User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 17

re
what are you doing a didan't edit anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsmith670 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are referring to. I have not edited any of the few article's you've edited. I think you might have meant to contact someone else. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:108.249.22.222
Hi, you may want to evaluate that last warning again and change it to a level 4/final. The IP editor blanks their user page after each warning, so Twinkle doesn't escalate the warnings correctly and they keep it at level 1... Keri (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page has Same Policies as Actual Wiki Pages?
You claimed I made an edit to a biography of a living person in May of 2013 for the Westboro Baptist Church without a citation. In fact, I was simply taking part in a discussion on the 'Talk Page" for that Wiki article, and I did cite my source (a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity that anyone can find on YouTube). I realize my citation was not in the typical format that would be required on an actual Wiki article, but this was on a talk page.  Does Wiki actually now impose the same exact standards on their talk pages that they impose on their actual pages and, if so, would you be able to cite a reliable source (besides you) for me about this policy that applies to talk pages?  :S  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjpr2121 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not, and do not, feel that "The interview with Sean Hannity (can easily find it on YouTube)" is sufficient for a controversial statement about a living person. (Even if you had directly linked to it, youtube is seldom useful for our purposes. See Youtube.) Our policy on biographies of living persons does indeed apply to article talk pages: "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages." Blp - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oswald Vitor
What you should do when I edit on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oswald Vitor (talk • contribs) 10:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking about your edit to List of tomboys in fiction, you needed to include a reliable source for the information you added. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My change to an article.
Just read your comment on my change to an article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobklahn

I don't follow this very well, in fact, pretty much not at all. So I don't even recall what the change was I made. Is it still available for review somewhere? I have only edited a few articles, and only when I have a specific interest in the topic. So I am not that familiar with the process.

Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobklahn (talk • contribs) 14:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * From any page, clicking "History" will show you a list of all of the edits to that page. By clicking "dif" next to an individual edit, you can see what was changed in that edit. Also on the history page are links to each editor's talk page and list of edits ("contribs"). The edit you are looking for can be found this way or by clicking the "contributions" link at the top of every page (when you are logged on).
 * The edit you are asking about added an unsourced opinion about a source being discussed. Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view in articles. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Titanium drinking straw
"Unlikely"? Is that some sort of challenge? 8-) I've already got sporks and pocket crowbars in Ti.  Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Titanium is notoriously expensive to work with. Possible? Sure, but I'd want a source. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I sometimes hand-forge Ti (http://codesmiths.com/shed/things/shiny/cloak_pins.jpg). There was a spork-making workshop in our local Hackspace recently (thin cold sheet works quite easily). A straw would need my little TIG welder to seam it up, probably from spiralled strip, but it would be an interesting challenge. 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew a woman who made customized gear shift knobs -- a completely unique pursuit, AFAIK. To match the car's hardware with the new knob took an extraordinary amount of work, resulting in rather high prices. The problem was that people seem to base prices they are willing to pay on how much they want something, rather than how difficult it is to make. I'm thinking your nascent Ti-staw business may face troubles from this seeming truism. Good luck. I suspect you'll need it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed content
In response to your comment, I believe I removed a disparaging comment referring to Greeks as being familiar with anal sex. I listed it as removing an nonconstructive edit. I can't remember another edit I made without listing an edit summary, but if I did, thanks for catching it. I hope you didn't put back the Greek comment. I found it offensive as I'm sure others would have. "Selene Scott (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)"
 * I restored the content you removed from Sexuality of Jesus as you did not give a valid reason for removal of reliably sourced content ("omitted nonconstructive edit"). If you disagree, please take it to the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Vit B12
well, delete results published in Nature! well done mate ;))) what is contrary to mainstream science!!! yes Galileo was burnt indeed! thanks for wasting my time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmvernay (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are citing individual studies which are contrary to the widely held conclusions that A) there are no reliable natural dietary sources of B12 other than from animal sources and B) B12 produced in the gut is not reliably absorbed. Both of these conclusions are sourced to reliable secondary sources.


 * "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources." WP:MEDRS


 * I'll revert this again in a day or so. If you disagree, take it to the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else beat me to it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

AAFM - FYI
As noted here, the following has been posted online and a rough facsimile was emailed to the functionaries email list earlier this week, and then forwarded to the Foundation legal department. Frank &#124;  talk  04:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stick_surface
Hi SummerPHD,

I am the guy who edited the 'Non-stick surface' on the 29th of May with a reference to the HomeWorld survey.

