User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 14

Summarize changes
Hi, i'm sorry i forgot to summarize my changes. I just keep forgetting to do it, but I'll be sure do provide it in the next changes I make. Thanks for the tip!--Sepguilherme (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Deligabi and copyrighted images
Hey there, just letting you know that Deligabi was in the IRC help channel a few days ago asking for advice on how to upload the images. He was advised by people in there to add the current tags as he assured us the copyright holders would release the copyright via email. I trust that the process is underway. If there's a problem, the images will be deleted, if not, the OTRS pending tags will be removed. As for COI, I think there is one but I think I'll try give the user some pointers about neutral tone and clean up the article with or without their help. When I get a moment that is. Regards, Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 01:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of unreleased Michael Jackson material for featured list removal
nominated List of unreleased Michael Jackson material for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Rubiscous (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

IMDb Resumes
I see you've deleted the IMDb resume reflink on the Dylan Riley Snyder page. Since nobody is trying to remove the content from the article, I'll leave the issue alone (for now), but from what I see, the User-submitted content criteria you cited doesn't say anything about IMDb Resume pages. I suggest reading something to see if it supports your rationale before citing it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to think I didn't read it and that it doesn't say IMDb generally isn't a reliable source. You are wrong on both counts. I won't suggest that you read a page before telling me what it says because I assume you did. You seem to misunderstand what it says.
 * In any case, in addition to IMDb generally not being a reliable source, Wikipedia has a clear preference for independent sources. If, as you claim, only Snyder can edit that section of IMDb, it is not an independent source. With all of that in mind, and the simple fact that the information in question cites independent reliable sources, there is simply no reason for including a link to IMDb as a source. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, IMDb is GENERALLY not a reliable source, but information that can only be edited by the performer would be appear to be one of the rare IMDb exceptions (the definition of "generally" is not "always" and the fact remains that there is no mention of IMDb "Resumes" in what you cited). I also agree that a person cannot verify their own "notability", however, if "first person" sources cannot be cited then every single print interview, news interview, auto-biographical book, etc, would not be considered reliable enough to establish innocuous background information, such as someone's "early life" (where they grew up, early family life, etc) and "education" (schooling, special training, etc). - we both know that's ridiculous and not the intention of the "first person" source guidelines on IMDb. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not say we never use primary sources, I said Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Yes, we occasionally use primary and/or self-published sources for basic information when we cannot find reliable secondary sources for the material. That clearly is not the case here.
 * Additionally, I do not see anything to indicate that IMDb resumes "can only be edited by the performer". (I do see that "IMDb is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this page, which have been supplied by a third party and have not been screened or verified.")
 * Finally, while WP:IMDB seems to allow that there are some instances where IMDb is a reliable source (the issue of writing credits comes to mind), I see no indication that IMDb resumes is one of those instances. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Counter
Your userpage clearly states "If you're going to vandalize my page, please update the counter." So how come when I merely update the counter, you mark it as vandalism and revert it to what it was before I touched the page? Hypocritical any? And your attempt to delete my Secret Hate article was obviously in retaliation of my vandalism. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing the counter is an admission that your edit is vandalism. If you wish to believe that my nomination of the article was in bad faith, feel free. In reality, I had nominated one article you had created (not "your" article...). You vandalized my page. I looked at the rest of the pages you had created an found another non-notable article. If it's actually notable, it can be sourced and will then survive AfD. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, I don't get why you even bother having a counter if you're not going to honestly update it. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about you. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, at any rate I apologize for my behavior and promise not to vandalize again. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Fuck off"
Hey Summer, if Concept comes off their block and insults you or anyone else again, please let me know--I'll be happy to block. My apologies on behalf of mankind--I'm saddened that a fellow human being would choose to act in such a way. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks, Doc. As most of the members of mankind were uninvolved, I'll let it slide this time. I'm fairly sure I'll manage to pull together the tattered pieces of my soul and move on. I've little doubt I could have gotten this one blocked without an AN/I thread, but I rather suspect this one will be back. (One thing I've learned from my recent brief encounter with someone I think of as the "dean of don't" is to always document escalation.) My suspicion is someone spotting this at AN/I will catch the next round before I do. Now I do need to get back to those iCarly pages. They need me. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. iCarly is real important, I know. (Actually, I didn't know it existed, but hey.) Drmies (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently, iCarly : American tween girl : : Transformers : American tween boy. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Chemotherapy & radiation therapy
Hi summer, has anyone written and article on scientifically proven chemotherapy, or radiation therapy as a safe conventional form of verifiable scientifically proven medical therapy treatment?. Is this form of medical therapy radioactive? What are the scientifically proven verifiable sources, that it is, or is not dangerous medical quackery?. Does anyone know if the death rate is higher or lower than the success rate?. I would love to know 27.33.34.3 (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest starting with chemotherapy and radiation therapy and going from there. However, if you're a fan of Gerson therapy, you are unlikely to be convinced by the independent, peer-reviewed sources used in those articles. (Chemotherapy uses powerful, toxic drugs which are not radioactive. Radiation therapy typically uses exposure to radiation.) Is it "dangerous"? Of course it's dangerous. The difference between a medicine and a poison is in the dosage. Too much of anything (even water) is toxic. Radiation is used to kill cancerous cells. It also kills any other cells that get in the way. While various methods are used to limit the number of healthy cells killed, there is always some unintended damage. Similarly, surgery to remove cancerous growths invariably removes some healthy tissue and cutting into the body is obviously risky to begin with. Cancer kills. While it would be nice if a treatment like Gerson's worked, the evidence clearly shows that it does not. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. When you recently edited Greater Kensington (string band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Academy of Music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

