User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 18

Spam Links
The style of your user name is really cool. How did you get it like that? You have a lovely name. I removed those spam references about Mara Wilson being an Atheist and her Nickel allergy. And SummerPhD that blog link that you added about Mara's religious views counts as spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.20.17 (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/108.249.22.222 - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User 121.54.58.136 Vandalism on Meet the Spartans
User 121.54.58.136 seems to do nothing but vandalize articles. I don't see why this person isn't blocked.TL36 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With large time gaps in editing, no discernible pattern as to what they are editing and the fact that it's a cellular IP, I don't know that we have much to go on in terms of claiming it's one person. There are some apparently legitimate edits in the mix as well. Also, it's clearly dynamic: note the changing IP at . Yeah, we need to warn them and, if it continues block them, but I don't see enough yet. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI regarding Captain Assassin!
Hello. You might be interested in the ANI discussion for Captain Assassin!, which can be found here: WP:ANI Thanks, Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Lightvd
Please leave this to me. :) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit of Lucy Fry article.
Thank you for you interest in keeping me straight as I enter the world of the Wikipedia. All help is appreciated. I have read both the advertising and the soapbox sections you referenced in your edit, and find no basis for your edit, so I'm a little confused. Buy pointing out that an actor is represented by an agency one only confirms that the person is an actor. My addition was a simple statement, there were no embellishments or additional commentary to that fact. I have no interest in Lucy Fry either personal or business, so conflict of interest isn't an issue.

Happy Jack 56 (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to list anyone's agency, unless the relationship is somehow unusual in a noteworthy way. Someone who has roles is an actor. Someone who has an agency is someone who has a contract with an agency. All too often we have persons connected with agencies showing up to add their agencies to various articles. As that was your first edit, it seemed likely to be the case in your situation. If that is not the case, please accept my apologies. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan
Though the rest of Warthog5's edits to Hulk Hogan were unhelpful, the source does say his weight is 302lb now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ship of Theseus / Trigger's Broom
Can you give me some idea of what you would consider a reasonable citation for this nugget of information? It is an example of the paradox that is considered very well known in the UK, and the citation to the corresponding wikipedia entry wasn't considered authoritative by you, so I provided one from the BBC's own website.

Is this a matter of citation? or notability? or is it personal preference?

It's not worth debating hugely, but I thought it was a value add for the page. Ashleyfrieze (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles like this frequently attract lots of examples and pseudo-examples. As such, they tend to build up indiscriminate lists of examples of no encyclopedic value. As we're discussing the content of the article, please comment on the article's talk page. Thanks! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct Edits
Please stop erasing my legitimate edits. Leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.20.17 (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are editing in defiance of a block. None of your edits are legitimate. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct Edits
Please stop erasing my legitimate edits. Reporting me to Mr. Whales or taking "appropriate action" is a waist of time. Leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.20.17 (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/108.249.22.222 - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

About you bragging on Mandarin (comics)
You have to stop repeating Mandarin on Killian, we already get it and how can you people possibly detect edits like them so fast anyway?71.186.174.177 (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I really don't know what you mean about me "bragging" or "repeating Mandarin on Killian". I reverted your edit because you removed apparently relevant content without explaining why in an edit summary. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

hELP
Hoping you can help? I just created a new page (one of my firsts!) for a Supremes single entitled "He's My Man". I failed to use correct capitalization when creating it; how can I fix? Thanks for your guidance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marybrewster (talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC) A belated welcome to Wikipeadia. It looks like you've already figured out how to move this on your own. Cheers. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Édouard-Henri Avril (28).jpg
Hello! I'd like to talk about the changes that took place a few minutes ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JmAmO (talk • contribs) 01:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the image in question and what an accurate description of it may be, do not change other editors' user pages as you did here. With few exceptions (such as potentially libelous material, copyright violations and such), only the editor in question should edit the page. Please see User pages.
 * You have stated "The title of "Ancient Greek sodomising a goat" is false, since no ancient or modern Greek were ever wearing turban/sariki on the head. The painter was Algerian This picture is coming from a website which is selling it. So, the title is totally arbitary". I am unaware of anything about the commercial sale of images which would make the title arbitrary. Whatever your opinion/knowledge of ancient Greeks may be, the ultimate source of this image is De Figuris Veneris, a collection of ancient Greek and Roman eroticism. That Avril was Algerian/French is immaterial. As he was commissioned to illustrate an ancient Greek, the description is apt, whether or not the image in entirely accurate. If you disagree with this, you will certainly want to correct our descriptions of Michelangelo's David. We repeatedly describe the work as being of the Biblical David. However, the statue is clearly uncircumcised, while all of Jesse's sons would have been circumcised at 8 days of age. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571084504 your edit] to Merida (Pixar) 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) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * more reviews for kids, moms, and dads |publisher=EW.com|date=2012-08-01 |accessdate=2013-07-10}}