I am a complete newcomer to this and I'm sure I messed up! I tried to give a source for HomeWorld report by mentioning another website which reported it - as unfortunately the HomeWorld survey is behind a pay-wall. The article concerned was published on February the 4th 2013 and was 'HomeWorld Business Cookware and bakeware report 2013'. The article's title was 'Can Ceramic Coating Momentum chip away at PTFE Dominance?' by Diane Falvey.

A PDF copy of the article is available here: http://www.gmmdl.com/media/ceramics-0213.pdf

I would really appreciate your advice on how to go about reposting my original amendment to the article. I'm using this piece as a first step into the big wide world of article writing for wiki and desperately need guidance!

Yours, FGCD321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FGCD321 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The original edits ( & ) were unsourced. The link above is to a cookware manufacturer hosting the original report. The cookware manufacturer is not a reliable source (other than for trivial, non-contested facts about that company in an article about the company). The company that conducted the survey reporting on their own survey is not an independent source.
 * Think of it this way: Joe Blow conducts a survey about widgets. Joe Blow reports on his survey. So what? A widget manufacturer reports on the survey (perhaps they like something the survey said). Joe Blow's survey is still in the realm of "So what?" because the widget manufacturer has an interest in reporting some findings and not others. If, however, an independent reliable source (say, the New York Times) reports on the survey, we would have something. Unlike Joe Blow, the Times has no particular reason to inflate Joe Blow's image: they would be reporting on the survey as being meaningful and relevant to the general public. Further, they aren't reporting the results as a result of them being pro-widget. Clear as mud?
 * Basically, IMO, we need a reliable source that is not connected to the survey or the subject of the survey. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Summer, clear now. FGCD321 (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi
I can prove it easy but I dont know how to use this site, you can read about my father on facebook under my name Steve Alaimo — Preceding unsigned comment added by STEVE ALAIMO (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Facebook is not helpful here. We need reliable sources for this claim. Please see a discussion I have started at Talk:List_of_Italian-American_mobsters. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Vegan Reich
I have removed the DB tag on Vegan Reich. I believe the article makes a credible assertion of notability for this band as one of the defining bands of a particular sub-genre of music. I don't know if the genre itself is notable enough that the band becomes notable for defining it, but I think that's a matter for AFD. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

spoon straw
I saw your note and would like to know if patent information and/or a link to MoMA's collection (of which the spoon straw is a part) is sufficient. I would consider both reliable. As far as what is written in Widipedia, I don't understand where the person who wrote the blurb got his/her information. There is no source cited. Thanks.Sedaykan (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A verifiable cite to MoMA should be sufficient for general information about spoon straws. It cannot, however, be used to cite that there is a straw spoon in the MoMA collection as it would be a primary source for that fact.
 * If there is info in the article you would like a source for, add a cite needed tag,, immediately after the info. If you doubt the info, you can remove it instead. Thanks. -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So to be clear, I can remove the information that I believe to be incorrect (and which has no valid source). I am still a little confused on the MoMA citation. Can or can't it be used to prove that Arthur Aykanian invented the spoon straw. Like I said, there is the patent and the inclusion in the MoMA collection. Will that work? Thank you for your patience and advice. Sedaykan (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Briefly: If a source is being used to say something about itself, it is a primary source. Wikipedia does not use primary sources, in most cases.
 * The patent is a primary source for anything it says about the straw spoon or its inventor (who likely filed the application). As such, we generally don't use it for anything. The MoMA source, so long as it is used for information that has nothing to do with it being in their collection, would be a secondary source and, IMO, reliable enough to state whatever it says. Using the MoMA source to say the spoon straw is in MoMA's collection, though, would make it a primary source and not useful. (If the New Yorker mentioned the straw spoon was in MoMA's collection, that would be a secondary source.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Gelatomyway.com
Hello,

apparently You removed a link that I added to the "Gelato" wikipedia page. My link is about a non profit site that talks about true italian gelato homemade recipes. There is nothing more appropriate than explaining how to make a gelato in a "gelato" wikipedia page.

Can You please restore the link?.

