User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 21

Changed item
I'm new to this, so forgive me if I'm going about this wrong. You removed the Pennsylvania Convention Center calendar link as an "promotional in-line link." The link is to DiscoverPHL.com -- a nonprofit and the city's official Convention and Visitors Bureau. (And, yes, the site I work for.) I added it in order to better serve potential Wiki users who might want to know the kinds of events held at the convention center. If there is a better link out there, feel free to add it. Barring that, I'm inclined to say removal of the link should be reversed. Thoughts? Thanks. Markcorrea (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Markcorrea 3/6/14
 * The article includes a direct link to the venue's official site. The additional link does not provide additional information beyond that. Please see WP:ELNO. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The matrix edit
Rather we agree on the length of an explanation of the matrix is irrelevant; because as I understand Wikipedia is neither yours or mine. So what is important is in an entry to be able explain the concept or thing that pertains to article. Would you please elaborate as to why you know my analysis of the matrix is not object or is biased in some way? You also claim that well known authors that I cite and base my diction on are irrelevant to the matrix because they're dead; when not only are their ideas portrayed in the film, but Socrates "allegory of the cave" is apparently relevant and part of the article. Socrates is dead and has been dead for a long time, and his allegory is only remotely relevant and doesn't really explain what the matrix is. I would appreciate a response, yours truly Know NothingKnow Nothing (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources for an article must discuss the subject of the article. Socrates did not discuss this film so his writings cannot be used as a source for this article. If an independent reliable source were to compare "The Matrix" to the cave, that comparison might be appropriate.
 * Your extensive addition would be entirely too long even if it were not synthesis. The "Matrix" is not the subject of this article. This article is about the film "The Matrix". As such, it is subject to WP:FILMPLOT, limiting plot summaries to between 400 and 700 words.:If you disagree with my reading on any of this, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realize my example of Socrates's "allegory of the cave" is already included inside of the entry by someone else, and I referenced it because its apparently relevant due to its status in the entry; I've shared my feelings on its importance and validity to the film. Also to claim that the only things that are relevant to current topics or any topic are sources of people who are alive and explicitly reference the topic, is a fallacy. I mean this as politely as possible without condescension, but as a literal fact. Because everything we know or think we know comes from dead people and their ideas are extrapolated by living people who die and the process continues. If I'm misunderstanding your meaning please correct me. Furthermore, my post was not a plot summary, but more of a discussion on the meaning of the film. If the meaning of a film is irrelevant to the film's entry I was unaware of this (would you please share the link, the earlier one I appreciated and was unaware of such guidelines), and if what is important: is the actors awards, the films awards, the numerical grossing of the film, and opinions of and on the film. Then the entry is on point. thanks Know NothingKnow Nothing (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As this is turning into a more substantial discussion of the content of the article, rather than one revert, please take this question to the article's talk page. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Northern Antarctica (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletions
I've found that the "Proposed deletions" tag pretty much goes nowhere. I agree that the Jon Jafari page is non-notable. If you think a page should be deleted you should have it nominated for a deletion discussion.

See: --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:AFDHOWTO

Look at some of the related pages, I think most of them should be deleted too.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Game Grumps. Not seeing any sources to establish notability.
 * List of Game Grumps serials per above.
 * Table Flip Same.
 * Ninja Sex Party. Already proposed for deletion.
 * NSFW (album), Strawberries and Cream. Ninja Sex Party albums, per above.
 * Starbomb (album). Ninja Sex Party, Game Grumps album. Likely not notable.
 * Egoraptor. I don't know. He might have enough. Someone would have to look into it. This page should probably be made a redirect and merge with List of YouTube personalities. If it stays it would need massive improvement as most of the sources are crap.
 * You can, of course, send them through PROD/AfD yourself. (Once the band is deleted, PRODs on the albums would be non-controversial and recreation would be unlikely. Otherwise, I'll check them myself if I have the time. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Chia Youyee Vang
Hello,

Why did you delete the entry on Chia Youyee Vang?

