User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive6

Vandalism?

Resolved

Listen, I don't want to have to come to this page everyday for you not understanding that I am not using the talk pages as forums and deleting them dispite the fact that they are to be helpful in someway to the site. I had a link to an article on that page that stated that due to the then recent Jenny McCarthy issue of she blaming her child's autism on vaccines, parents had slowly started to stop getting their children vaccines, which in turn lead to a rise in measles-realted sicknesses. I simple had a few words with the link beside it stating that vaccines have help rid most of the world of some of the most dangerous diseases and that there is also no scientific proof that vaccines in no way can cause somebody to develop autism. I kindly ask that you stop barking at me for trying to better the site, for it is both rude and offensive to me. - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You saying you are not using talk pages as a forum does not change the simple fact that you are. The addition you made did not include the link you claim was there. Rather, it was your opinion which is in no way helpful to improving the article. Furthermore, the link you might have been trying to provide [1] is a blog, not a reliable source and not at all useful in improving the article.

You comment was: "Vaccines don't cause autism, they save us from induring horrible diseases that will always haunt the Human Race (Examples: Polio, Mumps, Smallpox). People in the end listened to her and payed the price in the end. P.S., if this link is not on the page, you could add it. [3]"

The first sentence is off topic, discussing the, IMO, moronic idea that vaccines cause autism (yes, I agree with you!) and the horrid diseases they are designed to prevent. For this article, the only thing we need is that she "(promotes) controversial claims that vaccines cause autism." It's there, in the first paragraph. However, enough had been said by reliable sources to go beyond this, as seen in Jenny_McCarthy#Activism_and_autism_controversy. You want to go one step further, though, claiming her actions had people "pay(ing) the price in the end." This is a controversial claim about a living person, a violation of our policy on such statements. Do not re-add this material, or you will be blocked.

Additionally, when you talk page additions are marginally constructive, you deliberately dance on the edge. This bit on Talk:Nadya Suleman is loaded with garbage that is no value: "(Yes, I read People Magazine, that does not make me gay)". Gee, thanks. This is typical of your comments. I'll give you a moment to edit that yourself. Failing that, I'll do it myself. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen, let me lay the jive down on you in this un-funky debate.

• 1. the statement on the Jenny McCarthy refers to what I read in the article I posted along side on the statement. She didn't know vaccines don't cause autism and that once people listened to her, measles sinknesses rised.

• 2. I'm not the robot you wish I am, for unlike you, I can't write in the single-tone robot voice everybody seem to love, and if a little of my personal believes spill over, don't have a cow, man.

• 3. I'm not homophobic. I know that you are a lesbian (according to Wikipedia) and I think you overreacted. I have a sister who reads People and most guys in my age group (teenagers) think that if a man does something that girls do a lot, then it is viewed as sterotypical gay-ish (I knew a guy for years and was shocked to learn he was gay, he was the most manly man I knew). Would you have rather me use some of the REAL homophobic terms used today.

• 4. (Deep breath, put on body armor and pick up machine gun for defence) Please don't comment to me in way to where you come off as a... well... a bitch (run away like little girl to my user page in fear).

I hope this has been very helpful. Have a nice day ;) - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Hunting (House) for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Hunting (House), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunting (House) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Whoa, I says, while I'm pondering the contribution above this notice. Happy days to you! Drmies (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You'll never know. With any luck, I'll never know again. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Advise

Do not label other editors vandals. This behavior does not foster a cllegial atmoshpere. You misused an article talk page; not the end of the world but an action that does not follow talk page guidelines. Please apply tourself to more constructive tasks. Thanks Tiderolls 03:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.123.59 (talk)

Struck, the admin Tide rolls did not make the above comment. This IP has also been blocked for 24 hours for general trolling, and may be possibly longer(I'm taking this to ANI) for impersonation.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

CBS Evening News

"Your recent edits to the article have been reverted as they were not an accurate summation of the sources provided. Additionally, the event discussed is not a significant event in the history of the CBS Evening News, the subject of this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)"

I disagree. The information was an accurate summary of the events of a "commentary" by Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News. If you would like to edit that summary, please feel free, but to delete it is incorrect.

This was a good example of plagiarism and a clear violation of ethical journalism, an all too common issue in journalism as well as education. I use this in educating students about the dangers of it. I saw the exact episode in question and have to admit I recognized the commentary as similar to an article I had read (from somewhere), but couldn't place it. There was no way for me to identify it as plagiarism until it was covered by Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and US News & World Report. A producer for CBS Evening News wrote the commentary piece, almost word for word from a Wall Street Journal column. Ms. Couric then read the piece as if she had written it. This is not uncommon in today's multi media journalism, with on-air talent reading teleprompters from copy written by others. It is also completely understandable due to the time constraints made upon these professionals. The difference is that Ms. Couric, an excellent moderator of the CBS Evening News, introduced the piece as "when I received my first library card". This was not true, since she did not write the piece. It was taken from someone else's newspaper column, written by someone else. Double plagiarism, as it was.

You can get more background about these types of problems, although written before this incident, from a book by David Blum, tick...tick..tick: The Long Life & Turbulent Times of 60 Minutes. (no I am not picking on CBS, I happen to like Katie Couric, she just made a mistake, albeit a serious one.)