Appreciation
I actually only see you in one place (although I'm sure you're active in many), List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction article, but your work there alone is worth a barnstar, since it's an WP:OR magnet and always will be I guess, and as the months turn into years you seem to not tire of maintaining it. If you really do have a PhD then all more the reason to be grateful to you for doing this scutwork. Thank you. Herostratus (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

About the article "zoophilia"
The page "zoophilia" has a lot of inaccurate information which need a good revision by people who have real knowledge.

For example, the term "philia" in Greek means only friendship, and not love.

Then, about the picture with the title: "Ancient Greek sodomising a goat". First of all, this picture is an indirect advertisement to a commercial website, which sells those pictures. Then, the title is totally false and it has been put by the sellers (and not by the artist) for various reasons. The real title exists in this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%89douard-Henri_Avril_(28).jpg and it is "Shepherd sodomising a goat".

Moreover, Greeks were never wearing turbans on the head. So, since the painter was Algerian, I don't see how it is related with Greeks. I am Greek and this constitutes a negative propaganda against my culture!

And last but not least, the terms "zoophilia" and "zoophiles" (which are Greek) have totally different meanings in Greek language, which I don't see nowhere in this article.

I'd suggest to change the title of this article to "bestiality", which is the correct title for its content.

I can offer my knowledge to improve this article in a decent way, but I need good collaboration. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JmAmO (talk • contribs) 02:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of baggage in your comment here. I haven't time to unpack all of it. For the moment, if you wish to change the title of the article, you will need to build a consensus to that end on the article's talk page. As the overwhelming majority of the sources for the article use the term "zoophilia" and bestiality is described as an aspect of zoophilia, you will likely find this to bean unpopular idea.


 * Yes, the image does depict an ancient Greek sodomizing a goat. The image is not some kind of hidden advertisement for the site selling copies of the image. It is taken from a book whose copyright has lapsed. ANYONE can freely reproduce the image without paying anything to anyone. If anything, we are subverting attempts to sell the free image.


 * Various meanings of various words in modern Greek are not discussed in the article as this article is discussing the English use of the term "zoophilia". While "zoo-" and "-philia" are indeed taken from Greek, English usage of the word(s) are likely different. You will note that shampoo discusses the hair care product, rather than the massaging of the scalp that the word originally meant.


 * If you feel that an image of one individual ancient Greek sodomizing a goat is "a negative propaganda against (your) culture", I would advise you to leave the Internet at this point without looking back. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

May I see the proof that Avril was really commissioned to illustrate an ancient Greek?

Not to mention that the image is a total garbage from the side of aesthetics! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JmAmO (talk • contribs) 02:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are contesting that Avril illustrated the French edition of De figuris Veneris, I haven't the time. This was one of his most notable works. If you doubt that De figuris Veneris was a collection of ancient Greek and Roman eroticism, I haven't the time. It is simply what the book is. If you doubt that the description is taken from that text, I haven't the time. Feel free to ask your local library to get the edition and see for yourself.
 * "...total garbage from the side of aesthetics". You don't like the photo. I get it. I am quite confident there are loads of images on Wikipedia that you won't like. Your personal dislike, though, does not dictate whether or not the image should be here or how we should describe it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Again I don't see any proof that the purpose of the artist was to picture a Greek and not an Algerian. Could you please send me a link where I can see that proof? Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, isn't it? How can information be published here without having a valid online source? Moreover, there is indeed a link in this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%89douard-Henri_Avril_(28).jpg which redirects people to the commercial website here: http://www.kunstkopie.de/a/avril-edouard-henri/ancient-greek-sodomising.html. This website is in fact the only source of the title: "Ancient Greek sodomising a goat".