2602:306:37C5:3E89:523:C7C4:E742:3BC1 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When I removed Chia Youyee Vang from List of Hmong Americans, I explained why in the edit summary and on the talk page of the user who had made the addition. You may want to establish an account to allow other users to contact you (much as you are using my talk page to contact me) in the future. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

NBC order 16 episodes of girlfriend in a coma
NBC order 16 episodes of girlfriend in a coma here go the link  NBC has ordered 16 episodes for the first season &mdash; Girlfriend in a Coma (@GirlfriendinCom) January 7, 2014  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitranda (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the info. As the episodes haven't been produced yet, I have not added the "16" to the infobox. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Miranda Cosgrove New Movie
Here go Miranda's new character in The Intruders movie  @KitCarsonHamm Yes, @MirandaCosgrove is playing Rose in The Intruders and we&#39;re very excited &mdash; Darius Films (@DariusFilms) March 7, 2014  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitranda (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Add the info to the article (in your own words), followed by  
 * While that won't give you a complete cite, it will do for now. Bingo! No more unsourced additions. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Roy Batty would not be civil
You should really eat your own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrand (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're done here.

If I were you, I would end my moderatorship of all Blade Runner Wikipedia articles. To be honest, I think you're a Blade Runner trying to kill Roy Batty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrand (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of case being declined
The Arbitration Case Request titled Ihardlythinkso has been declined and closed. If you would like to read the arbitrators' comments you can do so [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=599772171#Ihardlythinkso:_Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.3C0.2F9.2F1.2F1.3E here]. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents
Hi SummerPhD,

In my edit to Pan Am Flight 103 I changed the word “incident” to “accident” – see my diff.

In Aviation accidents and incidents, Wikipedia says:
 * An aviation accident is defined by the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13 as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft, ... ... where a person is fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure or the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

This statement is consistent with ICAO Annex 13 and is adequately sourced.

It also says:
 * An aviation incident is defined as an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operations.

My edit was entirely consistent with the above statements.

When you reverted my edit your summary said An incident is an occurance, an accident is unintentional. Your summary appears to be inconsistent with Aviation accidents and incidents and you haven’t identified any source for your statement.

Unless you can cite a source that is sufficient to overturn what is published in Aviation accidents and incidents it looks like my edit should be reinstated. Best regards. Dolphin ( t ) 23:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are indeed correct as to the technical definitions, as used by the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13". That said, the article does not make it clear that these technical definitions are being used. As such, commonly used meanings for words probably come to mind. In ordinary English, an "incident" is merely "an event or occurrence". An "accident", however, is "unexpected", "unintentional" and "without apparent or deliberate cause" (clearly not what we are talking about here).
 * Normally, I would suggest merely rewriting the section to avoid using either of the terms, but I think that exacerbates another problem: the sentence in question is unsourced original research. "As of March 2014, it remains the deadliest aviation incident as well as the deadliest act of terrorism in the United Kingdom." As this is in the lede section, it should be merely summarizing material found later in the article. It doesn't, so far as I can tell. The closest thing I can find is the sourced claim that it is "the deadliest act of terror against the U.S. prior to 11 September 2001."
 * With this in mind, I'd suggest removing the sentence as unsourced. If it comes back with a source, we can borrow the bit of wording from the source. Thoughts? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply. I think deleting the statement, or at least the unsourced part, would be a good outcome.
 * To those of us who have spent a career in the aviation industry, the expression deadliest aviation incident is an oxymoron - if it was deadly it was an accident not an incident; if it was an incident it wasn't deadly, at least not to humans. I have no objection to this oxymoron being erased. Dolphin  ( t ) 05:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To those of us who have spent a career in the aviation industry, the expression deadliest aviation incident is an oxymoron - if it was deadly it was an accident not an incident; if it was an incident it wasn't deadly, at least not to humans. I have no objection to this oxymoron being erased. Dolphin  ( t ) 05:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rock Sugar (band), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Scorpions and Winger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Girlfriend in a Coma (TV series)
I am not threatening you. My warnings are intended to remind you that you cannot add material to Wikipedia without citing a reliable source. You have done this several times, most recently here. (Your edits add that there are 16 episodes and that two of the characters have the last name "McNeil" -- neither of which are confirmed in any of the sources in the article. This information might be true, but it is not cited. Additionally, "list_episodes = 16" incorrectly creates a link to the article 16, as if that article were a list of Girlfriend in a Coma episodes.) You have also been repeatedly adding "The Intruders movie" to Cosgrove's filmography without a cite or an existing article for the film. If you are having trouble with how to cite sources, please provide a link to the source on the article's talk page. I or someone else would be more than willing to help you. Additionally, you state that I added that "Miranda Cosgrove is suing her bus driver" and that this is not true. I did not add this information. It was added by User:Marty2Hotty. It is quite well sourced. If you believe these sources are not reliable or if you have other sources stating this is not true, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of your notes to my talk page were removed by an administrator, likely because your tone was not civil.