Thank You Best Regards Gelatomyway.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelatomyway (talk • contribs) 14:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your personal website fails WP:ELNO #11. Additionally, you have a clear conflict of interest. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. You are here to promote your website. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats
Please don't shoot me; I'm the messenger. In case you've not seen it already at Talk:American Academy of Financial Management, I'm here to let you know about this page; it seems a thoroughly frivolous complaint, but it still might be worth your attention, since you are named in the complaint. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, but I've already seen it. The poorly written threat seems to be coming from a "law firm" run by the founder of the "AAFM". His grammar is less than impressive. I have been "removed from article under legal policies" (by whom? whose policies?). If I edit the article now I will be "committing a conflict of interest" (as it is, I'm committing a dislike of absurd threats). In any case, here I am: publicly participating, despite laughable efforts against same. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, SummerPhD
Thank you for yor message. Please understand that: The photo I removed was taken without my permission, and I never signed a release for it's public use. My understanding is that this is potentially libellous, and that I'm protected from abuse of my image. I have much to much respect for Wikipedia to think that you'd allow somone to take advantage of a public person on one of your pages. Thanks for your help! Cindy Morgan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindymorganinfo (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Cindymorganinfo (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders
Hi, the PG article from 1990 says that Sanders is the first socialist in six decades. Now it has been two more decades, so it's been eight decades. 76.120.184.122 (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)76.120.184.122
 * Yes, the prior socialist was elected eight decades ago. That, however, is NOT what the article is saying. It was six decades BETWEEN the last socialist's election and Sanders' election in 1990. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Lucy Liu
Hi Summer (a pitty that a lot of people don't use their real name when adding info on Wikipedia)

I added the information about the discovery of Lucy liu by an agent but wasn't logged in at that moment. Thank you for contacting me about this.

Did you have a look at the interview? The source is namely actually quite good: A television interview where Mrs. Liu presents the information herself.

This is the original source (not Youtube as in the reference): http://www.wendyshow.com/2013/06/18/lucy-liu-elementary/ The section about the "discovery at the age of 19" starts at 3:11. Enjoy viewing. It's a nice interview. Can you make a better reference to this interview?

This is new information is interesting because this means her career starts a year earlier. Now the big job is to find out what this commercial was about.

Regards,

Jacco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacco Huisman (talk • contribs) 17:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Slowing down a bit, I now see that it is the show's official youtube page, not a copyright violation. I kinda jumped the gun: IP editor + no edit summary + youtube = copyright violation. I've reverted myself. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Smash Mouth
I think you may have misunderstood my intention. I removed the content because I was moving it into a separate discography article (Smash Mouth discography). It wasn't just a random, pointless vandalism blanking - I even provided a link to the discography on the Smash Mouth page. Therefore, the restoration of the content means that it is only being forked around numerous pages. I Am Rufus  •  Conversation is a beautiful thing.  06:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

David Gregory article
Hi SummerPhD, I noticed your revert of my recent edit of the David Gregory article. I don't feel your revert was justified, but I may be wrong. I have taken the issue to the article's talk page here. --JHP (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Binders full of women
Articles for deletion/Binders full of women (3rd nomination) Trackinfo (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding new information to an article or finding a reference?
I apologize if I am doing this incorrectly. I feel like I am trying to learn to ride a bike for the first time.

I was surprised when I saw a commercial for CBS show "Under the Dome" and learned that it was not based on the story "The Lanson Screen" published in 1936. I wanted to provide a link to "The Lanson Screen" that would allow readers to view the short-story/novella and make draw their own conclusions.

Your note indicates that my text was deleted because is was original research. My intent was to provide access to what appears to be relevant information, any editorial content I added was entirely unintentional. You recommend a reliable source for citation and this was my intent when providing the link to the document text. Again, my intent was not to promote a view or option but to provide access to information so the reader could form their own opinion. There was some discussion about the origins of the story (unpublished work by King vs story-line from The Simpsons). I would like to provide information about the 1936 story as another similar work published prior to "Under the Dome". How do you recommend finding a citation for a story that was published over 75 years ago? Is there no way to add relevant information that does not have a modern scholarly review published?

