Jump to content

User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

ref tags

Remember when using inline <ref>, make sure the article itself contains <references/> otherwise they wont work. PS. Thanks for your work on [Vegetarianism], we need all the help we can get. --Mig77 12:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies

The Israeli salad - don't think I should have done this and was a bit over enthusiatic - sorry -- Nigel 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Food irradation

Hi, which areas of the page need attention. I can provide some sources on the subject of on site only accidents. Most of these happened in medical product irradation units but these are very similar to those used for food. Also some of the medical product irradators are used to treat spices.Cadmium

Adoption / Adopted Child Syndrome

Thanks for your work on the above articles - some good cleanup and NPOV amendments. Bastun 18:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

E. coli

You listed Escherichia coli O157:H7 as a potential copyright violation. While I never contributed to the article nor am I officially investigation could you describe (probably on the article's talk page or you listing) in more detail what exactly makes you think it's a copyvio? From a quick comparison, I couldn't really detect any blatant problems, especially with consideration that one of the sources of the wikipedia article as mention in the article is this US government (and therefore public domain) source [1] which shares similarities with the commercial link as well (it was likely one of their sources) Nil Einne 09:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Because...

Because it's quoting from the report. Otherwise that section is an attempt to deflect attention from the actual involvement of chiropractors in the rate of injuries. They are still the major players. That report just showed that there were a few cases where injuries caused by a non chiropractor had been attributed to chiropractors. This is an error of misattribution. Another more serious error is underreporting. I have collected much of the research on this subject here. The risks are small, but are catastrophic when they occur. The lucky ones die. There is no excuse, considering that most upper cervical manipulations/adjustments are unnecessary, and other -- less risky -- techniques are available. - Fyslee 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand why the misattribution is of merit. However, the ethnicity of the barber is meaningless, unless it would have been better or worse if the barber were Brazilian, Icelandic, Pangean or whatever. If is actually quoting the report, it belongs in quotation marks. (I am copying this to the talk page for Chiropractic.)Mdsummermsw 18:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The mention of the Indian barber is the responsibility of the original author. The ethnicity isn't totally off-base, since Indian barbers, unlike modern American or British barbers, actually include treatments of various kinds among their services, including neck manipulation and tongue scraping. -- Fyslee 18:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin D cite

Hey, please advise -- the ref is from, "The China Study", which I added in the footnotes. I can ref it to the book but I've noticed all ref's are online, whereas books are noted below is that not sufficient? Thanks. - Scribner 18:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Cited to book, page, etc. Thanks.--Scribner 18:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So... what's the hoax?

Per this edit, if it's not immediately obvious what the "suspected hoax" is, you should indicate it on the talk page so people can work on it. Otherwise, the tag will probably just sit there for ages untill someone decides to remove it. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 23:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV

We don't generally block IPs unless they've vandalised recently after a final warning, to avoid collateral damage due to the frequency with which they change hands. As it says in the green AIV header, please do not simply repost reports if the IP is not blocked; either take it up with the admin on their talk page or post to WP:ANI. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fruitarianism

thanks for your edits to fruitarianism -- hunting out those weasle words is always important for maintaining npov. however in the future it would be great if you could fill in the edit summary on your edits. there has, in the past, been a lot of vandalism, pov-pushing and revert-ing on this article and edit summaries really help keep track of the article's history for those of us who have chosen to maintain it. thanks again! -- frymaster 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(The following sections were added by Wekee and an apparent sockpuppet based on the peculiar interpretation that I am a vandal)

Incorrect. Vandalism claims are well substantiated. Failing to uphold standards that one demands from others, while removing information relevant to the article and inserting questionable material that does not fit those standards, is being bias. Inserting personal comments is being not neutral. Just a few examples: Removing positive statements about fruitarianism on the basis that they cite self-published references or references failing under WP:OR and then inserting anti-fruitarianism claims that fail under the same conditions (self-published/failing under WP:OR). Claiming that "Paranthropus became extinct due to a limited diet or competition from further evolved pre-human ancestors" while citing a source that says no more than "'It COUDLD WELL HAVE BEEN direct competition with Homo" etc etc. Wekee 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

because I am contesting their submission of unrelated material to the Fruitarian article. Directly counter to WP:OR,