This incident was a "somewhat" significant event in the history of the CBS Evening News as it was for all multi-media journalists. At least as important as Dan Rather's forced retirement from CBS mentioned earlier in this same article. There were even discussions of Ms. Couric stepping down or being forced out, much like Dan Rather had been. Any accurate history of a news program being accused, accurately, of plagiarism should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudding30 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You feel it is "a good example of plagiarism and a clear violation of ethical journalism, an all too common issue in journalism as well as education." The sources do not say that. And "background about these types of problems" has no relevance to this particular incident unless it discusses this incident. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why that would be relevant to the article, although several sources did say that, none of which I quoted or listed. I never said that in the edits that were subsequently deleted from the wikipedia article. I am not concerned about their personal opinions, your personal opinions nor mine for that matter. It appears that you did not read the articles I cited or any other related information regarding this incident.

What is relevant is that this did occur on the CBS Evening News. It was well publicized and deserves to be a part of the article in order to be fair and balanced. The article reads like a Public Relation handout from CBS.(Again, nothing wrong with that, but is somewhat biased.)

If the article is to contain a description of Dan Rather's removal from CBS Evening news, as part of story he did on on another program (60 Minutes), then this incident needs to be described in the article. Regardless of whether I write it or not. The incident is relevant and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudding30 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your claim was that Couric committed plagiarism. The sources provided do not support your claim. Your claim was written in such a way as to lay blame at Couric's feet. The sources do not support that. - SummerPhD (talk)

23:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

She did commit plagiarism. In the piece, she stated, "I remember getting my first library card..." This is a direct quote from the Wall Street Commentary as was the rest of the piece. If one claims an piece as your own, but is actually from someone else, it is plagiarism. The commentator claimed the words as her own, but was actually that of a producer. The dispute, according to numerous sources is whether Katie Couric knew that it was plagerized from the Wall Street journal. Obviously, there is no way to know she did or not, but she did know the words were not her own. Ergo, plagiarism. If she had said, "Do you remember when you got your first library card?" then the plagiarism would have been slightly less questionable, on her part. TV news anchors reading the news written by other is not new, nor is it plagiarism, exactly. But claiming a commentary as your own is. It should be noted that she no longer does commentary on the Evening news, but Bob Schieffer still does on Face the Nation on Sunday. Your point is well taken and I will add additional verification. Gee, where did I put that Time magazine? I know that I have my old US News and Wall Street Journals around here somewhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudding30 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 November 2010

None of the sources cited call it plagiarism. You do. This is synthesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

You reverted my First edit two years ago. :) I am really surprised because of your insight and kindness you are not an administrator yet. :) I know I will vote for you once your RFA comes around. Thanks from your long time fan. --Talktome^(Intelati) 00:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully my explanation at that time was clear enough. Thx. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was. :)--Talktome^(Intelati) 00:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Note about sockpuppetry case

Hi there. It appears that Webhat filed an SPI case about you. It can be found here. I don't think you were notified about it. --Bsadowski1 09:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't notified. It was a dead issue before I got to it, but thanks anyway! - SummerPhD (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And I see that you was accused of "missrepresentation"... ;) Drmies (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracies abound. Either I have a four year old sleeper account that I'm saving to add false credits to Vampires Suck or my marriage isn't recognized by the heterosexist patriarchy. You decide... - SummerPhD (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I made up my mind about some of those issues a long time ago, which is why I became a minister. Speaking of marriage: I was invited to a wedding yesterday, one with special shoes required--the four-year old was going to marry her one-year old sister. How could I object? But who do I give to whom? Things were simpler when she simply wanted to marry me. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind the young'ens. Now that we're being allowed to marry each other, I'm ready to fight for my right to marry a sheep. The struggle continues. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just don't end up in here. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did I get marked for vandalism?

If you've seen the video he says he's a karate expert. I'm just tryin' to contribute and now I'm gettin' marked down for vandalism. What the hell is that about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorCal764 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I saw your other vandalism, like this one, and wrongly assumed your unsourced edit to Rent Is Too Damn High Party was more of the same. I'm changing the warning I gave you to an unsourced1 and adding a separate warning for the third vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but that makes another problem. Now I am being penalized twice for the vandalism I did to Justin Bieber, which I only did once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorCal764 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sock!

Remember when you were accused by User:Webhat? It seems they're very interested in what you and I are doing: [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The plot thickens... As for the connection between you and me, I'm not sure if I'm you or if you're my minion. In any case, you are enveloped by my darkness. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand that comment, and I have no intention of ever finding out what it was supposed to refer to. I feel quite comfy in your darkness, even if I am you and you are my minion, possibly. But there is a test to see if you're me or not: Pete or Frank? (And if you say neither, you're clearly not me.) Drmies (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait. I am you and you are me? Confusing. Who is Paul in this equation?

