as something different. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Michelle Thomas

I'm so sorry. I didn't know about reliable source needed to be cited. Please forgive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animefan35 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

AN/I "SummerPhD's behavior on Jasmuheen talk page"

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting reading

I just wanted to tell you that your talk page is one of the most interesting reads on Wikipedia. I think I may have been here before over some disagreement we may have had, but I'm not sure. You sure attract some strange comments and I like your responses. The reference to Clue was especially entertaining. Hope this makes you smile, as I did. John from Idegon (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing: People have accused me of having a sense of humor. I'm pretty sure they are mistaken. As an example, I don't recall making a reference to Clue. I can't imagine why I would. The only thing I can think of is that little incident at the library. One of my esteemed colleagues was slow to understand my position, needed clarification and I used the library's resources to support my conjecture. Sorry for the confusion. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Contrary to what vandals may say, SummerPHD is quite funny. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Jenilee Harrison

Well, it shows above the birth year, but someone forgot the birth year category, and I was being useful. Do we have to exclude that category or what? --70.193.132.53 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing at what you are specifically talking about. I've verified the source for the birth date, but the birth place is still unsourced. I've updated the article throughout to reflect this.[3] If you were referring to something else, you'll need to be more specific. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're guess would be right, and perhaps I should've said "the one that provided the date of birth forgot the birth year category." --2600:1005:B00A:68A0:C8D9:5515:1BF8:5C83 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Alvinnn!!! and the Chipmunks

I got the plot from a reliabe sourace and the same goes for the cast, I'd like to re add the info, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatintell (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source, not just tell me that you have one. This is called "verifiability". It is one of our core principles. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Mi_chael Pe. Woro_niecki page

Good luck trying to win the edits you made on this page ( newly registered editor JesHelp_in revised them), especially the blog citation deletion. I believe the Woro_niecki's watch this page like a hawk and very probably covertly involve themselves in edit wars to protect their father's religious image. The W's usually reside in S America or Central America in the summer evangelizing, and I would bet the farm the location of JesH_elpin which is Chile according to the IP edit before he registered to properly make the revision, says a lot about who this person is and why they refuse to let go of the positive blog characterization of this person in the citation you tried to remove. The Woron_iecki's have very few positive marks in their favor since ABC, NBC, the Houston Chronicle, The Grand Rapids Press, Dallas Morning News and authors Suzanne O'Ma_lley and Suzy Spe_ncer exposed Woro_niecki's nature and role in the And_rea Yates tragedy of 2001. User Jos_huaWor_oniecki was already advised to stop editing this page, and I believe he continues to do so to protect that positive blog citation. You can see in the former edit war last fall (2013), the edits against removing that blog citation were tenaciously defended by someone mobile moving south across the east coast, just as the Woro_niekci's were doing at the time of these edits. There used to be a lot of firmly and well documented negative information about Woronie_cki's past from 1980-83 articles of the Grand Rapids Press. Those were deleted by Joshua's admin helpers, people who have lost their positions as admins because of other improper behaviors across wikipedia in general. These admins pretty much let JW have free reign on revising the article anyway he saw fit. It's interesting that when JW was stopped and told to stop editing the article because of his clear bias, an anonymous edit shortly thereafter added the illegal blog citation and comment. That citation suffered an edit war in fall of 2013 with the W's once again winning due to someone protecting them (I believe to be one of the former admins who lost their position and had watched this article for some time after the major revisions.) If you want to read what I believe is a more accurate characterization of this person, google apologetics index dot org and the father's full name and wife's name and you will see they have been involved in a net censorship campaign on the net since early 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.182.92 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the Francis Hopkinson article

Dear SummerPhD, Thanks for your helpful comments on editing in Wikipedia and my changes to the article on Francis Hopkinson. I tried to find some guidelines before I edited the article, but I could not find anything useful. I will go back and take out the "our" and so forth that imply a U.S. readership. I just got mad one day about the falsehoods and misleading statements in that article, so I started editing. If you look at my "trail" you can see that I've had a lot of trouble trying to get all the references into the article in a readable way. Also, I did the typical thing of losing all my changes one evening, so I save the page after each change. It's not the best way for those tracking the history of the changes, but at least I didn't lose a large body of work. Also, I keep forgetting to put the reason for my changes. I got tickled to learn that the reference to the Bishop of Worcester was incorrect. It said that it was Brownlow North, Lord North's half brother. Well, Brownlow may have been Lord North's half brother, but he wasn't the Bishop of Worcester when Hopkinson was in England. In Hastings biography, he includes a letter Hopkinson wrote to his mother telling her about visiting her cousin, James Johnson, who WAS the Bishop of Worcester at the time. I was embarrassed by a colleague when I used some information from Wikipedia that was wrong and outdated, so I'm going to go back and fix that article, too! I think we also need some work on the Betsy Ross articles, but I'm leaving that for another time. Could you tell me what the difference might be between a "Source" and a "Reference" at the end of the article? Also, could you tell me if I should delete Hastings biography from the list of Books? Since Hopkinson didn't write the book, maybe it doesn't belong there? Thanks so very much, Fran Featherston p.s. I could not figure out how to "reply" to your comments, so I apologize if this is the incorrect way to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fran Featherston (talk • contribs) 01:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yikes. The "Source"/"Reference" sections on that article are a Frankenstein monster and should be assaulted with torches and pitchforks.