Then, I have a question about the title of the article "zoophilia". Since this edition of Wikipedia is the English version, why you don't have any article about "bestiality"? Please, I'd like to see it.

As for your personal advices to me for leaving internet, I am sorry but I am on internet almost since the beginning. Thank you, but I'll stay!


 * Yes, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It is an encyclopedia and it is online. Not all of our sources are online. Our policy on this specifically states: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access."
 * Yes, there is a link from the image to the online location of the image. (There is also a link to the image at another location.) Yes, the site is trying to sell prints of the image. Here is another one (guess how it describes the image). That the source of the scan is commercial is immaterial. If you would like to provide a cleaner scan from another source, feel free.
 * The website (actually, every website I can find agrees on the title:,, , , , etc.) is not the ultimate source for the title. The caption of the image in the text is the source: "STC79198 Ancient Greek sodomising a goat, plate XVII from 'De Figuris Veneris' by F.K. Forberg, pub. 1900 (hand coloured lithograph) by Avril, Edouard-Henri (Paul) (1849-1928); Private Collection; The Stapleton Collection; French, out of copyright". Is it possible that every website, every poster seller, every library, everyone is wrong? Sure, but that is an extraordinary claim. You will need extraordinary evidence. Find the book, scan the page. Then you will have something.
 * Again, if you would like to change the title of the article or spin-off the bestiality content into a new article, please raise the issue at Talk:Zoophilia.
 * My advise to leave the Internet is based on your statement that the image was somehow "negative propaganda against (your) culture". Yes, one artist depicted one ancient Greek screwing a goat. If that destroys someone's image of Greeks against Hippocrates, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Herodotus, Pericles, Homer, Aesop, etc., etc., well, there's no hope for that person anyway! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible all webpages to reproduce the same fake source. This is how so much misinformation is reproduced all around internet nowadays. There is no way to convince me that the picture depicts an ancient Greek, since turban or sariki was never part of the Greek culture! Moreover, I cannot see why a disputed title is so important about such a picture in such an article. The picture talks by itself.

By the way, thank you for changing the title of the picture. This is fair for everybody!

Also thank you for the clarification about: "φιλία (philia, meaning "(fraternal) love"). As a suffix, "-philia" indicates an abnormal liking for or tendency towards a given thing. Thus, the term denotes an abnormal human sexual attraction to animals."

In Greek, we have 2 words for "love": 1) αγάπη (agapi), 2) έρως (eros). The first one (agapi) never indicates lust or sexual desire, and it suits well for the Greek root of "zoophilia". For describing bestiality in English by using a Greek word, more suitable are the terms "zooerasty" or "zooerastia".

Finally, I am not interested to start a new article for "bestiality", since that subject is very repulsive for me. I leave that duty to somebody else here.

I am an active member of a few organizations for the protection and welfare of animals, so I'll only report this article to them.

'''Since the terms "zoophilia" and "zoophiles" are used widely in Greece for indicating organizations and people who protect the welfare of animals, and of course detest bestiality. '''

My regards. JmAmO (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Occam's razor answer is not that these disparate sources all incorrectly cite the same source the same way while zero sources get it right. Rather, all available evidence strongly supports the idea that the illustration was intended to represent an ancient Greek sodomizing a goat and that the text captioned the image to reflect that. I did not change the image caption to meet your concerns. Rather, I had restored the "Ancient Greek..." caption everywhere in Wikipedia before I saw your discussion on the subject. I have not yet restored the caption at Zoophilia. As of now, I intend to restore that caption unless there is a compelling reason not to. I see the caption has also been bowdlerized on Commons. I'll restore that as well.
 * Whether or not the image correctly depicts an ancient Greek is immaterial. The image was produced to represent an ancient Greek. Images on our article on David have him with red hair, curly hair and all manner of historically inaccurate clothing. So far as I can see, there is no policy/guideline based reason to change the caption based on your original research.
 * What Greek word might be better to describe the subject is a moot point. While the English word "zoophilia" was based on Greek words, it now has a meaning of its own. In English, "zoophilia" is a paraphilia involving sexual activity between human and non-human animals or a fixation on such practice. -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is that in the article about filthy bestiality, there is an image which: 1) is not at all art, but the porn of its time, 2) with a fake caption which can be easily translated as an attack against ancient Greek culture.

