User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 5

Philadelphia Election Riot (1742)

 * Thanks. "...that the Philadelphia Election Riot of 1742 between the Anglicans and the Quakers of Philadelphia was caused because they were unable to agree on who would supervise the election?" - SummerPhD (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. "...that the Philadelphia Election Riot of 1742 between the Anglicans and the Quakers of Philadelphia was caused because they were unable to agree on who would supervise the election?" - SummerPhD (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar. Unnecessary but much appreciated, especially coming from a tireless cruft-cleaner of your caliber. BTW, have you read WP:MUSIC lately? The current wording is pretty good, I think. Best — Hello, Control Hello, Tony  15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Adminship?
I would like to nominate you for administrator status, based on my observations of your edits, your overall good nature toward other editors, and your experience here on Wikipedia. Are you interested? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks! I appreciate the offer. At the moment, I'd like to hold off on that. Check back in a couple of months or so! - SummerPhD (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks! I appreciate the offer. At the moment, I'd like to hold off on that. Check back in a couple of months or so! - SummerPhD (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lombard Street Riot
In reading the Lombard Street Riots I was going to correct the reference to "Irish Catholic Pograms", but a little research shows you're handling this.

1) Shouldn't the word be "pogroms"? Even if spelled right, I find to reference to "Irish Catholic Pograms OR Pograms" anywhere within the reach of Google except here in "Lombard Street Riots".

2) What were these attacks you're referring to? Where and when?

Thanks, BobShair (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily handling this. I started the article and have fleshed it out a bit (with others helping). The portion you are questioning seems to have slipped past me when added by an IP awhile back. I don't see any sourcing for it, nor do I know of any. It certainly is not in DuBois (my main source for the "Background" section). I've reverted the affected section. Thanks! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
You made a serious improvement to the article with a series of skillful, relatively minor edits, and I just wanted to recognize you for it. Thank you! Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

