User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Is KCParent a reliable source?

It's not a blog. 108.47.207.75 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that WordGirl's original target was South Park? 108.47.207.75 (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, shoot, that was actually Pucca! Anyways, the "Whoa - a dog from the old days! That dog is probably dead now" quote from Two Brains Quartet sounds like black comedy. Even TVTropes knows! 108.47.207.75 (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"Only a family of imbeciles has a television." - Tobey

"Whoa, we're not imbeciles!" - Becky

"And how would you know?" - Tobey

"Imbecile is another word for idiot. We're not idiots. We only watch PBS." - Becky

"Hmm, interesting... someone my age who actually has a brain in her head." - Tobey

"Thanks. I think." - Becky

^^ Sounds derogatory to most parents, right? Maybe black comedy? 108.47.207.75 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The blog, written by a teen blogger, is a blog. Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. w^{L<speak·check>} 06:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurauth (talk • contribs) 19:28, March 8, 2015‎}}

Maurauth: Please be sure to use {{subst:uw-3rr}} next time and sign your talk page comments by end them with ~~~~. It makes it a lot easier for all involved.

Thanks, of course, for the warning. I stopped at my third revert and am awaiting confirmation from AI/V on your apparent vandalism before reverting further. Now would be a good time to provide reliable sources for your "Big guy" and "Little guy" nicknames, as well as the direct quote of "bigger guy, for you" in place of the reliably sourced info you are replacing. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Maurauth has been indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Miranda Lambert Reference Links

Hi SummerPhD,

I added a link about the Miranda Lambert-Rams Truck partnership detailing the campaign plans, the current video, etc. I'm not seeing why it's spam or not welcome. I thought it gave a great update since the other source was older on the topic. Music Row, Taste of Country, CMT, The Boot, etc. have reference links all over the place. Not seeing why Country Fancast is being excluded. Can you shed some light on this or give me tips on how to better adhere to what you're looking for? Thanks! ~ Snetemeyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B35A:3BD0:CC68:17CE:401E:B401 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE sign in when you edit. As discussed with your edits as SNetemeyer, your website is not a reliable source, it is an unofficial fan site, specifically excluded at WP:SPS. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi SummerPhD,

Is there a way I can prove out that Country Fancast is a country music news site (like The Boot, Taste of Country etc.) to you? Country Fancast is owned and ran by the media company MobSoc Media. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, etc. and am trying to learn more. Thanks! SNetemeyer (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC) edits as SNetemeyer

Well, you have an uphill battle, to be sure. First of all, it is clear you are an involved editor. Your first edits to Wikipedia were adding the same site as a link across a half-dozen articles. Failing that, you decided to try the site as a source. Failing that, you want to know how you can prove the site meets our criteria. You seem to be here to promote the website, not build an encyclopedia.

Next, we have the site itself. On the surface, we have obvious problems. The most recent link you used[1] is apparently a press release, clearly not an independent reliable source. Going directly to http://countryfancast.com/miranda-lambert took me to an article that certainly reads like a fan site. Well, let's check the author[2]: "Sarah Netemeyer - Sarah takes deep interest in pop culture, societal trends, and Chinese food. Mindy Kaling is her imaginary best friend and mentor. She can often be found politely ignoring people while reading a book or passionately discussing 'Game of Thrones' theories." It isn't The New York Times. Heck, it isn't Entertainment Weekly. It's a fansite.

Here's the meat of the matter: For external links, your site "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." The link you added is "mainly intended to promote a website". It fits numerous criteria at WP:ELNO and should not be listed as an external link.

As a source: Is it an "independent reliable source"? Well, press releases are certainly not independent. We can't really use them for much of anything beyond very basic information and we don't need to link to a fansite to find them. This leaves us with the articles. My golden rule is that reliable sources rarely use exclamation points. At the moment, your site's main page has four headlines I can see without scrolling (a rough approximation of "above the fold"). All four have exclamation points. One ends in two ("YOU Gave Brad Paisley a YouTube Award!!") Why is this the hallmark of a fansite? Because fansites are not designed to tell you everything meaningful, they are designed to tell you that "your" celebrity is the greatest person alive. We don't get new albums, award nominations and promotional fluff ("Joe Blow gives back to the community by spending an hour at a hospital shaking hands and posing for pictures") mixed with drunk driving arrests, tax problems, artists dropped by labels and tours cancelled due to poor ticket sales. Instead, it's all good news. GREAT new!! ("Garth Brooks Talks About His Next Album!" is one step away from "Carrie Underwood Had Corn Flakes for Breakfast!") While it's fine for fans to read about "Carrie Underwood's Baby Name Dilemma" or whatever, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, based on independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

IP editor removing sources at Stormbreaker (film)

What are we supposed to do about that IP editor? I'm going to request page protection on Stormbreaker (film), but I'm a bit worried that any concerns about removing sources will just be ignored again at ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I would try to address the problematic editor before protecting the article. Last I saw, I had given them a final warning for removing reliable sources without discussion or meaningful explanation. The next step would be a brief block to get their attention, followed by longer blocks as needed. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that it will be resolved at AIV, as I've seen a few similar reports declined there recently. I guess I can ask Tokygirl79 for advice. She seems to have come out of hibernation. Maybe she'll have an idea of what to do next or if a block is warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello Summerphd

Thank you for your work on the Manic Pixie Dream Boy topic although I totally disagree with you ;)

I suppose de gustibus non est disputandum.