November 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.Surf Dog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC).
 * My edit accurately reflects what the source says. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Surf Dog (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read and understand Edit_warring before accusing me of edit warring and revertign my edits without explanation. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I had no intention of submitting that first comment. It really doesn't make sense, now does it? I have died to remove it a couple of time now and put what i meant to say. Please just let it be. Surf Dog (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As explained on your talk page, feel free to strikethru the text you wish to disclaim. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the friendly comment on my page. Despite what you say though, it is not original work, and the sources are reputable. Surf Dog (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Several of the "sources" do not refer to the subject of the article. Feel free to discuss the issue on the article's talk page if you disagree. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Maxwell's Silver Plagiarism
That is an even better solution. Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

 * I hope that's made with the "cruelty-free" bubbles I read about in some random blog... Thanks! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

PB sandwiches
Peanuts are obviously going to feature highly in peanut butter sandwiches.. But I won't try to revert my edit again, you know Wikipedia better than I do. :P --Rasppeachberry
 * The problem is that lots of things you can say about part of something do not apply to the whole. Jelly is high in sugar. PB&J? Maybe, maybe not. If it is significant and true about PB&J, it should be relatively easy to find a reliable source saying it about PB&J. Otherwise, it is original research and/or synthesis. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha! Rasppeachberry —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

hi
I removed the content because ITS NOT GOING TO BE ON THE ALBUM AND PEOPLE KEEP PUTTING IT. I will keep removing it. BECAUSE IT SHOULDNT BE THERE. RickyRozay (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there is a reliable source saying it will be on the album, you'll need a source for that. Please see the discussion at Talk:God Forgives, I Don't. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"Mentions" is subjective, but "states" is objective?
Hey! Just saw your edit in the sagging page. I'm not a native speaker, so I may be wrong about this, but how on Earth is "states" less subjective than "mentions"? I just checked out their definitions in dictionary.com, and there seems to be no indication regarding that. Gabi Teodoru (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. Is there such a thing as an objective fact? http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1889#comic
 * IMO, it's more of a connotation than a denotation. "Mentions" seems to imply a casual referral to an undisputed fact: In response to you saying there was some kind of parade on Main Street today, I might "mention" that it's Easter Sunday. Alternately, I might "state" that there are parades all the time. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. And yes, there are objective facts. Humans might not be able to capture them in human language, but yes, some things exist in some sense, for instance. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Asking for your comments, recent edits on the Zoophilia article