For your hard work...
 WTGDMan1986 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact WTGDMan1986 to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/SummerPhD . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
 * I thank you for the (apparent) vote of confidence. However, I do not wish to take on a mop and bucket at the moment. Maybe later. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I thank you for the (apparent) vote of confidence. However, I do not wish to take on a mop and bucket at the moment. Maybe later. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Question
What's a reliable source? Ricky 3374 ( talk ) 12:35 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Reliable sources - SummerPhD (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Making Someday (Rob Thomas song) a notable song
Hey I tried everything and I still didn't understand. Plus how do you make Someday (Rob Thomas song) a notable song? Ricky 3374 ( talk ) 16:30, 19 September 20
 * You can't control whether or not a subject is notable. A song is usually notable if it: has been ranked on national or significant music charts or has won significant awards or honors or has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. Additionally, the song must be the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This song does not meet those standards. As a result, the song, IMO, does not merit its own article. As the subject of an Articles for Deletion discussion, other editors agreed. Please do not recreate this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I Agree sir. If I can't make the song notable then nobody can. Ricky 3374  ( talk ) 22:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology
Hey I just wanted to say I'm sorry for recreating Someday (Rob Thomas song). I know that it's not a notable song but I just wanted to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia website there ever is. As a result for that I will not return to Someday (Rob Thomas song) to recreate that page. I understand that it's already been set to a redirect to Cradlesong. And another thing, I am also sorry for recreating Staring Down. I know that it's not a notable song but I just wanted to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia website there ever is. As a result for that I will not return to Staring Down to recreate that page. I understand that it's already been set to a redirect to Rabbit (album). Anyways that's all I wanted to say. I hope you get this message. Thanks. Ricky 3374 ( talk ) 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD Discussion
I disagree with the AfD thing for Someday (Rob Thomas song). I have nothing else to do but disagree with it. Mario.brosfan (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry you disagree. The fact remains, the song is not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry you disagree. The fact remains, the song is not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied messaged from SummerPhD about OK, It's Alright with Me
Fine. Then let me say that you are the worst user I've ever seen. I hate you. Now leave me alone with my articles that I created about songs. Ricky 3374 ( talk ) 01:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Non Notable songs
I've created non notable song because I don't know anything else about a song. That's why I pasted this to every non notable song I've created so all Wikipedia Users can give more details about a song. Ricky 3374 ( talk ) 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding details to an article about a non-notable song merely creates a more detailed article about a non-notable song. The song, however, remains non-notable. Please review WP:NSONGS and stop creating articles about non-notable songs. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. The point is I don't understand what the WP:NSONGS says. It says All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. Most songs Whether an artifact of recentism or otherwise, most song articles on Wikipedia are for modern (20th or 21st century) popular music songs.  A minority of song articles refer to ones that are not modern popular music songs, that weren't published in albums, that aren't part of one specific discography, and that in some cases even lack identifiable authors or performers.  Redirection of such song titles if they are non-notable has thus to be to some other, appropriate target.  However, note that many such songs, within that specific category, have long-documented histories of their origins, spread, performances, meanings, and lyrical variations.  See "Johnny's So Long At The Fair", for example. do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. If the artist associated with the work does not have an article, or if the artist's article has already been deleted, an article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9. Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it. (See also TenPoundHammer's Law.) In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects—generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. And that's all it said.  Ricky 3374  ( talk ) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In short "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article". If you don't understand the exceptions, just don't create articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Ricky 3374  ( talk ) 19:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edits
Your edits are so predictable it's hilarious. Zanze123 (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)]
 * Thanks for the input. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page says you edited Cheese Steak and King of Steak. What did you contribute besides editing? The Fruitarian article needs to be edited by somebody who is neither pro fruitarian or pro steakarian. Zanze123 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are laboring under a number of false assumptions. First, Wikipedia does not make a distinction between what you are calling "editing" and "contributing". Adding, removing and rearranging material is editing, all edits are contributions.
 * All subjects are not created equal. Cheesesteaks and Pat's King of Steaks are not fringe subjects as there are not substantial issues about the subject that run counter to the scientific consensus. Fruitarianism is a fringe subject. The belief that humans were created to and/or evolved to live solely on fruit runs counter to the findings of science.
 * In any event, here is a complete list of all of the edits I have ever made to Wikipedia. I don't know of an easy way to point to a list of all of the articles I have ever edited. Here is a list of articles I've created, it's somewhat out-of-date. Here is a list of articles I believe I have significantly improved, with links showing the changes I made. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Things are fringe but not in perpetuity. Vegetarianism was a fringe issue but not anymore. What is it about steak that counters scientific consensus. I thought you only believed in science. Science is a man-made system of thought, based on a false methodology. Unfortunately, even though this can be proven to be the case, those imbued with the scientific worldview can't cope so wouldn't believe it to be the case even if they did read about it. Worse still, the scientific worldview is consistent with itself and so appears to be true, especially in a world of people imbued with the scientific worldview. Therefore discussing matters with people who only believe in science, despite its fatal flaws, is like trying to talk about colours with a man born blind. With reference to: Verifiablity, No original research and Neutral point of view. Indeed, Yet things cannot always be be verified, in terms of references, references are not always reliable, original research can be put into 'reliable' sources, and a neutral point of view is impossible, because humans are not rational animals but self-rationalizing. Moreover, the scientific process of verification involves a new observation which is just as subjective as the original hypothesis, and hence no more objective. On top of this, the peer review process has more holes than a piece of Swiss Cheese. Many things counter science but are still true. Not everything can be or has yet been explained by science. Science cannot explain everything. The review process depends on double bind/blind experiments, but not everything in the universe (i.e. experiments) can always be replicated, but that doesn't invalidate what originally occured. Zanze123 (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fruitarianism as currently a fringe topic. As a result, WP:FRINGE applies. Your dislike/distrust of science is moot.
 * Verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia. Anything that cannot be verified by reference to a reliable source does not belong in Wikipedia. Please read WP:V.
 * Whether or not a reliable source is "reliable" in the sense of being correct is a moot point. Please read WP:RS.
 * Wikipedia's core policy, No original research applies to those editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Reliable sources obviously contain original research. Please read WP:NOR. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You removed the Tony Wright paragraph, without any explanation except some unintelligible comment that only you and you alone could possibly understand. Please stop deleting things without providing a proper explanation for all to know. Zanze123 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed Tony Wright because "-non-notable vanity press book". Tony Wright is not notable. The book is not notable. The publisher, Lulu.com, is a vanity publisher: they will publish absolutely anything by anyone so long as you pay for it. I could have them publish a book saying the moon is actually a goat's head. This would not merit mention in Moon, Goat, Head or anywhere else on Wikipedia unless I were notable or the publisher made it a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed Tony Wright because "-non-notable vanity press book". Tony Wright is not notable. The book is not notable. The publisher, Lulu.com, is a vanity publisher: they will publish absolutely anything by anyone so long as you pay for it. I could have them publish a book saying the moon is actually a goat's head. This would not merit mention in Moon, Goat, Head or anywhere else on Wikipedia unless I were notable or the publisher made it a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If the basis for validating a book is on the name of the publisher, this is hilarous given that many commercially published books are vacuous. Furthermore, what matters is not who published the book, but its referenced content and those who have endorsed the book, which in this case, are notable people from the 'academic community'. However, since your agenda is to slant the frutiarian article, there is no point contributing to it, or indeed, any point to it. You have already decided in advance that the fruitarian diet is not possible, and should not be endorsed, and that is why your approach to editing such as 'Claimed scientific basis' is what it is. Anything labelled 'scientific basis' could be relabelled 'Claimed scientific basis' since anything claimed by science is only what is known up until the day it was claimed. Zanze123 (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What is it about steaks that you believe counters scientific consensus? Zanze123 (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I believe that? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of "many commercially published books" is moot. Referenced content in the book is moot. You claiming academic support is moot. Scientific consensus from relevent academic communities is key. Please see WP:FRINGE. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of "many commercially published books" is moot. Referenced content in the book is moot. You claiming academic support is moot. Scientific consensus from relevent academic communities is key. Please see WP:FRINGE. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