- Damn right it was well sourced :) TMZ and Perez Hilton :) - Marty2Hotty (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Madchen Amick
Hi there!

I'm new to Wiki, and am a new rep for the lovely Madchen Amick. Would it be possible to swap out the existing photo on her page for a new one? Here's the direct link for her page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4dchen_Amick

I had a bit of difficulty trying to attach the new photo, and am happy to email it if necessary. If you're not too terribly busy would you mind letting me know what the best method would be for swapping it?

Thanks so much!

Best regards,

K KASEYJPR (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia.
 * Before getting into how to upload a photo, a few things. First, while I have worked a bit on Amick's article, no one really has "authority" to say we will or will not change the image. Personally, I am not a fan of the current one and would probably be in favor of swapping it for anything reasonable you might submit. That said, it is possible that other editors might prefer the existing photo or might swap anything added for another one. consensus will have the final say.
 * Next, as Amick is a living person, any image you submit must be freely licensed. (We generally do not use "fair use" images for living people.) After that, please see Uploading images for detailed directions.
 * Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Next, as Amick is a living person, any image you submit must be freely licensed. (We generally do not use "fair use" images for living people.) After that, please see Uploading images for detailed directions.
 * Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Batmobile
I do not recall a single incarnation of the caped crusader without the Batmobile. He uses the Batmobile more than the Batplane and he is currently listed as an aviator. In fairness either he should be both an aviator and driver; or neither; either way would be fine. James Bond is listed as a fiction driver because he drives a cool car in every adventure; the same as Batman. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Iit is not a defining characteristic of Batman. Do you understand what we mean by "defining characteristic"? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(Censored Scribe has been blocked indefinitely.)

History of Plantar fasciitis
Hi SummerPhD, I have a question about the history of plantar fasciitis and I thought you might have some insight on the matter. I'm attempting to start a history section on the page and I am attempting to figure out who first described the condition. I've come across numerous references to someone named Wood, but I'm not certain who this Wood person was. I imagine he was a physician, but it's unclear to me at this point. Any idea who he is? I know he incorrectly believed plantar fasciitis to be the result of tuberculosis/an infectious etiology, but that's basically all I've been able to find so far. Please let me know if you know or find out. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Any ideas? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not really my field. With the exception of broad topics (e.g., evolution) or particularly dramatic stories (e.g., the dinosaur wars, smallpox), a lot of the history of various science topics don't seem to show up as topics by themselves. There might be brief mentions in intro sections of journal articles where there's a change in thinking or a challenge to accepted wisdom. A specialist, reading would run across this info all the time. The rest of us have to hunt it down. I don't know of an easy way to do that. -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

List of All Grown Up! episodes
Let me know if returns to their pattern in a month's time once their block expires. A long-term block may be necessary. Mkdw talk 00:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Logging-in
Perhaps we can petition wikipedia to end it's auto-log-out so that wont appear to be an inadequate website?Presidentbalut (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can petition ourselves to add a "remain logged in" check box to the log-in screen... oh, wait, there it is. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(Presidentbalut has been blocked indefinitely for personal attacks and WP:NOTHERE.)