 * Outside of the bots, IPs, and users reverting vandalism, you are the only one that seems to actually edit the article. Some of the edits you made on Zoophilia were removing content that was clearly not in the source, added on by the user Plateau99. He has a clear history of adding non neutral-POV pro-zoophilia content, unsourced materials, original research, and his opinions cited with sources that do not even support the claim.
 * I removed a bunch a few months ago, and some today (the content he wanted to add was not supported or mentioned anywhere in the cited article, he just wants his pro-zoophilia opinions in the article by hiding it with incorrect sources) but he keeps reverting those edits back without any explanation. I do/did not remove all of the content he added, just the ones that do not follow the Wikipedia guidelines. But he will still revert everything, every change I make, because he thinks removing any materials that he adds is an attack on zoophilia.


 * Can I please have your comments and opinions on the issue? I had a history with him in the past and I do not want to be engaged in another edit war with the same user.


 * Thanks. Someone963852 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi SummerPhD, I think you are a fantastic editor, and I would like to nominate you at RfA. Please confirm that you are interested in this opportunity. Thanks, Keepscases (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't see this before now. Looks like the offer is no long valid. Oh well. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nifelheim
I am leaving you this message because I am involved in a rather contentious edit war on a page you've contributed to, or because I feel you may have perspective on the subject matter. It involves a rather rude user and I'm admittedly worn out and beginning to sound a bit rude myself. The dispute is over the reliability of a little known fanzine over blabbermouth.net. If you could join the discussion and contribute to a resolution, that would be great. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I told Williamsburgland numerous times that Slayer is not just “a little known fanzine”, which they ignored as every other statement of mine except those that might be uncivil. And they aren’t just “beginning” to become “a bit” rude. --217 /83 02:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Both editors have been blocked for edit warring, and Williamsburgland has been warned about forum shopping. (He posted the above message to at least nine talk pages.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it clearly was out of hand. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

War on Women
I see you participated in last month's AfD for "War on Women"; that article was reinstated yesterday.--24dot (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick Note, War on Women has been renominated for Deletion--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/War_on_Women_(2nd_nomination)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!

 * You really had never heard of this? Its a very well known product, fyi.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've heard of lots of things that aren't notable. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good for you!--Milowent • hasspoken 00:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong. I'm not (now) saying ICBINB isn't notable. Given the sources you've added, it looks good now. I'm just saying that whether or not I have "heard of" something doesn't convince me one way or the other. I've come across articles up for AfD that I would have been certain were notable only to dig for sources and come up empty. The reverse has also been the case. Cheers! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

RfA nomination
I rescind my offer to nominate you for adminship, as it has come to my attention that you attempted to delete I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! Sorry. Keepscases (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm particularly interested in a mop and bucket right now (thanks for the thought anyway), but for clarification, I did not "try to delete" anything. Yes, I nominated this article for deletion as I saw no indication it is notable (beyond the hundreds of other margarines and such that aren't notable). IMO, the links added so far make it a marginal keep. Sorry to disagree with you. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So...
I came across this page through someone I have watchlisted. And I read your rules at the top of the page. They made me giggle, I thought you should know. :D Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 12:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks. It was the bit about the "squiggly" things, wasn't it? (I mean, it's a fun little word that sounds like a small child rolling around with an enthusiastic puppy.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Points 5 and 6 more specifically. Point 9 is just clever.  Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 09:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Saad Muhammad
SummerPhD, sorry, but that was the wrong edit you undone. The wikispan was in the references. --BoxingGoMan (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia
You may not be aware of how stupid it came across but you messaged Rich Farmborough with a "welcome to wikipedia" message. You do realise that he has nearly 1 million edits to wikipedia, the second highest on the website?♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've already explained, there is nothing on his talk page to indicate that he's edited prior to this month (first comment there is this month, no archive, etc.). Life goes on. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And, incidentally, if my standard, templated warning is really "one of the dumbest messages" you've ever seen on Wikipadia, you need to get out more (or read the talk page discussion in full before commenting on it). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

