User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 23

Soft tone
Hi, I'm CapnZapp.

Could I ask you a favor? I appreciate your antivandalism efforts, but could I ask you to consider taking a softer stance when it comes to fixing the mistakes that newbs make in good faith? Using (semi) automated tools sch as Twinkle does not give a friendly vibe, and are not appropriate in my opinion when it comes to welcoming non-vandal newcomers.

Feel free to contrast your approach with mine over at User talk:107.4.138.158. Hopefully you see that what you do well against vandals run a risk of simply scaring away newbies.

Let me explain.
 * The automated language "but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so!" is inappropriate in this case: he did add a citation, not just a good one!
 * Please consider welcoming new users. Try it! It can feel good, especially after the thankless job of antivandal patrol :)
 * Please please please do not bash new users with policy. Do not assume they know about Wikipedia. And do not assume Wiki policies are intuitive or self-explanatory, because they're far from it. Instead, consider a short explanation (on the page itself, not just a link)... and then, the link, the directly relevant link that is, not merely a general introduction link.

Hope for your understanding and keep up the good work! CapnZapp (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

PS. I saw the ip user's question at the top, but left it there for you to org your page the way you want it.

Gravity (film)
Hi in regards to the removal of the edit for the movie gravity. I also took into account air friction as it applies to gravity, my specific comment of the smaller piece of Chinese space station debris falling faster than the intact capsule and with the respect of entire space station being seen as being broken up debris seen from the shore... after the capsule/pod landed, the character of Dr. Stone escaped from it submerging and then swam to shore. If you could help me find a better reference for why this is scientifically impossible, I would much appreciate it. Thanks for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.138.158 (talk • contribs) 05:51, August 11, 2014‎
 * Hi and thanks for getting back to me. As I tried to explain, the main problem with your edit wasn't the science.
 * While I don't recall the specifics of the pod's trajectory, the timing of the space station's breakup, etc. and I do think aerodynamic drag (along with effects from trajectory and initial velocity) may be a piece of the puzzle for the smaller piece seen earlier, that is beside the point. The source you cited, while certainly relevant to a discussion of acceleration due to gravity is not useful for your edit. Your addition would need a reliable source that explicitly states that the event in the film was not possible.
 * Your edit, more or less says:
 * A) Universal gravitation/general relativity/whatever would predict that the pod/space station and fragments would behave like this: (your explanation of the physics you see as relevant, citing a source for the science)
 * B) The movie showed: (something different)
 * C) The movie got the science wrong.
 * For the sake of this discussion, we'll assume you got everything right in "A" and "B". Where did "C" come from? You. We call this synthesis of published material. You combined sourced material to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."
 * For comparison, consider the material currently in that section. The items there directly cite various reliable sources directly discussing what they see as flaws in the science in the movie.
 * Without this policy, Wikipedia would be a few basic stable articles surrounded by endless arguments (for example, various diet proponents would endlessly argue that their favored diet (innumerable varieties of vegetarianism, veganism, fruitarianism, paleolithic diet, macrobiotic diet, etc.) is the one and only "correct" diet based on nutrition, purported health effects, physiology, etc. Instead, we cite reliable sources saying that "fruitarians believe" humans should eat only fruit and vitamin B12 is available in fruit or B12 is not needed by humans AND relevant reliable sources say various people have died from the diet, humans need B12 that cannot be obtained from plants, etc.
 * If you'd like to continue searching for a reliable source discussing the issue you've identified, you might check Discover (which periodically runs blurbs on the good and bad science in popular films) and Tyson (who seems to enjoy discussing this type of thing, sometimes the glaring errors really get to him). In my experience, though, trying to find sources that specifically spell out and support your own theory is unlikely to be successful. It's usually more effective to read reliable sources that you find interesting and add material you run across to the relevant topics. Good luck and happy editing. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Excuss me. not trying to be rude and im trying to be nice.
but sir why did you remove some of the year of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:e:1980:532:5c26:7e74:892d:5bfa (talk • contribs) 19:24, August 13, 2014‎
 * The notices on your talk page (including" "When you remove a warning that says, 'Do NOT add a year without citing a reliable source. It will be reverted.' to add a year without citing a reliable source, what do you think will happen?") should be sufficient. If not, kindly review all of the other warnings you've accumulated on your other talk pages. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

that's a lot of links. I am very surprise about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:5C26:7E74:892D:5BFA (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC) You mean me and my cousin are Spammers ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:e:1980:532:5c26:7e74:892d:5bfa (talk • contribs) 23:05, August 13, 2014‎
 * I mean you have been consistently unwilling or unable to follow Wikipedia's core policies. - 23:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep You are so much b(Trouble for that. for Spamming like that. and for given for the Source with not nonsence about feet. I talking to 2601:E:1980:532:5C26:7E74:892D:5BFA. you were wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:e:1980:532:5911:85c7:51a7:5f75 (talk • contribs) 13:56, August 14, 2014‎