I don't care what was the intention of the person who created that trash a century ago. Because Avril was not artist and the image is not art! So, it is at least ridiculous to even imagine to compare it with Michelangelo's masterpieces. It is completely irrelevant Avril's intention, or the intention of those who created that caption much later (which is what I am supporting here).

The important point is that in that article, there is no other image which indicates the nationality of somebody who is having sexual contact with an animal. Like for example, "French is sodomizing a mule", or "Chinese is having sex with a chicken". But only "ancient Greek..."!!! Does it sound good? Does it serve a purpose of art, or philosophy, or science, or anything else which has a real value for humanity?

Moreover, since it was not me who changed again the caption of that ridiculous image, and it was not you..., there must be a few sensible people around the block.

About the terms "Zoophilia" and "Zoophiles", you like it or not, are Greek. And Greek is an alive language which is spoken by some millions of people today.

Zoophiles are called the activists who fight for animals' rights in my country.

Wikipedia is an international online encyclopedia, and as such it has to include in its articles the origin of these terms, and also how the terms are used today by those millions of Greeks around the globe. JmAmO (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, here is the link for the official webpage of the association which supports bestiality (ZETA):

http://www.zeta-verein.de/en/

"Welcome to the webpage of the ZETA association! And welcome to the unique German swarm-based project addressing zoophilia und zoosexuality."

It seems that Germans know much better that zoophilia and zoosexuality are 2 different things! And it is exactly what I am saying here:

1) Zoophilia is the act of protecting the welfare of animals and fight for animals' rights. 2) Zoosexuality or zooerasty is the sexual contact of a human with an animal.

"The most recent events: The German parliament tries to reintroduce a ban on bestiality by a revision of the animal protection law. Sexual contact with an animal is to become a misdemeanour with a fine of 25 000 Euros maximum."

Again Germans know much better that the sexual contact with the animals is called bestiality and not zoophilia!

Because zoophilia is not bestiality!

If people who apply bestiality have this exact knowledge, I don't see what is the problem with Wikipedians... JmAmO (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You consider the image pornography, not art. Wikipedia does not care. You will find plenty to offended by at ejaculation, oral sex, anilingus, vagina, cunnilingus and countless others. The image depicts the topic of the article.
 * The image caption, is the caption from the image. If you wish to argue that every element of the image must be historically accurate, all of the images at David will have to be removed, along with images of Caucasian Jesus, Mary and Joseph at Jesus and similar images throughout the encyclopedia. To accomplish this, you will need a much broader consensus than you will find on this one article. I would recommend not wasting your time. If you wish to do so anyway, I'd suggest you take it to the Village pump.
 * You object to the article referring to zoophilia as "zoophilia". This is the English Wikipedia. The English word "zoophilia" refers to a paraphilia involving sexual activity between human and non-human animals or a fixation on such practice. If you disagree that that is what the word means in English, you will need to discuss it on the article's talk page. If you wish to argue that we should use Greek, German or whatever other language you might cite, you are wasting your time. Wikipedia is indeed international, but the English Wikipedia uses the common English terms for subjects.
 * On August 31, you changed the caption at Portal:Pornography/Featured picture/39, User:Putnik/porn and Zoophilia. You also made unsubstantiated changes at Zoophilia (disambiguation) on that same date. I reverted most of those. Otherwise, none of them have been edited since. I'm not sure who/where you think someone else changed this or how this supports your various positions. It doesn't matter. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines. If you wish to change this caption, remove this image or change the article's title in a way that directly contradicts these policies and guidelines, you will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and build a consensus to do so there. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Tarantino's personal life
SummerPhD,

Hi!

Thanks for the message on my board.

I noticed you went and undid my edit several times. Perhaps you should add a link/source of Tarantino's 2009 interview with Howard Stern. Tarantino was dating several women throughout the years, up until 2011. One of those girls is Didem Erol, whom he dated until 2011. Your edit stated that he had revealed in an interview with Stern in 2009 that he was dating magazine writer Lianne Spiderbaby. He never once mentioned her in that interview.

Furthermore, here is an interview with Lianne Spiderbaby from a few months ago.

http://liannehaveyouever.blogspot.com/2013/02/have-you-ever-lianne-spiderbaby-delving.html

She stated that they met during Tarantino's "Django Unchained" shoot, which was definitely not in 2009!