CfD

 * I noticed you placed a deletion tag on Category:Lightbulbs that are unscrewed, but I cannot see the CfD. Did you ever actually file it?--v/r - TP 22:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Keith and Glenn
I notice you undid my change to Keith Olberman's and Chris Matthews page, identifying them as liberal (my contribution) political commentator, after I notice Glenn Beck and others are identified as conservative political commentators. Can I inquire as to why one is allowed and one is not allowed? Rodchen (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The descriptions you added did not cite reliable sources. If you feel there are other articles that do not meet this standard, feel free to address those concerns on the respective articles' talk pages. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But if you look at the references at the end of the paragraph, those references identify him as a left-winger (liberal) but does not identify him as a political commentator. So it seems like you should have deleted the 'political commentator' reference but left in (not pun intended) the liberal reference. Rodchen (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You added content without citing sources. I removed it and explained why. If you have concerns regarding specific content in specific articles, the discussions belong on the respective articles' talk pages. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now clearly sourced it, but is still being removed. If sourcing was really your objection, I would appreciate your participation in the discussion. If sourcing was simply what you said was your objection, but you really had an agenda objection, then I won't request your participating in our discussion. Rodchen (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maxwell's Silver Hammer
Thanks for correcting the erroneous change I made. I couldn't have been reading it properly and didn't realise that the part I edited was still quoted text. PRL42 (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Shanti Carson
Hey Summer. An article that you PRODed and I deleted, Shanti Carson, has been undeleted per a request on my talk. You may wish to take it to AfD if you still think it should be deleted. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Harper Valley PTA
Hi:

I edited the Harper Valley PTA page because the addition was poorly written. Barbara Eden does indeed state that the film was shot in Southern Illinois, but local media in both Lebanon and Cincinnati, Ohio, state otherwise, as does the ending credit of the film. If my edit needs to be deleted, the entire paragraph needs to be deleted as well. Thanks. Dma124 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Martyr
How the hell was that vandalism?

How the hell can a Jewish site be a credible source for an Islamic term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.84.91.103 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A few hints:
 * Please use edit summaries to explain why you are doing what you are doing, especially when editing anonymously.
 * When an edit is reverted as possible vandalism, simply restoring the edit without comment is usually a bad idea. Take it to the article's talk page or, at the very least, use an edit summary to explain why you are doing what you are doing, especially when editing anonymously.
 * When warned on your talk page that an edit was reverted as possible vandalism, an explanation on your talk page is probably a good idea, especially when editing anonymously.
 * Calling a major university's partnership between the Omar Ibn Al Khattab Foundation, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, and USC's Center for Religion and Civic Culture at the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences a "Jewish site" is odd. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