Hello
Hello, I'm GoldenBoy25! I've noticed that you've changed some of my edits. Also thanks for the advise that you gave me about reliable sources, but you did make some mistakes. First of all Maza Rodriguez is not 180 cm. The 180 cm height was edited by a troll. Maza Rodriguez real height is 192 cm. Also Lee Beom-soo is listed my multiple websites to be 171 cm. Thanks for the help and telling me to use reliable sources. Overall you could be right about my edits. Feel free to talk to me if you have any questions about my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBoy25 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for getting back to me.
 * I do not know who "Maza Rodriguez" is. I cannot find anyone with a similar name by searching and I don't see that name in a list of your edits.
 * Lee Beom-soo may be listed on numerous sites as being 171 cm. However, we need a reliable source for the information in order to add it. Unreliable sources (such as the one you cited) tend to repeat whatever information they can find. If they got it from a reliable source, it might be right. If they got it from an unreliable source, it might be someone's guess. If there are no reliable sources for a piece of information, we simply leave it out. More to the point, for actors, height measurements are generally not listed as their height is simply not relevant to their career. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: SummerPhD

Maza Rodriguez is Francisco Javier Rodriguez and he over towers a lot of football (soccer) players. So he can't be 180 cm! FIFA and other pages have him at 191 cm or 192 cm. But you're right about posting reliable sources. Lee Beom-soo to me appears to be 168 cm, but there is no official info for his height. The reason why I posted his height is because it is one of the most frequently asked questions to google. Lee Beom-soo is consider a short actor. Thanks for the reply and your input. Hope to hear from you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBoy25 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Soylent Taste
Hello there. With regard to your edit to my edit - I do dispute the non-neutrality of my version. Rhinehart was very clear in the cited source that the minimal flavor is intentional for the reasons cited (flavor fatigue prevention, and user customizability). However, the current version of the text is a vast improvement, since the previous claim that it "lacks any pleasurable characteristics" was objectively false based on further reviewer comments. Mprwik (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. (Your edit seemed to select positive remarks from the sources you cited. Note that I added in a couple of the remarks you omitted from your sources.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Do not edit my talk page
The inactive code contained there is for specific purposes and should not be disrupted. Please address all messages to me in the article talk pages. KingHooves (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "(T)he purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." When you make disruptive edits, such as this edit, you will be notified on your user talk page. If you are blocked or taken to WP:AN/I, as you will be if you continue, you will be notified on your user talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