Again, (BLP violation redacted) is all over the internet, but here is one of the many links.

(BLP violation -- not a reliable source -- redacted)

Thanks, I hope we can come to an agreement here, and P.S. My intentions are definitely not contentious. I am merely trying to keep things up to date just as you are.

Peace!!

User: Gq1212
 * The first edits of yours that I reverted removed a valid source that I knew confirmed the quote. It also added information that was obviously not sourced, including the contentious, unsourced claim about a living person. Per our policy on biographies of living persons, "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." Whether or not this is "all over the internet" is immaterial; without sourcing, it is a WP:BLP violation. With sourcing, we would need the source to directly tie it the relationship with Tarantino. Otherwise it is simply off topic.
 * The second time, your edit again made the contentious, unsourced claim about a living person and stated, without souring of any kind, that he had briefly dated Spiderbaby and is now single. I had restored the source for the quote and removed Spiderbaby entirely (as unsourced).
 * The third removal was by another editor, who indicated that the source you used is "Not a WP:Reliable source." I would add that the blog (in addition to not being a reliable source) does not mention Tarantino at all (he is, after all, the subject of this article).
 * As your edits have been reverted three times under WP:BLP by two different editors, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page before restoring the material. As the claim is contentious, it is generally preferable to link to the edit in question, rather than directly making the claim again on the talk page. BLP applies to talk pages as well. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Mummers
You are probably well-aware of it, but just in case, I direct your attention to. A full copy probably is in a library near you, to help you with your desire to improve Mummers articles. I hope that is helpful. 78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well. Hmm. Hard to believe that slipped by me. I guess I dove into the Mummers Parade article before that was published. Then, when I started on the individual bands/brigades/associations, I must have only checked for new newspaper coverage. Huge oversight on my part! Thanks, I'll take a looksee when I have a bit of time. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I found another book I hope you're aware of: . Also, some books which don't have a google preview:


 * Title	Oh! dem golden slippers: the story of the Philadelphia Mummers
 * Author	Charles E. Welch
 * Edition	illustrated, revised
 * Publisher	Book Street Press, 1991
 * Original from	Pennsylvania State University
 * Digitized	Jan 5, 2011
 * ISBN 0962892114, 9780962892110


 * Title	Life, Liberty, and the Mummers
 * Photographs by	E. A. Kennedy, III
 * Edition	illustrated
 * Publisher	Temple University Press, 2007
 * ISBN 1592135889, 9781592135882


 * Also, I have essentially finished the article on Ferko String Band today. All the best,    78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Michelle Rodriguez edit
You deleted my addition, please restore it. The Reference you'r whining about WAS THE VERY SAME GATES TV SHOW "FINDING OUR ROOTS." So move the footnote number to end of my statement. It was a mere 6 minutes after the first thing she said. The words came out of her own mouth and were particularly egregious. Unless you are the type who feel its a sin to use the n-word but okay to bash the Caucasian race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.20.130 (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: You said "please" to be polite, then begin to throw around accusations, say I'm whining, accuse me of being "the type" who doesn't fall in line with your views on race, etc. This is your way of asking me to restore your WP:POV to the article. While your approach to life is interesting, I think you'll find that flying off the handle is seldom effective in securing favors and allies. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Tariqmudallal
Actually I would probably take the issue to ANI anyways; I asked the user to apologize for leveling a copyvio claim against a user not in the wrong, but they refused and blanked my request without comment. I came to their talk page to follow up and am not happy at all that they didn't.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd suggest you ask again. My goal is to get hir to respond to talk requests. Independent of failure to discuss them, neither issue is, IMO, uncorrectable: edit the warnings, apologize to the editor (despite their fiery response), learn from it and move on. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the editnotices and blanked Atomic Taco's talk page.