Anyway: I started a new talk about the subject and I would greatly appreciate your contribution, because frankly I don't understand why you just deleted my entire contribution. I would understand though if it was because it was a bit meagre on the footnote, but then you could have pointed out...

ciao

Dddorian grey (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"The trouble with a kitten is that eventually it becomes a cat." - Ogden Nash

Necks and Beards

You're a neck-beard, right? Not and actual PhD, but some guy who spends a lot of time at home? Am I right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:9180:604:219:D1FF:FEA8:25F0 (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a personal attack? Please try again. This is neither much of an attack nor very personal. Yeah, sure, I'm a twenty-something hipster shut-in in Des Moines. Let's go with that. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Linda Fiorentino birthdate

She was born in 1958, not 1960. Imdb tends to be more of a reliable source than wikipedia. However, here is a reliable source for her actual birthday -

http://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Fiorentino

Thanks!

Ax 3/29/15 184.78.168.124 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

1960 is reliably sourced in our article. IMDb and fr.wikipedia are not reliable sources. Please address further questions on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct

Hello, at the risk of having you again bite off my head, I am respectfully requesting your help on the New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct article. This article actually lists "controversies" which have had no official finding of police misconduct, such as a lawsuit settlement, conviction, termination, or even so much as a suspension. Listing such frivolous cases detracts from the truly egregious cases that belong on the page. It seems that liberals are controlling the referenced aticle and unnecessarily damaging the reputation of the NYPD. Can you delete the "controversies" and only allow the major misconduct cases to remain?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I would highly recommend that you leave out discussion of who you think is doing what to the article and why in all talk page discussions. ("It seems that liberals are controlling the referenced aticle and unnecessarily damaging the reputation of the NYPD.") It is needlessly divisive and won't really help resolve the situation.

I'll take a look at the the article. I can't promise anything, of course. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll sit this one out. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why?

SpongeBob and Arthur DID come before 2000 and they ARE still making episodes, yet you claim it as "unsourced"? B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T! 108.47.207.75 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they did start prior to 2000 and are still producing episodes. However, your edit also claimed that they are "animated sitcoms" and that they are two of the five most popular. I see nothing to indicate that this is the case. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

One category says they are sitcoms. 108.47.207.75 (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, unsourced categories say they are animated sitcoms. You added that they are "animated sitcoms" and that they are two of the five most popular. This is still unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

108.47.207.75 has been blocked for one month. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Saving Christmas

I am the cinematographer for the film under discussion. I wish to have my name permanently with held from the project, because I want nothing to do with it, and I would prefer to not have my name associated with it. What more can I do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypatch (talk • contribs) 04:17, April 2, 2015‎

You are about to be blocked for edit warring. You will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page once your block expires. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sofia the First music

Hi, I see you reverted my changes to the Sofia the First page. You mention that the edits are "unexplained and unlikely." They are unexplained because I am a new Wikipedia user and did not know I had to explain my changes. They are not "unlikely" since I am the music composer for the series. For verification, please visit my page at www.kevinkliesch.com, or visit my agent's website at www.soundtrk.com, or simply watch the credits of a Sofia the First episode. Mike Himelstein is another Disney composer, but not on Sofia the First. Richard M. Sherman was a famous Disney composer 50 years ago. John Kavanaugh should hold the title of songwriter and music director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Kliesch (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Bunga bunga

Do you have any evidence that this term is or has been used anywhere but Italy, or in discussing Berlusconi? deisenbe (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Per the source cited in the article:"Silvio—I call him Silvio and not daddy as he would like to be called—told me he'd copied that expression, bunga-bunga, from Gaddafi," Ruby told a reporter for La Repubblica newspaper referring to the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. "It's a rite of his African harem." - SummerPhD (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the sentence improvement, and an edit question

Hi. Thanks for your recent edit at junk food; "gorges" definitely improves the encyclopedic tone. I have a question about the removal of the word "organic" to describe a healthy food lifestyle in 1976. In your edit summary, you say, '"organic" in 1976 is not "organic" in 2015 (VERY different)' - I'm not clear as to that difference? To my understanding, the most visible distinction of "organic" in regard to food (based around the use of man-made, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides), as used in the song lyrics, has been essentially the same for several decades.