M&M's revert
Dear SummerPhD, I am quite new to this Wikipedia jig and wanted to add some useful, interesting information to the M&M's page. Something that a lot of people don't know, but are quite interested in. I understood you reverted it the first time because I didn't add a source. So I went and found a source, added it, and added a small amendment. Then, you reverted it again without specifying any reason, nor messaging me on how to perhaps improve the paragraph. So, you could please let me know how to improve the paragraph so that it's worthy of Wikipedia and will not be reverted again? Thanks! Pbean (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The second revert (the first since you registered an account) was immediately followed by a message on your talk page. This should have generated a message across the top of any Wikipedia page you looked at. Perhaps you missed it somehow. In any case, the note is still there.
 * The basic problem is that the issue, for want of a better word, is trivial (and synthesis). You have added two sources; one showing that the dye is from insects and another showing it is used in M&Ms in some locations. From this, you have added that M&Ms in some parts of Europe might not be "suitable" for some vegetarians.
 * In order to add this material to the article, you need a reliable source directly discussing this issue in relation to M&Ms. Instead, you have three pieces: Source A tells us the dye is from insects. Source B says it's in some M&Ms. You say they may not be suitable. You are combining two sources to say something neither one says by itself: Some M&Ms contain a dye of animal origin. This is called "synthesis". To this you have added your own opinion (that they might not be suitable for some vegetarians). Wikipedia frowns on editors introducing their opinions to articles. We aim for a neutral point of view.
 * This may seem needlessly complicated, but consider the alternative, using M&Ms as an example. Couldn't we also discuss chocolate and peanut allergies, lactose intolerance, veganism (diary), diabetes, the theoretical sugar-hyperactivity connection, various theories regarding various dyes, cocoa plantation concerns (deforestation, poor working conditions, etc.), empty calories and obesity, tooth caries and hundreds of other topics? How do we sort out what to include and what to exclude?
 * Simple: We report what independent reliable sources say. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Mass editing by this writer
Im glad you reverted my blanking of a page at the pornography portal. i wasnt providing any contexts for my edits, so what are people to think? i am currently overhauling the portal, and removing images and articles which are of low quality or duplicate other items there. this page will be "unblanked" shortly as i build up a store of new images there. if any of my edits seem particularly harsh to you or anyone, please go ahead and revert with your reason. theres plenty of room there for more than one editor. the portal was almost completely moribund, though, and it gets at least 400 hits per day, so i decided that it needed fixing so that WP doesnt have that portal as a sore thumb. ive worked on other portals before this. again, thanks for reminding me that an occasional edit summary really helps, esp. if im BLANKING pages, for gosh sakes.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:SummerPhD/Obvious, good start of an essay. I have tried to write very literal summaries for books, action only. you should read L'Opoponax, the narrative is entirely descriptive and in second person, a real trip, only "you did this, they did that", with no comments from the author on character motiveMercurywoodrose (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

How does citation needed tag = 'disruptive editing'?
The claim was clearly uncited 80.193.169.59 (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have further concerns and wish to challenge the statement that Soylent (drink) is not made out of human corpses, please address the issue on the article's talk page. (I had written a fuller explanation, but would rather see you ask if you have concerns.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Signature song.
I am a little unsure of Buddy Holly's signature song, but looking at the respective wiki pages alone prove that The Big Bopper's signature song is "Chantilly Lace" and Ritchie Valens's signature song is "La Bamba". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.28.107 (talk • contribs) 17:14, August 24, 2014‎
 * To include the claim in the article, we need independent reliable sources to cite. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Alvin & the Chipmunks 4 Release Date links
Here are sources of a new release date: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=122192 http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/21/alvin-and-the-chipmunks-4-slated-for-2016 Nashwalker (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fanny Pack
Thank you for your note about my edit on Fanny pack. Admittedly, I neglected to check the source, because the year stated seemed obviously wrong (which was my error). However, looking at the source now, I still believe it to be wrong.

1. Why is this document considered a reliable source? It is an internal memo of a small subgroup within a state agency. It is not a newspaper reporting on the appearance of "the new so-called fanny pack." It appears that someone searched the world for the earliest instance of these two words being put together, and found an obscure internal memo.

2. More important perhaps, how does this source establish "the term entering common North American usage by early 1980" ? That's not what the source says. The source merely uses the term. How do we know this instance of "fanny pack" refers to what we now commonly call a fanny pack? It could be the group's internal or even a local slang term for backpack, for all we know. The source makes no connection between the term and a belt with a bag on it. It definitely does not establish that the term was used commonly throughout North America.

My recommendation would be to cut the "common usage" claim altogether. If nothing else, it causes confusion, as it did to me: the article claims common usage of a term ten years before the item's peak popularity. Even if it's true, it just "smells wrong" to the reader and without a reliable source, it weakens the article's authority. And, this is a nontrivial matter: If someone is researching the earliest usage of the term, at best this "fact" is poorly established, and at worst, incorrect. Thank you. PorkHeart (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand what whomever added it was going for: If the term wasn't in well-known, it wouldn't show up unexplained in a memo. That said, the whole sentence is unsourced and/or WP:OR and should probably go. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Coconut Oil mistakes
I have gone through the articles on Coconut Oil, Medium Chain Triglycerides, and Lauric Acid, to correct errors based on the concept that lauric acid, a 12-carbon fatty acid and the main fatty acid on coconut oil, is considered to be among those considered to be medium-chain triglycerides. The scientific literature considered medium chain triglycerides to be made of fatty acids between 6 and 10 carbons long. ,, Lauric acid is considered to be a long-chain fatty acid, albeit the shortest of that group. Statements that Coconut oil is primarily MCT is wrong. The number is more like 19%. If you check over to the article on MCTs I changed the number in the introductory sentence to 6 - 10 away from 6 - 12. Intersting that they had cited Bach to support the 6 - 12 statement when the Bach piece clearly states MCTS are 6 - 10. I then corrected the piece on Lauric Acid to eliminate its classification as a MCT. I am hoping that this scholarly correction will be accepted as such. ER Blonz, Ph.D. Blonz (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read User_talk:Blonz on your talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Excuss Me
I was Wondering do you know anything about this show http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140322080919/totaldramaisland/images/2/2f/Total-drama-pahkitew-island-248.jpg. If you don't that's okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:10F7:F4EF:AC90:E396 (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your revert on The Matrix article.
You provided the reason for reverting my edit there as MOS:IDENTITY. Seeing that you joined the editing team later than when the discussion seemed to end, I'm afraid you're missing something. This issue has been discussed at length. And in the talk page that you wanted me to consult, there is no solution in this regard. There has never been. The page you directed me to ended with this paragraph:

As per your wishes, I have started a broader discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Describing_transgendered_individuals.

If you have been here and discussed it with us, you would probably know that the discussion did not end on The Matrix talk page. It's been carried over to that link. If you go the page in the link (now moved here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Describing_transgendered_individuals ), you will not find a solid resolution that major contributors of this article and film project agree with. So I'm afraid that even though you have a reason to revert my edit, you have only raised one reason among many, many that have been stated before, and one that had been dismissed. I'm afraid it does not provide a real resolution. So before insisting on this version, kindly consider if it truly a reason that can provide resolution instead of another edit war, as I am sure there will be objections, and not just from me. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The talk page discussion I referred to in from earlier this year and does not end with a link to the discussion you reference, which is just over a year old. MOS:IDENTITY says, "Wikipedia should use the term most used in sources", which is in line with your argument. However, it continues: "An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns ... that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." The exception in the present case is the use of "Brothers" in the article prose. Please note this discussion, several months after the one you point to, where the closing admin states, "there is a rough consensus that the subject's preference take precedence over referring to them using their latest expressed gender." This is the most recent discussion with a clear closure that I was able to locate. It seems to agree with my reading of the guideline. "The Wachowskis" is in no way ambiguous and reflects the consensus guideline. If you disagree with the guideline, feel free to reopen discussion of the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Cornelius Inc page
Hi there,

These past weeks it seem as though we have been fighting over the Cornelius, Inc page on Wikipedia. I want to address this with you directly to resolve the matter as I have spent several weeks developing this article and do not want to see it deleted.

I have deleted your message for the articles deletion on Wikipedia because I have added several notable sources such as the QSR Magazine and Minnesota inventors website. These is reputable sources please explain to me how to improve the page to remain on here. I had another Wikipedia editor help with the formatting and he did not see any problems with the article other than a few citations that needed to be added. When I added the citations he thanked me for my contribution and left the article alone.