Incorrect, there is no counter to WP:OR here at all. This article is about humans choosing to eat MOSTLY OR only fruit: "Fruitarians (FRUGIVORES or fructarians) eat MOSTLY OR only the fruit of plants." The mention of frugivorous diet of the human ancestors is interesting and highly relevant here. Wekee 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

they contend that sources saying "pre-human ancestors" were "primarily frugivorous" is a valid source for an article on humans choosing a fruitarian diet. Their vandalism

This is not a vandalism, but an appropriate action. Wekee 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
of this page follows my signature:  Mdsummermsw 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

{Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Wekee 18 December 2006

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Wekee 19 December 2006

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Owoce 08:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wekee 22:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with your recent edits – it doesn't hurt that you're doing them in accordance with my personal philosophy, i.e., you're discussing each one on the talk page.
I am curious, however, as to what your interest in fruitarianism is. I suppose it might be like mine – I'm a pescevegetarian who just stumbled into a discussion about fruitarianism and thought it to be an interesting, but unhealthy, idea. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

edit summaries

When placing the {{PROD}} template on an article, please be sure to follow the guidance at WP:PROD and use an appropriate edit summary. Neier 12:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Quakers: Benjamin Furly

Thanks for culling the non-notables. However, I think Furly was a bit notable as he has got an ODNB entry. What criteria are you using? Vernon White . . . Talk 17:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, no wikipedia entry = not notable. It's easy enough to put up a stub with a single reference. Otherwise, all of the "list" articles get clogged with everyone's favorite (real or imagined) historical footnote or classmate. Mdsummermsw 18:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Vasectomy and PVPS

Hallo. I noticed you made some edits to the Vasectomy and PVPS pages. Do you have any particular interest in these topics? User:Luqmanskye 01:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Gold

Greetings. You added a POV tag to the Black gold (jewelry) page. The text displayed by that tag says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page." However, there IS no such discussion on the talk page. It's kind of hard to fix a problem without some idea where the problem is. Could you add a note to the talk page explaining the POV problems you perceive? -- CWesling 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A belated "thank you" for the explanation you added. I hadn't seen it before now because I hadn't logged in for a while... -- CWesling 07:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Frank Palumbo

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Frank Palumbo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I've worked carefully to make all references follow the same wikiformat and added the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philadelphia. I also invite you to join the project, thusly:
You are invited to participate in WikiProject Philadelphia, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Philadelphia. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

You can also add yourself to the list of people to be invited to our next meet-up!


- CobaltBlueTony 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Non statutory female on male rape

I've listed the page for deletion. Feel free to join the discussion. -Etafly 18:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Constant deletion is easy but is it always justified?

Look, it seems you have good intentions and you agree to devote a lot of your time to this site. But it also seems most of what you do is deleting/censoring (depends on the interpretation) stuff. You have to realize that if you enter 100 articles and delete stuff, than with the click of the mouse you delete more than 100 people's maybe days of work. You also rarely use notifications templates or talk pages first, but just delete without blinking, sometimes almost full articles (and only then report in the talk pages). Also, your reasons are pretty wild sometimes, to say the least.