No, not Texas Pete. And not Franks. But not neither either. Sorry. If asked Ginger or Mary Anne, I'd pick Velma every time. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I learn something new every time I come by here. Thanks! Oh, you should be happy you're not me tomorrow; enjoy your Friday. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what your Friday involves, but have a good Friday? Thanks, but I have other plans. (I have a considerable stack of undergads' musings to read.) Why (existential issues aside...) do I not want to be you? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

<--Eh...have to get up early, take the kids to school, bake crepes at school for a dozen screaming toddlers, run home and witness installation of new dishwasher and take care of the associated cleanup, run to work and sit in on meeting, and in between those things we have a car that needs to be taken to the shop because it won't start. Ha--and I have undergraduate musings to grade! But a lot of them aren't so bad, fortunately, and I have all weekend to do it in. Are you teaching freshman comp? I remember the good old days when I used to torture those poor kids. But at least I'm getting a new dishwasher. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And here I am whining about a few misguided stabs at post-WWII U.S. social policy! - SummerPhD (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, I think I prefer making crepes; I shouldn't complain. Ha, the jug with batter fell over in my trunk. You wouldn't believe the mess. But I had enough left for everyone and the teachers, and it was great fun. Still no dishwasher though! Happy grading, Drmies (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Summer, I finally got my dishwasher, and I also got this. Words fail me. How do we attract these... editors? Drmies (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'd tag him for civility, but I'm a half-wit. So there you go. On second thought, we have the warning templates for a reason I suppose. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what's the point. Why do I even care? On a brighter note, hey! Good to see you. Get your papers done? ;) Drmies (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, maybe after a warning or two he'll turn into a great editor or a frog prince or something. In any case, the papers are done. All that's left now is to tell one guy his paper was poorly written, off-topic and, incidentally, identical to one available online :( Enjoy that new dishwasher (sooooo exciting)!! Live it up: Run a couplea half empty loads on "Pots & Pans" with heated drying. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

<--You are sinful, and a bad, bad calvinist. That place you go, I can only dream of it. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to Hell for sure. Bummer. Then again, I hear it's one big house party. Not exactly my cup of tea, but I guess it's better than eternity with a God who hates me. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you see this? "You aren't helping things here." Indeed, because I reported him. You don't like ballroom dancing? I loved Strictly Ballroom. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, ze did ask you to please go away. Ballroom isn't my thing. But, whatever floats you boat, ya know? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My talk page

There is no reason for you to be on my talk page. Please keep keep any comments you have for me on the relevant talk pages. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 22:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I was on "your" talk page to discuss your edits. That is what they are for. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, after I asked you to keep your comments on the relevant talk pages. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"(T)he purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." Wikipedia:Talk#User_talk_pages When discussing the article, I use the article talk page. When discussing a user's edits, I use user talk pages. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Jamal Warner's Twitter

What you mean it's stupid? More people will be able to follow him and that'll make you guys to know that's really him than other people that's trying to copy him regardless of you guys saying that you can't help him "VERIFY" his account. Stop being Straightforward all the time and start helping him for real. Pekin Republican 3:21 P.M. 12/16/2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to "help" Warner, nor can we verify that the account is his. If you have a [WP:RS|reliable source]] showing that the account is his, we'll have something. Otherwise, the Twitter account in question cannot be added to the article on Warner. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Murray Article

Resolved

If you would have paid closer attention to what I added, you would have seen the cite note with a reference to an article on ESPN that clearly proves what I added, is in fact correct. So, next time you start accusing people of vandalism and telling them they need references, please open your eyes and pay closer attention before you make a fool of yourself. Thanks! --71.10.57.189 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit claims he "threw the chair at a defenseless woman". Your source says, "a woman was accidentally hit by a chair swung by" him. Those are, obviously, two different things. Please review WP:BLP. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Accident or not, he threw a chair, and the end result was hitting a defenseless woman. He wasn't swinging the chair in an attempt to cool himself off with a breeze, so obviously what I put wasn't incorrect. It was a malicious act, regardless of whether or not he attempted to hit the woman with it. So let me break it down into a level of simplicity that maybe even you can understand. A: Bob Murray threw a chair. B: The chair hit a defenseless woman. C: The police were called. He didn't accidentally bump into a chair that fell into a woman. He threw it. So, I would appreciate it if you would quit vandalizing my usertalk page with false allegations of vandalism. I know you enjoy your little power trip on Wikipedia because you lack any real authority or credibility in real life, but please save it for actual vandals. BTW, you can block IP addresses from editing, but not actually ban people. It takes about 45 seconds to release an old IP address and obtain a new one, so your threats of banning me over false allegations aren't really of any concern to me. You're now just trying to make excuses for yourself because you were too blind to see the cite note and reference on my original edit, and you're making up B.S. reasons for reverting it now that you've been caught. I'm not saying anybody is perfect, I mean, I originally misread your username and thought you were named after a brand of feminine hygiene products. But luckily, I proofread and double check things before I look ridiculous. Thank you, and good day! --71.10.57.189 (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I like your four references to support your theory that I'm a "vandal." However, this is a shared computer. And after looking at your references, I had to laugh. I didn't know it was even possible to vandalize the Wikipedia sandbox. That's great, you just made my day. You're threatening to block people for allegedly vandalizing the wikipedia sandbox. How ridiculous you are, I hope everybody sees this and laughs at you. --71.10.57.189 (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed edit is a direct violation of WP:BLP and will not stand. Everything you've done so far is vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Malicious

Hi. You asked me not to mention that in Malicious Molly Ringwald makes a nude appearance in which her breasts appear unless I can cite a reliable source. How about the movie? Or, if I am going to cite the movie should I try indicate what is the name of the scene? I am now sure what standards of citation you are looking for here.