I just don't understand what you see and want to resolve it! I have added some good reliable sources and if I need more independent sources I will continue to add them with time. So please do not delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcshanemichael90 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (Before noticing the article was moved to draft status, I made a few changes. Feel free to revert any/all of them as appropriate. I removed links to images that have been deleted from Commons and condensed several duplicate refs.)
 * When I suggested the deletion of the article, the main problem was (as it always has been) lack of evidence of notability. In general terms, no article should exist unless the subject of the article has been the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. At that time, the article had several sources that did not discuss Cornelius. Those sources are not useful for the article as they do not discuss the subject. After removing those sources, I was left with one source which is a reprint of a company press release. As a primary source, it would be useful only to confirm undisputed facts about the company (for instance, the year of incorporation). Such sources are of no value in terms of demonstrating notability. As I had been completely unable to locate any additional coverage, I prodded the article. Any editor may remove this tag, if they disagree with the reasoning given for the proposed deletion. As the tag has been removed, the article will not be deleted without discussion. I have not, at this point, reviewed the article's newest additions beyond the minor maintenance edits I mentioned.
 * The main hurdles for the article are notability, sourcing and neutrality. As I had previously noted, editors with a conflict of interest should exercise caution. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Images response
I understand your concerns on the images from the Cornelius Inc page. I just wanted to make the page look a little nicer but if you don't like the pictures that's fine. Can you help review my page with the user Secret to undelete it as I believe I have made some fantastic changes that comply with all the rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcshanemichael90 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi.
Hi there. With all due respect, why are you stalking my edits? Did I do something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.211.101 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * List of contraltos in non-classical music and similar articles seem to attract unsourced additions and unexplained removal of sourced material. Unexplained changes to apparently sourced material are a similar problem. IP editors often ignore sourcing and requests to include sources. If you would like to avoid similar problems in the future, in addition to using edit summaries and providing sources, you might consider registering for an account. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually do have an account, but forgot the password and can't retrieve it. Its not ok to delete unreliable sources from blogs or bogus websites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.211.101 (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my edit to Foodfight!
Your source's figure seems merely adding the two figures given in the NYT article: "The NY Times descibes how businessman/producer Larry Kasanoff (pictured below) raised $45 million to make Foodfight!, and then decided to direct the film himself, despite having no prior experience directing animation". There's no indication Cartoon Brew got information on the film's budget firsthand. 152.231.9.146 (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The NYT article you cite does not give a budget figure. I do not see two figures totaling $45 million, so I'm not sure how you decided the other source "merely (added the two figures" from it. Here are the dollar figures in that article: "predicted a huge $100 million tie-in merchandising campaign" (not budget); "Kasanoff raised an initial $25 million for production costs in conjunction with a Korean investment consortium and expected the rest of the budget, which Threshold projected at $50 million" (budget, but can't be $45 million (maybe $50 million total or $75 million, it's unclear). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The two sentences were :"Mr. Kasanoff raised an initial $25 million for production costs in conjunction with a Korean investment consortium and expected the rest of the budget," (itself a reference to this article) and "In 2005, Threshold secured roughly $20 million in additional financing through private investors represented by StoryArk,...". Those are the two that are worded as "they definitely got that money", whereas all other figures paraphrase "they hoped that would happen".
 * Again, my concern may partially be that the other source seems to be completely based on this source. Hell, CartoonBrew's tagline when searching it on Google is "Cartoon Brew is the largest animation entertainment blog...". OK, maybe I'm cherrypicking with that line, but the point is that they seem to admit they are not cutting-edge journalists. 152.231.9.146 (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not sure how I missed that second one. My bad. It seems there are two separate issues:
 * 1) Is Cartoon Brew a reliable source for this information? I have no idea.
 * 2) Does the NYT article give a figure that we can report? I don't think so. To me, it seems to say at least $45 million: Kasanoff raised $25M toward an expected $50 M budget, Threshold found $20M more. If that's all there was, yes, it's $45M but that's a big "if". It assumes the film came in $5M under projected budget. Given the convoluted story of the making of this turd, coming in under budget seems unlikely and not having a clear number to reference is less than surprising.
 * Maybe we cite what we know (from the NYT source) in the article's prose and leave it out of the infobox? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a-me, the above editor (maybe one day I'll deem stop procrastinating and make an actual account). Cartoon Brew would appear to be a very dedicated blog ran by a few guys, but ultimately a tertiary source (even if they don't always source), who take tips for stories. I mean, they seem serious enough to be taken as a reference for a few things (40K page rank ain't too shabby), but considering how that particular article starts with a direct reference to the NYT article, it's reasonable to assume they got the number from there. The next result from Google for "foodfight budget" is written by this guy, who at three articles per day is also unlikely an insider journalist.
 * I think that's indeed enough doubt to exclude budget from the infobox and include the known information in prose. I'll do so between today and tomorrow, so feel free to monitor if any of my edits there could be improved. 201.190.31.64 (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

CSD question
Hello,

You tagged "Sammy Strong" for deletion, but I only made it a redirect to his mother Tara Strong. Any particular reason you CSD'd a redirect? Just thought I'd ask.

Cheers,  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 17:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Another editor had created a full article, most likely about himself and was reverting attempts to change it back to the redirect. The same editor has been creating fictional future films and amusement park rides based on them well into the future (2020 and beyond).
 * If you feel the redirect is warranted, feel free to recreate it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see..... thanks for explaining  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 19:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Manic Pixie Dream Girl Help :)
Hi there!

I am in a class at Cornell University and our assignment is to edit an article on Wikipedia. My group is currently trying to improve the Manic Pixie Dream Girl article and we noticed that you have been active on its talk page. We were wondering if you would be willing to be our Wikipedia spirit guide during the process if we need pointers on how to improve our editing skills in adherence to Wikipedia guidelines.