Lisa Jakub
The reason i added the birthdate for Lisa Jakub was because it was already listed in the pages infobox, so i didn't see a problem with adding it to the article itself. Vincelord (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that. I've removed that as well. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Girlfriend in a coma now filming
Here go the link to there twitter account  Today the filming took place on the streets of Los Angeles &mdash; Girlfriend in a Coma (@GirlfriendinCom) March 27, 2014  here go another one <blockquoteclass="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> We just finished filming the seventh episode! &mdash; Girlfriend in a Coma (@GirlfriendinCom) <a href="https://twitter.com/GirlfriendinCom/statuses/449308355849641984">March 27, 2014</a> <script asyncsrc="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitranda (talk • contribs) 01:16, March 28, 2014‎
 * Feel free to add the info with the cite. Please see my previous comment to you for help on how to do this. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Franklin episodes
Your last revert on that article wasn't strictly necessary. I did a check on references for all the air dates and corrected them, then left the old info struck through. Edits after that just removed the struck through dates that I had left. I thought that was reasonable for someone to do. Your revert just added the struck through dates back. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor I was reverting is a recurrent vandal making numerous changes to date on kids' shows and music articles. Feel free to make the change if it is correct, though. Just can't trust edits from that particular editor. Thanks! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know the editor, I've been following him too which is why I got looking at this article in the first place. I'll put the article back to the last version I made then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits to "Food Combining"
Hi Summer. Thank you for your corrections of my unsupported additions. I have made additions to Wikipedia every five years, so please excuse my lack of good procedure. If you have no objections, I would like to ask you reinstate the material I placed in this article with these sources. I was clumsy in the ref format, so does not match up with the single previously posted reference; I tried!

Some sources, although perhaps not the most accepted by the Food and Drug Administration are these pages that hark back to older, traditional, and more healthy cultures, as listed on the page directly. You will note that these are not medical journals, because--- "food combining" is not a diet that sells any highly priced potions. . . food combining is merely advice about how to avoid common digestive complaints.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogazeal (talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a biomedical related article. Sources must conform to WP:MEDRS. Food combining claims are a non-mainstream belief. Explanations of what people who believe this woo think may only be included to the extent they are discussed by WP:MEDRS sources.
 * Fun fact about those "more healthier cultures". They aren't. At the beginning of the modern medical era (circa 1900) life expectancy at birth in the U.S. was 40. Today it's approaching 80. Smallpox, for example, was a horrible way to die. Modern medicine wiped it off the face of the Earth. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Too hard basket. I do hope you check the sources of the sources, too, as there is much junk mislabeled as science paid for by Big Pharma. On a Personal Note, a little less snide would make Widipedia editing a more healthy culture as it was in the old days. Yogazeal (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Please do not remove text from my talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS > woo. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I wrote "older, traditional, and more healthy cultures" so that you would sit up and pay attention, but the previous article is not correct about the purpose of the topic! Note the existing page was written with a peculiar slant, discussing the weight loss aspects, rather than more subjective measures of digestive health. Wikipedia should point out the difference between the two reasons for food choices, and how food combining ties directly into the popular culture of Paleo_diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogazeal (talk • contribs) 02:42, March 30, 2014‎
 * The earlier article is about the food combining fad diets that predate the paleolithic fad diet. Yes, you cited a doctor. That is not a WP:MEDRS source. Dr. Kaslow selling his services is not a "reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." It's a guy selling a diet (though free from the corrupting influence of money from big pharma's money). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The earlier article is about the food combining fad diets that predate the paleolithic fad diet. Yes, you cited a doctor. That is not a WP:MEDRS source. Dr. Kaslow selling his services is not a "reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." It's a guy selling a diet (though free from the corrupting influence of money from big pharma's money). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Michele Thomas article
I've been to her grave in Rosedale Cemetery when visiting my best friend's grave. It is in Orange, NJ, not Montclair. Change my edit back, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan128 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors are responsible for information they add to an article. I do not have any information as to where she is buried other than the reliable source cited in the article which says Montclair. If you can find a reliable source saying Orange, NJ, feel free to restore the information yourself, being sure to cite that source. Thank you. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a reason we require sources. Sometimes people are simply wrong:
 * Rosedale Cemetary
 * 408 Orange Road
 * Montclair
 * Sum mer PhD (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Twin Twin Transfusion Syndrome Wiki Page edits.
Hi SummerPHD. I see that you have a very wide range of topics upon which you write. Twin Twin Transfusion Syndrome TTTS is one of them. I would like to see what your source is for the statement that "Three quarters of Stage One cases self-resolve." I am involved in several support groups that provide counseling for mothers diagnosed with TTTS, for the past 3 years. I talk to several different TTTS mothers every day. 75% of Stage One cases don't self-resolve. That's not even close. I'm not about to go Talking At You. I would like to talk to you about your objective in these edits. I appreciate your attention to this. TTTS is a very serious issue, with most OB's quite ignorant as to it's nature. Losses result from this ignorance. TTTS Laser is not nearly as established a technique as some would label it, for example. This is the first point of contact for most mothers diagnosed.