As to your comment that this is trivial information, I am not following you here either. Actors are judged by their performances and their image in the eyes of the public. Ringwald developed a very family oriented image in the 1980's. Exposing her breasts was a significant departure for her and for viewers. If she had started off her career as a nude model, then I agree it would be no big deal. But I find it similar to Julie Andrews baring hers in S.O.B. which by the way is discussed openly on that article in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanfardon (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for an independent reliable source. A "reliable" source, as linked, because it is our policy (see verifiability). An independent (not the movie or a source affiliated with it) to demonstrate that the material is not trivial. While your analysis may or may not be true, the point is moot. Wikipedia is based on material presented in reliable sources because A) it is verifiable and B) it is less likely to be trivial.

We could discuss thousands of things about any given topic that various editors believe are relevant. If we did this, articles like George W. Bush and Barack Obama would be even more of a mess than they already are. Instead, we stick to material discussed in independent sources. If you cannot find independent reliable sources discussing Ringwald's boobs, they aren't notable to Wikipedia. While the article on S.O.B. discusses Andrews' boobs, there are several differences. First and foremost, problems in other articles will always exist and do not justify repeating that mistake. Next, the exposed boobs are a significant part of the plot. Finally, thought that article is unsourced at present, I doubt that Andrews' topless moment cannot be sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just updated the S.O.B. article to request additional sources for the article and to add two sources (NY Daily News and an Andy Rooney book), both commenting on Andrews' nude scene. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK dude. How about if I found a source saying Molly was a family favourite. Then could I cite that her exposure of her honkers was in contrast to her previous image? I mean, would this slip under your radar and qualify as something factual though not opinionated?

By the way, your discussio of SOB sounds to me like handwaving. Do you know what that is? I think so as you sound like you have been to grad school and you should know when a prof is trying to snow you. Plese dont do this with me because 1) you wont get away with it 2) its not pleasant, and after all, we can all be pleasant cant we? The exposed boobs are just as much of the plot in Malicious and if you want to debate about interpretation then you are riding the same bus I am and have no business censoring me for stating that they are a significant part of the plot.

I am gonna try to conform to what you are saying, but I will ask you also to abandon your 13th century scholastic pedantry. I have studied the trivium and the quadrivium. And I KNOW the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanfardon (talk • contribs) 03:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you find a source saying Ringwald was a family favorite, you can then say that she was a family favorite. To say that the nudity was in contrast to this image, you need a source saying the nudity was in contrast to this image. We now have a couple of reliable sources (and an uncited third, alluded to in the text) for the nudity as relevant to the plot and surprising in S.O.B. (Maria's boobs! Yipee!). I have yet to find a reliable source mentioning Ringwald's nudity (Sam's boobs? ...). Basically, without reliable sources discussing Ringwald being topless in the film, it doesn't belong in the article. With reliable sources discussing it, we can say what those sources say. We cannot interpret what content in the movie might mean to something another source says. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Clearly we can't use this as a reliable source, but I thought you might find this[6] interesting. Michelle Thomas' mother confirmed on the Facebook tribute page she created that her daughter was in fact born in 1968. Oh, and before you make the obvious question "how do we know that's really her?" I would refer you to the Youtube video in which Penwah Phynjuar gives people her website address; that website contains a link to this same FB page. So even though we can't use it as a reliable source it is confirmation that Michelle Thomas was in fact born in 1968, not 1969. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As previously discussed, it's not a reliable source. Perhaps instead of asking for the date, someone on there should be asking for a verifiable source... (Interesting facts from Phynjuar's MySpace: She's 20 years old, from Beantown!, New York.) - SummerPhD (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you're missing the point about something very simple. I said nothing about Myspace and I stipulated twice that what I was telling you couldn't be used as a reliable source. I was just pointing out the fact that (as I had previously pointed out) Michelle Thomas' own mother claims Michelle was born in 1968, which is the same birth year reported by Jet Magazine, the NY Times, and People to name a few. Don't you worry though; I'm sure we'll find another reliable source sooner or later that you discount. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, so the point is you've found another unreliable source? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:

I do not appreciate you changing my edit, and I think your little 'crusade' needs some source yourself. The fact is, he was detained by guys on the scene; he had the gun. We don't have to wait for a jury to know that. Toa Nidhiki05 21:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your claim is a contentious, unsourced statement about a living person. Feel free to bring this up at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not contentious. Toa Nidhiki05 22:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Contentious: A dispute that calls for a legal remedy." As there are lawyers involved in this very question it is, by definition, contentious. Again, feel free to take this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

what is this warning about?

Why? They caught the strangler! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.101 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They arrested a "person of interest". He has not been convicted of anything. Saying he is a murderer is a clear violation of our policy on biographies of living persons. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"DNA links the 21-year-old alleged serial killer to three murders in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia, police said at a Monday night news conference." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.101 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"DNA links the 21-year-old alleged serial killer..." Whatever you are quoting, it does not say "he did it". It says DNA links him to the crimes. It does not say his DNA is an exact match to the killer's DNA. My DNA "links" me to my family. It says "alleged" for a reason: to avoid libel suits. Please review WP:BLP. If you still disagree with me, I invite you to take the issue to the BLP noticeboard for discussion. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Heya, just thought I'd better be polite and let you know that I've just vandalised your user page. I know it's bad, but I was bored and Question Time isn't on for another two hours so I thought I might as well amuse myself online.