next time dont delet me contribution
why did you delete my contribution to teh talk page of racism? i wasnt discussing anything i was giving a better definiton of racism and pointing out grave issues with teh articvle you having differing opioins doesntr give you teh rigth to vandaliize/delete my contribution. next time.....just dont — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnlk (talk • contribs) 03:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinions of what racism is/is not are not useful in improving the article. If you have reliable sources, feel free to add them to the article or discuss them on the talk page. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion watch
Hello Summer. How are things? That's great to hear, I am doing wonderful (in case you were wondering). Reason I am here, somehow I wound up on your deletion watch page (don't ask me how, I often end up in strange places, such as the time I fell down a manhole in Ulan Bator, true story). While I was there (the deletion watch page, not the manhole) I expanded the collapsed thingy (technical term) and found Image:Adrianne_Curry.jpg was visible rather than a link. I was considering fixing it myself, however I figured it was probably on your deletion watch page for a reason. The file is now hosted on Commons and I don't know the history behind it (for example if it was really non-free and got transferred prior to deletion, or was a new image under the same name), so I figured I would ask you before taking drastic measures. By the way, I have recently started a garage band, we don't have a drummer or guitarist, and the lead singer is still iffy, but do you think you could start the page for me? --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mel Brooks observed that "Tragedy is when I stub my toe, comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die." Despite the loss of a good laugh, I'm glad you survived.
 * I haven't a clue which file I deleted or when. Looking at the file there now, I can't easily find a copyvio source (I'm really a one-trick pony for photo copyvios and my one trick isn't finding this one). Given the file name, it could easily be a same name/different file kind of a deal. The shot does look like it's from a professional photo op, so unless the uploader has verified similar work before, I'd say it certainly needs some "attention". (I don't seem to have edited User talk:Daibh, so it was either a different uploader or I neglected to warn them.)
 * As for your band, I do not appreciate the implication that I would start an article for a clearly non-notable band, so you'll have to do it yourself. To start the page myself, I would need to see flyers on utility poles, a facebook page and a half-assed video on youtube. Until then, it's a no-go. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That was the response (with regards to the picture) that I was expecting. As for the band, we haven't come up with a name yet (since we have no members), so creating a Facebook page is out of the question, however I may start up Unknown band on Tiwtter and see if I can get it going from there.  As for the manhole, it was complete comedy, all around.  I laughed all the way back to my hotel, and all the new hires I would meet afterwards would tell me this story about some idiot who walked into a manhole.  If nothing else I am glad that I can be used to serve as a warning to others. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Herb Bergson
Hi-I reverted your good faith edit with the Herb Bergson article. I found an article from 2007 and it brought up his times as mayor of Superior and Duluth. I added that as a citation and restored the category of being a mayor of a place in Wisconsin. My aopologies for any problems. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Aaargh!
I can't find the page to report a minor disclosing personal information! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Child protection? --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which leads to Guidance for younger editors. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Wow: I have to handle this by e-mail? How 2008. Sent to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Thanks! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also if you want it rev deleted, just (quietly) ask an admin, unless you think it should be oversighted, in which case you go through Requests for oversight.--kelapstick(bainuu) 00:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd already asked an admin, but figured he might not be around for a while (summer break and all). I'm assuming the email to arbcom will handle it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It should work. I saw your post, but the proper link should have been this instead of this. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings
You do some good editing, but those last reversions of GreenUniverse shouldn't have been reverted as vandalism, could you do some null edits clarifying that please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, on the other hand, I had no idea GU might be a sock... Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see your comment earlier.
 * Yeah, User:GreenUniverse is a confirmed sock of the banned User:BookWorm44. My later edits were more direct on this point. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 June 2012
 * Darn. The discussion was over before I got there. Like I said, removing potential BLP violations is a exception to WP:3RR. You should know that by now. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