Popularly, Rodale had been publishing an organic gardening magazine and books at least since the 1950s, and the whole pesticide concern was blown up with the publication of Silent Spring in the early 1960s. I found this handy University of California Timeline: Cultivating a Movement, An Oral History Series on Organic Farming and Sustainable Agriculture on California's Central Coast which seems to illustrate the point: the first US organic certification programs were launched, in Vermont and California, in 1971, and so forth. I'm naturally curious as to your distinction! Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the song mentions "organic cooking" once, but is mostly focused on a healthy food/junk food dichotomy. Today, we have restaurants specializing in all organic food, serving nothing but burgers, fries and milk shakes. Really.

"Organic" in the U.S. in the 1970s meant different things to different people, ranging from the early, local certification standards that were forerunners of the current, national standard to Anthroposophy-based ideas and biodynamic agriculture. (My personal recollections from the '70s involve a neighbor whose "organic" philosophy was based on "unity" with the "brown peoples of the world" (expressed through brown rice, brown bread and brown eggs) and some gardening practices based on "wholeness".) Rather than possibly give a wring idea here, I think leaving out the word "organic" sidesteps the possible issue. YMMV and I welcome discussion. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoned reply! I'm not arguing for restoring the word "organic" at this point; however, since you welcome discusssion, purely for conversation's sake, the reasoning behind your intention to avoid misrepresenting what organic may have meant "then" to readers familiar with the "organic" of today doesn't seem that solid.

For one, our perception of junk food is equally different today, in the 1970s, it hadn't been widely demonized, even outlawed, it wasn't yet associated with health...pandemics, and so forth. But we mention Twinkies and KFC because they illustrate the timeline and establish a historical connection with the essentially same products that exist today. In the same way, while a uniform concept of organic food was, as you say, probably not pervasive, it was still easily understood from the well-publicized basics, the no nasty chemicals, natural foodie/health food, purist/elitist, and back-to-the-land/hippie connotations, which is essentially what many people still think of organic today. (And I'm sure we can still find a few folks in solidarity with "brown peoples" as their primary organic-eating lifestyle; I think that's sometimes called fair trade.)

The other and possibly more interesting aspect is speculation that "Junk Food Junkie," a low-quality recording of a novelty song poking fun at foodie health food nuts, in fact became a hit because it marked a fundamental shift in American food awareness, the tipping point, the point in time when the idea first hit the collective consciousness that there might be an organized business force, concertedly trying to make us eat more of their high-profit food-like products at any cost, simply in order to make money. For that reason, using more evocative, resonant terms, like "organic diet," "natural diet," or "health food diet," instead of the very vanilla "healthy diet," would more accurately represent the dichotomy as it was at the time both intended and actually being perceived.

I do get your point, though. Carefully considering the lyrics, while all of the healthful food references seem completely up-to-date, the hippie/natural foodie references, although also consistent with our 21st century neo-hippies and sustainable foodies, suggest that the caricature of the Mr. Natural the songwriter has in mind may be quite different from the "average" foodie at the farmers' market today. Although I'm sure better historical research would quickly decide the whole thing.

Anyhow...I'm a lateral thinker, not a deep one, so that's really all I've got. But if you reply, I will read it with interest... :) --Tsavage (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Reading this just now reminded me of our (kinda lopsided) discussion here. From this account, it would seem that by 1976, the idea of organic food was well in the mainstream public eye, and referred to what seems pretty much like the organic food we talk about today. From Green Culture: An A-to-Z Guide, p. 334 (with my emphasis):

"Several mainstream publications of the 1970s alerted the general public to the effects of industrial food on the nation’s health, particularly degenerative diseases. Leading titles include Consumer Beware! Your Food and What’s Been Done to It (1970) by Beatrice Hunter, James Tumer’s The Chemical Feast ( 1970), Gene Marine’s Food Pollution: The Violation of Our Inner Ecology (1971), and Diet for a Small Planet (1971) by Frances Moore Lappé, which uniquely linked diet not only to health but to ecological and social justice concerns as well.

"Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, growing consumer demand led to increasing numbers of farms claiming to produce organic foods. With the backing of scientific inquiry such as the work of biologist John Todd and the New Alchemy Institute beginning in 1969, organic foods were gaining a new respectability. The movement was presented by maintream media such as the New York Times and Newsweek with a new orthodoxy that challenged earlier counterculture associations. More health food and cooperative markets appeared in response to heightened public interest in organic and whole foods. Given an increasingly affluent, educated clientele, these markets began to look more like upscale, mainstream supermarkets.

"By the early 1970s, in California alone there were more than 300 health food stores and 22 restaurants selling organic foods. One of these was Alice Water’s Chez Panisse in Berkeley, which she founded on the premise of providing wholesome, fresh, locally produced (with later emphasis on organic) foods. Her work spurred the “California” style of cuisine, marked by fresh, whole, and local foods, that has since become popular throughout the United States."