So yeah, I haven't done much at all, so don't worry. I've just moved your vandalism counter on one from 62 to 63. But wait a second - with my edit, your user page has actually been vandalised 63 times, so since my edit isn't stating anything which isn't true, it can't really be vandalism after all! But if that's true then you really have been vandalised only 62 times and thanks to me your page is proudly stating an untruth! So it must be vandalism! But then it can't be. But then it is! But then it can't be! But then - MY HEAD'S JUST EXPLODED!!!138.38.32.174 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

you gave me a warning for editing an article

but all i did was talk on the discussion page... i never edit the aaron porter articleJessicaevens (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

i see you spotted your mistake

"Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Aaron Porter are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)"

it was not general disscussion about a topic the event happened yesterday and someone was asking if it should be submitted maybe you should do a little research first before throwing warnings around...Jessicaevens (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no mistake. Your first edit makes an unsourced contentious claim about a living person, a violation of our policy. Please note, as the warning states, this applies to "to an article or any other Wikipedia page".

The edit you made was not about improving the article, but about exposing the cabal on Wikipedia which exists to protect the images of anyone Jewish. We are not amused. - SummerPhD (talk)

Are you trying to dispute that fact? What a load of bs

you cant even post veified information which is valid and sourced from reliable sources about any jew or jewish person... check my attempted edits of michael richards page. apparently so it turns out when a jew is racist it is termed "problematic behaviour" not racism, and if you point that racism our with verified sources then t3h omg you are anti semetic.... well.... you can all go eat a dick!Jessicaevens (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not wish to "eat a dick". Sounds like you could use the love of a good woman.

I can neither confirm nor deny the existance of a super-secret cabal here on Wikipedia that is out to "get" you and prevent the Truth from seeing the light of day. If I did, they would kick me out and come "get" me. You, however, will be handled soon enough. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Seuss eBooks

Hi there, I would really like to discuss the removal of the Dr. Seuss eBooks under the adaptations section for the various books. I'd love to do it by email, my email address is (redacted). If you could shoot me an email that would be great. If you'd prefer to speak on this page, please let me know, and I will happily make my case here :) The basic point is that these eBooks are very relevant to so many communities, especially the Dr. Seuss community, who are huge supporters and are thrilled to discover this new way to enjoy their favorite titles. I look forward to hearing from you! Ntaller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

I've removed your e-mail address from this page in the hopes of sparing you huge amounts of spam. As a heavily visited site, Wikipedia is constantly being visited by various bots.

As to the inclusion of the eBooks under the sections of the various articles, you clearly have a vested interest in them. To make it into the articles, we are primarily concerned with undue weight issues. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The Suess books, by and large, are classics of children's literature. As such, they pop up in lots of different places: Plush dolls for sale, plush dolls as promotional items at Macy's, Christmas decorations at Burger King, film strips, animated movies and TV specials, live action feature films, books based on the movies that are based on the books, "Tag" electronic read-along books, audio books, caricatures and spoofs in various media, allusions and mentions in various media, pedagogical debates and controversies, etc. If we were to include all of this material in these articles (or in Star Wars, Jack and the Beanstalk, Ronald Reagan, milk or anywhere else), the article would quickly be over run by material connect to the book while the material about the book -- the actual topic of the article -- fades into obscurity. So, we need guidelines to help us draw the line. In general I, for one, use substantial discussion in independent reliable sources. The sources for the adaptations you are connected with are fairly minor. As such, there is, IMO, absolutely no basis to include them in the individual articles about the various books. With some more meaningful coverage in independent reliable sources it might merit brief mention in the main article about Dr. Seuss. Your company, though, does not currently seem to have enough substantial coverage for a stand alone article itself. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You bring up many good points, and I am not going to argue with you about the Oceanhouse Media article. Right now, my goal is to explain to you that these omBooks are not merely a book's pages that have been copied onto a screen, but rather, they are an entirely new publication. And are very relevant. I get your concern about the actual topic of the article fading into obscurity, however, to compare this joint endeavor between Oceanhouse Media and Dr. Seuss Enterprises, to publish all 44 Dr. Seuss titles in the latest and greatest digital medium of today, to Christmas decorations at Burger King, is simply not a fair comparison. Also, I honestly do not understand how the discontinued educational CD Rom game of The Cat in the Hat is deemed relevant, yet these omBooks, which are literally creating a revolution in Children's publishing, are not. [7]

For now, I will provide you with some links that I believe will help illustrate the importance of these omBooks, and this emerging industry in general. Below is an old video, there are now 17 Dr. Seuss titles on ios devices. As well as some on Android. But this video gives a nice overview of this field: [8] This is a nice article by The Wall Street Journal, on Dr. Seuss books transforming into omBooks: [9] A short blurb in Publishers Weekly, Titled "Digital Numbers from Oceanhouse Media, Barnes and Noble" [10] note: There are an increasing number of digital book conferences, each year, that every top publishing house now attends. And the speakers are digital book publishers. A simple article by Huffington Post, captures how parents across America (but really the world)are embracing these Dr. Seuss omBooks. [11] Again, an older article, but it describes the industry (and hopefully the relevance of the industry) pretty well. [12] For your interest, Here is a video of one of the apps, that a website called, Apps for Children with special needs, put up. These omBooks truly reach out to so many people, across so many cultures and walks of life. It really is a wonderful thing. [13] For more references and general information, this website will be very helpful: [14] The press page in particular has hundreds of articles pertaining to these omBooks.