Michael Ray Overby. Twinstrumentality (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where that statement is or was and I do not know that I added it anywhere. Can you point me to the statement? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

SummerPHD, that may have been put there by someone else, check my previous edit... Thank you for responding... Twinstrumentality (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The actual text was "The natural history of stage I TTTS is that more than three-fourths of cases remain stable or regress without invasive intervention, with perinatal survival of about 86%. Therefore, many patients with stage I TTTS may be managed expectantly." It was part of the copyright violation from . As a review article in a peer-reviewed journal, it is pretty much the gold standard for WP:MEDRS articles. We should certainly be using the source, but copying text, of course, is not acceptable. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought we'd agree on the Technical Point there regarding Attribution. Dr Simpson appears to have made a highly Contentious Point regarding the Progression of TTTS Stage One cases part of it's "Natural History", thus in no need of supporting documentation. I appreciate your efforts in tracing that one & i'll make sure that any material from that paper gets the required Attribution. Thanks again SummerPHD Twinstrumentality (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what contentious point you mean. I removed the material because it was a copy-paste from a copyrighted source. I see no indication that any of it was contentious. The source is exactly what we look for in medical related articles. If other reliable sources come to different conclusions we can include both. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Precisely, SummerPhD. We will include "both", actually "all" as you'll find the statistics on this, the progression of Diagnosed Stage One TTTS cases, are quite wide-ranging. The contentious point I am referring to is the assertion that "The natural history of stage I TTTS is that more than three-fourths of cases remain stable or regress without invasive intervention, with perinatal survival of about 86%. Therefore, many patients with stage I TTTS may be managed expectantly." This is a highly questionable point, competing figures exist. Also these "non-progressing Stage Ones" still have a 14% rate of mortality, so I guess something other than TTTS killed One in Six of them? The papers are not clear on this point. the overall "Feeling" given is that it wasn't TTTS. It no doubt was, the monitoring interval that most OB's use is insufficient to catch TTTS Progression. What other answer can be derived from the cited works? (Dr. Simpson IS referring to that "About Three Quarters" when she assigns a "Perinatal Survival of about 86%" to them, correct?) Again I thank you for your time on this, it is appreciated that there is a person of your academic caliber working on this page. Twinstrumentality (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an example, from MEDLINE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18008316 I intend to bring about another 4 to 6 for your perusal regarding Stage One TTTS Progression. Where is the most appropriate place to post these? Again your efforts to bring Excellence to the TTTS page are appreciated. Twinstrumentality (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Minor Edits done, I'll be putting TAMBA where it belongs, in Foundations, presently. They're not a Treatment Centre. Dr Quintero is in fact World Renowned but doesn't like the Accolade. This page is appearing to leave the envelope of Human Readability. I would ask that you find a Compendium of Subjective Case Histories from a Familial perspective that Supplants Erin Bruch's nonfiction work. If you can't, it should be re-added to Further Reading. The Michael J Fox book is a Joke as far as informing mothers on TTTS, yet it was kept in the Famous People section. Where then is BD Wong? His is an interesting & Modern story which involves Surrogacy. The books you Approve of, while being Fully 100% Conformant with your Criteria, are for physicians & are not going to do anything for the newly diagnosed mom. Except scare her. Thank you again for assisting in the development of this page Twinstrumentality (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be careful with single studies. WP:MEDRS strongly favors literature reviews and systematic reviews, for very good reason. The books simply cannot be included. They are primary sources of subjective experiences. Wikipedia is not here to scare people. But it isn't here to comfort them either. We are here to summarize what independent reliable sources say about notable subjects. The two books that are there work toward that goal. The other two do not. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood clearly, SummerPhD. The Michael J Fox book is also a subjective experience, that barely touches upon TTTS in it's subject matter anyways. What about Following Foo: (the electronic adventures of The Chestnut Man)? Does that qualify, & if so, where? Understand that I am not looking to provide Comfort for anybody, this is the job of support groups. I was looking for Accessible text documenting real world experiences with TTTS that can be understood by a mom without a college degree. Recommending Advanced MFM Studies texts as Further Reading (that each cost $150 by the way) is not a productive way to introduce TTTS to a family that has been newly diagnosed with it, thus severely limiting the usability of it by a large segment of this page's Audience. At the moment it reads like something from a Medical Classroom. Bruch's work especially goes much farther towards presenting ACCESSIBLE information for the family that has been newly diagnosed with TTTS. The 2 books you are allowing as Further Reading offer No Help in that area. I again thank you for your assistance in developing this page. Twinstrumentality (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

