User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive 1

ref tags
Remember when using inline, make sure the article itself contains notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I've worked carefully to make all references follow the same wikiformat and added the article to WikiProject_Philadelphia.  I also invite you to join the project, thusly:


 * - CobaltBlueTony 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Non statutory female on male rape
I've listed the page for deletion. Feel free to join the discussion. -Etafly 18:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Constant deletion is easy but is it always justified?
Look, it seems you have good intentions and you agree to devote a lot of your time to this site. But it also seems most of what you do is deleting/censoring (depends on the interpretation) stuff. You have to realize that if you enter 100 articles and delete stuff, than with the click of the mouse you delete more than 100 people's maybe days of work. You also rarely use notifications templates or talk pages first, but just delete without blinking, sometimes almost full articles (and only then report in the talk pages). Also, your reasons are pretty wild sometimes, to say the least.

For example, you might put a certain warning template that may not belong there, and then delete everything that obviously crossed it. Or you might delete a whole citation and then delete everything that was based on it. But a better example is that it seems you entered basically every article that stated an adult actress' large breasts were used as fetish, and deleted said statement because..."there's no proof she's a fetishist"? I don't even understand what that means. The point is movie makers casted such an actress, and fans watched her, due to a very certain quality about her. As an objective encyclopedia editor, you have no choice but to realize that is the cold hard fact and the fetish part. What does it have to do with the actress' personal life? I doubt you actually believe your own reason for deleting such a thing. But I digress - sure, deleting others' work is easier, but - since I do think you have good intentions - why would you not devote more time to actually add your own work and less to censor others'? -Kumarules 20:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh. For a brand new user, she sure seems to know all about you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting that ze suddenly appears out of nowhere and hir first three edits are hitting me here and on another article, referring to what I've done with another article. By "interesting", of course, I mean suspicious.
 * Mdsummermsw 21:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And incidentally, lcw, take a quick look at WP:BLP. You'll see it applied to those same articles very soon. - Mdsummermsw 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My conclusions above are pretty obvious, but suit yourself. To quote the editing policy - "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of deleting, try to [a whole list of alternatives]". Also, "With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion".
 * As for your accusation here, I'd also direct you to the site's etiquette guildeine: "Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back...If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that the person hates you, that the person thinks you're stupid, that the person themself is stupid, or that the person is mean." Now what about my actual questions? -Kumarules 18:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The bodies of strawmen are piling up today!
 * You quote "the editing policy". Actually, you quote selected sections of the several styles mentioned in the policy as if it were the policy. You "forgot" the parts that disagree with you. "'Instead of deleting, try to [a whole list of alternatives]'" Yeah, it says that, then says "Exceptions include: [a whole list of exceptions]". "Also, 'With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion'." Yup, but also "If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that." and "be bold in updating pages. Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we would make little progress....to edit radically or not will often depend on the context—which seems reasonable enough. There is a place for all of these attitudes on Wikipedia."
 * "most of what you do is deleting/censoring....You also rarely use notifications templates or talk pages first" I know from our previous interactions Oops, I forgot, you're new. I've had recent interactions with another user (who someone else tagged as a sockpuppet) who put some of that content in those pages, then started throwing around charges of censoring without polling first. But I honestly do not see "more than 100 people's maybe days of work" in all of the boob measurements, descriptions of boobs, stories of underage nudity and labeling a non-porn actress as a porn actress. And of that, what precious "information" did we lose? Well, now we know she's best known for a movie, not her boobs. I guess that's a push. I did delete "Some feel it is surprising she did not have a more successful career, as her beautiful, buxom nude figure in Blame It on Rio made the already adult yet flat-chested Demi Moore (pre-breast implants) look pale in comparison." Oh, and I changed her back from being listed as a porn star.