( ..."After the clip cut, Mitchell ...broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe...) Summer, Your editing explanation above suggests that you are aware of an explanation, by Ms. Mitchell, of the events leading up to the "incident". Does she claim that she was unaware of the inaccurate impression that is given by the clip?  If so, does she explain why she later excused it by stating "....we didn't get a chance to show that, so here it is now?"  Does she mention what, if any, discpilinary action was taken against the person responsible for this attack on Romney? If you have a RS for this, it would be useful to the "debate".  Thanks 98.74.144.41 (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anonymous, if I understand you correctly, you are misreading a direct quote from a source as being my edit summary: "After the clip cut, Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine." As for your interpretation of her saying "...we didn't etc." as her excusing herself, it seems to me she might have been speaking for the network and/or the show at that point. Anything else seems to be torturing the sources to make them speak. I do not see any sources for the network or anyone connected with the show saying this was an attack. No attack = no one to discipline. Checking the sources in the article, none of them directly call it an attack. The closest I can find is that "...conservatives and media writers accused MSNBC of purposefully distorting Romney's comments to make him appear out of touch." As I've just noted on the article's talk page, the clip did not originate with Andrea Mitchell Reports, so I'm hard pressed to think that we have anything connecting the editing to Mitchell. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Gee, um, thanks? It's been great working with you over these many, many edits. Let me know if you wanna get together some time and just hang out. Feel free to respond with your third edit ever, a year from now. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Andrea Mitchell Reports, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RNC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Open Mic Karaoke
The article Open Mic Karaoke was created after merging two other articles about two karaoke albums. Worse, someone created Open Mic Karaoke Volume 2 for ZOEgirl but not Volume 1. Do you prefer to have dozens of Open Mic articles floating around, or just one with a list of all the songs? i think the latter approach is better. --LABcrabs (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer that we not have long lists of non-notable material. A karaoke album of songs made famous by a notable group is not notable based on the group being notable. ZOEgirl's albums are notable (assuming ZOEgirl is). A karaoke album of their songs is not one of their albums. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of marriage templates
seems to still be making non-MOS edits like, to the spouse sections of BLP info boxes. They are removing the reasons for 'seperation' ie. death /divorce, which seems odd. Is that per-MOS? Regards 220  of  Borg 02:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk on the IP's talk page and the talk page for the template seem to indicate that there is no consensus for removing this. I am unaware of anything in MOS dealing with this. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Lay off
Lay off the guys who edit list of fictional tomboys! Homesun (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Barry Soetoro
You are the one who gave a reason why the article redirected to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I don't know what happened to the section you referred to, but it's not there. Anyway, at least for now, I am redirecting to the one article that actually mentions "Barry Soetoro". I never heard this name, but some Obama-hater on a web site I go to said she was not voting for Barry Sotero.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and PLEASE archive your talk page again. Those of us with slow Internet would really appreciate it. Given the articles I have been looking at today, you can see why I would be getting really frustrated.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob De Luca Edit war
Can you do me a favor : Can you undo your last edition in the Rob de Luca page yourself (remove the picture). The man himself wants the picture down and replace it by a newer one, it seems to be very important for him. Nobody knows exactly what it is that is so horrible about the picture, it's a good picture and I like it. But I have met Rob in person and I can state he's not hysterical and there is a good reason behind he cannot share in public. I guessed that the long hair is the reason, but in fact I don't know. I guessed that the long hair might be the reason, but in fact. All I'm asking for is time, 30 days at max that this article will be without picture. Everybody is working on finding a replacement picture ASAP. Maybe there is a policy on Wikipedia on how to deal with this, but wouldn't it be much easier to behave just fair? I was the first to be warned about the edit war, but now I saw it doesn't take me to have the pic up and down continuosly. So if you undo your own edit, maybe we can stop this madness. And I agree that Wikipedia is not a promotional platform but neutrality is one of the major principles of Wikipedia so an article should not be of disadvantage for a career as well. Although none of us can here can see what's wrong with the picture, I think it would be an act of fairness and respect for the individual to remove this picture from the article before an alternate picture is available if he desires so.

Thanks Moonslide (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel you have a solid reason to have the picture removed, feel free to take that argument to the talk page. Requesting it here as a "favor" doesn't pass the sniff test. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Long Island Ice Tea
I'm not saying they *did* invent it, only that they "claim" to have invented it. Also by introducing that claim, it may encourage others to dispute it with separate evidence. Your extra source will help though, cheers. Farrtj (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. "Claim" is a bit of a loaded word, though -- especially without anyone saying otherwise. Clearly a better source than the restaurant itself is needed. Cheers. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