Tariqmudallal (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Explained
I explained why, because it was blatantly racist in nature. "Selene Scott (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)"
 * When commenting about an issue, especially one from four months ago, it is helpful to give a link, mention an article or, in some way, give some context. Thanks.
 * I believe you are referring to this issue. If so, no, you did not explain. Here is your edit. There was no edit summary. I reverted that edit as "Unexplained blanking". Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Mail
Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm aware of the issue and have a few involved articles on my watchlist. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

reversion in error of my Eton College edit
- re your TW reversion in error of my Eton College edit - this was not an isolated 'opinion piece' but was reported by the Independent and other national news papers as well as discussed on the radio - Certainly a controversy to be asking such questions of anyone as part of an entrance exam let alone such young children- reason I cited this source is that it contains a direct image of the 2011 examination paper

thanks

Tony TonyGosling (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The only source you cited was the opinion piece. The source is evidence that the opinion writer has an opinion about the question. To include this issue in the article, you will need to cite independent reliable sources. (Additionally, some of the author's POV leaked into your edit. Compare the author's "morally defend the murder of civilians" to the questions "after two days of protest...protesters have been killed.... How will you explain why employing the Army against violent protesters...". The question posits explaining employing the Army. You and the author have this as "murder". The question discusses violent protesters. You and the author reduce this to simply "civilians".) -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, we do not include material based on one opinion piece. If we included every opinion piece, how long would the article on Tony Blair have to be? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not an 'opinion' that this was a controversial question to ask. It's a fact. There are around 4000 references to the story online. The way to edit this would be to correct the words you disagree with. such as reverting to civilians. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/matthewholehouse/100218671/eton-boys-are-taught-they-were-born-to-rule-its-a-shame-so-many-are-not/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyGosling (talk • contribs) 20:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Have added an extra reference and improved the wording - do be aware that this page must include public criticism of Eton. This true and accurate story went around the world. If you have any genuine problems with this entry do please carefully edit rather than simply delete - I'm fairly new here but understand that is the protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyGosling (talk • contribs) 21:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted your original addition because you backed up your claim with a single editorial. Without discussing the issue or addressing that concern, you restored the material (albeit with revised wording). I reverted the addition a second time as there was no change in the issue. Now you are providing two sources: The editorial and a blog. If those are the strongest of the 4000 sources, this will be a problem. I will take further discussion to the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove teahouse
I removed the last teahouse template. Can anyone deprecate it?

Tariqmudallal (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You did not answer my question. I asked why you continue to disruptively invite experienced users to a page intended to "help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

wasn,t me
User talk:86.15.49.149 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search May 2013

Information icon Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Garden gnome, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

not shared ip but didn't come from here.