For example, you might put a certain warning template that may not belong there, and then delete everything that obviously crossed it. Or you might delete a whole citation and then delete everything that was based on it. But a better example is that it seems you entered basically every article that stated an adult actress' large breasts were used as fetish, and deleted said statement because..."there's no proof she's a fetishist"? I don't even understand what that means. The point is movie makers casted such an actress, and fans watched her, due to a very certain quality about her. As an objective encyclopedia editor, you have no choice but to realize that is the cold hard fact and the fetish part. What does it have to do with the actress' personal life? I doubt you actually believe your own reason for deleting such a thing. But I digress - sure, deleting others' work is easier, but - since I do think you have good intentions - why would you not devote more time to actually add your own work and less to censor others'? -Kumarules 20:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh. For a brand new user, she sure seems to know all about you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that ze suddenly appears out of nowhere and hir first three edits are hitting me here and on another article, referring to what I've done with another article. By "interesting", of course, I mean suspicious.
Mdsummermsw 21:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And incidentally, lcw, take a quick look at WP:BLP. You'll see it applied to those same articles very soon. - Mdsummermsw 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
My conclusions above are pretty obvious, but suit yourself. To quote the editing policy - "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of deleting, try to [a whole list of alternatives]". Also, "With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion".
As for your accusation here, I'd also direct you to the site's etiquette guildeine: "Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back...If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that the person hates you, that the person thinks you're stupid, that the person themself is stupid, or that the person is mean." Now what about my actual questions? -Kumarules 18:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The bodies of strawmen are piling up today!
  1. You quote "the editing policy". Actually, you quote selected sections of the several styles mentioned in the policy as if it were the policy. You "forgot" the parts that disagree with you. "'Instead of deleting, try to [a whole list of alternatives]'" Yeah, it says that, then says "Exceptions include: [a whole list of exceptions]". "Also, 'With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion'." Yup, but also "If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that." and "be bold in updating pages. Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we would make little progress....to edit radically or not will often depend on the context—which seems reasonable enough. There is a place for all of these attitudes on Wikipedia."
  2. "most of what you do is deleting/censoring....You also rarely use notifications templates or talk pages first" I know from our previous interactions Oops, I forgot, you're new. I've had recent interactions with another user (who someone else tagged as a sockpuppet) who put some of that content in those pages, then started throwing around charges of censoring without polling first. But I honestly do not see "more than 100 people's maybe days of work" in all of the boob measurements, descriptions of boobs, stories of underage nudity and labeling a non-porn actress as a porn actress.[2] And of that, what precious "information" did we lose? Well, now we know she's best known for a movie, not her boobs. I guess that's a push. I did delete "Some feel it is surprising she did not have a more successful career, as her beautiful, buxom nude figure in Blame It on Rio made the already adult yet flat-chested Demi Moore (pre-breast implants) look pale in comparison." Oh, and I changed her back from being listed as a porn star.
  3. "...with the click of the mouse you delete more than 100 people's maybe days of work. You also rarely use notifications templates or talk pages first..." We've discussed this before.
  4. "you might put a certain warning template that may not belong there, and then delete everything that obviously crossed it." Warning templates show policies. If something "obviously crossed" a policy, how is it the template "may not belong there"?
  5. "...it seems you entered basically every article that stated an adult actress' large breasts were used as fetish,..." The articles did not state the breasts were "used as a fetish". If they had, that might actually be content. Rather, the link from "(adjective) (adjective) breasts" was to an article on breast fetishism. Additionally, a number of the pages in question were not for "adult actresses", though many of them used that info box, to allow measurements in the basic info.
  6. "...and deleted said statement because...'there's no proof she's a fetishist'? I don't even understand what that means. The point is movie makers casted such an actress, and fans watched her, due to a very certain quality about her. As an objective encyclopedia editor, you have no choice but to realize that is the cold hard fact and the fetish part." Yeah, the movie makers cast her in a role. Fine, no dispute. Fans watched her. Yup. But they watched her "due to a very certain quality about her"?
  7. "...and deleted said statement because...'there's no proof she's a fetishist'? I don't even understand what that means....I doubt you actually believe your own reason for deleting such a thing." You don't understand my reason and don't think I believe my reason?
  8. "As an objective encyclopedia editor, you have no choice but to realize that is the cold hard fact and the fetish part." As an objective encyclopedia editor, I realize that John Huges' Sixteen Candles was not a fetish film. I also don't recall most Fellini films being of the fetish variety ("breast" or "fat").
  9. Here, for posterity's sake, is some of the valuable information I deleted: "is famous for her breasts", "is best known for her large natural breasts", "her commanding figure and natural large breasts", "known especially for her prodigious breasts", "claim to fame is her kissing chutzpah and her enormous breasts", "famous for her pendulous natural breasts", "best known for her 73 inch bosom", "best known for her large natural breasts", "known for her large natural breasts", "best known and remembered as the large and huge breasted tobacconist in Federico Fellini's", etc.
If you would like to add reliable sources to those, that would be great. As it is, though, WP:BLP tells me they should be "removed immediately and without discussion".
Mdsummermsw 20:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
As for 8., John Huges' Sixteen Candles being a fetish film...? No, but didn't it have a character whose all purpose was to be a you know what fetish for one guy and thus make the audience identify or laugh? Also, enough studies and exhibits were made about Fellini's drawings and movies (especially from the 1970s) presenting if not being centered around said types. -Kumarules 16:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable source that verifies that that character existed for that reason, it might be appropriate to include in the article. However, the original inclusion did not cite a source. In fact, it didn't say anything about why breast fetishism was being included in reference to that character. Instead, it was a deceptive link. Ditto Fellini. I am not here to argue Fellini or Huges' intent (which I don't know). Rather, I am asking that the material in the articles be verifiable with a reliable source. - Mdsummermsw 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright, now you're being professional and I see your point. -Kumarules 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Clifton High School (New Jersey) Third Opinion