 * "...with the click of the mouse you delete more than 100 people's maybe days of work. You also rarely use notifications templates or talk pages first..." We've discussed this before.
 * "you might put a certain warning template that may not belong there, and then delete everything that obviously crossed it." Warning templates show policies. If something "obviously crossed" a policy, how is it the template "may not belong there"?
 * "...it seems you entered basically every article that stated an adult actress' large breasts were used as fetish,..." The articles did not state the breasts were "used as a fetish". If they had, that might actually be content. Rather, the link from "(adjective) (adjective) breasts" was to an article on breast fetishism. Additionally, a number of the pages in question were not for "adult actresses", though many of them used that info box, to allow measurements in the basic info.
 * "...and deleted said statement because...'there's no proof she's a fetishist'? I don't even understand what that means. The point is movie makers casted such an actress, and fans watched her, due to a very certain quality about her. As an objective encyclopedia editor, you have no choice but to realize that is the cold hard fact and the fetish part." Yeah, the movie makers cast her in a role. Fine, no dispute. Fans watched her. Yup. But they watched her "due to a very certain quality about her"?
 * "...and deleted said statement because...'there's no proof she's a fetishist'? I don't even understand what that means....I doubt you actually believe your own reason for deleting such a thing." You don't understand my reason and don't think I believe my reason?
 * "As an objective encyclopedia editor, you have no choice but to realize that is the cold hard fact and the fetish part." As an objective encyclopedia editor, I realize that John Huges' Sixteen Candles was not a fetish film. I also don't recall most Fellini films being of the fetish variety ("breast" or "fat").
 * Here, for posterity's sake, is some of the valuable information I deleted: "is famous for her breasts", "is best known for her large natural breasts", "her commanding figure and natural large breasts", "known especially for her prodigious breasts", "claim to fame is her kissing chutzpah and her enormous breasts", "famous for her pendulous natural breasts", "best known for her 73 inch bosom", "best known for her large natural breasts", "known for her large natural breasts", "best known and remembered as the large and huge breasted tobacconist in Federico Fellini's", etc.
 * If you would like to add reliable sources to those, that would be great. As it is, though, WP:BLP tells me they should be "removed immediately and without discussion".
 * Mdsummermsw 20:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As for 8., John Huges' Sixteen Candles being a fetish film...? No, but didn't it have a character whose all purpose was to be a you know what fetish for one guy and thus make the audience identify or laugh? Also, enough studies and exhibits were made about Fellini's drawings and movies (especially from the 1970s) presenting if not being centered around said types. -Kumarules 16:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reliable source that verifies that that character existed for that reason, it might be appropriate to include in the article. However, the original inclusion did not cite a source. In fact, it didn't say anything about why breast fetishism was being included in reference to that character. Instead, it was a deceptive link. Ditto Fellini. I am not here to argue Fellini or Huges' intent (which I don't know). Rather, I am asking that the material in the articles be verifiable with a reliable source. - Mdsummermsw 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, now you're being professional and I see your point. -Kumarules 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Clifton High School (New Jersey) Third Opinion
I wanted to thank you for your third opinion at Clifton High School (New Jersey). While I am glad that you concur with my view, I want to express my appreciation for the time and effort you expended to analyze the underlying issues and to provide a clear and concise explanation of how and why the various Wikipedia guidelines and policies come into play. This was well-researched and well-written, and I hope to be able to quote some of your analysis in the future and to use this in making notable vs. non-notable decisions. Thanks again for your time and effort. This is exactly what third opinions should be. Alansohn 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Religiosity and intelligence
An article that you have been involved in editing, Religiosity and intelligence, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Religiosity and intelligence (2nd nomination). Thank you. WotherspoonSmith 13:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Vinth
The rain in Spain.... nicely spotted. By Jove, I think you've got it. DS 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sixteen Candles
Hi -

The IMDB reference clearly documents the R --> PG on appeal statement.

The other reference (Commonsense) documents the content statments. Actually, a ref isn't formally required to keep this since it is verifiable (by watching the movie), but there it is.