Sdtrent (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Shane
 * Thanks for your note. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We report what existing sources have to say about a subject. We do not publish new ideas. In order for us to say something in Under the Dome about "The Lanson Screen", we would need a reliable source noting a connection. My own quick Google finds numerous blogs, comment sections and forums mentioning the two, but nothing else. The only connections I can find sources for are the earlier King story and The Simpsons Movie (both discussed in the article). If you can find a reliable source discussing this, it would be interesting to add. That said, it is entirely possible that the connection is coincidental as the idea of a domed city is fairly common in fiction. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank for your help. You should give the story a look, 26 pages if I recall. The similarity is uncanny, a shield appears suddenly, the town is cut-off from the outside world, people cope with the realization that society no longer exits... But just because it is unlikely to be a coincidence does not mean that is is not a coincidence. I will pursue alternate paths to promoting a discussion and link that back in when something is published. Sdtrent (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Shane

Raw Vegan
Educate me: as far as citing a source to verify concerns about carcinogens in cooked food, what type of source might be considered more of a "reliable, published source" other than a study by the California Environmental Protection Agency? Any alternative suggestions would be appreciated. This is in reference to the deletion of my edits to Raw Vegan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StacyOnEarth (talk • contribs) 12:24, July 6, 2013‎
 * The specific concern here is not that the CA EPA is unreliable. The problem is the source does not discuss the subject of the article: raw veganism. The source is off-topic and anything supported by it in this article would be original research. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps You Know Who Is Coming Back
Does this rant remind you of THC Loadee and its abuse of sockpuppets?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a match to me. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So how do we reopen an investigation?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

MacGuffin
Hello, Nylar4000 responding about your comment on my talk page in regards to reverting my MacGuffin page edit. The image I added under examples was itself a verifiable reference. I believe I even cited the episode number and the scene. (Edit: Oops! No, I just looked, I had forgotten to cite the episode and scene. But anyway...) The problem about linking to the actual full episode is that would be copyright infringement according to wikipedia's policies, though it is available to watch on youtube if one were to search for "Morton & Hayes - Daffy Dicks". It's episode #1 written by Phil Mishkin http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0592771/ and featuring Kevin Pollak, Bob Amaral, Christopher Guest and Catherine O'Hara. Anyway I am a little unclear on how this is not verifiable or a reference? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nylar4000 (talk • contribs) 17:59, July 8, 2013‎
 * Basically, I'm looking at this as an issue of trivia, but there are other issues butting into this. First: The photo is from a copyrighted show. Generally, Wikipedia's interpretation allows limited use of such material for "identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents". We don't have sourced critical commentary of the show discussing the "MacGuffin" aspect. Identification of the show would be better served by the show's title card. (Pick a TV show: I Love Lucy, CHiPs, You Bet Your Life, Curb Your Enthusiasm, whatever, and you'll see that's generally what we use.)
 * The trivia issue is a bit harder to pin down, but "In popular culture" content comes pretty close. As we do not have reliable sources discussing this show relative to "MacGuffin"s, including it becomes part of a "indiscriminate collection" of such references (dozens of which have been added and axed over the years). Including the photo merely shows that yes, the show had something with a name similar to the subject of the article, rather than "(d)etailing a topic's impact upon popular culture". My standby example for this type of issue is Gerald Ford. We could easily include an extensive list of TV shows, movies, books, plays, etc. that mention him. That would be an indiscriminate collection (how did we select which ones to include? we added the ones that whichever editors happening by could think of...). The Gerald Ford article would not gain from the inclusion of such a list. The article, however, would be incomplete if we did not include the effect of Chevy Chase's Ford skits on Saturday Night Live.
 * Long story short: Your addition does not include a reliable source that connects your addition to the topic of the article. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse Invitation
Tariqmudallal (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Apology - July 2013
Hello SummerPhD. I would like to say that I'm sorry. My actions in my 2 edits to your talk page were very rude and I have become quite overconfident. Anyway, I would like to know if you accept my apology. I don't mean to hurt your feelings or anything. Batman194 (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Well, we ironed this problem out a week ago, and we haven't had any contact since, so in my mind we've settled our problem. I said we were too old to be bickering over redirects, so we laid down our sticks and moved on. Rusted AutoParts 00:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes RAP is right, I'm sorry to RAP for my mistake but we are even now. --  Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!     ( T - C  - G  ) 03:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ship of Theseus
Hi! I'm wondering whether a Ship of Theseus deletion you made might be able to be re-incorporated into the page. Recently I was looking for the story of how the Japanese considered a temple that had been burned and replaced to be the same temple, an excellent illustration of cultural norms related to identity. I was sure it was on the Ship of Theseus page but when I looked it was no longer to be found. I tracked the disappearance of the passage to your edit last month, with a note of "unsourced examples; see talk". I was confused by that since the item was sourced from a Douglas Adams book, with credit. Over on the Talk page I see Talk:Ship_of_Theseus I don't know whether that was the relevant talk item, but didn't see another entry that seemed more related to the edit.