That is an example of why we can't have nice things. Pop culture articles get a lot of attention and eventually come out OK or remain garbage until someone rolls up their sleeves. Historical articles are either high profile enough that they reach a decent level of quality (think Thomas Jefferson) or end up being a mish-mash of reasonable scholarship and additions of half-remembered things someone's 8th grade history teacher said. The academics who end up here generally don't know Wikipedia style and the 8th grade history students get the style right, but botch the content. I'll make you a deal: Focus on the content and do the best you can on the style. I do not know general American history (outside of a fairly narrow slice that I avoid on Wikipedia), but I have a decent handle on Wikipedia's style. I'll check back on the article and correct style issues. With your permission, I'll watch your edits in general and offer what tips I can (e.g., avoiding first and second person pronouns) to help get you to whatever level of Wikipedia confidence you'd care to reach. Your call.

For now, I'm going to turn that monster into a productive member of society. Here's a link to the "before" version you asked about: [4]. The current version will show what I've made of it. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Cathy Dennis

Hi, I'm going on her passport, which we have received at my place of work. Obviously I would rather not post it online, but 1968 it definitely is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.122.250.61 (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In addition to her passport not being a published source, we cannot use primary sources for this purpose. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Veganism

I'm having a hard time trying to interpret what you were attempting to do here. What was wrong with this material and where is the OR? Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

We do not have a reliable source stating that vegan diets are comprised of this list of items. (If we did, it would be wrong.) Instead, someone said to themselves, "Gee, what do vegans eat? I'll make a list." Someone else disagreed with that list and tried to correct it based on their own ideas. Lather, rinse, repeat. Please see discussion on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Food groups are fairly well known and mentioned in the reliable sources about veganism. You removed uncontroversial information based on the exclusion argument so popular over at LessWrong. Just the fact that you would say "we do not have a reliable source stating that vegan diets are comprised of this list of items" makes me wonder just what is it that you are smoking. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not smoking anything. Please see discussion on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss the existence of basic food groups that categorize the vegan diet. You are welcome to do a search of the reliable sources to see for yourself. Have fun. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see discussion on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Why I edited the Disneymania 2 track list

The track list is fake and those aren't the artists that are on the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikaelaArsenault (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for responding. Next time, at least an edit summary would be helpful. Without it, your removal of the section looks like simple vandalism, which is why I reverted it.

I took a quick look at the article history, found the vandalism[5] and have restored the track list. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Current block notices

I missed it too, but apparently there was an RFC that changed the rules again so that editors can remove their block notices, and can only not remove declined unblock requests. Just an FYI. Monty₈₄₅ 00:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I sure missed that one. Thanks for the heads up. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi SummerPhD - wanting your advice re my revisions

Hi SummerPhD ! My name is Eric, I am new here, and edited the article about Jack Canfield, after reading several of his books. I'd like to get your opinion (I think I have much to learn!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Canfield Thank you! --Psychology Forever (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

member Summer PHD

Hello, How Are You? Thank You Of Your Message regarding the article,on GELATO, The information i have provided is from a company in Australia that deals with wholesale and retailing of gelato it is MrPisaGeato.com, Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.82.25 (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition. However, there are two problems:

1) If you are using a source, you need to include an inline citation so that readers will know where the information came from (without having to dig through the article's history.

2) I see nothing to indicate that mrpisagelato.com.au is a reliable source. The text you added makes several claims about gelato and ice cream that are unsupported and seem to be biased in favor of the business's product:

