User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive7

Magical negro

Hi Summer. I think you posted this to the wrong user page, right? I haven't made any additions to article, not recently anyway. I did add a tag to an unsourced edit. No harm done. If I had a dollar every time I posted to the wrong page I could retire early. :) Best wishes. Cresix (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure enough. Haste makes waste. Sorry! - SummerPhD (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Land levelling

Wow, that's *yawn* really exciting stuff. Impossible to imagine, but if you get bored with copyediting that thrilling prose, perhaps you can swing your gaze toward Kelley Deal and associated articles? They need references, reorganization, discographies, sex, and car chases. Nothing you can't handle. Thanks in advance! Drmies (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• BTW, congratulations: "I do not see a need for a "Slipknot expert" (!) here" is beautiful. And now, dishes and baths. Breeding is SO much fun! Drmies (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Kelley Deal's notability is fairly marginal. Basically, it seems her drug problem is the only thing that really tips the balance, and that's pretty sad. Maybe asking for a Breeding Breeders expert would help? In theory, we could slap a pointless LGBT project tag on it. It would either be completely ignored (likely) or draw some attention to it as the community pointlessly argues about whether or not the tag belongs there. Meanwhile, someone flipping between an IP and a user name continues to play stupid games with the most important article in the world and the future fate of Land levelling is left to someone who "know(s) the rules of this a little better" but hasn't figured out the whole talk page thing yet. Where's your sense of priorities? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Mine? In my pants, pointing proudly at Kelley Deal, who's more notable than you or I will ever be. But I won't stand in the way of you and land levelling. Maybe that needs an LGBT tag. Or I nominate it for deletion, you slap an ARS tag on it, and the Colonel comes riding in with the cavalry. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Kelley Deal? Really? I can't say I get it. Oh well, to each their own. As for her notability, 359 g-hits? Heck, I'm at 220 on Google scholar (with the ink on my PhD still fairly damp) and I'm feeling the PorP pressure on a regular basis (though I'm technically not tenure track). The Colonel's cavalry doesn't impress me. As for one of his fellow travelers, who shall remain nameless, I think we're reaching more kids today. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey wanted to say thanks, I did not know you can send a message like this, hence why I wrote on your article page. I thought that was what you did on mine, but I guess you sent a message. I hope what I wrote didn't offend you in anyway, I was just explaining myself. Thanks again for leaving that page pretty much alone, it is a class project that I had to do, hence why I kept changing it back. I'm new to wikipedia, and to be honest only created this account because I had to do this for that course. So I really have no idea how to actually edit these pages. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjh9-NJITWILL (talk • contribs) 15:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheese steak page edits

Dear SummerPhd: The edits to the above page were made for the reasons given: the Olivieris did not invent the cheese steak, no matter popular attribution: the history directly above their mention establishes the sandwich existed at the end of the 19th century. They popularized it.

The edit attributing the popularity of Cheeze Whiz to Pat's introduction is not unsourced or unsupported. It simply condenses what is established elsewhere in the article. You want to trim that down to merely re-state that Pat introduced it and no more, be my guest.

The "Variations" subhead is a flytrap for all manner of variation. I had cheese steaks yesterday and today from two different places. You want me to list them, too? A cheese steak is a cheese steak: steak, cheese, onions, peppers and mushooms if you please. Going beyond that is not encyclopedic, it's fanpage stuff. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summaries do not summarize your edits. They should. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Point made. I'll endeavor to do better. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the history directly above says "The cheesesteak was developed in the early 20th century" and the sources say the Oliveris are "credited with inventing" the cheesesteak. I've made this correction again. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As I find no source elsewhere in the article claiming Pat's introduced Whiz, I've added a {{cn}} tag for the moment. I've returned a reduced version of the varieties section, keeping only brief descriptions of the very common chicken cheesesteaks and pizza steaks, as sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The addition of cheese in general and Whiz in particular has a bit of unsourced competing claims in Pat's_King_of_Steaks. Pending a source, I've removed it from this article. Further discussion re edits will go to the article talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So, I see you prefer a patently erroneous "sourced" claim to simple reality - as stated at the top of the History section - that the sandwich existed for some thirty to forty years before the Olivieris as credited with having "invented" it. This is preposterous, and thoroughly non-encylopedic editing. "Citing" an error does not make it so. Respectfully, Wikiuser100 (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thirty to forty years (unsourced) before 1930 is no longer the "early 20th century" cited. 1930, as sourced, is. I'm moving this to the article talk page. Please respond there. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Denise Boutte

Hey SummerPhD it's me Jabrona. I got her date of birth off of IMDB and I assumed it wasn't false since the date of birth of actors from that site are usually accurate. Sorry for the mishap. There's a similar issue regarding Michelle Thomas' date of birth being September 23, 1969 when there's a needed source for that even though it's been confirmed by people who know her personally. - Jabrona 021:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical information. We do not take information from a user edited site (like IMDb) assuming it is "usually accurate". Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't really see IMDB as a user-edited site considering it's not like you can make a simple edit like on here since there are steps that must be confirmed before actual changing can take place, so yeah. But again, sorry for the mishap. - Jabrona 023:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, we have discussed imdb before and decided it isn't a reliable source. For example... - SummerPhD (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So...