I agree that the page was becoming overwhelmed with examples that didn't really add anything and needed trimming, but still think the Adams story did contribute something positive. Perhaps it was a bit too long and could have been summarized instead, though I personally like it in the form in which it originally appeared.

Do you think the original section could be restored? Or should be restored but abridged? Or added to the Kinkaku-ji page, the one for the temple in question, and incorporated by reference?

Thanks for thinking about it. Vttale (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The talk page item in question is Talk:Ship_of_Theseus. I yanked the various "examples" not due to length or detail, but because the sources (for those that were sourced) did not refer to the Ship of Theseus, the topic of this article. As a result, all of them were/are original research. If you can find reliable sources discussing the temple's history as it relates to the Ship of Theseus, feel free to add it back in. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think it has a place in the Identity and change page, perhaps in an "In Culture" section? Vttale (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that article is a mess with one source (a bare, dead link at that), it is basically an original research essay. If you have sourced material that you feel is verifiably discussing "identity and change", have at it. At some point, someone (maybe you?) is going to need to source and/or rewrite that entire article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=565256005 your edit] to Original Gangstas may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * /ref> The film holds a 50% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 14 reviews.

Auto-Tune
Oh Hi I did remove them cause they either have incorrect terms used or it is completely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.121.232 (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Australian English
Hi SummerPhD, I've reverted you reversion of a spelling change to Waterfall Gully, South Australia, as the article is written in Australian English. Please note that "metre" is the correct spelling in Australia. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like I slipped on that one. Thanks for the revert and the note. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Coconut oil
Hi Summer, just FYI that IP at Coconut oil is a sock of indef-blocked, feel free to revert at will or report to RFPP if he won't go away. 04:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't see enough for a sock report (so I gave him a bit more rope). If you think there's enough, please file. Thanks! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Not sure what I was looking at before, that thar is a duck. Filed. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

90.185.23.219
I suspect this IP editor is either user "Schlafly", aka Roger Schlafly (Phyllis Schlafly's son) or else another sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.162.87.53 (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect you have an ax to grind and want me to help. Feel free to open a sock case yourself. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

IP template for TJLS
Frankly, I think we've got the attention of the TJLS staff & faculty. And they will play by the rules, I'm sure. Is the IP template necessary or helpful? I think not. They are not using the IP address to vandalize the article. I'd remove it. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Spelling reform
Since the topic of spelling reform iz off topic in Talk:Cruciferous vegetables, perhaps you would prefer to keep my rules about it here (or on my facebook wall, or via [mailto:brewjay@spamcop.net e-mail], since Talk:English-language_spelling_reform duz not welkum fohrum kontribyuushunz.75.152.127.191 (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles. Occasionally, we have editors attempting to communicate in a language other than English. Our standard warning in that case reads: "I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Talk page guidelines. Thank you." Whatever your reasons for using idiosyncratic spellings, you are reducing the readability of your comments. Sometimes, they are close to incomprehensible without considerable effort. To be understood and taken seriously, you must be understandable. Dthoz hoo waish too komyuunikaat dthaar thowts rr wall adviiyezd too couz uh methud uhproopreeaat too dthaar intended awdeenns nnd hav noo riit too deemaynd dthat dthu intended reesipeennts xxpend signifikent ffert in deekriptng dthaar ideeoosinkratik myuuzngs. -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. Aww, excluding other languages from English talk pages is kinda sad, really. I am surprized you do not know about google translations. There's also [ and, both of which are older. I often go through talk pages and offer comments on old discussions. It may be just a matter of time before a multi-lingual (or machine-aware) person happens on some Spanish in an English talk page. It might just be someone who has learned to read English without learning how to write it, and so she wants clarification for her contributions to a Spanish page.
 * Moer's truism: The trouble with most jobs is the job holder's resemblence to being one of a sled dog team. No one gets a change of scenery except the lead dog. You are doing quite well in the consistency department, except where the double-oh is concerned. Consider "wood, hood, took, shook, book". Those contain schwas. A double-ay is good for a simple rule concerning vowels. However, I prefer "ay", because it's in frequent Ingglish (I know a shopkeeper who used dhat exact same spelling) use. What we are talking about is not really another language: It's a transcription. A very similar scheme to mine is called on wikipedia for the transcriptions that go into the introduction of some articles. "Dhohz huu wish tuu kumyuunikayt dhayr thots awr wel adviizd tuu chuuz a methud uhprohpreeit tuu dhayr intended awdeeyens and hav noh riit tuu deemand dhat dhee intended reesipeeyents ekspend signifikint efert in deekripting dhayer ideeohsinkratik myuuzngs." (It is common for teh to be slurred into a dee in North America, so common that you might be mistaken for a foreigner if you whisper a tee.) "See, Jee, Kyuu, and Eks" are redundant names for letters. I notice that IPA uses /x/ for the sound in a Scottish "Loch", or a Jerman "Buch", while respell uses "kh". I prefer IPA on that count. 75.152.117.14 (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