ENFP
Look, Google "Alicia Siliverstone, mbti" and god knows how many enfp hits show up. Every site on the internet is saying she's an ENFP. I'm just reporting what is a commonly held belief. Lets get down to brass tacks here, what's the beef exactly? Farrtj (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The source you cited for this claim about a living person is not a reliable source. The claim is speculation about a living person. The second part of the claim you added is used to discredit the claim but does not directly refer to the claim. Take your pick. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? All of the MBTI is speculative. Even if someone took the test and came out as INTP, that is a still a speculated, suggested likely type. Your criteria, given the context of the article, is hypocritical and absurd. Farrtj (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean, if you really want to be helpful, you could set about improving the mediocre ENFP article, as I have tried to do, rather than removing legitimate edits by people who actually *are* attempting to improve things. Farrtj (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, given the long list of people that you've antagonised, I don't want to waste too much time on you, but if, as seems to be the case, you know nothing about the MBTI then I suggest that you leave it to people who do. If you do know something about MBTI then I am frankly appalled. Farrtj (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that you are trying to improve the article. That said, adding poorly sourced claims about a living person and synthesis do not improve the article, IMO. Bottom line, you are adding two sentences with two sources. The first source is not reliable (heck, it sources the claim to a blog -- blogs as sources in a BLP do not fly). The second source does not say what it is being made to say: anything at all to do with Silverstone. This is now well beyond a discussion of my editing. Please take any further comments on this issue to the article's talk page and/or the BLP/RS noticeboards. (Your speculation on what I may or may not know about the MBTI is immaterial.) Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it dubious to say that "some practitioners type x as an ENFP" and then link to one such source? Farrtj (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pick a U.S. president. Begin adding all of the claims that he is/was gay, black, foreign born, a Communist, a lizard man from outer space, mentally ill, terminally ill when elected, trying to destroy the nation, afraid of jelly beans, etc. Yes, we have articles discussing all of these claims, but they cite reliable sources. Otherwise, every article would be summarily pumped full of absolute garbage saying "numerous (descriptor of writer here) have said": "this is the worst movie ever made", "this person has/had disease/condition X", etc. Please discuss this on the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is that those descriptions are potentially slanderous. Alicia Silverstone's reputation is not being sullied by suggesting that ENFP might be her probable type. Farrtj (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this on the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages
Dear Author/SummerPhD

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Vitiligo. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.Hydra Rain (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Your message
Thank you for the note you left on the bottom of my talk page. I hadn't noticed it before I added the comment in the original section. I apologise.

I understand your reasoning. However, as I did point out, my contribution was made in the spirit of Talk. It continued from earlier speculations on the matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Levon In particular, The lyrics aren't that inscrutable ... and Pawn.

The speculations of Tostig, Earl of Wessex, for example are clearly specious and coincidental. The names and the subject clearly demonstrate that the subject of the lyrics is Jewish. Though like many Taupin lyrics, some references are clearly better understood in a UK context, which is why I made the contribution and is surely the intention of Talk.

I make these points simply to demonstrate that my contribution was no more unsourced than earlier ones.

However, as I have said, I will make no further attempts to contribute to the speculations. Truth has always been a very fluid commodity.

surfingus (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

About TMCK...
It's clear that we are getting nowhere with trying to solve the problem through user talk pages... Raise this issue at the appropriate noticeboard. However I am sure you aware of my ban from noticeboards so keep that in mind when making the posting... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Besides which the edit summary containing "I think I made it clear I wish no further postings like this on my talk so please stop the disruption" while pointing out a problem with how they are editing could possibly warrant going to ANI... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