"Both versions" isn't mine, but I took it to mean "both the version that was originally rated R and the version that was finally rated PG". This wouldn't necessarily imply that more than one released version exists. If you can clarify this aspect, please do.

I think you are confused because the Commonsense link also shows the film being rated R; this may be because there is at least one video release being marketed stating an R rating (as I added in the recent change). Jgm 15:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've copied this to talk:Sixteen Candles to discuss further. - -- Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Mimzy thanks
Just wanted to thank you for alerting me to my NPOV issues on The Last Mimzy article. I am embarassed I missed the bias in my phrasing. Jim Dunning | talk  00:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Too Young for a Girlfriend and A Walk in the Park (Jordan)
Hey there, thanks for nominating these for deletion! I was doing a sweep of the old AfDs when I noticed that these hadn't been closed, so I went ahead and deleted the pages and closed them. In the future, could you please list related pages for deletion together? The instructions are here. Thanks again and keep up the good work! GlassCobra 23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop niggling me
I got your note about the edit summary. Don't be a putz. Stop your obstructionist actions on the Mummer articles. I've tried to stay neitral, but you're now being a pain and not working constructively. --evrik (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, niggling which is better than the treatment you've been giving Salsa. What, did he hurt your feelings? --evrik (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about the article now? --evrik (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:uw-test1&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. —Mears man 03:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cassie Still
Keep an eye out for "Yung D." as well. Seems to be the same person adding it. I took a scrub-brush out yesterday, and eliminated 12 references to him.Kww (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Since you seem to be tracking him (from your "vandalism" section), I found references to Yung D in I already removed the text, and didn't bother to go looking for the edit that added the bad info.Kww (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Arista_Records_artists
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Night_%28Diddy_song%29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remy_Ma
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Bubble_Gum
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Kisses
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prepare_or_Beware:_Da_Mafia_Massacre
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trina
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasheeda_Buckner_discography
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotize_Minds
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Steele

Valea Pietrei Mici
The article is part of the Wikipedia Rivers project. For rivers there are criteria for notability, every river, however small qualifying for an article. For the time being it is just a stub until the entire hydrologic network is defined. After that it will be expanded. 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

evolutionary psychologists
Hi Mdsummermsw - You removed a number of redlinked evo psychologists from the List of evolutionary psychologists, stating in your edit summaries "not notable". Are you familiar with the field such that you can state, definitively, that these people are not notable, or were simply removing them based on them being red-linked? I question because, for instance, you didn't know Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's notability, and she's gotten quite a bit of mainstream media attention even as a scholar. --Lquilter (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For all such lists ("List of graduates from school X", "List of people from City N", etc.) there are no hard and fast rules for what level of notability is required for inclusion. While it clearly is not all "People from New York City" or "Vegans", there is no clear line.
 * I work on the following assumptions:
 * 1) If the person has an article on wikipedia that states they are a member of the category in question, they are in.
 * 2) If they are red-linked, there must be a source that unambiguously establishes their notability.
 * The ones I removed in this instance were red-linked, failing #1.
 * The sources for the others were mere membership lists, establishing that they work in the field, but nothing more. (Imagine if we accepted that level of notability for dentists or actors! Huge, useless lists would result.)

Mdsummermsw 13:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the warning?
You sent me a warning about a comment/edit I made on the rape page. But you failed tell me what you felt was objectionable. The only thing I can see is where a person suggested a sub-heading for "pooper rape" and I told him to grow up. Did you actually bother to send a warning for that?Niteshift36 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! Sorry, wrong user. Fixed it:
 * It's all good. I normally wouldn't put something like that in, but I didn't think we were THAT tight around here.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Louisi-animal
Do you think the source is enough to remove the tag? --Topspinslams (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What else should be done, and btw it's not illegal. --Topspinslams (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Copied discussion to talk:Louisi-animal for further discussion. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)