Not that this is exactly wiki related, but ya know I'm a human and I think you may find this interesting. You have the first name of someone that really means a lot to me. I mean even seeing your username kind of haunts me, I mean not that's that is necessarily a band thing, I mean her and I still talk, it's just... you know how it is when there's that person that just steals your heart, ya know? =P - GunMetal Angel 06:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Brings to mind The Mango Song, "When you love somebody/And the dick you around/Doesn't that really suck?"

It's cold comfort, of course, but... well, who am I to give advice? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of internet links waiting removing

A lot of internet links waiting removing in page what you have restored, see page before references.--Musamies (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit of digging tells me you are talking about Mummers Parade. However, I still don't know why you were removing all of that. Can you explain why you were removing it or list the Wikipedia policy you feel applies? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it also so in your wiki that all intenetlinks shall be in references part or in external links part. In text area shall not be any internetlinks. Thats why I remove them.--Musamies (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand what you are saying: "No links in-line with text." That's fine, but the information with it (the names of the organizations) should remain. I'll make the change. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for the good detective work at List of collective nouns. I didn't have time to investigate, but I was hoping someone would. Cresix (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I'm watching TV. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. A colleague mentioned it was on (he's a bit of a buffoon, but he tries ;). I have it set to record in the early AM. I'm not sure if it's new or not (our jerry-rigged TV setup doesn't really give us much info). I might have seen it. I keep meaning to buy a DVD recorder for this type of thing to loan around (instead of sending people looking for illegal rips online or to buy it at Giovanni's). Too confusing for me: DVD-R, DVD+R, rewritable, WORM, Blue ray, arrgh! Time to call in a tech-savvy in-law... - SummerPhD (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I have a DVD-R machine, but I'm not sure how it works. I'm watching purely by chance, didn't know it was on. It's pretty good, and I never knew about it (also, I didn't know we did such terrible things, electroshocks and all--explains a thing or two about some of my in-laws). Drmies (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just narrowed my assumed description of who you are: If you didn't know Stonewall, I know a few fields you don't work in (or, at least, I hope you don't work in). Maybe I should refer you to Giovanni's[1]. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Next time on American Experience, it's the Freedom Riders. (See Greyhound Bus Station (Montgomery, Alabama) and First Baptist Church (Montgomery, Alabama), written by yours truly.) I had a friend in high school for whom Giovanni's Room apparently was the eye opener. I don't know if my work is so relevant to my ignorance of topics like Stonewall. They don't really teach a lot of US gay history in Dutchland. They don't really teach a lot of it here either. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

See, I learned something already. I'd have picked you for a Northeast transplant living in Illinois. Shows what I know.

Here, not far from a different Dutchland (which used to feature a large windmill and people in clogs), Stonewall is pretty huge. Given the general lack of local knowledge that the Pennsylvania Dutch are of Deutsche origin, not "Dutch" and mentions of "The Hague" having my students wondering what he had to do with the ICC, I guess I should expect U.S. LGBT watersheds wouldn't necessarily translate.

As for Giovanni's Room, that's a pretty nasty cover. I think I read it in a "collected works" kinda deal. The one I referred too is pretty eye-opening as well. Walking through the gayborhood in Philly, this seemingly small bookshop on the outside is a rather large bookshop/community center on the inside (painted "lesbian bookstore purple", of course). Kinda like the phonebooth thing in that British scifi show I can never remember, but gay. Very gay. Or so I'm told -- I mean about the phonebooth thing, not the gay thing. I'm quite sure it's gay. Quite gay.

Here's a challenge for you: as soon as possible, mention Stonewall to someone who clearly would have no clue otherwise. On my end, I'll try to clear up the distinction between rural Anabaptist dirt farmers in Pennsylvania and a kingdom in Europe for the next tourist who asks me about "Ay-mish" country. Together, we'll improve the world, if only by a tiny bit. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I find your discussions to be quite entertaining, I come here sometimes. I find it interesting that Netherlanders are referred to as Dutch, but Deutchland is referred to as Germany. The neighborhood of Dutchtown here in St. Louis, Missouri was actually built by Germans.