SummerPhD on vandalism
Hi there, you recently left a vandalism warning at User_talk:121.209.235.20

For someone as experienced on Wikipedia as yourself, you really ought to more closely read Verifiability. As per Vandalism, my contribution consisted entirely of 'unintentional misinformation', not intention to vandalise. Internet sources I had encountered had indicated that Nick Jonas passed, though from now checking more reputable sources I can see that is not the case. To further this, the fact that I contributed to the talk page was to encourage further verification of the fact rather than actually editing an actual article as fact.

In this instance you have failed one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia, Assume good faith. Your usage of {uw-vandalism4} whilst skipping {uw-vandalism3} for an edit that can not be seen as overly disruptive is largely inappropriate

I would appreciate it if you could now redact such warning from my talk page.

Many thanks for your understanding, 121.209.235.20 (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone as experienced on Wikipedia as yourself (including a block for disruption) should certainly understand that saying "He Dead" does not indicate that you had "encountered...Internet sources". Your complaint about being labeled a vandal is far more fluent and descriptive than your actual edit. You seem to have been looking for a response. You got one. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I'm underselling you here. In addition to your activity under the IP shown, you claim to be the blocked user Jazzper. Your wounded narrative above strikes me as simple trolling. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that everything I said isn't correct. Thank you though. 121.209.235.20 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike Watt
I saw an old message of yours (May 2009)on the talk page of the Mike Watt article--you may recall that the prime contributor to that article called you "fuckface." ;) One way or another I ran into that article and started to remove trivia and unverified claims of relevance and grandiosity, and I'm kind of expecting a lashing-out from that same editor. I guess this is an invitation to watch the fireworks, although it may, of course, be a disappointment. Either way, I was pleased to see that I wasn't the only one who had problems with any kind of claim to "encyclopedicness" in regards to that article. All the best, Drmies (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP unsourced tag is for actually unsourced articles
I noticed you added BLP unsourced tag in this edit. I removed it. The BLP unsourced issue is a huge enough issue for Wikipedia without adding articles that have a source, such as the IMDB link in this one, to the apparent size of the issue. An external link can be a source. Probably there are other tags which you could add instead, to call for in-line referencing. But there is a source in the article. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical info. The article is unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a different point to make that IMDB is not reliable for some kinds of information. I do believe IMDB is regarded as acceptable for some purposes, by the way, but I don't want to quibble.  It's not as bad as some "sources" which should outright be deleted from the articles (none present AFAIK in the David Tom article).  In this article, the IMDB link is relevant, just not reliable for all that one might want it to be, and it would be wp:POINTY or otherwise bad to delete it altogether from the article.  So, please, use a different tag addressing that.  The BLP unsourced issue is about completely unsourced articles, and your tagging this one inflates the count of how big that issue is.  I'll change the tag in this case to "BLP refimprove" and you can add tags about reliable sources if you wish. --doncram (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDb is certainly reliable for some writing credits. Everything else is user submitted, though I doubt you'd find many arguments against using it for roles in released films. The article was completely unsourced. Another editor, however, has since added one source, so the refimprove is now correct. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Two sources. :-) --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry: one source with substantial coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're too kind - both are rather skimpy. :-) But they are WP:RS. --GRuban (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