agian ?
you agian ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.33.72 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You have been asked to explain your apparent vandalism on your talk page.[] Please discuss the issue there. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I already put a source on the articles and you deleted it. you just broken my heart. I don't feel to good right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.33.72 (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You still have not answered the questions on your talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the easy way ? please i am not here to cause trouble. Please tell me why you deleted my source ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.33.72 (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As other editors are interested in the situation, please address the questions on your talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I miss the old days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.33.72 (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please address the questions on your talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. but please stop changing edit from the articles. than i will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.33.72 (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please address the questions on your talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Temporarily blocked for repeated addition of unsourced info. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
The user didn't ping you and I doubt you check userpages that you templated for Conflict of Interest. Newyorkadam (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert on pescetarianism
It appears that you reverted the wrong person on this article. I was not the one who added "many Christian groups" wording. Your revert did not remove that wording anyway, although it seems by your edit summary that that was what you intended. My edit was to clarify the wording about abstinence rules worldwide, because the assertions were USA-centric. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Female ejaculation
Hi, I understand what you are citing in WP policy as your justification for reverting my addition, but I don't understand your objection. The overall section is called Social significance and the opening paragraph of the section talks about the stigma and medical issues associated and with this activity. I posted content in relation to that. Do I need to reword or rework the content or do you have some other objection to the material? Furthermore, if you have an issue with the section on pornography, why haven't you removed it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The content you added is one of numerous instances where the subject occurs in TV/film/books/plays/paintings/comic books/sculpture (...maybe...)/billboards/Oscar acceptance speeches/etc. I see nothing particularly special about that one episode of Californication. So, let's add all of the other ones as well. We'll create an exhaustive list of every occurrence of female ejaculation. It will be a comprehensive list of occurrences, citing primary sources. Who could object to that?
 * The porn section, meanwhile, claims that several apparently notable women are notable because of female ejaculation. That is entirely different in my mind. If you feel this one particular occurrence in pop culture somehow escapes WP:IPC or that the guideline does not apply, please take it to the article's talk page.
 * If you feel all or a portion of the porn section should be removed under WP:IPC or any other guideline, that is a separate issue. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're apparently taking the content to extremes and using the idea that "if we have one, we must have them all". As well as you are using your personal understanding (versus how others may understand or interpret) of the issue to determine what is acceptable in the article or not. WP:IPC does not say this nor does it say that the inclusion of material like this against the guideline. If there are so many instances of this, please inform me. The episode in Californication is the only instance of it in that particular series, hence why I started a section with it. Again, if there are others, please tell me what they are. Again, the the section is called "Social significance" and thus far no one has made a credible argument against its inclusion, but yet you are challenging the addition of related content. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever you would like to call the "section", it "exclusively contain(ed) reference s to the subject in popular culture." That clearly falls under WP:IPC. Heck, the guideline even notes the efforts to circumvent the guideline by calling a horse something other than a "horse": "some wikipedians look for alternative titles, such as 'Cultural influence' or 'Cultural impact'" If you are saying it should not contain every reference to female ejaculation in popular culture, you have not shown anything that would make this particular instance more noteworthy than any other. Yes, you are familiar with that one (which is why you included it). As inclusion criteria go, that would fall under WP:IPC's "indiscriminate collections". Which one or ones do we list? The ones anyone who happens by can think of. "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject."
 * In practice, such sections invite the tag which reads, in part, "Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances". We cannot "reorganize this content" to do any such thing as it is merely a primary source to the fictional occurrence, completely lacking any indication of "impact on popular culture". My go to example here is Saturday Night Live skits. Every week there's a new batch. Most are good for a chuckle or two  and are quickly forgotten. Others have real world impact. Gerald Ford, for example, cited Chevy Chase's clumsy Ford routines as a meaningful issue in his reelection campaign. (Gerald Ford covers this, citing the New York Times.) While I'm not saying we need the president of the United States to discuss it in a major newspaper, you clearly need something other than "(Subject) was in an episode of (TV show). "
 * "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources....Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference....If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources."
 * Look up the lyrics to the REM song "It's the End of the World as WE Know It". Should we be adding "Social significance" sections to Lenny Bruce, Lester Bangs, hurricane, earthquake, Leonard Bernstein...? Hell, there are, by my calculations, 3.2 sex acts per episode of Californication. What of intercourse, felatio, statutory rape, sadomasochism, 69...? What of all the episodes of Sex and the City, Saturday Night Live, MadTV...? What makes this one different? From the independent reliable sources, the answer seems to be "nothing". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, then... (see below)