As a final note, these Dr. Seuss books are so popular, they are often at the number 1 spot in the books category on iTunes out of thousands and thousands and thousands of other books... not just children's books. All books. Currently, Fox in Socks is number 6, Green Eggs and Ham is 16, and The Cat in the Hat is 20. Also these books are sold across the world to countries I haven't even heard of. How incredible is that, that kids across the world, in places where the print book was never published, now have access to the great Dr. Seuss? And they love it! I think it's so great, and very relevant to anyone who lands on one of these Dr. Seuss Book's Wikipedia page. I hope you agree. Ntaller (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I haven't heard back from you about my last post. Please let me know where you stand because I would like to add a simple sentence or two under the adaptations section for the various Dr. Seuss books. I look forward to hearing from you Ntaller (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That you, with a close connection to a product, think that product is great is neither convincing nor relevant. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you looked at the links I provided. They show that the community of Dr. Seuss fans is highly interested in these omBooks. If you did not look at the links I provided, please just glance at this page which will show you the sheer volume of press interest in this subject. [15] Since you have assumed that I have a close connection with the company, I'm wondering, now that I've explained these products to you, if someone else were to add these omBooks to the pages, someone you deemed more credible, would you still take them down?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntaller (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 February 2011

I certainly cringe, as many of us do, when I see additions to pages made by someone with a clear conflict of interest. Taking a look at the very first link on your the page, we're directed to an ABC story on the 50th anniversary of Green Eggs and Ham. For the story, ABC ran through a selection of the ever-growing list of tributes, adaptations, satires, etc. out there. In addition to briefly mentioning "There's even an app for that." (without mentioning the company), they also mention the 1973 cartoon; readings by American Presidents, Miss Americas, Heismann winners, Hall of Famers and Jesse Jackson on SNL; Food Network recipes; a kids' musical; a pop song; an Iowa State Fair butter carving; YouTube videos; celebrity accolades; and more. Before I cleaned out the Green_Eggs_and_Ham#Adaptations_and_tributes section in the article[16], there were also a Latin version, a St. Elsewhere episode, a computer game, two or three other pop songs, three children's TV series, a Broadway musical and two movies referencing the book. If we dug through all of the references your promotional site gives, we'd probably stumble upon dozens more. Then the Google searching would begin... What we're talking about here is WP:WEIGHT. If a song mentions Gerald Ford, it is unlikely to be notable in any article. If the song is about Ford, that's worth mentioning in an article about the song (if there is one). If there is a fair amount of press about the song, it's probably worth mentioning in the band's article. Unless there is considerable coverage about the song's impact on Ford's professional and/or private life, it is highly unlikely to merit mention in the article about Ford. As a result, despite thousands of pop culture references to him, characters based on him, spoofs about him, songs mentioning him and, undoubtedly, apps that connect with him, the only real pop culture ref in Gerald_Ford#Public_image is to Chevy Chase's repeated lampooning of his perceived clutziness. Your involvement in the placement of the info is troubling, but it is not the reason I am against it. It simply does not have a place in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

read my edit please for the sake of humanity

Hello friend I see you reverted my edit on our great, honorable, supremely honest, role model, stand up citizen of a justice Antonin Scalia - I am leaving you this message because I believe in you; I want you to be a crusader for justice and equality as well as for the mandates of god; I would rather have 1lifelong ally than 1 lifelong enemy; please read my message and take it to heart after much consideration

I see you reverted my edit but this is one topic that the option to be un(or dis)interested in is life or death for billions of people worldwide. The black and hispanic man is still not free in the U.S. and the rest of the world as well. They (us me) are in a constant fight to survive and make it or lose our lives in this god forsaken world. The knowledge that you are just even typing on the computer (u are editing wiki r u not?) shows me that you are middle class and thus relatively problem free. But friend you have to understand the majority of the world is not as safe and happy as you. MThe majority of the world doesn't have people speaking for thier rights. the majority of the worlds doesn't have corporations and lobbyists telling them where to go when a land lord evicts them, helping them assist their husband when he is jailed not for a crime, but simply because he is black, the majority of the world doesn't have life insurance policies like u and i and can't even speak for themselves. People like you and me are who Christ will Reward in the end of Days. He will not reward people who clutch the Bible and then use it as justification for numerous moral wrongs (criminalizing blacks and hispanics, corporations pollution water supplies, etc. etc. ). HE will transform you and me into zealots at the my friend. All youneed to do is help those unfortunate around you and rise them up to where you are. Three Reasons Why Republicans Are Wrong

If you think you may know why Republican reasoning is flawed, then pay attention because this should bring up some interesting new angles you probably never thought about. I’m not talking about policy differences, conservatism vs liberalism, or just plain illogical hatred. Here are some three solid reasons as to why their ideologies are wrong…

1. Reaganomics is too ideal to work

The whole concept of the trickle-down economy is brilliant. Put the money into the pockets of the corporations, and let their prosperity pull the rest of the population along. A corporation that does well expands further and hires more people, raises salaries, and, in general, improves the quality of life for everyone. People complain when stocks go down in Wall Street. Well, that’s because the corporations aren’t doing well during those times. Most everyone naturally wants these businesses to do well. Ideally, this is fantastic.