86.15.49.149 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone editing from the IP address edited Garden gnome on May 23, 2013. If it wasn't you and you'd like to avoid irrelevant warnings in the future, consider creating an account. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Coconut oil
I had reverted the IP edit on the knee-jerk assumption that it was made by you know who who was banned for sockpuppetry and other misdeeds.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I generally expect to find there, but I don't see it in this comment (yet). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Equestria Girls
Why did you undo my edit. Isn't true that it a bad movie? Give me proof that it a good movie.184.20.209.241 (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have reverted your similar edit on the same subject on the 'films considered the worst ever' page. I'd like to explain why. Your statement that this is a bad film is personal opinion, and wikipedia does not deal in personal opinion. It deals in statements which are verifiable by different sources. If you wished to make a statement claiming that it is a bad movie, cite some evidence from verifiable (preferably academic) sources to indicate so. Which brings to the next point, namely that you ask others to prove that it is a good movie - frankly, there is no need for people to do so, because they are not claiming that it is. You are claiming that it isn't. The burden of proof for a claim rests with the person who is making the claim, regardless of what the claim actually is. Therefore, if you wish to make this claim, the burden is on yourself to provide verifiable sources to prove that your claim is accurate. I hope that this helps explain the subject a little for you. Best wishes. Justin.Parallax (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More to the point, 184, a look at your talk page shows that you have a history of editing articles on My Little Pony based entirely on your opinion, refusing to listen to our guidelines and policies and being blocked for it. Your most recent block was for 3 months. Your next block will be substantially longer.
 * If you are truly interested in contributing to Wikipedia, I would strongly recommend you consider teaming up with an experienced editor at Adopt-a-user. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 184.20.209.241 has been blocked for 6 months. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 184.20.209.241 has been blocked for 6 months. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit
You felt that my edit was not constructive and while that may be true, it was not false information. If you disagree with the number of butts in Brookhaven, Mississippi, I would like you to cite your sources, if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenb898 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We have sources for the number of people and at least one child in Brookhaven. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Capriotti's
Hi SummerPhD, You undid my edit to the Capriotti's page, and I apologize for reverting it without an explanation, and I apologize if this is not the correct way to reply to you. Your reason for reverting my edit is that Wikipedia is not the menu of Capriotti's, which is true. There are, however, many items on the page that are essentially menu items. Some examples of these are the Cap's Specials section, Hot stuff section, and so on. I don't see how my contribution was any different or any more menu-like than the components of those sections. I don't have a huge investment in the page, I don't really care if you keep it reverted. I'm just trying to make 10 edits so that I can access a semi-protected page, and I thought this page was as useful as my contributions could get. Goekster (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Goekster
 * The article in question needs to be scrubbed of the menu-like material that is already there.
 * If you are looking for a quick way to find edits to make, try Googling the site for instances of common grammatical errors "could of" for "could have", mistaking "it's" for "its" (or the reverse), "casted" as the past tense for "cast", etc. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Perri Reid 2
Please do not update the Perri Reid page anymore with personal marriage information anymore. We are removing this information through a request from Perri Reid's counsel. Thank you for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.158.217 (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Marriage information is rather standard fare for a biography. Per our policy on biographies of living persons, the information is taken from reliable published sources. As such, I'm afraid you will need to provide a much better explanation as to why the information should be removed.
 * Additionally, please note that unless there is a decision from Wikipedia's administrators or the Wikimedia Foundation to the contrary, this information very likely will be restored to the article repeatedly because, as I stated, information on marriages is fairly basic information for a biography.
 * You will probably want to review Blp for more information on this. You will likely face questions as to who the "we" in your statement are, BTW. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Perri Reid
Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Perri "Pebbles" Reid, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sum mer PhD (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello. i saw your changes as well. You took out alot of information that is FACTUAL. Like Perri's name, her kids, etc. Let's work together to source the info. Instead of just butchering the article. Are you excited about the movie on monday night ? 208.250.69.26 (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a biography of a living person. We need reliable sources to add personal information. Verifiability is a core policy. Also, please don't revert to a version that is several months old to undo some of the edits. Doing so reverts every edit in that time frame. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Im having trouble finding a link to her first marriage to G- L- S-. All I see is this : ''(name and link removed due to BLP claims). I need to get access to see archives of newspapers from the 1990s. What do you suggest ? Thanks.208.250.69.26 (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC) PLEASE STOP ADDING PERSONAL INFORMATION REGARDING PERRI REID AFTER IT WAS REMOVED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.158.217 (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Without reliable sources, there is simply nothing to add. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion below. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Michelle Thomas
Hi Summer. When I updated the information on Michelle Thomas, the source that I used was an actual photo of her headstone. I looked at the talk page, and while there were several conflicting sources cited, none were vital records. As someone who does genealogical research, it is incredibly rare to find a tombstone that has an incorrect DOB or DOD on it. Furthermore, it seems that the last discussion on DOB and DOD took place over three years ago. At what point can we consider something confirmed? Harland Q  Pitt  04:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Vital records would be primary sources. We generally do not use primary sources. If you'll review the article's talk page, you'll see that we have already discussed using the tombstone, including discussion of an obviously wrong tombstone in another article. In short, before removing the reliable sources already cited in the article, discussion on the article's talk page will probably be needed. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Marcus Collins
I am curious as to whey you seem to be personally attacking our attempts to inform curious parties to the goings on of one Marcus Collins and his musical group The Texas Tenors. We are family members of Mr. Collins and are not interested in perpetuating lies about him or his group. We have been given permission by Marcus and his Texas Tenors partners to update their Wikipedia info. Everything we add to these pages is the truth and can be corroborated so I fail to understand your motives in regards to your actions! I see that you fancy yourself an expert on all things Wikipedia...instead of recommending our moderately successful relatives career and group for deletion, maybe you should offer some advice as to how we can satisfy YOUR criteria as to what is TRUE information in order to take us off of your radar.