If you guys haven't ever read this, please do. I got a big kick out of it. --Confession0791 ^talk 01:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, looks like the next generation has a few things to sort out. Hopefully there's someone around to set them straight about the L's, G's, B's and T's. (Get it? "Straight"! Haw, I'm really funny.) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello, I was just wondering if you could explain of why you reverted my recent edit to mutual fund? Monterey Bay (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated. First, your edit was 'not "minor rewording". You removed someone's POV addition ("Some investors believe that government regulation is a disadvantage rather than an advantage.") and changed "Less predictable income" to "Lower profit potential". "Less predictable" is not the same as "Lower potential" and "income" (dividends) is not the same as "profit" (vague, but probably capital gains and might include dividends). Second, I did not "revert" your edit. I removed "Lower profit potential" as the vague "Fees" is already on the list. The only thing that reduces mutual fund profits compared to similar investments outside of a fund is "fees" (loads and expenses). Listing "Fees" and "Lower profit potential" is redundant. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Falley Jr.

Regarding Richard Falley Jr. being Notable (in your eyes.)

Wouldn't having a street in the city named for a person make them notable (Falley Dr.)? Or maybe having a tablet provided by the Westfield Bicentennial Committee. (http://www.falley.org/) Please take the time to do the research other than a quick google. Perhaps check out the library where they have old grinding wheels and tools from the armory he ran off of Reservoir Rd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulB1979 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:PaulB1979#Westfield.2C_Massachusetts. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So Sad

So sad to go thru life never motorboating or being motorboated, sadder still to be so vigilant about a discussion page about a long dead tv show. MBRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.61 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my vigilance is indeed sadder than your sexual frustration. Still, I feel sorry for you. Odd. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Jamie Hyneman

A Google Books Search shows that he was born on September 25 - see [2]. Connormah (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

More searching supports the Marshall, Michigan place, and Sept 25, 1956... see [3] Connormah (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam Savage DOB: [4] Connormah (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Kari Byron: [5] (page is for December 18) Connormah (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Google searches are not reliable sources. A Google search shows that, at this particular moment, there are websites showing that information. "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." A Google search is not "published" nor does it have a "reliable publication process" (one with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Using a Google search, we can document that the Moon landings were faked, George W. Bush is a lizard man or any other "idea" someone has put on a website. We need a reliable source, not a web search showing that there are some "sources" of some kind somewhere. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the books the searches yielded - see the links. (eg. in Chase's calendar of events 2009 - Page 472, it lists Hyneman's DOB as Sept. 25, 1956, in MArshall, Michigan) Connormah (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where they get their info, but it looks like a reliable source. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dana Barron

You removed text that stated Dana Barron had a sister named Allison, claiming it was 'unsourced'. The reference that I cited (Celebrity Parents Magazine) clearly indicates they are siblings. Calm Seas101 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I read your latest edit, and added Allison again, this time without the last name. Calm Seas101 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say her sister is "Allison Barron", as added in the section with her husband and son. I neglected to add her sister "Allison" under her early life section. I've since corrected this. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Keltz

I would like you to take a look at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Jonathan Keltz. There was an article about this fellow that was sent to AFD in January 2010.[6] As I myself commented back then, I felt that while the fellow might be seen to meet WP:ENT, there was simply not enough reliable coverage at that time upon which to build a decent BLP. That has changed. In the intervening 14 months, the fellow has received growing coverage and recognition he lacked originally. And with the new coverage, available only since the deletion,[7] I feel it benefits the project to have this new version of the article return to mainspace to further grow and be expanded. No point to a DRV, as there was no flaw in the reasoning for original deletion... but what I have built is not the same as the article that was deleted, and this due to actor's career and coverage not sitting still over the last 14 months. I seek your approval in its return AND in it not being mistakenly speedied as a G4 recreation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks fairly shaky, IMO. Yeah, lots of sources with big names, but they are used to cite... roles. Is he notable? Under WP:ENT, I'd say no way: the two roles he's supposedly best known for are minor roles that aren't mentioned in the plot descriptions of the main articles. No presumption of notability there. This leaves substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Based on what is currently sourced in the article, I don't see it. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an additional note... I brought it to the deleting admin's attention and he gave his okay to an return to mainspace,[8] and sent me a link to the version he speedied, which I then found in a google cache.[9] I can well understand his deletion of that earlier version. Yikes.