Best, Aquamarine315 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Posting with sources
Hello! I appreciate your feedback on the Jackie Burns Wikipedia page, I am obviously new at this thing. However, I know the date of her birth because she says it on a youtube interview, and the year because I personally asked her on twitter. Is that reliable enough? Also, I'm having a very hard time understanding all of this Wiki editing... Forgive me. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieburns0707 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a lot to learn. A decent place to start is Simplified ruleset. There are a lot of other rules ("policies") and suggestions ("guidelines") that apply to specific situations, but you don't have to worry about those right away.
 * The youtube interview is one of those specific situations. We cannot use it unless it was posted to youtube by the copyright holder. If, for example, the interview is with a television program, we can use it only if it was added to youtube by the show or the show's production company. If the twitter account is her official account, I'd recommend using that. Simply re-add the information to the article and cite it: immediately after the first use of the date, add . I'll watch for it and fill in the more detailed cite (which you can read more about when you have a chance]]. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Kes and use of the word "fuck"
Hi. I see that you've reverted my edit.

First, so that you know what I mean, you can hear it if you listen closely at 1:47:00 on here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU3fSRUCMdU It's not very clear as there's so much arguing going on. I think that this fact meant that it got through with a U certificate for so long.

The article on Fuck doesn't seem to have many citations, which I felt safe to add this. I thought that I'd act in the old spirit of WP:IAR and add this bit of information, which I find very interesting. The film Kes must have been one of the first British films to have so much profanity, yet it got a U certificate. I wonder whether this was because the film was in Yorkshire dialect, which the BBFC would probably not have been familiar with, and they weren't always following what was being said.

Is there any way that I can get some reference to Kes into this article?

Thanks. Epa101 (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the information is trivial synthesis. We do not have reliable sources discussing the whole situation, we have reliable sources discussing various bits and pieces that you have added together to form the whole situation. Your conclusions may or may not be true. Let's assume for the moment they are. Is this a significant piece of the history of the word "fuck"? If it is, why haven't reliable sources discussing the word "fuck"? If it is not significant to the history of the word, it does not belong in the article. (In fact, it is possible that if you do find a source discussing the whole situation, it might not be significantly about the word and therefore would not belong in the article.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I understand your reasons.
 * On the one hand, I don't see why my edit was any more trivial than the rest of the section on films in the article. You might not be aware that Kes is a famous and well-regarded film in Britain, but it is obscure in the rest of the world and never had a national release in the USA.  The swearing in the film (mostly swear words peculiar to Britain) has caused some discussion, given that the film is used in schools as part of the syllabus.  On the other hand, I don't have an independent source for my claim and I think that the odds of finding one are negligible, so I'll leave the article as it is.  I can understand that, in the long history of the word fuck, this wasn't a big occasion.
 * Have a nice weekend. Epa101 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Procter & Gamble brands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jif. 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) 09:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill Lichtenstein article
Hi SummerPhD. I just rolled back seven IP edits at Bill Lichtenstein that appear to be motivated by hostility to the subject. I have invited the IP to discuss them on the talk page and have also initiated discussion at the article. I see you have expressed the same concerns I have on the article talk page, with additional research that indicates a possible series of editors that are possibly the same editor with a hostile agenda going back years. I have never heard of Lichtenstein and have no connection to anyone who does, but this case stood out as I rarely am motivated to roll back so many edits. If you get a chance, take a look at the article and see what you think. Thanks. Jus da  fax   07:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Applejuicefool / Diet Coke and Mentos article talk
There was some comment on the talk page regarding whether Diet Coke should be specified in the title of the article, since any carbonated beverage seems to have some efficacy in this sort of exercise. I was not simply discussing the topic, but responding specifically to those concerns. Diet Coke is appropriate as a title because it seems to spew the best with Mentos, in part for the reason I offered. I recognize that I may not have clearly expounded that reason for my comments, but that was the intent. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The possibility of a name change last died out over 3 years ago. If you would like to resurrect the issue on the talk page, you'll likely have problems re WP:COMMONNAME. The majority of reliable sources cited specify Diet Coke. (Additionally, there is some indication that diet sodas in general -- and Diet Coke in particular -- work better. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