There’s a problem: it’s too slow. How long is it going to take before the poor finally get the benefits of this? And how can you insure that eventually everyone is benefited? Can the poor or the unemployed really wait a year or more before help arrives? Putting more money back into the pockets of corporations assumes they will take that money and actually hire more people or create more opportunities for the poor/middle class. This isn’t always the case, and, if it is, it does not happen overnight. I know when my father was unemployed, money was extremely tight. It took a year before my dad was able to actually find a job, and now my family is up to our necks in debt. Luckily we had enough of a reserve, but what about those who don’t? Not everyone is as fortunate, and some people need all the help they can get, and sooner rather than later.

2. America is NOT a Christian nation

America has a majority of its population as some sort of Christian (there’s way too many to keep track of these days). But it was not founded as a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson was a deist, as were many other of the founding fathers. Jefferson was a strong proponent of the separation of church and state, and that’s why it is explicitly written in the Constitution. So, people should be able to worship whatever they want in America, correct?

How can people possibly argue against stem-cell research, or against gay marriage? With the separation of church and state it shouldn’t be possible. If I create an established religion where stem-cell research is part of our practice, then who can argue with that? What about a new religion that only marries gay couples? Just because your religion does not support those beliefs doesn’t mean you can tell others what they can and cannot do. It’s simply not your right. People need to keep their religion to themselves. I will say however that the marriage issue is an easy fix: stop legally calling it marriage and call it a civil union instead. Everyone, under law, should be, “civilly union-ed” and not “married”. Let churches make the marriages. What does this have to do with the Republican party? Traditionally these issues happen to coincide with the Republican party. This is not always the case, but for the most part the argument holds.

3. War is good for the economy, nation-building is not

No matter what anyone else says or how anyone else puts it, the Iraq War is over. It was over years ago. We are no longer fighting a war, we’re trying to keep the peace. What we’re doing in Iraq is nation-building. We’re trying to help Iraqi’s get up on their feet and take care of themselves. There is really no enemy in Iraq, just a bunch of insurgents trying to kick us out. At no point will any of our actions cause this “war” to end. What happens if we do capture Osama Bin Laden? Do you honestly believe terrorism in the Middle East will end once he’s captured? And if he dies… lord only knows what happens when the extremists consider him a martyr. There is no “win” condition. The only win we can accomplish is if Iraq builds itself as a stable country. And that’s not cheap. A real war bolsters the economy by kicking up production, but this occupation of Iraq is draining our resources and killing our men. To claim Iraq is working is mere speculation at best. Should we pull out? Yes. Are we going to feel terrible for the mess and future chaos that will ensue? Yes. Do the Iraqis want us out? Yes. Are we denying the troops victory? We had already won…— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.173.137 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. At the moment, though, you're about to be blocked. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Max Gerson Wikipedia Page

The information on this page is biased against the benefits of Gersons therapy because of its limited sources.

To correct this, additional information needs to be made available to readers (including the no less than 4 documentaries that include patient testamonials with medical records showing resmission of symptoms).

There are no trials with evidence to dispute Gerson therapy efficacy, only lack of evidence to prove it.

Lets let the reader decide. Patient testamonials with medical records are not 'unreliable sources.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motzingw (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Patient claims (n=1), small documentaries and other anecdotes are not reliable sources. WP:MEDRS says no. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Good Day

Good day friend.

I added Katy Perry to this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Muppets_(film)

'Cause in the Katy Perry thread here on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katy_Perry say that she perfomance a cameo in the **The Muppets Movie 2011**

So if Lady Gaga is show, why Katy Perry isn't ??

Thank You ;)

And I will add again to Katy Perry ;)

--Neo ender (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding information about roles in forthcoming films requires citing a reliable source for the information. As the note on your talk page explained,I removed Katy Perry from The Muppets (film) because there was no source cited for the information (Lady Gaga's role is cited in that article). As this information also lacked a source in Katy Perry, I have removed it there as well. For further information, please review verifiability, one of our core policies. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk)

Coffee enema

We're going kayaking tomorrow.

De gustibus non est disputandum! How are you, SummerPhD? Enjoying Spring Break, looking out over the Gulf of Mexico? Drmies (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're tasting them, you're doing it wrong. Alternatives to medicine are like that, though. The Gulf Coast will have to wait, we're probably doing the New England bit this summer, though. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered Maine? Blue Hill has some interesting sights, at least at the cemetery. Thanks for your enemal advice--you are correct. Still, oral application of lots of coffee has a similar effect, no? If you will pardon me--my boat's in the harbor! Drmies (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice that the two of them were so close -- living together, buried together... Oh, and she went to Bryn Mawr and taught at Smith... It's such a shame she never "found the right man". If you will pardon me, the @#$%ing roofing contractor will be here soon.- SummerPhD (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow we're not going kayaking. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good luck. The joys of homeownership. If you care to move--there's a nice house for sale here, for 429,000. Right now it's the one nearest the beach, but there is a lot in front of it. I'll save you a flyer. Hope things went better than you might have feared. Drmies (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A few more years and it'll be on the beach. Eventually, someone else will own it. Doesn't seem like a solid investment of a half million we don't have. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

coffee enema

There's no reason to keep removing the current studies section. What's the deal? Can you give me a solid reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.201.2 (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Issues regarding an article belong on that article's talk page. Rather than merely restoring the contested material, please join the discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Attack in what sense?