But as I do believe Keltze "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," has himself specifically been written about in context to his roles in Entourage and Prom, and as there are 1. other sources available for expansion and sourcing, and 2. a reasonable expectation that the upcoming releases of Playback and Transgression[10] (new articles likely on the horizon), perhaps it might be conceded that we have just enough to allow it to remain and be expanded in due course of time? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, I think there is very, very little chance of a speedy. It sounds like it is substantially different, so that should be clear. If it goes up the way I saw it, deletion wouldn't be on my to do list. I'd certainly tag it and might need to dig in and see what kind of biographical info we have and can add. I disagree on the WP:ENT pass, but it's really a moot point. Passing or failing a guideline shouldn't matter; sources matter. I hope that some of those sources currently being uselessly cited for indisputable roles can be moved to source more substantial info about him: hometown, schooling, something. I'll be watching for it (for some work), but I don't feel any particular need to argue with anyone about it. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll see about some additional expansion and sourcing before going live. Thanks for the input. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please Keep your political views out of my Wikipedia discussions (Birther discussion)

Hello Summer,

I noticed your recent condemnation of my remarks on the Birther page, claiming that I was "debating" and not discussing the article. And yet, even as I described myself as a Tea Party conservative (though by no means a Birther), I noticed the first thing on your page was a bunch of Liberal quotes. Does it not seem coincidental that I myself happen to have brought up my involvement in the Tea Party, and you, a Liberal, immediately attack my writings? I ask that you please put aside our political differences and work to maintain the neutrality that Wikipedia is supposed to demonstrate. Left wingers have already vandalized pages on conservative movements, and I worked to remove allegations that the Birther movement was "racist". My discussion was not to promote my own beliefs, but rather to attack the deep knives of racism. To call anyone or a movement a racist is beyond even the most horrid accusations. By no means, regardless of a left-wing individual's views, should it be affiliated with a movement on a Wikipedia page. I, along with the Democrat who originally was shocked to see the words and brought up the issue, felt compelled to immediately ensure the vandalism was removed. My and your political beliefs have nothing to do with it, so, if by some chance, you snapped at me because I am a Tea Party Conservative, please refrain from doing so in the future. I shall revise my discussion to make it more related to the article, if you wish.

Finally, to inform you, I am not a newbie on Wikipedia. I have been contributing to pages for a few months now, but only just decided it was worth creating an account a few weeks back. Thank you, however, for your concern.

If you wish to discuss politics, by all means, I am with you! I absolutely love debate, and would be glad to have an educated discussion with my liberal counterparts. I am afraid that too many of us Tea Partiers have been described as "gun-toting, anti-intellectual rednecks" (as I believe were the remarks of the former NPR chief executive officer), and now wish to reverse this commonly held stereotype. Nbarile18 (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for prolonged discussions of politics or any other topic, whether related to the article in question or not. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you, without any prior authorization, simply deleted all my contributions because they opposed your own thoughts is absolutely shocking! You have a right to believe my writings were too political, however, you have no right whatsoever to wipe out my all my contributions to the DISCUSSION page. I implore you to revert your edit, in which I myself may then proceed to revise my contribution. What you are doing is known as Censorship, in which one intentionally distorts or deletes the work of those opposing their beliefs. Please disregard that I am a Conservative and you a Liberal, and contribute and edit Wikipedia in a neutral and unbiased manner. You have absolutely no jurisdiction in deciding what is debate and what is active discussion relating to an article. Nbarile18 (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not delete all of your contributions, I removed your otalk page discussion which had nothing to do with improving the article. I did not do this because our thoughts differ, I did this because your discussion had nothing to do with improving the article. I do not believe your discussion was "too political", I believe it had nothing to do with improving the article. Actually, yes, I do have the right to remove contributions from article talk pages that have nothing to do with improving the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. Removing off-topic discussion on talk pages is not censorship any more than removing vandalism or unsourced material from an article is censorship. Wikipedia is not a forum. Using it as such is no more defensible than using an open area in a shopping mall for a baseball game. In either case, you will be asked to stop. I have full "jurisdiction" in deciding what is discussion related to improving the article and what is not. So do you. So does every other editor on Wikipedia. When we disagree on another editor's actions, we have the "right" to seek additional opinions. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution for further options if you believe your discussion was somehow intended to improve the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sharpay's Fabulous Adventure Edit

Out of curiosity, am I able to use YouTube as a source if the channel is from Disney Channel's YouTube? --DisneyFriends (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO: If it is clearly their official channel, we can make limited use of it, with caution. First, it does not count in any way toward notability (for notability in establishing an article or for moving a fact out of the "trivial" realm). Next, the fact being sourced must not be the least bit controversial (no claims it's a great film, critics love it, etc. for example). Also, don't interpret anything, use it to support simple, concrete facts only (release date, who is in what role, etc.). - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Giving the dog his day