Female ejaculation, Porn section
So what is your problem/objection/issue with it? If you can provide a reasonable stance for why it should be deleted or heavily reduced, I'll support your efforts. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't really looked at the section and do not have a problem/objection/issue with it. It doesn't seem to be simply a list of IPC occurrences. Other than that, I'd wonder if the sources presented are reliable sources and actually verify the content presented. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So let me state that while I don't consider pornography to be as mainstream some media, I do consider it to be a part of popular culture. That said, either the section I'm attempting to start (albeit, maybe the Californication example is a bad one) is acceptable or significant content in the porn section is just as bad in my opinion for the same reasons you're stating above. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I haven't really looked closely at the section, but it seems to be quite a different story. I see neither cites to the individual works, nor a simple listing of "(Subject) was in (media)." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph is a list (and to use your point, not a complete one) of porn actors who can "allegedly" ejaculate. The rest is "this person was the first in Britain" and the next item has to do with a guy who can make women ejaculate. You're really still convinced its worth inclusion? What do you think of just mentioning that its a sub-genre of the porn industry and leave it at that?
 * By the way, on a completely different subject, as someone who used to work for Warner Bros. Animation I found the exchange about the Batmobile (above) hilarious... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I haven't really looked at the section. If you feel justified in removing it, remove it. If someone reverts you, discuss it on the article's talk page. WP:BRD. I have no opinion. -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, its been a pleasure doing business with you... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Chagall/ Guillain-Barre
Hi

The sources for Rachel Chagall Guillain-Barre syndrome are numerous and already sourced at the external links section in the article, athough they have the year wrong (1992). I have alerted IMDB as well. More sources are at: https://www.google.ca/search?q=rachel+chagall+guillain+barre+syndrome&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=WwdEU_CdMaSC8Qe8yYDwCg