yeah, but...
it had mores style with Godzilla in there. I even used the double brackets and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.145.33 (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your addition was absurd. Next time, rather than cleaning it up, I'll simply revert it. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoax
I only created the page because someone created the Skeleton Canyon treasure article, I assumed that if that article surived as long as it has without being deleted, why wouldn't another just like it be deleted?--Az81964444 (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Realize, of course, that you will now need to provide air-tight sources for absolutely everything you add. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I stopped by
to wish you good luck in your dealings with User:Az81964444, an editor who seems to have learned his research skills and ethics from Rush Limbaugh, who recently upon being confronted with an obvious. ... misquote of something supposedly said by President Obama replied, "I don't care if those quotes are made up. I know Obama thinks it.  (reference upon request) However I am not going to say that.  Instead, noticing all the stuff on your user and discussion pages about homeopathy and going to tell you about Norbu Rinchin my dog who fell off a cliff in Canada somewhere and broke her leg in 7 places.  She was a Chow and took it pretty well until we took of the bandage.  Then she saw her wound and freaked out.  Every 3 minutes she would go into a hysterical panic for about 30 seconds, then would relax for 2 1/2 minutes then go off again.  It was terrifying to behold and my wife and I were on an island alone with her.  However Vi had, as she always has, her homeopathic first aid kit and found something for (among things) post-operation hysteria.  We popped a couple of globs into Norbu and the panic attacks stopped immediately. However I am NOT inclined to do any editing at the article. What was your question again? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you had a point to make, you didn't. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been accused of being obscure when intending to be other things. my apologies. Carptrash (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.A Sniper (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As explained in my [Scream Bloody Gore original edit summary] (of the edit you reverted without comment), "not in the source cited". That is to say, while there is a source "cited", it does not support the information it is cited for. So yes, the material I removed was not sourced (like I said) and no, I did not remove text without an edit summary (like you said). I leave that for a couple of days, market appropriately. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Schuldiner
Good call on that Schuldiner edit. I could find no source for the Hoglan quote and he doesn't recall ever saying it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When did Hoglan say that? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Hello, you noticed that I mentioned your name at a different user's (ASniper's) talk page, and kudos for noticing so quickly. Sorry if you saw it as a personal attack but I see it as a description of your very obvious philosophy at various controversial AfD's. So be it. I'll edit the post in question. I was trying to advise a volunteer editor (like you and me) on how to handle a difficult task. But do your research on other users. I've been a constantly active editor here for three years and don't need to be introduced to the Welcome page or rules on so-called personal attacks. Pointing me to those pages could very well be an example of the attitude I was talking about in that post with ASniper, but I'll assume you weren't trying to be condescending. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 02:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm just crazy enough to see being called "inflexible, humorless, and condescending" as an attack. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