Sir, you're a good woman. If the article gets kept after all, maybe you'll be allowed to lick the canine's bowl, in an appropriate nod to the adventures of the "real" Pickles. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I won't stoop so low as to point out that you implied that many the American politician's claims about gay marriage leading to man-on-dog action aren't all that far-fetched (NPI) after all. As I said, I won't stoop so low as to mention that, so be grateful, you sicko. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, I wasn't implying that at all. And if I was, I didn't mean to, though Sadie kept me warm many a cold night up in the Appalachian mountains after we ran out of money to buy diesel fuel to heat the home which we couldn't afford (the diesel fuel that is, which incidentally I didn't know was diesel since I didn't know kerosene and diesel are apparently the same thing, but also incidentally we couldn't afford it, that is, the house, to buy it, which we tried to but the owner was asking some ridiculous price) since there was a 100 gallon minimum, but it was all above the sheets (metaphorically, of course, since literally we were under the sheets, and a double set of blankets as well). But at least we were of the opposite sex--I guess, since I don't know if dogs are culturally gendered in the way that we are, I mean, I'm obviously a man's man, you know?

Which reminds me--I wanted to ask you, if you want to get out from under that molded roof of yours, you can buy our house, and if you do, you'll get pool privileges in the new house (across the street). I'll make you a squeal of a deal... Drmies (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The deal would have to be considerably skinnier than square. The "Ivory Tower" seems to think the prestige of working there should be payment enough. To be nice, they also include a little walking*-around-money and reasonably decent benefits. *i.e., not enough to pay for a car or transit pass. I'd never heard the whole diesel/kerosene thing. I've heard of people (against car-care-type-advice (and the law)) using untaxed heating oil in their meant-to-be-fueled-with-taxed-diesel cars. I'd have to assume that heating oil is a bit more "rustic" than diesel, given the simpler mechanics involved. So probably a bad idea all around. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I'm amazed that he has the gumption to show his mug after Santorum (sexual neologism). And do you have the balls (metaphorically or otherwise) to place a hatnote above his article linking to that term? Drmies (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Tempting but, surprisingly enough, there's been some bickering about that on the talk page. S h o c k i n g . in any case, I don't see a need for it. Someone searching for frothy mix would end up at the disamb page, Santorum. If, on the other hand, we had an article on Saddlebacking... - SummerPhD (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice! I'll keep that in mind next time I teach linguistics. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Victorious Soundtrack

So you decided to use the All Music Guide link as a reference for Victorious (soundtrack). I was hoping to find an additional source, and to wait until AMG had more data as well. Regarding iCelebz, that site looks like more of a gossip site rather than a fan site. Not that I blame you for wanting to remove it, because I have a strong feeling that site is infected. ----DanTD (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I decided we pretty much had to use the AMG page because without it the page would remain unsourced. It should have been deleted, but no one bothered to !vote. I guess the article will remain a bare shell for now. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Brucejenner sockpuppet investigation

Hi - I noticed that you've been working recently on the Brucejenner SPI. I was wondering if you would weigh in on Wikipedia:Help_desk#how_to_handle_a_confirmed_sock_puppet_of_two_users.3F. There's at least one user who's been confirmed as a sockpuppet of both Brucejenner and Polylepsis, and I'm wondering if that has implications for the SPIs -- should they be merged? Can we conclude that they're all the same socks? etc. Thanks —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Shepard Smith article talk page

I am curious why you deleted the entire "hair" section from the talk page for Shepard Smith's BLP article, including a valid response from a Sysop that the posting was frivolous. The posting certainly appeared to be silly and may even have been a type of joke but I do not understand why you just deleted the section which appears to go against Wiki policy for talk pages without a satisfactory explanation in the edit summary other then the vague "-chat". You have more then 12 times the edits I do so there must be a policy reason that I am unaware of. I have reverted your deletion pending your explanation. Veriss (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the edit as it was discussion that was not intended to improve the article.WP:FORUM While the discussion may have appeared merely frivolous, in the context of that editor's other edits, it was clearly of non-constructive intent. Note the first three edits were all to talk pages and were all frivolous-to-bizarre mentions of hair. See also the user's talk page. Given a chat warning on one article, they ramped it up with a clear BLP violation on another. Warned for that, the editor restored both edits they had been warned about. This resulted in a 31 hour block, from which the editor did not return. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of this article, I would like to appologize for my comment on Talk:Shepard Smith. It really wasn't posted with malicious intent or to be libelous. I'm just very concerned about the guy considering REDACTED. I really don't believe the rumors about REDACTED, and was shocked that anyone would make such accusations, and wanted to know what would have provoked such false information. Had I posted this on Shepard Smith instead of Talk:Shepard Smith, that would have definitely had been a BLP infraction. Another thread in the talk page is far more libelous than the question I posted with the intent of ending such disinformation. Apparently, that was wrong. And for that I appologize. Sorry for the mistake.--Bushido Hacks (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of your intent, WP:BLP specifically applies to talk pages as well, including this one. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania

Dear Summer, Thank you for taking the time to discuss your edits with other editors. The relevant [[11]] does not seem to indicate a person is notable only if he has an article about him. Perhaps I missed it. Could you point it out? Often I skip over things when reading before my coffee. Notable seems (according to the cite) mean "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. I would propose these people having risen to the senior leadership of the military are notable. The one fellow who enlisted in the army in mid-war despite his educational background seems quite notable. With this as background, perhaps you would like to revert your edit. Many thanks, Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The entries were unsourced and based on subjective, recentist criteria. As the [User_talk:PaulinSaudi#May_2011 standard notice] explains, "In general, a person or organization added to a list...should have a pre-existing article to establish notability." None of the names have such an article. Additionally, none of them are properly sourced (one was sourced to a blog, the others were completely unsourced). The page you are citing, Wikipedia:Notability_(people), goes on to explain, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Needless to say, none of the names cited such sources. Consider, for a moment, what such lists in other articles would look like. Each of those people are connected to at least one town or city (most are connected to more than one), went to a high school, went to at least one college, had at least one academic major and fit under various other lists of "Notable _______s". How long will the lists of vegetarians, business administration majors, computer programers, people from New York City, fraternity _ _ _ members, etc. be under your proposed criteria? You are arguing for "senior leadership" in the military. Now expand those lists to senior leadership in business (6,000+ publicly traded companies in the U.S. alone), senior leadership in various cities, states and countries (sure, the Mayor of Chicago; how about the deputy mayor of Springfield, Washington?), every person in "senior leadership" ever, of course, not just the four very recent ones you are arguing for. Shippensburg dates to 1871. How about every person in such positions going back through history. The University of Pennsylvania (1740)? How about Pembroke (1347)? For the record, Pembroke lists 64 people, all with articles. Further, they have a Category for their alumni (all with articles, of course). - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Summer, Thank you for your reply. If we were print the 'pedia on paper we would have to limit ourselves more strictly than we in fact do. Listing many names, or places or whatnot cause no harm that I can see. Further, I can see where it would do some good. Further, if over-listing of non-notable people were a problem, we would have a policy to address that issue. In the absence of a policy, I see no reason to make one up for article. If you feel that there ought to be a policy, you ought to work to establish one. Elsewise, we will have one set of guidelines for this article and another set of other articles. I think we can agree that would not be a Good Thing. I do however humbly admit that additions without citations ought to be deleted. I would propose deleting the ones that lack a citation or a blue link. Can we compromise on that? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The entries did not have blue links and were unsourced. Discussion continues on the thread you've established on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Summer, Thank you for your reply. So you will insist that notable means blue link? I believe the policy allows for notability without a blue link. Of course we agree all entries must have a cite. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point, the discussion is clearly about article content, not specific editor's edits. Please continue the discussion in the thread you've established on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Your User Page

By the way, your user page is excellent. Congratulations. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

IP vandals

Hi, I noticed you came across a couple of IP vandals; I believe that they are sockpuppets of a banned editor, Pricer1980 (talk · contribs). The IP address is ever-changing, so combating the vandalism requires some persistence. I have a sub-page at User:Erik/Draft providing some information; the talk page also has some notifications of IP vandals. Wanted to give you a heads-up. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Blake Michael

Just to let you know I've just declined your G4 on this article cos it's actually quite different to the originally deleted version. Similar, but different enough IMHO (4-5 times the content!) to warrant a new discussion. [stwalkerster|talk] 00:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Just thought we might save some time. Oh well. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

External Link

After looking over guidelines for external links, I wrote on the Discussion Page that I wanted to add an external link to the monthly newspaper The Coastal Star. It's a paper that uses paid reporters to cover hyper local news including that of Highland Beach. I heard nothing from anyone. So I added it and now I hear the link is to spam. I don't get the reasoning so would like to find out more. Thank you. Dhartz (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I know you've asked the question a few times[12][13][14][15]. I also see that your addition of the link has been reverted several times, by several editors[16][17][18][19] (the last two were mine). You've also been given notes giving links to various related policies[20]. Hopefully I will be able to clarify the situation for you.

