User talk:SummerPhD

Incidents, accidents, hints, allegations and things left unsaid

1) Questions you ask here will be answered here.

2) Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things: ~~~~

3) This is no number 3.

4) I did not delete "your" page or block you. I am not an admin. I may have suggested that the page should be deleted or that you should be blocked.

4a) You do not have a First Amendment right to edit Wikipedia.

5) I don't care if you did hear it from your best friend that her next-door neighbor's cousin knows this guy who once dated someone who went to high school with a roadie for the band, we still need a reliable, verifiable source.

6) The blog/myspace/youtube/sign on a telephone pole you read is not a reliable, verifiable source.

7) You are free to assume I am stupid, lazy or "out to get you". We probably just disagree.

8) Personal attacks are a blockable offense. Sometimes the block is even enforced.

10) Try not to be a low to moderate level dick. If you must be offensive and/or boorish, please go for the gold.

Berklee Alisa Edit

Thanks for the help...wasn't sure I should add the New York Times Bestseller bit, but decided to put it in anyway. Thanks for tidying it up. :-)

~usmarinesjz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmarinesjz (talk • contribs) 17:00, September 18, 2012‎

Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Binders full of women is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 07:41, June 29, 2013‎

Ancient astronauts

See Talk:Ancient astronauts#Nation of Islam - you may wish to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 13:04, July 5, 2013‎

talkback

Hello, SummerPhD. You have new messages at Talk:Wonga.com.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybec (talk • contribs) 01:06, October 16, 2013‎

Barbie Cancelled Film

Hey there, my friend! Thanks for editing the "Cancelled Film" in Barbie (film series). Anyway, I made some edits to make the sentences more clear. I hope you will not change it again. Thank you. :)

Here are some other page where you can find the trademark controversy of the Sleeping Beauty:

• The Sleeping Beauty (ballet)#Trademark controversy
• Aurora (Disney)#Trademark.

You can check them out and compare with the Barbie (film series) page. Thank you. :) Bianca Anne Martins (talk) 12:55 PM, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Is KCParent a reliable source?

It's not a blog. 108.47.207.75 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that WordGirl's original target was South Park? 108.47.207.75 (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, shoot, that was actually Pucca! Anyways, the "Whoa - a dog from the old days! That dog is probably dead now" quote from Two Brains Quartet sounds like black comedy. Even TVTropes knows! 108.47.207.75 (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"Only a family of imbeciles has a television." - Tobey

"Whoa, we're not imbeciles!" - Becky

"And how would you know?" - Tobey

"Imbecile is another word for idiot. We're not idiots. We only watch PBS." - Becky

"Hmm, interesting... someone my age who actually has a brain in her head." - Tobey

"Thanks. I think." - Becky

^^ Sounds derogatory to most parents, right? Maybe black comedy? 108.47.207.75 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The blog, written by a teen blogger, is a blog. Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. w^{L<speak·check>} 06:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurauth (talk • contribs) 19:28, March 8, 2015‎}}

Maurauth: Please be sure to use {{subst:uw-3rr}} next time and sign your talk page comments by end them with ~~~~. It makes it a lot easier for all involved.

Thanks, of course, for the warning. I stopped at my third revert and am awaiting confirmation from AI/V on your apparent vandalism before reverting further. Now would be a good time to provide reliable sources for your "Big guy" and "Little guy" nicknames, as well as the direct quote of "bigger guy, for you" in place of the reliably sourced info you are replacing. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Maurauth has been indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Miranda Lambert Reference Links

Hi SummerPhD,

I added a link about the Miranda Lambert-Rams Truck partnership detailing the campaign plans, the current video, etc. I'm not seeing why it's spam or not welcome. I thought it gave a great update since the other source was older on the topic. Music Row, Taste of Country, CMT, The Boot, etc. have reference links all over the place. Not seeing why Country Fancast is being excluded. Can you shed some light on this or give me tips on how to better adhere to what you're looking for? Thanks! ~ Snetemeyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B35A:3BD0:CC68:17CE:401E:B401 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE sign in when you edit. As discussed with your edits as SNetemeyer, your website is not a reliable source, it is an unofficial fan site, specifically excluded at WP:SPS. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi SummerPhD,

Is there a way I can prove out that Country Fancast is a country music news site (like The Boot, Taste of Country etc.) to you? Country Fancast is owned and ran by the media company MobSoc Media. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, etc. and am trying to learn more. Thanks! SNetemeyer (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC) edits as SNetemeyer

Well, you have an uphill battle, to be sure. First of all, it is clear you are an involved editor. Your first edits to Wikipedia were adding the same site as a link across a half-dozen articles. Failing that, you decided to try the site as a source. Failing that, you want to know how you can prove the site meets our criteria. You seem to be here to promote the website, not build an encyclopedia.