David Sanger (organist)
SummerPHD ... why do you insist on publishing the controversial about David Sanger instead of elaborating on his accomplishments? ...BellVideo
 * I "insist on publishing" encyclopedic information about Sanger, including the "four counts of indecent assault and four of gross indecency, all against a boy under the age of 16" and his sudden death immediately after facing court on those charges. This is an encyclopedia. We report significant verifiable information -- the good, the bad and the ugly. You'll also want to review my last edit to the article, adding to the list of Sanger's accomplishments. I am here neither to bury Sanger nor to praise him. I'm merely here to report on him. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My Edits
I believe that I have been civil to you. I was curious how fast you would troll through edit memos and see what I wrote, and sure enough you've attacked me and my edits with no more proof than the memo. Must this continue? I haven't attacked you - I've even conceded there was not enough material out there to sustain the Infernal Live page. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you had previously comment that one of the members of the band said he didn't remember saying something in an edit I removed. This raised the concern that you had a possible conflict of interest in editing articles related to the band. This is not an "attack" on you, this is about our core principles: neutral presentation of verifiable information on notable subjects. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Many folks within the small death metal subgenre know each other. However, this does not reflect a lack of neutrality. I take every edit very seriously, and I certainly do not confine my editing to the subject of death metal.  I apologize if in some way if have offended you or got your back up. I may certainly be guilty of a breach of Wiki etiquette, but I still stand by my edits and concern about neutrality. By the way, I believe I have supported some of your edits, and just now cleaned up the header for the Mutilation demo.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies—Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability—when editing in that area." Coi - SummerPhD (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for placing that misleading memo in an effort to bait. As for neutrality, I strive to be neutral in all my edits, and to always find suitable secondary source material for each one. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you are not the "successor-in-interest to Charles M. Schuldiner"? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote that thing to see how long it would take for you to attack. I knew the article itself was deleted, and therefore nobody would be paying attention to the orphaned photo page, other than you. It was wrong of me and I'm sorry. I had convinced myself that you were trolling these sites as a deletionist, and that was very bad faith on my part. I can see thaht your edits have all had the best interest of the articles in mind, and I hope my subsequent edits bolster this. A Sniper (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Admitting to the bad faith editing on this issue does not remove the COI concern. We still have your claim of personal conversations with Hoglan. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be no COI re: Hoglan. I, like many metal folks, have the ability to contact him and ask him questions. Hoglan was an employee and paid musician, and not a member. He has had nothing whatsoever to do with Death since leaving their employ after album number six, and was involved with Death for only two years out of sixteen years. So where is the COI? Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "So where is the COI?" For openers: "I...have the ability to contact him and ask questions." I am not in personal contact with any individual who is the subject of an article I edit. I have collegues with articles, my employer and funders have articles. I do not -- will not -- edit them, as I recognize the potential COI. In theory, if I noticed a glaring omission, I would be comfortable with stating my connection to the subject, stating my case on the talk page and letting it go. Nothing more. (I invite you to have a look at my edits and try to guess the field I work in, my employer or anyone funding projects I am invovled in.) As for what Hoglan has to do with it, he is, in part, the subject of the article. He's being quoted in the article now, with quotes of dubious provenance placed on his lips to create credibility. The band's reputation -- good, bad or indifferent -- reflects in part on him. You are too close to the subject. Additionally, you've had a tendancy to edit hastily and regret your edits: lying outright about ownership of an image and a relationship to a public figure, attacking me then declaring it wan't meant to be an attack, etc. Your feelings are getting in the way of your edits. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would remind you that the Wiki community is made up of all kinds of editors. I would also mention that, in the instance of the Hoglan quote, my purpose was to bolster that the quote was not sourced - my edit remark did not influence an addition to Wikipedia but an omission of something without reference. In fact, if there are quotes from Hoglan of dubious provenance, they certainly haven't been added by me and should be edited out. I am not too close to the subject, and simply do not agree with you. Folks with knowledge are encouraged on the one hand to contribute in areas they know about (which is mentioned on my user page), but being ever mindful of the issue of neutrality, which I always strive for. However, I am not challenging you personally and wish you well. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Book is not poorly sourced.
You don't really have a PhD do you?98.198.136.216 (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog, a PhD, Katie Couric's assistant or a lawyer. We can tell, however, when someone is a currently blocked annonymous editor using several identities. But back to the point.
 * As my edit summary made clear, I was not talking about the book. I was talking about the headline of the article on the website that misrepresents the book. Your addition relied on a headline. The headline said what you need it to say. However, the article does not present material supporting the claim that the book said that. You should also note, of course, that several other editors disagree with your interpretation. Take the hint and discuss the edit before restoring it again, once your block from this time around ends.
 * Alternatly, you may either present the argument that the website is a relaible source (it isn't) or pull quotes directly from the book and argue that the book is a reliable source. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories
This is answer to your comment just now at this article where you deleted in full a comment. I don't get it. McGeddon and others like Dayewalker (see him say so here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lisa_Miller_%28journalist%29) said it was the best venue for info. The Lisa Miller Newsweek article about the lottery draw of 666 the day after Obama's election. We're talking about two major organisations: the State Lottery run by the Illinois Gov and Newsweek. Both notable orgs that's granted. So maybe not conspiracy theory matter. But still too big to dismiss as insignificant.

Another matter is the coverage it got. The Lottery result was in the newspapers of the 6th of Nov. which was Obama's special victory edition. Newsweek doesn't make a piece unless it's notable and all of Illinois read this Lottery result that day when it was Obama's big day.

So, I don't know if you're experienced in Wikipedia editing but maybe you have an idea better than McGeddon's about the right appropriate venue for this information. Right now you're all passing the hot potatoe back and forth but that doesn't make it any easier. I'll take this anywhere it's right but you guys have to show some sense of help to me. After all that's what Wiki is about isn't it ? Help. It's not as if I'm peddling some snake-oil. This is perfectly legitimate info and I'm not making it up as I've amply demonstrated haven't I ?

Where does this go by your estimate ? If you can't find a better place for me, I'll put it back. But I'll copy this and put it on the Talk page first because one shouldn't put back something unless one talks about it and I wouldn't want to revert. The last addition was nto a revert because the previous person had agreed telling me how to do it which I did.