So how was my comment less worthy of the talk page than the "Glucose" comment you commented on but did not consign to "Off-Topic Chat"? Mine was at least scientifically valid, and relevant to the title discussion I mentioned before. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comment offers your personal speculation regarding the reaction. As we certainly cannot cite your speculation ( ?), there is nothing that contributes in any way toward improving the article. Yes, I handled a comment from a one-off IP editor differently in 2013 than I handled a comment from a returning editor today. I'm guessing in December 2013 I didn't think the IP was likely to see a warning and responded by quickly killing the idea. With your edit, I wanted to be sure you were aware that your comment strayed from the purpose of the talk page. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Batman and robin
The information I added, I got from box office mojo.com. So I'll just add that when I restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.152.251 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As you are editing in defiance of a block, all of your edits are being reverted as vandalism, per WP:EVADE. When your block expires, feel free to discuss the disputed issue on the article's talk page. Please note you will need to cite sources that actually say what you are adding to the article. The source gives numbers, it does not say "box office bomb" or "underperformed overseas". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(174.101.152.251 has been blocked for evasion. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC))

Foodfight! Edit
Hi. I've noticed you've reverted my edits of Foodfight! The error seems to be that you don't consider Den of Geek an acceptable source. I can begrudgingly agree with your first edit (although New York Times also seems to hold similar sentiments for the production, so I might use that instead)

The second usage of the source is where I take issue however. I was mainly quoting time magazine, and used Den of Geek for a secondary source. The main reason I used Den of Geek was that I found the quote through them, and I found the article through them. I feel that they deserve some credit for the source since the Times article wasn't even about the movie in question. --Deathawk (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In reverting your edits, I missed the Time cite. I've restored that portion, along with a bit more. I still don't like the blog cite. If you feel it should remain, please take it up on the article's talk page so that we can get some input from additional editors. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

re: January 2014 (One More Night (Maroon 5 song) and One More Night (Phil Collins song))
Hello! You've reverted my information adding in [One More Night (Maroon 5 song)]] because didn't provide a reliable source. As I've that information came from One More Night (Phil Collins song) (as I've pointed out in edit summary), e should remove it from that article too?

And even more the statement that One More Night (Phil Collins song) hit number has no source, should we clean it out? (Maroon 5 song has source). --Perrry Mason Paul Della (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information. The unsourced statements from January 2014 for the Phil Collins song have been removed. Have a nice day. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Welfare State   ‖ 20:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that was easy. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on the admin noticeboard about 'Best known for IP'
I've started a discussion on the admin noticeboard about the Best known for IP, which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello SummerPhD: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  17:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Disambiguation link notification for October 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francis Anthony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen Elizabeth. 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) 12:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

IP now best known for personal attacks
Hi: Before this anon reappears, if he does, regardless of our difference of opinion regarding whether he/she should be considered to be banned, I felt someone should apologize to you for that particularly nasty insult, and the continuing badmouthing. So I will. I'm very sorry you had to read such things. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do appreciate your intent here. There is a disconnect: I am not angered so much by the vile personal attacks as I am by the sense that nothing can or should be done about it. This twerp has made it very clear that he feels he is the victim, his actions are completely appropriate and that he will continue edit warring, making personal attacks and evading any blocks.
 * Gee, let's see how we can accommodate him? No. Blocks are intended to change behavior. His behavior is unacceptable. For the good of the project, he needs to be effectively blocked until such time as the community feels he is worth another chance. He is not heading in that direction, much less there. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now taught him to ping and he's now pinging you and others with insults. I am so sorry :-( Working on getting him to stop. Someone said a range block had been placed. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He enjoys making personal attacks. He gets "more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same". Like remarriage, expecting something different from him is the triumph of hope over experience. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record,, I am not basing anything on a belief that he is banned, only that he is editing in defiance of several active blocks. As he has repeatedly ignored over 50 separate blocks, I fulling intend to revert any edit that I find even slightly questionable. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for the consideration of his edits on the merits and for your latest calm edit to his talk page. (I keep wondering whether I'm being biased assuming it's a man.) FWIW I looked for a recent (2014) source on Tracy Spiridakos' marital status, and in the absence of one, I agree with your reinstating "as of", and you gave a good edit summary there. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The EVIL List
You know being on that list is not good, right? I know you were involved in trying to delete a page that shouldn't be deleted....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt200055 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh? I thought it was an honor of some kind. You didn't mean it as a personal attack, did you? THAT wouldn't be good. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See also WP:POLEMIC.--00:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If possible, please take a look at this AfD discussion
Hello,