blocked editor
I'm declining to remove some of the articles by Androstachys that I think particularly helpful and unlikely to be soon contributed by another editor.. I'm aware of who wrote it, but WP would be harmed more by removing it that keeping it. The policy reads, "may be removed," not "must be removed".  DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I figured as much, but from where I sit, the more that disappear, the better. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

hi; with all due respect, i agree with DGG, rather strongly. your mass-speedy-ing of articles written by the user Androstachys, for the given rationale, is disruptive, & at least borderline "pointy editing"/vandalism.

further, your reply above "I figured as much, but from where I sit, the more that disappear, the better." DOES NOT present your position in a favourable light, in that it suggests "personal reasons" for the nominations.

in the spirit of agf, i would like to ask you for a clarification as to why you want to remove (apparently ALL of) this persons contributions?

Lx 121 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Could I also point out that, as far as I can determine, the articles which you are tagging were created before this user was blocked. Granted he is a sockpuppet, but for some reason it appears that the sockmaster was only blocked for 72 hours in 2007. Hence creating these articles is acceptable, assuming that the articles themselves qualify for retention. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Lx 121: "Vandalism"? I do not think that word means what you think it means. In any event, yes, I do believe that my given rationale is valid based on the information I had at the time. Speedy G5 is for "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others." The block notice I read last night for Androstachys says, "20:20, 10 August 2011 Hesperian (talk | contribs) blocked Androstachys (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Long term abuse: new account of community-banned long-term disruptive editor Paul venter / Rotational / etc)" To me, that says Androstachys was created by a community-banned long-term disruptive editor. As for the puppeteer previously having been blocked for 72 hours, I'm at a bit of a loss to explain the wording of the block notice in that light. For my own part, I guess I missed the "Paul venter" listing (right before the line break) and searched for "Rotational", [User_talk:Rotational#Blocked blocked indefinitely 3 December 2009, 7 days prior to Androstachys starting up. Rotational's block does not mention the puppeteer: "17:20, 1 December 2009 Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) blocked Rotational (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing: edit warring over style with WP:POINT violations)" Based on that information, Androstachys was established as a sock of a banned/blocked user in violation of their ban or block. While DGG's opinion differs from mine, I do not see my nominations at disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. From where I sit, the reason G5 exists is to solidify the line: while an editor is blocked, they may not edit Wikipedia. If they sneak through the block, we undo their work to enforce the block. "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, so their edits may be reverted without any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." (Yes, as I would expect, DGG has a basis for their decision: "This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Banning_policy Thus, we are not required to undo edits under evasion, but anyone is free to. DGG feels the benefit of keeping the articles outweighs the damage from allowing a banned editor to ignore the ban. I disagree but acquiesce to DGG's opinion. (Upon seeing DGG's first revert of my nomination, "I figured as much" that this was the explanation being given. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I invite you to see User:Mangojuice/delete, an essay on the topic of deletionism. A number of wikipedians are against notability., therefore the topic is controversial, so controversial that it might explain why your front page has been vandalized. I've never seen the forum; don't want to go there; pretty sure user:Jeremy Hanson had his hand in it before he wuz banned (over and over and over...). A number of articles could probably be resurrected from evidence in The Wayback Machine.75.152.117.14 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Watercooler Gossip
One is moved to wonder why THC Loadee has to go to such lengths of lying, sockpuppetry, harassment and making enormously impotent threats to get his point, whatever it was, across. I mean, is he aware of how silly he sounds when he brags about how the only alleged way to stop him is to destroy Wikipedia? He doesn't seem to be aware that his edits can be easily reverted.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In a few years, when he's old enough to drive, he'll buy a sports car to prove how big manly he is. Until then, his amazing feats of sockpuppetry will have to serve as proof. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