I find it quite comical to act as you peoples' punching ball and no one being able to decide where this info, which is legit, should go. It's like arguing parents. Also one thing, I got a message about correctly refrnecingadditions to articles from Wikipedia. The Lottery is perfectly referenced by the Newsweek article. And Newsweek is reputable I reckon don't you ? I also have the Lottery link to provide (The Lotto's the Illinois government that's quite reputable or is the Illinois government not reliable as a source ?) and that'll be in that now for future reference. I know you're all helping me and you want information to get out as that's Wikipedia's mission, so I thank you for that. Geiremann (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article in question is not about the lottery draw. It is about numerous theories, one of which involves the lottery draw. Numerous sources report the number drawn on that day. You, however, wish to report substantially more. You wish to report that 666 was drawn on that day and 666 is a number of magical significance in some Christian beliefs and the day in question was the day after Obama's election and this can be read as implying that the significance attached to the number attaches to Obama. One source reports that one unknown person believes this to be the case. This one unknown person's beliefs are simply trivial. Every day, in reliable newspapers around the world, random individuals' beliefs are reported (in letters to the editor, "person on the street" interviews, etc.). Their beliefs are not notable or articles such as those on Obama, Bush, Clinton..., various sporting events, lottery pages (which would report every day's winning numbers since the beginning of lotteries) etc. would be thousands of pages long and clogged with random thoughts from random people.
 * Where does this "information" go? I don't know, maybe your personal blog or e-mails you send. Heck, make it your Facebook status. All I can tell you is that based on the limited information presented in that brief article, there's nothing to add to Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does this "information" go? I don't know, maybe your personal blog or e-mails you send. Heck, make it your Facebook status. All I can tell you is that based on the limited information presented in that brief article, there's nothing to add to Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there
Well I'm here because you reverted my edit on Scream Bloody Gore page... Yes, it is true there is no real source for that, but Chuck Schuldiner himself stated that Sortilège is his favourite band, so I guess he was influenced by them. And if you listen to Amazone (1983) and Evil Dead (1987), intros are very similar. We can't really know if that is true because Chuck is dead, but thats why I putted that intros are similar because he was probably influnced. Anyway, I just wanted to prove you that there is some logic in it (still you are right, there is no real source). Thanks for your time --Guitar Shred (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree: there's no real source for that. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree: there's no real source for that. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL
I love how editors who have been on here a long time pull all their buddies into their... bouts. Think you put enough warnings on my page? 68.1.89.162 (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel you are being warned for reasons other than your edits, please follow one or more of the opions at Dispute resolution. Otherwise, drop it. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I will be sending an e-mail with you and your 2 buddy's names in it. Have a great day.68.1.89.162 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, Summer, nice to meet you! I don't think we've met, but we could make a nice cabal. I have a winter PhD! And you can step into my fuck-free zone anytime, haha. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid our cabal has been unmasked. Once he sends that e-mail, I'll be forced to climb the Reichstag (Spiderman costume optional). - SummerPhD (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Summer, that's neither here nor there--I have just discovered who AvdP is, and now I can't see straight anymore. And to think that we could speak Dutch fustian to each other, neither of us wearing a bra! I'm watching this vampire movie, come hell or high water. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * She's not my type and, for your sake, I hope I'm not hers. I can't even think "straight". - SummerPhD (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm purty darn goodlooking, if I say so myself, but I wasn't looking to compete. Do let me know when you decide to run for pope, if ever, and I'll come harass you and ask dumb questions. All the best! Drmies (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work
Dealing with personal attacks and vandalism. Bravo! :) InsideReverseOut (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BTW, that's a pretty unusual first edit to make. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it? I wouldn't know, seeing as how I'm new and all. I saw you on the Vampires Suck discussion board and read what that guy (whoever he was) was saying to you and your friends. Anyways, keep up the GREAT work!!!!!!! InsideReverseOut (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This guy's just somebody's sock. Check their contributions.  Favonian (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to paste a duck here, but I got hungry and ate it. Hey Favonian, why are a******s automatically boys? Can't girls be jerks too? I might email Jimbo about your sexism. Better yet, I'll have a sex change to prove you wrong! Drmies (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're both just upset because you're gay and I'm not. If it wasn't true, he couldn't say it. I'd guess this is a guy based on the sexual smears alone. Women can be jerks as well, they're just a bit more creative. :) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sheeeeit and now I'm gay to boot. I can't win. Hey, is Jordyn Wieber maybe your type? I basically copied some of your edit just now, just less creatively. Toodle pips! Drmies (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikes! I'm old enough to be her, um, young, kinda hip mother. I always made it a rule not to date anyone if I could remember anything I did the year they were born. Wieber was born while I was an undergrad and I didn't drink that much! - SummerPhD (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