The link you've added, http://thecoastalstar.com/ (which you say is a "legitimate monthly newspaper" serving the various communities you've added the link to) is problematic in a number of regards. In general, Wikipedia is not a collection of links or a web guide. While the site may provide information about current events in those communities, Wikipedia is aimed at providing a general overview of the topics it covers. The detailed day-to-day happenings are well outside of our field. Our guideline on external links explains what we generally do and do not link to. The site does not clearly hit one of the three items we normally link to: #1 official sites for the subject (such as the City of Boca Raton's website), #2 a free copy of the work that is the topic (does not apply to the articles in question) or #3 sites with neutral, accurate and relevant information that cannot be included in the article for a number of reasons (reasons that do not apply here).

This takes us to links we would consider including: #1 concerns professional reviews of films, books and such and does not apply here. #2 rich media files (such as links to an artist's videos, film clips and such) #3 a link to a directory of websites or organizations (not your link) #4 sites that are not reliable sources but still give content from sources considered knowledgeable about the topic (for example, a blog by a recognized expert on a topic) (also not your site).

So, we don't have a compelling reason to include the site. What reason to we have to specifically not include it? Well, under our list of links to avoid we have several that apply to one degree or another: #4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website" (as your only edits have been aimed at adding this link to several articles, this applies) and #10 & 11, links to networking sites and blogs (which seems to be most of your site).

Hopefully this clears things up. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you

That that line is trivial. Bet you didn't read the news report.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Foxhound66, you will find that other users have an easier time responding to you if you A) give the name of the article you are talking about (apparently Jennette McCurdy in this case) and don't obscure your user name.

The single performance you added does not seem to be noteworthy, as is typically the case for such once-and-done events. Exceptions to this general rule are identifiable by coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, other than local media. If Joe Blow performs at the Capital City Dome, the Capital City Gazette might report on it as being of local interest. If the event is in some way notable, media from outside the area (national newspapers, for instance, or major papers from far outside the area). Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Rageholic Filled With Rageahol

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SummerPhD for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even get a chance to respond. (Closed as bad faith accusation.) - SummerPhD (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So why wasn't the one you started closed as a bad faith accusation, since it obviously was? Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In your sock case, it was determined that the other account was a sock of yours.[21] - SummerPhD (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually read the things you cite?

Seriously? Do you read the things you cite or do you just google the article title and if it is in there it is obviously a reliable source regardless of the context? Did you fail reading comprehension or something? Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be angry. Please be careful to avoid personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to add Overpush as a sockpuppet, too.

You forgot to add Overpush as a sockpuppet of me. He is obviously one since we disagree with you and made edits on things that are in the same state. How did you miss that? Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In your sock case, it was determined that the other account was a sock of yours.[22] If I think Overpush is a sock, I'll add that one as well. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think you would do it, but you did. You'll probably wind up with yet another person pissed off at you and your lies. Apparently anyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet. That is one way to get what you want. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do it. You didn't think. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, looks like you won't be replying for awhile. Bummer. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you handle the truth?

Why can't you handle the truth? Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful to avoid personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a message

Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Move_Closer_to_Your_World

Holy hell. For keeping your cool after all of that, here is a cookie. What a nightmare that must have been.--v/r - TP 19:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

TParis has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks! (To be honest, though...[23]) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Why delete Selena Gomez & The Scene Song, "Bang Bang Bang"?

Hi, I was wondering why you wanted to delete the article Bang Bang Bang (Selena Gomez & The Scene song) because it is have been officially released as a digital download. iTunes Store officially released it on June 7th, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.152.141 (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As the article's AfD discussion page explains, the song is not notable. Per WP:NSONG, "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song has not charted, won significant awards or been released by several artists. If you disagree, please comment at the AfD page linked above. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok you're right, I'm sorry. 174.28.244.90 (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Response

How's this source for Gibby's hometown? 89119 (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO, The Orange County Register is reliable. However, all of the pages I can find on their site that mention Munck say he is "of Mission Viejo" -- apparently he lives there. However, the article is saying where he was born. His website says he was "born and raised" in Orange County. Yes, Mission Viejo is in Orange County, but it is certainly possible that he's moved within the county since he was born. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding placement of new link

Dear SummerPhD, Please, explain me, the reasons to delete a link Pumpable ice technology from Supercooling? I install this link because this technology includes different refrigeration processes including, of course, Supercooling. I gave you, to my point of view, very detailed answer in our previous discussion. After your critics I installed additional links taking into account your opinion. In addition, in this page Supercooling there is a link of slush (beverage) that is a very quite local case for Supercooling. You did not removed this link. Pumpable ice technology covers many refrigeration process and it is very relevant to be installed as a link in Supercooling. I suppose on your balanced answer. BR Swallow2011, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swallow2011 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Colonial Theatre changes

Hello there, SummerPhD. Regarding your recent revert, no worries. I don't edit pages very much but felt that page was a bit lacking. I added a bunch of sources to the talk page for the Colonial theatre, if you'd like to take a gander at them prior to my adding them and re-adding the reverted text. If not, I'll just go ahead and re-add the material with source links added.