How does turning an attack back on the attacker constitute an attack in itself? I thought I was very restrained in the face of considerable provocation. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not on the contributor. "He hit me first" is not an excuse. Ignoring the attack (for which the user had already been warned) or placing the {{uw-npa1}} template on the other user's talk page would have been constructive. "Hitting" back was not. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, so I was supposed to just let slide his lies and insults where he actually voiced them? Me pointing out the self-evident falsity of his suggestion that I had "followed" him to that particular page was a entirely factual. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You certainly could have addressed the insults and purported lies without calling anyone a "moron" or "conceited". Their personal attacks were wrong. So were yours. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I used "moron" speculatively in inverted commas to mark it out as the word he had already freely and unequivocably aimed at me. I also said I myself was not conceited. Am I allowed to not insult myself? Nick Cooper (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The intent and implications of several of your edits are clear. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Kari Byron Date of Birth

Just FYI, I've found a "KARI E BYRON" on the California Birth index available at familytreelegends.com (sorry, can't like to it now, I'm on a mobile device, but Tory Belleci has a citation to it) verifying the December 18, 1974 DOB. Connormah (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. Now, if we can confirm that that "Belleci, Salvator P." is the same "Tory Belleci" and that that "KARI E BYRON" is the same "Kari Byron", we'd have something. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we find anything on the the names of their mothers? IIRC the birth index lists those. Connormah (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be kinda surprised if a celebrity who isn't listing their birth date is sharing their mother's name. Good luck! - SummerPhD (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lyxor Asset Management

Hello SummerPhD. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lyxor Asset Management, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation: He decided that you were full of non-sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.61 (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh... oh my god no... anything but that... I feel so... so positively wounded by the lonely guy making tit jokes on Wikipedia. Now I must cry. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is someone accesing your account

Hi, I noticed and reverted this change to the Vegetarianism article from your account. I have checked your history and other edits are constructive, so perhaps you should check if someone else is accessing your account. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My bad. The diff I saw and a bit of inattention on my part. The prior editor had reverted half of a vandal's edits. I inadvertently reverted the half correction Check my edit summary. Thanks for the catch. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

wasnt vandalism

The study linked to that I deleted on vegetarianism doesnt talk about vegetarianism, but prescetarianism. Prescetarians eat fish and poultry; they are not vegetarians. Therefore it is erroneous to state that the study found people with higher IQs became vegetarians, because they were not vegetarians, but prescetarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.200.55 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was pure vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Mick Thomson

Dear editor, please reconsider the multitude of tags at the top of this article. Some vandal just came by and did a hack job. Thank you. Signed: The Anonymous Avenger.

@#$%ing breeders going after my talk page again. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, The Breeders are certainly not "innocent". They've ... um ... gotten around. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also incidentally, I love "Cannonball." Still do, after all those years. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That being the case, I can highly recommend the solo albums by Amy Ray. Yeah, of the Indigo Girls. Honestly, though, solo she's a rock artist more like the Ramones than the group stuff would have you believe. I'm particularly fond of Stag (Amy Ray album), though while it is true that "Lucystoners don't need [[Hot dog|boners" I think she's unduly harsh on Jann Wenner. If nothing else, it's cheaper than a house on the Gulf Coast and more accessible than anything bell hooks ever wrote. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Really Summer, which part of "no wikilinks in quotes" don't you get? I ordered Didn't It Feel Kinder, so I could get the matching shirt for my oldest daughter. I listened to a couple of bars from the Knoxville album and that sounds good too, but I'll save that for later. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I ruined my brilliant joke with a typo. Story of my life. I had a student last year who got published. Two weeks later, engaged. No Lucystoner, she's taking his name (kids today...). Just as well, they misspelled her first name in the dead tree edition (but not on line...) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

<--It took forever, but my woman finally took my name a year ago. And what a hassle it's been! My last name is weird! The bank account is still in her name, 'cause there's no branch offices in our state! Her former last name is now her middle name! I tell you, with all that hullabaloo it's hard to relish in the thought of property finally being transferred in the proper way. Oh, she's calling--gotta go and do the dishes. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Kitchen clean, lunches made, clothes put away, Dante quiz made, I'm done. Hey, whatever happened to your roof? Got it fixed? Drmies (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably. While it seems everything is shipshape, I'm reserving judgment until after monsoon season (a.k.a. "Spring") wraps up. Fingers crossed. Do you suppose it's legit to offer extra credit to anyone willing to replace some failing plumbing? I'm sure the old pipes are at least 50 years old and were likely installed by someone whose story reflects on the state of social welfare policies of the time. I'm thinking a paper titled, "Immigrant labor in the mid 20th century as reflected in Doc's old pipes" coupled with new copper pipes. I'm flexible on the title of the paper (academic freedom and all), but copper pipes are a must. Think it'll fly? (Honestly: I once had a student suggest, right after midterms, that his roommate could give us a good deal on house painting...) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)