<--I hope your undergraduate is sourced more reliably than her birthdate. Hmm...1995...it was hot in Alabama, I remember...taking a workshop on teaching Freshman comp...there was some drinking...I remember a Chinese guy farted really loud in the reading room in the library, or maybe that was 1996... Drmies (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm--Original Research on a movie that isn't out yet? Drmies (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. And here I am thinking that disruptive editing is a blockable offense. "Pretty please" doesn't even work with editors who don't engage in conversation, though I applaud your efforts to make this world a better place. Thanks for sticking with it. BTW, I want my daughters to become lesbians, but they're totally into princess-stuff. Any advice? Drmies (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Before launching Genesis International, you need to understand that a childhood obsessed with princesses and drenched in pink paint is not incompatable with later lesbianism. While I've never seen the much-feared conversion from "normal" (straight, right-wing Christian) to "homosexual" (LGBT, Hell-bound liberal), I have no reason to believe it would remove the Disney Princesses and pink tulle from your life. After all, Justin Bieber was raised as a straight girl. Look at her now. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Gay conversion
I saw some unverified stuff on Vampires Suck and had to think of you--but really, I want to tell you that my wife is thinking of starting a girl scout troop for my daughter to join! Yeah! That, like, triples the likelihood of her lesbian future! Drmies (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't bet on it. Our neighbors joke that they want us to "convert" their daughter so they can get away from Ni Hao, Kai-Lan, dress her in jeans and have less concern about boys in high school. While I see the appeal (ill-informed though it may be), it just isn't going to happen. This girl is straight beyond straight. Any cliche you can think of about girly-girls, she's all about. Given who her parents are, the closest thing to a lesbian they're likely to get is a Psych major who works with "at risk" children and (after a brief "experimental phase" in grad school) marries a sensative guy who works in community development. Make peace with the Disney Princesses (though you might at least skew towards the frog princess one). Learn to like pink cupcakes. Realize that dresses aren't all bad. I know you dream of your daughter, dressed in a tux, marrying a school bus driving woman who looks like Chloë Sevigny with multiple piercings and tatoos. Statistically, it ain't gonna happen. My wife and I do not have lots of tatoos, human services jobs, vegan diets and mullets any more than all straight guys have obsessions with trucks, guns and trucks with gun racks. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no, that was not my dream--cute and dainty is fine, as long as she can help work on my motorcycle. Oh, I just saw who Chloe Sevigny is, whoa. She looks a lot like my kid, haha, but I disapprove of tattoos, lest anyone doubt that I'm the man of the house, ahem (I'm not allowed to have a gun--my wife wears those pants). But thanks for your advice! Now I gotta go and make some cupcakes. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Fox News Channel appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. JahnTeller07 (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note the "in use" tags added to the article and section. You are editing while my work is in progress. "When the tags are removed it will be time for you to edit, Grasshopper." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * JahnTeller07 has been indefinitly blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * JahnTeller07 has been indefinitly blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah
He kinda seemed to be the type, as he was involved in discussions w/o first acting like a newb. Soxwon (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey summer...
I was wondering, are you one of the people that can run that program to see my internet signature? Other editors are saying that this is not my first account, but I want to show them that I'm not who they say I am. If you're not, who can I ask to run that program? At least give me the benefit of the doubt until you run the program. Grignard4120 (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I can't run a check user. However, when the behavior is obvious, it doesn't matter if they've found a meatpuppet or a new connection. Stupid is as stupid does. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The behavior is not obvious though...my posts are being deleted because they say I'm someone I'm not...this is very frustrating because it means I will not be able to make any suggestions (controversial or otherwise) without them being immediately reverted. Can you refer to me someone I can ask to run a checkuser on me?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grignard4120 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your behavior so far says you are a sock. I'm betting you'll be blocked quite soon. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you believe that I'm that person then run a check! Please, I beg you to, because then I will finally be left alone. 03:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grignard4120 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm betting you will be blocked without a check user. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Then how in the world can I get someone to run a checkusing on me? Grignard4120 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grignard4120 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming to you for advice on how to prove my innocence...why are you treating me like this without any evidence that I did NEthing wrong? Grignard4120 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grignard4120 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked as a duck, 3:31, 6 August 2010. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