I wanted to thank you for your third opinion at Clifton High School (New Jersey). While I am glad that you concur with my view, I want to express my appreciation for the time and effort you expended to analyze the underlying issues and to provide a clear and concise explanation of how and why the various Wikipedia guidelines and policies come into play. This was well-researched and well-written, and I hope to be able to quote some of your analysis in the future and to use this in making notable vs. non-notable decisions. Thanks again for your time and effort. This is exactly what third opinions should be. Alansohn 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Religiosity and intelligence

An article that you have been involved in editing, Religiosity and intelligence, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religiosity and intelligence (2nd nomination). Thank you. WotherspoonSmith 13:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Vinth

The rain in Spain.... nicely spotted. By Jove, I think you've got it. DS 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sixteen Candles

Hi -

The IMDB reference clearly documents the R --> PG on appeal statement.

The other reference (Commonsense) documents the content statments. Actually, a ref isn't formally required to keep this since it is verifiable (by watching the movie), but there it is.

"Both versions" isn't mine, but I took it to mean "both the version that was originally rated R and the version that was finally rated PG". This wouldn't necessarily imply that more than one released version exists. If you can clarify this aspect, please do.

I think you are confused because the Commonsense link also shows the film being rated R; this may be because there is at least one video release being marketed stating an R rating (as I added in the recent change). Jgm 15:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this to talk:Sixteen Candles to discuss further. - -- Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Mimzy thanks

Just wanted to thank you for alerting me to my NPOV issues on The Last Mimzy article. I am embarassed I missed the bias in my phrasing.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Too Young for a Girlfriend and A Walk in the Park (Jordan)

Hey there, thanks for nominating these for deletion! I was doing a sweep of the old AfDs when I noticed that these hadn't been closed, so I went ahead and deleted the pages and closed them. In the future, could you please list related pages for deletion together? The instructions are here. Thanks again and keep up the good work! GlassCobra 23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop niggling me

I got your note about the edit summary. Don't be a putz. Stop your obstructionist actions on the Mummer articles. I've tried to stay neitral, but you're now being a pain and not working constructively. --evrik (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, as you did to User talk:68.33.140.194, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. —Mears man 03:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cassie Still

Keep an eye out for "Yung D." as well. Seems to be the same person adding it. I took a scrub-brush out yesterday, and eliminated 12 references to him.Kww (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Since you seem to be tracking him (from your "vandalism" section), I found references to Yung D in

I already removed the text, and didn't bother to go looking for the edit that added the bad info.Kww (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Valea Pietrei Mici

The article is part of the Wikipedia Rivers project. For rivers there are criteria for notability, every river, however small qualifying for an article. For the time being it is just a stub until the entire hydrologic network is defined. After that it will be expanded. 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

evolutionary psychologists

Hi Mdsummermsw - You removed a number of redlinked evo psychologists from the List of evolutionary psychologists, stating in your edit summaries "not notable". Are you familiar with the field such that you can state, definitively, that these people are not notable, or were simply removing them based on them being red-linked? I question because, for instance, you didn't know Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's notability, and she's gotten quite a bit of mainstream media attention even as a scholar. --Lquilter (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

For all such lists ("List of graduates from school X", "List of people from City N", etc.) there are no hard and fast rules for what level of notability is required for inclusion. While it clearly is not all "People from New York City" or "Vegans", there is no clear line.
I work on the following assumptions:
1) If the person has an article on wikipedia that states they are a member of the category in question, they are in.
2) If they are red-linked, there must be a source that unambiguously establishes their notability.
The ones I removed in this instance were red-linked, failing #1.
The sources for the others were mere membership lists, establishing that they work in the field, but nothing more. (Imagine if we accepted that level of notability for dentists or actors! Huge, useless lists would result.)

Mdsummermsw 13:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the warning?

You sent me a warning about a comment/edit I made on the rape page. But you failed tell me what you felt was objectionable. The only thing I can see is where a person suggested a sub-heading for "pooper rape" and I told him to grow up. Did you actually bother to send a warning for that?Niteshift36 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, wrong user. Fixed it: [3]
It's all good. I normally wouldn't put something like that in, but I didn't think we were THAT tight around here.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Louisi-animal

Do you think the source is enough to remove the tag? --Topspinslams (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What else should be done, and btw it's not illegal. --Topspinslams (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Copied discussion to talk:Louisi-animal for further discussion. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive_1&oldid=1142795043"