Rahuff50211 (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)rahuff50211
 * Please be aware that Wikipedia user names are not to be used by groups of individuals. Each user name should represent one and only one editor.
 * I am not "personally attacking" anyone or any thing. Rather, I am attempting to ensure that all Wikipedia articles meet our policies and guidelines. Among the applicable policies in the current discussion are notability and verifiability.
 * Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection information on everything. Rather, we aim to have articles on notable topics. In general, topics discussed in some degree of depth in independent reliable sources sufficient to write a reasonably detailed article are considered "notable". WP:GNG I have not been able to find such coverage. If you believe Collins is notable, please discuss this one the on-going discussion considering deletion of the article.
 * In articles that provide information about named individuals, we are especially concerned that all information provided cite reliable sources. This policy, WP:BLP, is a special category of our regular verifiability policy. All articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Contentious material (negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable) about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The Collins article currently cites thetexastenors.com, imdb.com and "Marcus Collins Resume". The Texas Tenors own website is not independent of the group as a whole or Collins individually. IMDb is not considered a reliable source for biographical information. Collins' resume is not independent of Collins, nor is it a published source (much less one with a reputation for accuracy). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Perri reid 3
Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Perri "Pebbles" Reid, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Thank you. Sum mer PhD (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Dear Summerphd, how come you are telling me to discuss edits on the article tak page FIRST, but YOU are not doing that. You really messed up the article taking out lots of information. And I see others have added it but you revert. So is this a csse of do as I say not as I do.If so, not alright. 64.134.64.124 (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at the article's talk page, you'll see I've been having a nice little conversation with myself. I've also been commenting on various editors' talk pages and explaining my edits in edit summaries. Thank you for finally discussing this.
 * The article is a biography of a living person. We have very strict standards for such articles, outlined at WP:BLP. Unsourced information, such as the various marriages you are repeatedly adding, is simply unacceptable. If you continue to add this information without citing a reliable source, I will continue to remove it, adding warnings to your talk page each time. If you continue anyway, you will eventually be blocked from editing.
 * Additionally, I have removed a blatant copyright violation. If you restore the text that was directly copied from another website, I will have an administrator remove the information from the article's history and, if necessary, have you blocked.
 * If, rather than reverting these changes over the warnings not to do so, you would like to discuss what we can and cannot add to the article, PLEASE discuss this on the article's talk page.
 * (As the various marriages you are claiming are factual are not sourced, I am again blanking them from your comments here.)
 * Thank you. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

edit
sry thought it was supposed 2 say coffee not coffey :) Rrr30 (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)rayzor7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.89.85 (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 Blurred   Lines  13:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Trivia
Your uncivil threat is one-sided. It take two to "edit war", yet the other party has not been simularly assulted by you on their "talk" pages. I suggest you consider that I am reverting changes that *have not* been discussed to a point of "consensous", and that your threats are not productive in this discussion. I have removed your uncivil threat from my "talk" page. =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The "other party" is several people. The clear consensus is to label the section "In popular culture. You have labeled every request that you discuss this before insisting you are right and the consensus is wrong and uncivil threat. You are heading down exactly the same path that lead to your last block. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Baye McNeil
Hello SummerPhD. I see you made an edit to Baye McNeil questioning notability. The article was cleared through articles for creation help desk, and an administrator accepted and published it...I've noted several other sources since seeing your notability notice/tag. Also, I've made post at article's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baye_McNeil)...Thank you for your time! Minusminority (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Batman
Probably not a practicing Christian but if you read the comics, it proves he was raised a Christian because his parents were both Epi/Catholic and his parents graves have a Crucifix/Cross on top of them. Further on you can see a young bruce kneeled down and praying, pretty sure he is not praying to Buddah.

Please visit www.adherents.com/lit/comics/batman.html  for proof and the comics relating and foreshadowing his religious background. To be honest, I am not a Christian so I don't really care, but facts are fact and I wanted to point that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 993ironman (talk • contribs) 13:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The non-reliable site in question says lots of things, including: "On rare occasions, stories have been published in which Batman has simply identified himself as an atheist or a Christian. It is reasonable to assume that, as with other people, Batman's precise beliefs, spirituality and relationship to God vary over the years, and sometimes shift depending on his experiences. The religious aspects of Batman's character also vary depending on the writer."
 * The Batman character has been around long enough, in the hands of enough writers that there are myriad discontinuities in various aspects of the character, including his religion. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You've been mentioned
Talk:Ventura_Freeway Trackinfo (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Take care of Alice (Avril Lavigne song)
Hi, can you please take care of Alice (Avril Lavigne song)? And make sure if there's an unreliable sources or incorrect music genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.177.151 (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that the article has been protected, you will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. In fact, forcing you to do that is the reason the article was protected. No, I will not work around that for you. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)