ETF External Link - deleted
Hi there, you removed an external link I added to the Exchange Traded Funds page and I was wondering why. The page I linked to is information on what an ETF is that I found very useful when I was learning about ETFs. Jonnydrussell (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)jonnydrussellJonnydrussell (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a particular problem with the site itself, although I don't really know enough about it to say it's a reliable source either. However, we specifically do not list as external links sites that are already linked as sources in the article. Please see #15 under WP:ELNO. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the info - I hadn't realised the site was linked as a source. Exactly where is that link? Thanks. Jonnydrussell (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)jonnydrussellJonnydrussell (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment, it's note 24. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah - so it is. Odd reference to have on there. I believe it would be more useful to people to have access to an area on that site where they can learn about ETFs, rather than reading an article that is out of date. Would you concur? Jonnydrussell (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)jonnydrussellJonnydrussell (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

UGAdawgs2010
I think UGAdawgs2010 dropped you a line on his talk page...just FYI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.181.90 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee thanks, you old dog. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

About the "Molly Ringwald" talk page
The reason I put the suggestion there was because I nearly run away from My computer evertime I see the 2007 pic of Molly Ringwald. I was trying to say in my twisted way of humor, that somebody at least add a picture of her before... (Music from Shower scene starts to play) - Some Dude You&#39;ve Never Known (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Are You Watching Me?

About "Talk:Malware"
I was clearing a question up about that how Windows is very prone to Malware, Viruses, etc. (It is the Most Popular Computer in History), but that while Linex may be less prone to such Viruses, it is one of the least popular computers on the market and that Viruses are designed on a daily basis and that no matter what computer You're using, You're going to get one sooner or later. - Some Dude You&#39;ve Never Known (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're getting the warnings for a reason. Your explanations do not negate the issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is to stop warning me about "Using Wikipedia as a Chat Forum" when I'm explaining something (even if you can't read it and see My dash of humor in it). I can clearly see You will be following me around (Like My 8th Grade English Teacher), but understand my style of humor so You don't Attack Me (Like My 8th Grade English Teacher) when I give an anwser to a question. - Some Dude You&#39;ve Never Known (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles If you wish to stop receiving warnings for using talk pages as forums, you will need to stop using talk pages as forums.


 * Your feelings about the subjective value of editing classic films, celebrities supporting causes and the subjective merit of the causes, relative malware risks on different platforms, relative subjective hotness of a celebrity over the years (and ), the relative price of some toys, the relative subjective quality of a celebrity's work over time, your subjective evaluation of death tolls, etc. are simply not welcome on Wikipedia.


 * If you continue to use talk pages as forums, you will receive escalating warnings until you are eventually blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey You
You know What? I'm tired of You following me around Wikipedia. You re-edit My edits like they're in another language, You revert edits that are just fine and You act as if I'm a petty criminal. I've tried My best to very polite about this, but you don't care, You just want to see much I'll stand. You not even going to read this and then You'll have someone block me for "disrupive editing" and then You'll be happy. I accept defeat and hope you're finally happy and will just stop. - Some Dude You&#39;ve Never Known (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles If you wish to stop receiving warnings for using talk pages as forums, you will need to stop using talk pages as forums.
 * If you continue to use talk pages as forums, you will receive escalating warnings until you are eventually blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Summer, have a look at the history of Sex-positive feminism. I've left Chuck Norris, above, a note on his talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, What do I have to do to get it through that I'm not using Wikipedia as a forum. Oh, and Drmies, very funny, but if I was Chuck Norris, I would have just roundhouse kicked everybody in the face and been on My way. - Some Dude You&#39;ve Never Known (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your forum postings, as detailed above, make it clear that you were far more interested in chatting than improving articles. Additionally, looking at your edits as a whole, of your first 30 edits, 27 of them were chat on talk pages. 3 were edits incorrectly attacking another editor for "vandalism". Now, after 44 edits, one edit attempted to contribute to an article. Unfortunately, it was repeating wikilinks from the body of an article in the "See also" section. If you would like to contribute to the project, please consider signing up for Adopt-a-user. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to keep trying to tell you that I was not using this site as a forum, mainly because after I've explained it clearly, You don't seem to listen. I ain't going to keep going on if I can't convince you of the truth. You have also followed me around because I've noticed you made edits to nearly ever page I've even looked at. You have Won. - Some Dude You&#39;ve Never Known (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Elevator photography
Please don't give away any of my personal info. Plus, in the links I have, that's not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airplanegod (talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)