• "gelato is prepared hand-crafted fresh in batches daily" - This is certainly true in some cases. Other times the gelato is made in advance.
• "ice cramsic...is commonly made weeks or months in advance" - Ice cream from my kitchen is made minutes before we eat it. It is still ice cream.
• "(gelato) has a richer, creamier and smoother taste". This is subjective. Honda would likely say that the difference between a Honda and any other car is that theirs are "more stylish, more reliable and make you look cool."
• (gelato) does not contain the same nutritional fats and sugars". I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Cream and sugar are "nutritional fats and sugars". Both are used to make ice cream and gelato.
• "Ice cream has a much colder taste in the mouth". ("In the mouth..."? I'm not sure where else a taste would be...) This is subjective and confusing: "colder" is not a "taste".
• "(ice cream) is usually served in skoops, whereas Gelato is served with a spatula". Again, not always. Even if this is true, does this make the product any different?
• "Gelato...is hand made in small bundles and not made in bulk quantity". Gelato is hand made ice cream? When I make a batch of ice cream does it become gelato? When my local gelato shop makes a batch of gelato (with several machines, BTW), how small must the batch be to remain gelato?
• "ice -cream is user's anonymous machines". Again, I make small batches of ice cream. Yes, I use a machine to continually stir it (much like the local gelato shop). If I use my father's hand-cranked ice cream maker, does it become gelato?
• "(ice cream uses) industrialised pre-mix ingredients". My vanilla ice cream uses milk, cream, sugar and vanilla.

Yes, we need to clarify what gelato is and what makes it different from ice cream (if anything). We need independent reliable sources for this.

Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page, where I am copying my reply. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Associated acts: Miranda Cosgrove

Hello! Sorry if I'm in the wrong, new at this, The reason for removing some of the associated acts from Miranda Cosgrove was because Jennette McCurdy, Jerry Trainor, and Nathan Kress do not meet the definition of associated acts. Associated acts are bands or single artists someone has worked with that has helped further their career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Prasad (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I had reverted you entirely based on your lack an edit summary. Newer editors working on topics of interest to the under 20 crowd often end up with material added/removed based on whims. Your edit summary addresses my concern nicely. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm Falkirks. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Pimp C because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Falkirks^Talk 05:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Woah, slow down there, Falkirks. In reverting my edit you restored the vandalism. Compare the article at any point over the past several years with the version you restored. In addition to massive, unsourced changes by an IP, random profanity and a broken template, the version you restored has the claims that he was born in 1988 yet had been active since 1987. Quite the trick. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have just got back to using STiki and have had some issues. I will be more careful in future. Falkirks^Talk 16:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Negroes and Negro "Slavery"

Hi! I don't know if you remember but a couple of weeks ago you prodded Negroes and Negro "Slavery"; about a week later I deprodded it because I thought it might be notable. I've just now created an article on John H. Van Evrie, who wrote the book in question, and after doing a bit of reading around the topic I'm inclined to agree with you that the book in itself isn't notable, so I've redirected to the article on the author. Hopefully that all makes sense; just thought you might appreciate an update. Keep up the good work! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Manuel Bartlett

Here You have an Extract of a Washington Post Article (Ref. as number 2 in the "References" Section):

"One of the big surprises this year is Manuel Bartlett, who served as interior minister for the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, in 1988 and who allegedly shut down the computers counting the vote during the presidential election when it appeared Carlos Salinas was not winning."

And Hundreds articles more describe Manuel Bartlett as a Corrupt Politician. If a Politician is Corrupt can't Anybody say so? Vanguard53 (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

With that particular source, you can say Bartlett allegedly shut down the vote count when it appeared Salinas was not winning. If you would like to say that Bartlett is "corrupt", you will need reliable sources that say so. Please review our policy on biographies of living persons. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Manuel Barttlet

Less than Neutral? Please go check many Mexican newspapers and international press about the Controversial 1988 Mexican Election of President. Wikipedia is in danger of not being able of conveying the Truth for being too fearful of Liability sues. In many Topics the "Conventional Wisdom" is based on very Few Independent Sources, because one book cites another book which in turn cites the first one and so on. Also: I have noticed a recent trend of more "Policeing" Wikipedia, but I think it is done in a way more burocratic than with real Knowledge of the Issues. Not to Offend anyone, but worried because Wikipedia is a source almost "uncontestable" to many people. Vanguard53 (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "less than neutral". You cannot add controversial claims about a living person without citing reliable sources that make those same claims. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "The Truth". If you do not cite reliable sources for controversial claims -- especially those about living people -- you can expect them to be reverted.

Wikipedia "policing" should be about our core policies. Without these policies, Wikipedia is worthless as a source. If sources are not provided for questionable claims, there is really little to do but remove it. The burden is on the person who added the information, as that person should have had a reliable source for the information. Tasking other editors with finding sources for your claims is backwards: If you do not have reliable sources for the material, do not add it. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

184.4.123.171

The sock is blanking their tlak page, im under the impression they arent allowed to edit anything including thier talk page. If so could you please revoke talk access. If this isnt the case I stand corrected. Amortias (T)(C) 19:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, you are correct. However: 1) I'm not an admin (I cannot revoke talk page access) 2) I've been reverting them every couple of days to keep tabs on them (as long as they are using that IP they aren't using a different one, making it easier to spot the registered socks).

If you would like to press the issue, I have no complaints. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)