I've actually been reading quite a bit about organics in the States back then, 1960s-70s, and it seems it really blew up from the start of the 1970s, not only organic food itself, but the idea of commercial organic farming. By 1971, Rodale estimated there were 10,000 organic farmers in the US; in 1975, the Sunday New York Times ran a front page story, "Organic Farms Found Efficient." Anyhow, in case you were interested! -Tsavage (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Problematic Texas IP editor

Hey Summer, a brief note re your warning here. This user has been brought to ANI a couple of times [3][4] Nothing was done the first time, though (Solarra warned the user in the second case). The last time they were brought to ANI (by me) it didn't result in any sanction because other issues came up that required more pressing attention. I'm not quite sure what to do here; the user is problematic.

Typically what happens is they completely fall off my radar, and then like here I notice some edit warring with pissy edit summaries, (like here where they write "I don't know why you are continuously fighting over something but to be honest it's not worth fighting over it" as they reinstate the content they are fighting over.) Then I later notice that they're removing warnings from their talk page with more pissy summaries, and eventually it becomes clear, "Oh, it's that editor."

Since they didn't seem to get your warning and called your warning "foolish", I reminded them of BLPPRIVACY but my warning was predictably not well received. My feeling is that in due time I'll have to drag them to ANI again. I figured I'd at least share some of the backstory with you. :) Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Drop Bear - valid edits

Please debate your issues on the drop bear talk page before undoing my good faith edits. I have not vandalised the page, my initial edits did not change the facts, just slights restructured the first 2 para for my subsequent addition of references and further development of the article. You also undid well referenced subsequent additions. I also intent to further develop this article. So please do not vandalize my work. This is a valid topic for Australian popular culture. I am Australian, if you are not Australian, please do some research before taking action. (I'm sick of defenders of the wiki faith who react without due cause) Regards˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD not WP:BRRRRRD. Yes, "Australian culture" might want to "keep the surprise". This, however, is an encyclopedia. Yes, they are mentioned in a novel/movie/TV show/comic strip/knock-knock joke/etc. We do not list trivial occurrences in popular culture. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

Regarding SummerPhD's edit here:

The intro to the Ku Klux Klan article is very sanitized to the point of being inaccurate. Per WP:Bold, I support the changes made by User:Runikmehrotra. Similarly, I had to add the word "racism" a few weeks ago, as it was nowhere to be found in the intro section of the article (and is currently only found elsewhere once in the article). Take a look at Encyclopedia Britannica. I realize we're not EB, but it can provide a valid frame of reference. Or take a look at encyclopedia.com

Let's be blunt: it appears likely that white supremacists constantly make subtle edits this article to keep it from describing the KKK in any sort of negative light, gradually whittling away at edits that don't sound "historical". Again, I think WP:Bold urges us to not be so protective of the status quo, especially in situations such as these.Strom (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's continue discussion here. Strom (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As this is about article content, I have responded on the article talk page. Suffice it to say my revert was based on the need to keep strongly worded additions to the lede well-sourced and clearly worded. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits to the Keith Ferrazzi Bio Page

Hi SummerPHD,

First, full disclosure I am a new employee working for Keith Ferrazzi, and in my research I discovered that his page was missing a lot of information about his career, writings, and company. It appears that you are the primary editor on the page and I was wondering what I could do to improve his page to accurately reflect his accomplishments and meet Wikipedia standards. I welcome any advice and guidance given your extensive experience editing for Wikipedia. I hope I have avoided being dick-ish in anyway. Looking forward to hearing from you, and ideally learning a bit more about the Wikipedia editing process from you!

Best, David Lepackman (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. To help get you started, I've added a standard "Conflict of Interest" notice to your talk page. The notice gives a few links with suggestions to help you avoid any of the more common problems editors run into when working on a topic they are closely related to.

From the looks of things, the article mostly needs independent reliable sources. By "independent", we mean sources that are not connected to the subject -- simple enough. "Reliable sources" is a bit more complicated. I'd recommend reading identifying reliable sources for further assistance. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

America This Morning

Why did you removed America This Morning not airing in South Bend and Savannah market? --24.170.75.206 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

[5][6][7]. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Full House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spin-off. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Avoiding SheZow from WordGirl

Hey SummerPhD Mike2213 here, I just wanna know why did you reverted my last editing from WordGirl article, the SheZow ones? Some fans created SheZow vs. WordGirl pictures and videos and they kinda like it. April 26, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike2213 (talk • contribs) 19:55, April 26, 2015‎

Hi, Mike2213. I removed the link because there is not direct connection between the two. WP:SEEALSO says the list at "See also" should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic. As reliable sources do not discuss a connection between the two, the topic does not belong in the see also section. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)