List of rock formations that resemble human beings
Would you like to make good on the threat you made at Talk:List_of_rock_formations_that_resemble_human_beings a couple of years ago? Someone desperately needs to fix that list up a bit. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have long since removed all of the "examples" that are not sourced in their respective articles. If you believe some of what is there now is problematic, please either fix it or discuss it on the talk page. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What the heck
I am not Wudumindif. But yes, I am both of the unregistered users. I don't see what the big deal is here. As unregistered user's IP address can change from time to time. --60.228.18.172 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By "both", I assume you mean "all three". You'll need to take that discussion to the sock case page. Please see the link on your talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was two at the time I wrote the first post. And could you help me out with it then? I can't post it on the sockpuppet page things because I'm unregistered... --101.161.184.184 (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wudumindif has now been blocked for socking/editwarring. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Gay media reference at Chick-fil-A
Your rationale for reversion is faulty. That verbiage IS sourced, which you can see for yourself if you bother to check.  Belch fire - TALK 02:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I tried to check and did not see a source for the claim. Your edit summary ("sure, others picked it up later, but there is no question about where it originated. look at the dates. find something earlier in the MSM if you can.  good luck") was not helpful in this regard, as it sounds as if you are claiming that no one finding anything earlier means there is nothing earlier. Feel free to restore the content if you can make it clear that this is verifiable. -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the snarky message, but honestly... the info is right there. Pull up the cites, look at the sources, look at the dates.  Good as You (gay media) published on 1/3/11.  The earliest anybody has been able to find this in the MSM was late January.  It's legit, but POV hawks (not saying you are one) want to revert the edit without even bothering to check.  If you want to say convincingly that it's unsourced, at least do me the courtesy of spending 30 seconds to do some Googling.  I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation, when the sources are provided for you, and you're reverting with the summary "unsourced".  So, yeah... I'm frustrated because I did my homework, and nobody else does.  OK, rant over and thanks for listening.  :-)  Happy editing to you!   Belch fire - TALK  03:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you are saying "The earliest sources we have are gay media. Therefore, the gay media were the first to report this." If that is what you are saying, this is original research. If you would like to add to the article that the gay media were the first to report, you will need reliable sources specifically saying that. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your point is well taken. We actually wound up with the wording "first reported" in response to another editor's objection to using the phrase "gay media" at all, without bothering to make a valid counter-point (as you have done).  And I am remiss for not taking that part into account when I took you to task for the reversion.  I hope you will agree: the bare phrase "reported in the gay media", without the restrictive "first", and alongside the sources provided in the article, didn't constitute OR.  But, with the cadre of editors currently watching that section, it's all a moot point, regardless of the particulars.  Thanks again for putting up with me.  Seeya 'round.   Belch fire - TALK  03:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me
Please stop stalking me and erasing all of my legitimate edits. Thank you. 65.96.48.102 (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which of my edits you are unhappy with. Was it restoring the "repeat vandal" header on your talk page? Maybe it was when I removed discussion not intended to improve an article from a talk page. Maybe it was me removing your original research/POV from a BLP? It's hard to tell. Looking around, I see you've been warned by other editors for the same issues I'm noting, you've been blocked more than once and have accused other editors of "stalking" you.
 * Yes, other editors are watching your edits. This will likely continue until your edits show an understanding of our policies and guidelines, along with a willingness to follow them. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How about I put it this way. If you do not stop reverting every one of my edits, like the one to the Sam Adams article, I will report you to Jimbo Wales or take other appropriate action. Thank you. 65.96.48.102 (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This should provide a 3-month drama break (at least from this IP). JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JS. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(65.96.48.102 and User:12 Zmmps were later indefed as socks of a banned editor.)
 * (Correction: The IP was blocked for 3 months (because: Dude!, it's an IP!). Returning from that block with more of the same just earned a 1 year block. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC))

Emily Post / Etiquette
Hi SummerPhD. I added the link to Emily Post's book Etiquette last night, and was just going back to add in a stub today. I added the link around the whole formal title, but made it link to a page called "Etiquette (book)" which seems (in my experience) to be the format for naming a book on Wikipedia that has the same name as a common noun (there is already a page called etiquette on the concept). E.g. the concept (which has become a disambiguation page) Free Culture, versus Lessig's book Free Culture (book). Can you please let me know what page title you think would be better? Please advise. --Theredproject (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, it seems rather odd to title an article on the book with "Etiquette (book)" when no one will search under that name. People will most likely search for "Etiquette" (leading them to the disamb pageEtiquette) or "Etiquette in Society, in Business, in Politics, and at Home" (the actual title of the book. I'd say the article should go with the actual title (Etiquette in Society, in Business, in Politics, and at Home), tweak the link at Etiquette and create a redirect at Etiquette in Society in Business in Politics and at Home. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Tx. --Theredproject (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)