Next, we have the site itself. On the surface, we have obvious problems. The most recent link you used[1] is apparently a press release, clearly not an independent reliable source. Going directly to http://countryfancast.com/miranda-lambert took me to an article that certainly reads like a fan site. Well, let's check the author[2]: "Sarah Netemeyer - Sarah takes deep interest in pop culture, societal trends, and Chinese food. Mindy Kaling is her imaginary best friend and mentor. She can often be found politely ignoring people while reading a book or passionately discussing 'Game of Thrones' theories." It isn't The New York Times. Heck, it isn't Entertainment Weekly. It's a fansite.

Here's the meat of the matter: For external links, your site "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." The link you added is "mainly intended to promote a website". It fits numerous criteria at WP:ELNO and should not be listed as an external link.

As a source: Is it an "independent reliable source"? Well, press releases are certainly not independent. We can't really use them for much of anything beyond very basic information and we don't need to link to a fansite to find them. This leaves us with the articles. My golden rule is that reliable sources rarely use exclamation points. At the moment, your site's main page has four headlines I can see without scrolling (a rough approximation of "above the fold"). All four have exclamation points. One ends in two ("YOU Gave Brad Paisley a YouTube Award!!") Why is this the hallmark of a fansite? Because fansites are not designed to tell you everything meaningful, they are designed to tell you that "your" celebrity is the greatest person alive. We don't get new albums, award nominations and promotional fluff ("Joe Blow gives back to the community by spending an hour at a hospital shaking hands and posing for pictures") mixed with drunk driving arrests, tax problems, artists dropped by labels and tours cancelled due to poor ticket sales. Instead, it's all good news. GREAT new!! ("Garth Brooks Talks About His Next Album!" is one step away from "Carrie Underwood Had Corn Flakes for Breakfast!") While it's fine for fans to read about "Carrie Underwood's Baby Name Dilemma" or whatever, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, based on independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

IP editor removing sources at Stormbreaker (film)

What are we supposed to do about that IP editor? I'm going to request page protection on Stormbreaker (film), but I'm a bit worried that any concerns about removing sources will just be ignored again at ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I would try to address the problematic editor before protecting the article. Last I saw, I had given them a final warning for removing reliable sources without discussion or meaningful explanation. The next step would be a brief block to get their attention, followed by longer blocks as needed. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that it will be resolved at AIV, as I've seen a few similar reports declined there recently. I guess I can ask Tokygirl79 for advice. She seems to have come out of hibernation. Maybe she'll have an idea of what to do next or if a block is warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello Summerphd

Thank you for your work on the Manic Pixie Dream Boy topic although I totally disagree with you ;)

I suppose de gustibus non est disputandum.

Anyway: I started a new talk about the subject and I would greatly appreciate your contribution, because frankly I don't understand why you just deleted my entire contribution. I would understand though if it was because it was a bit meagre on the footnote, but then you could have pointed out...

ciao

Dddorian grey (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"The trouble with a kitten is that eventually it becomes a cat." - Ogden Nash

Thanks for the sentence improvement, and an edit question

Hi. Thanks for your recent edit at junk food; "gorges" definitely improves the encyclopedic tone. I have a question about the removal of the word "organic" to describe a healthy food lifestyle in 1976. In your edit summary, you say, '"organic" in 1976 is not "organic" in 2015 (VERY different)' - I'm not clear as to that difference? To my understanding, the most visible distinction of "organic" in regard to food (based around the use of man-made, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides), as used in the song lyrics, has been essentially the same for several decades.

Popularly, Rodale had been publishing an organic gardening magazine and books at least since the 1950s, and the whole pesticide concern was blown up with the publication of Silent Spring in the early 1960s. I found this handy University of California Timeline: Cultivating a Movement, An Oral History Series on Organic Farming and Sustainable Agriculture on California's Central Coast which seems to illustrate the point: the first US organic certification programs were launched, in Vermont and California, in 1971, and so forth. I'm naturally curious as to your distinction! Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the song mentions "organic cooking" once, but is mostly focused on a healthy food/junk food dichotomy. Today, we have restaurants specializing in all organic food, serving nothing but burgers, fries and milk shakes. Really.