You most likely remember the Michéal Castaldo article. I have nominated one of Castaldo's album articles (Aceto (album)) for deletion. The article doesn't require much analysis, as it is short and has only three references, so I'd very much appreciate it if you expressed your opinion on whether or not the album article should be kept. Also, as I state in the AfD, other articles about Castaldo's albums have the same characteristics, so I don't know how to properly have several articles discussed for preservation or deletion while in theory discussing only one article. I hope that makes sense. Many thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Contact
Don't see an explanation for reversion of edits to Contact (novel) article Section labelled Physics uncontroversial and merely links concepts in book to articles on Wikipedia But happy to learn from an older hand! Jid (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry my edit summary wasn't clearer.
 * It isn't that the material is in any way controversial, it's simply that it isn't particularly notable. I don't doubt that the concepts are covered in the novel, it's more that their inclusion is trivial, as evidenced by the fact that there are not independent reliable sources listing them. For comparison, consider where a list of historical figures mentioned in War and Peace would belong in that article. Certainly any concepts (or, in War and Peace, people) that are an important part of a brief summary of the plot should be in the plot summary. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose notability is in the "in the eye of the noter". I am presenting a paper on "Wormholes in Science Fiction" to a symposium on wormholes at BIS, organised by the i4is and this was part of my research for that. So this material will appear when the symposium is published by i4is. So I'll just cross reference from my paper and leave it to others to make the detailed links to the concepts in Wikipedia. Jid (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Secret Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problem
Hi, a couple of months back you reverted my edit of a superfluous link in the "Secret Gospel of Mark" page; the link was to The Secret Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problem and as I noted in my edit, the article was clearly original research. As I see now, the article in question has been removed. I just wanted to say, I told you so! I had nothing at all to do with the deletion of the article in question, as far as I know. But I too have a Ph.D., in New Testament Studies, and I can spot an "original research" article from a mile away. That's why I removed the link; and now the link appears to be broken on the article. Can I now fix it without your interference? Matthew Baldwin (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh... never mind... someone else already fixed it. Matthew Baldwin (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

AND... I want to give you credit for proposing the article for deletion. I guess I did have something to do with that! I edit Wikipedia rarely, and use it frequently. I didn't understand your comment "AfD will take care of it," but having looked a bit deeper, I see you reverted my change, went to AfD, nominated the article ("shotgun wedding," nice one), and the community acted correctly. Kudos. Man I love wikipedia. Matthew Baldwin (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd been sitting on the The Secret Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problem article for a while, fairly certain it was a delete, but I waited: It's pretty far outside of my wheelhouse and, as the topic is pretty specialized, I wanted to be sure it got a fair hearing. Keeping the link in the article was an effort to get knowledgeable eyes on it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Tooth fairy
Dear SummerPhD,

Thank you for your revision of the tooth fairy article. In your revision you have removed the image inserted by me earlier this day. I have reviewed your reasons for image removal, and agree that the image was indeed mistakenly placed in a wrong section. I shall therefore shift it to the section "Belief". I hope this revision will be accepted by you and the community.

With best regards, Alexei Antipov (by coincidence also a summer PhD :) )

Antipoff (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see the article's talk page for further discussion. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain your reasons, I didn't quite understand from the comment you left on the article's talk Antipoff (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop harassing
Your needling and pestering in various forums is highly disruptive. Kindly stop. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I have annoyed you. I have not been trying to provoke you.
 * I have abandoned trying to give you friendly advice on your talk page. Oh well.
 * I was invited to the page discussing "allision" and intend to follow the issue through.
 * I have been working on the Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You certainly have been trying to provoke me. Pretending otherwise now is infantile. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith and discuss content, not editors. Assuming another editor is being "deliberately unreasonable" is a personal attack. Assuming that I am "try(ing) to disrupt" is a personal attack. Calling me "infantile" is a personal attack.
 * You have spent several years edit warring, making vile personal attacks and evading numerous blocks for your behavior. I am not trying to anger you. Take one piece of advice: Discuss content, not editors. -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't ask me to assume good faith after you have clearly demonstrated bad faith. Stop harassing me.  200.104.240.11 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a personal attack, a blockable offense. Please review WP:NPA, assume good faith and discuss content, not editors. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)