Regards, Aloha27 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical information. More troubling, I am not finding any reliable sources for Chagall. At the moment, she does not appear to meet WP:ENT, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. For now, I am clearing out the unsourced/IMDb sourced info and marking the article for improvement, with notability concerns. If significant coverage in independent reliable sources is not added, the article will be a candidate for deletion. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Chris Harris (journalist) page deletion proposal
Hi, as a contributor to Wikipedia I'm fairly new and I must be missing something but this individual deserves his own page, he is one of the most popular and well known motoring journalists of our generation, he's been on a variety of motoring venues such as Evo magazine, Drivers Republic and now he currently hosts a show on YouTube on the Drive Network called '/CHRIS HARRIS ON CARS'. I would propose Chris Harris' article on Wikipedia is of equal value and importance as Jeremy Clarkson's so if you could guide me into what this article is missing so I could add that, I'd appreciate that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Harris_%28journalist%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conza89 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Subjects receive (and keep) articles if and only if they are "notable", a term for which we have our own specific meaning explained at WP:N.
 * What makes a subject notable? The short answer is coverage in independent reliable sources. In dependent sources would be those that do not connect to the subject: A New York Times article about someone is independent unless that person works or worked for the New York Times, for example. A "reliable source" is one with an established reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Most major market newspapers are reliable sources, for example, because they have professional fact-checkers and editors who review content prior to publication. If the New York Times says someone was convicted of DUI on April 1, 2014, you can be pretty sure that that person said so in an interview or two and/or the Times has strong evidence to back up the claim. If Joe's Celebosphere on wordpress says it, all you can really say is that Joe probably thinks it's true. A fuller explanation of reliable sources can be found at WP:IRS.
 * The basic problem with this article is that I was unable to find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to write a reasonably detailed article about the person. If you can find such sources, please add them to the article and mention them at Articles for deletion/Chris Harris (journalist). If the article is deleted before you find such sources, the article can be reestablished later. Good luck and happy editing! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Why ?
Why it happended agian ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.33.72 (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Answer the questions on your talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What did you came from ? so i could meet you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.33.72 (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Time for another block. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll stop that. I want to take the easy way. I don't want you to cuss at me. Please I don't want any trouble. Please don't get mad at me. I an trully sorry. I am not coming back here agian. take a good care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.33.72 (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Goodbye. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I came back because my computer has a virus. I will be here until 2077. I was just kidding for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.33.72 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me be more direct: Please go away. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

(Blocked for 1 month.)

Be Warned
Do not troll, stalk, or vandalize pages on wikipedia, or you will be banned. Presidentbalut (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please watch the personal attacks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(Presidentbalut has been indefinitely blocked for personal attacks and WP:NOTHERE.)

Miriam McDonald
I've reverted the edit you did. And this I've cite my sources that she's a yoga guru. You lost your bet. Spencer H. Karter (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "bet" you are referring to. In any case, please see the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted back the edit you done while ago, and this time you lost your bet. I don't trust so-called Wikibots too there like my rivals or rival Wikipedian's henchmen. I get upset when rival Wikipedians remove my edits and references. You should be a shamed of yourself for editing it. So as I told you, I've reverted back to the previous. I love Wikipedia, but I also don't like various pages that are protected by the moderators and denying other Wikipedians to edit it because so called "Edit War", also you don't understand it's supposed to be "The Free Encyclopedia" not the Un-Free, get it? Me playing the protagonist and you the antagonist (and Wikibots) of this issue. Well, I love Wikipedia, I'm trying to be nice about it, end of story. Spencer H. Karter (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I still have no idea what "bet" you are referring to. Again, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Last time, I gave you a week and a half to comment. When you had nothing to say, I reverted. This time, I won't wait quite so long. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay you win. End of story! Spencer H. Karter (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

AN/I
SummerPhD, There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents which may interest you. The thread is Vandalism at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You are actually censuring me?
And not that crazy asshat who thinks Jimmy Wales receives bribes from the Pope in order to spread Christian propaganda in its articles? Swollib (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Swollib (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care who the other person is or what they said. Your personal attacks are not acceptable. Additionally, you've used the word "censuring" in a way that implies you do not understand its meaning. Finally, as you are attempting to influence others with your posting, you are engaged in propaganda.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well everything is out in the open now. You are one of the Pope's propaganda representatives on Wikipedia. Aren't you? At least have the courage to admit to it. How much did he give you? Swollib (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (Swollib has been indefinitely block for exposing the truth. I will file my report with the pope shortly.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhD (talk • contribs) 15:33, 24 April 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Can I be one of your minions? I have a lot of experience as a henchman, and want to move up. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure! What size shirt do you wear? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)