question
Why did you not remove the CN here ? Petroleum products (especially high surface-area fabrics) are flammable and do emit toxic odors when burned. I understand your intent, but it seems intellectually dishonest to remove a link to a wealth of information about the flammability and toxicity of petroleum, while allowing the appearance of a question surrounding the issue at hand. 75.142.11.87 (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. "I'm right because I say I'm right and you know that's right because, as I just proved, I am right." The statement in question needs to cite a reliable source stating that microfibers are flammable, and emit toxic gases (not "odors") when burning. There are petroleum products that not particularly flammable and petroleum products that burn without much in the way of toxic gases. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Solid petroleum products, especially microfibers, are not one of them. graphene _might_ be an exception. The edit, however, wuz perfectly correct. If someone demands a source, and it is not in petroleum, then it should be found. 75.152.117.14 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly cannot figure out what you are trying to say. Also, because this was 8 months ago, I don't remember what the situation was. If you wish to discuss whether or not content should be in an article and whether or not it needs to be sourced, I'd suggest taking it to the article's talk page. Also, as your IP keeps changing, it is impossible to contact you directly and you have no automatic way to track articles you are working on. You might want to register an account. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Veganism

 * Numerous top level athletes follow it, until you examine the claims and find that the individual athlete tried it for part of a season, until he decided he needed to add in a little chicken, fish and eggs to his diet.

I'm not sure where you are getting this from, but it's wrong. Brendan Brazier and Murray Rose didn't add those things to their diet. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to several athletes repeatedly added to and removed from various vegetarian, vegan and fruitarian articles with either no sources at all or sources that show the person briefly toyed with one of these fads before discovering it simply didn't work for them. It took months to remove the crap from fruitarianism and there are still repeated flair-ups there (various crap claims that you don't need B12 or you can get it from bug shit on your food or that various people were fruitarians or we shouldn't include a white supremacist who was, etc.) all from true believers who believe what they want. The various vegan and vegetarian articles are crying out for similar work, but there are far more true believers defending them. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know about any of that. There appears to be too much overlap between veganism and vegan nutrition. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!     ( T - C  - <font color=Green>G  ) 14:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Martyr
copy of text to the other editor

I have left a message on the martyr page regarding neutrality. HOw do you add secularism into God, and God into atheism? Same goes for martyr, martyr is a religious word, it is not a secular one......... you can not just delete my work, edit it......

here's a copy of the text there too :)

I need help Neutrality. How do you add secularism to word God, and to word martyr??? These words can not be secular. Word martyr is in many religious texts as we can see in the contents section, now just because someone decided to name some people martyr's in some event that happened in time who didn't even die or that did die doesn't make them martyrs, even though we call them. Now this word is used by secular people the word God is used by secular people when they say that God is someone else other than God. This is the same problem with this word. I need help with these trigger happy undo button pushers suggested by automated program that counts bytes??? The word martyr means witness yes, but we do not mean a witness in court here :), we mean a witness in religious terms here, so there is no room for secularism on this page just as there is no room for athiests on religious pages, and religious people on atheists belief's pages :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeputyBob (talk • contribs) 15:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am replying on the article's talk page. If you are blocked for edit warring before you can reply, feel free to discuss the issue after your block expires. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A kind request
I saw your comments on 's talk page. I also saw that the messages were template messages given using twinkle. I know you mean well but doing it over and over again, kinda gets repetitive and annoying to the editor, its usually rude to give an experienced editor a template warning such as the six or more that you gave to him, I would like to see it being discussed rather than a pre-made template that doesn't help. Thanks in advance. -- Prabash.  Akmeemana   03:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Persistent adding of unsourced material by IP user 97.86.5.61
Hi. I'd like to draw to your attention please, that after you gave the IP user a final warning on 27 July 2013, he/she has continued to add a lot of unsourced material to numerous articles.