Thanks! CharlieFandango (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

hi, nice to meet you

Whats up!!! I wanted to talk to you about the Michelle Thomas page. I looked up her birth and death date and i don't have any specific website for her info, although i did see in part of the text on Google on pretty much every website that said she was born in September 23 and died in December 23. Is there a wikipedia chatbox we can chat on because sending messages on talk pages is a bit unpractical and difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boberson33 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There has been substantial discussion on this already (see the article's talk page). Yes, "various websites" report one date. However, other "websites" give conflicting information. Many of these sites are not reliable sources anyway, so whatever they say is moot. Reliable sources (major newspapers and magazines, generally), as cited in the article, also give conflicting information (disagreeing on her age at death and not giving a birth date). If you can find a reliable source giving her birth date, that would be useful. Beyond that, please see discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Warning

Your "warning" was completely uncalled for! I did not violate Wikipedia's BLP rule, and besides, you are not an admin, so you had NO RIGHT to put that on my page anyway. Thank you. PingaBinga (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edit made an unsourced contentious claim about a living person. I do not have to be an admin to remove such claims, warn you for them and, if need be, have you blocked for the same. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're already blocked. Oh well. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Finkelstein

"selecting a quote others might disagree with does not make a "controversy".
I agree, though I couldn't immediately see where else would have been relevant to put it.
Just change a word to see how outrageous his agreement with Sontag is: "The [Jewish] race is the cancer of human history". You're telling me you would calmly say that "others might disagree" and remove the quote if someone said that about Jewish people? Are you antisemitic as well as an anti-White racist? Iloveandrea (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot simply select a quote and add it to the article. Doing so allows any editor to create bias in the article.

As a thought experiment, pick any subject and look for quotes making them sound brilliant, stupid, conciliatory, argumentative, etc. With enough source material, it is absurdly easy. Now imagine the effect allowing this would have in, for instance, Barack Obama. Love him or hate him, it's obvious the article would quickly become a relentless battleground in ceaseless edit wars.

If independent reliable sources have commented on it, you may have a case for including it, otherwise not -- especially in a biography of a living person. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Retraction

Well SummerPhD, I've seen your user page and see that you do have a sense of humor, so I retract the charge that you do not—it is completely without foundation. As to the sock puppetry I abase myself before you and beg forgiveness.154.5.32.113 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your sig

looks very nice but needs to link back to either/both your user page or user talk page. Cheers, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. Overlooked that. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

I got new shoes! Drmies (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why haven't you created Drmies' new shoes yet? Surely you can source it to your blog or one of the fansites dedicated to you... - SummerPhD (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have an obvious COI, don't I. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I guess you'll just have to blog about them and count on your legions of fanboys to do the work for you. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

help me to understand your words you say in my article "All In Your Name (Barry Gibb song)

SummerPhD i couldn't understand could you explain to me and thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedunbreakabletato (talk • contribs) 14:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As you have also asked this on the talk page for the article, I've answered it there. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

hi

Oh ok, thanks. I just needed to see what Zoe Pound is really about because the page that you see now with so little info of that gang doesn't tell anything much. I know theres a rapper named (redacted, per WP:BLP) in Canada and his a member of Zoe Pound. I know pretty much every rappers in Canada. I can help Wikipedia, because I know 165 rappers that are underground in Montreal that i can have the links the their myspace, facebook, twitter, and they are even on ReverbNation and they are on Pouchons.com. I know the labels that they are on, the mixtapes and singles they released. Young Brault (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits you made to Zoe Pound removed most of the sourced content we had on that page, removed the only reliable source we had and added substantial information with no sources. Wikipedia is about verifiable information from reliable sources. (I've removed the name of the rapper you mentioned above as a potential violation of our policy on biographies of living persons. Presumably the rapper is alive. Saying ze is a member of a criminal gang is a controversial claim, requiring strong sourcing.) Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Smash Mouth Egg Controversy

Hi fellow Wikipedian!! Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines before deleting the remarks of other Wikipedians in the Smash Mouth Egg Controversy. All sides of the egg debate should be carefully considered so that we can make the Smash Mouth page -- and Wikipedia as a whole -- as balanced and helpful a resource as possible. That's what the Talk Page is there for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.46.175 (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." I've removed it again and warned you. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

561 Zoulka Zoe

WHY DO YOU KEEP MESSING UP THE ZOE POUND PAGE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.170.233 (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability. The version I have restored (numerous times) cites reliable sources. The other versions are completely unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, please remember to log in to your account when editing. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)