Thank you.

Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now reported this troublesome IP user to Admin. The user has been given a 3 month block - Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey buddy, relax!
My memo on the update clearly stated that I was merely saving my work as to not get lost. The editing format for the Robin Williams page was unfamiliar to me, so I needed to a few minutes to figure out how to clean up my format and to add sources. I understand why you removed the changes, and perhaps I should've utilized a different way to save my work rather than posting unsourced material. I honestly didn't believe 5-10 minutes left much likelihood that anyone would view Robin William's wiki page, unless there are editors or williams fans constantly monitoring his page for any changes. However, I am going to revert your changes with sources. If you believe these items are defamatory, then we can bring a-whole-nother discussion to the mix on the talk page.--Jmurdock21 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because it provided contentious material about a living person. We take biographies of living persons very seriously: "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edits have changed the entire context of my original entry. Your edits have put information on this wiki page this is 100% false. Your edit that "simplified" the paragraph actually changed the wording entirely. Your edit stated that the listed comedians had previously stated that Williams had used their stand up material. Among those comedians in that list were Marc Maron and Carlos Mencia. Why did you make that statement? You did not list any sources to verify that and to my knowledge, those statements have never been made. My original statement said there were several comedians that claim to have witnessed Williams using other peoples' material or have spoken of these claims at length.

Also, we need to determine what is a verifiable source. I'm not sure what standard could or should be used because any claim against Williams is hearsay. If you read further down in the discussion list, this topic had already been addressed and the editor said any mention of joke thieving would not be addressed because there were no specific incidents listed. That is why I listed the David Letterman appearance. There are dozens of pages on the internet that reference that incident, which is fairly infamous in the world of stand up comedy. There is no denying that that actually happened. But what do we need to be able to list that? We can have 1000 people reference the incident and we treat the incident as rumor but 1 person who works for the Boston Globe writes about it and now it is considered fact? The Letterman appearance is also similar to a topic on Carlos Mencia's wiki page concerning a joke he did that was very similar to Bill Cosby's. Therefore, I believe it's correct to follow precedent that has been accepted and established, otherwise there is no consistency and rules are applied arbitrarily, as they appear to be for Williams concerning this subject.

I don't know how familar you are with stand up comedy. But Robin Williams has had the reputation as a joke thief for over 30 years. The three most notorious people for this are Robin Williams, Dennis Leary, and Carlos Mencia (both Mencia and Leary have sections on their page addressing the issue.) I'm not anti-Robin Williams by any means, but the allegations of plagiarism are well known enough that they definitely need to be addressed somewhere on his page. You have determined that accounts and quotes from RW's peers will not suffice as legitimate sources. I would argue they are much more reputable than the "reputable sources" I believe you are wanting to see.

I realize wiki editors take personal bios, very seriously. But at no point did I ever say Williams was guilty of anything. I merely stated that there were allegations of wrong doing and gave an example of such an incident and quotes from the people who were directly involved in these incidents. I also must revert back to your revision where you incorrectly stated Carlos Mencia and Marc Maron accused Williams of using their material without listing a reference to that claim. The section titled "Criticism" is already far removed from what I entered and needs to be deleted completely due to false claims and lack of sources. I would have no problem consulting with you on the section. But I would ask for your input to be more precise about what's acceptable source material and I would ask you to adhere to a "common law" system and allow for the section to follow precedent of other similar wiki pages, or state why the accepted precedent should not be followed. --Jmurdock21 (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What you see in Wikipedia article is not precedence. It is something in another article which might or might not be correct.
 * Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about a living person should be removed on sight. We need independent reliable sources of high quality for all such claims.
 * I removed several blogs quoting material that might be useful. Blogs are very rarely useful sources. All too often, blogs turn out to be quoting another unreliable source or misquoting a reliable one. For this reason, that there are "dozens of pages" on the 'net saying something is not a useful argument.
 * If you have specific concerns about what the article does and does not say, please address those concerns on the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the "simplified" matter, Jmurdock21 must be talking about this edit made by GoingBatty. Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - If you're referring to made by me, could you please explain how it "actually changed the wording entirely"?  I see that I changed "Among these comedians are" to "including", and the second instance of "David Brenner" to simply "Brenner".  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)