"Organic" in the U.S. in the 1970s meant different things to different people, ranging from the early, local certification standards that were forerunners of the current, national standard to Anthroposophy-based ideas and biodynamic agriculture. (My personal recollections from the '70s involve a neighbor whose "organic" philosophy was based on "unity" with the "brown peoples of the world" (expressed through brown rice, brown bread and brown eggs) and some gardening practices based on "wholeness".) Rather than possibly give a wring idea here, I think leaving out the word "organic" sidesteps the possible issue. YMMV and I welcome discussion. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoned reply! I'm not arguing for restoring the word "organic" at this point; however, since you welcome discusssion, purely for conversation's sake, the reasoning behind your intention to avoid misrepresenting what organic may have meant "then" to readers familiar with the "organic" of today doesn't seem that solid.

For one, our perception of junk food is equally different today, in the 1970s, it hadn't been widely demonized, even outlawed, it wasn't yet associated with health...pandemics, and so forth. But we mention Twinkies and KFC because they illustrate the timeline and establish a historical connection with the essentially same products that exist today. In the same way, while a uniform concept of organic food was, as you say, probably not pervasive, it was still easily understood from the well-publicized basics, the no nasty chemicals, natural foodie/health food, purist/elitist, and back-to-the-land/hippie connotations, which is essentially what many people still think of organic today. (And I'm sure we can still find a few folks in solidarity with "brown peoples" as their primary organic-eating lifestyle; I think that's sometimes called fair trade.)

The other and possibly more interesting aspect is speculation that "Junk Food Junkie," a low-quality recording of a novelty song poking fun at foodie health food nuts, in fact became a hit because it marked a fundamental shift in American food awareness, the tipping point, the point in time when the idea first hit the collective consciousness that there might be an organized business force, concertedly trying to make us eat more of their high-profit food-like products at any cost, simply in order to make money. For that reason, using more evocative, resonant terms, like "organic diet," "natural diet," or "health food diet," instead of the very vanilla "healthy diet," would more accurately represent the dichotomy as it was at the time both intended and actually being perceived.

I do get your point, though. Carefully considering the lyrics, while all of the healthful food references seem completely up-to-date, the hippie/natural foodie references, although also consistent with our 21st century neo-hippies and sustainable foodies, suggest that the caricature of the Mr. Natural the songwriter has in mind may be quite different from the "average" foodie at the farmers' market today. Although I'm sure better historical research would quickly decide the whole thing.

Anyhow...I'm a lateral thinker, not a deep one, so that's really all I've got. But if you reply, I will read it with interest... :) --Tsavage (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Reading this just now reminded me of our (kinda lopsided) discussion here. From this account, it would seem that by 1976, the idea of organic food was well in the mainstream public eye, and referred to what seems pretty much like the organic food we talk about today. From Green Culture: An A-to-Z Guide, p. 334 (with my emphasis):

"Several mainstream publications of the 1970s alerted the general public to the effects of industrial food on the nation’s health, particularly degenerative diseases. Leading titles include Consumer Beware! Your Food and What’s Been Done to It (1970) by Beatrice Hunter, James Tumer’s The Chemical Feast ( 1970), Gene Marine’s Food Pollution: The Violation of Our Inner Ecology (1971), and Diet for a Small Planet (1971) by Frances Moore Lappé, which uniquely linked diet not only to health but to ecological and social justice concerns as well.

"Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, growing consumer demand led to increasing numbers of farms claiming to produce organic foods. With the backing of scientific inquiry such as the work of biologist John Todd and the New Alchemy Institute beginning in 1969, organic foods were gaining a new respectability. The movement was presented by maintream media such as the New York Times and Newsweek with a new orthodoxy that challenged earlier counterculture associations. More health food and cooperative markets appeared in response to heightened public interest in organic and whole foods. Given an increasingly affluent, educated clientele, these markets began to look more like upscale, mainstream supermarkets.

"By the early 1970s, in California alone there were more than 300 health food stores and 22 restaurants selling organic foods. One of these was Alice Water’s Chez Panisse in Berkeley, which she founded on the premise of providing wholesome, fresh, locally produced (with later emphasis on organic) foods. Her work spurred the “California” style of cuisine, marked by fresh, whole, and local foods, that has since become popular throughout the United States."

I've actually been reading quite a bit about organics in the States back then, 1960s-70s, and it seems it really blew up from the start of the 1970s, not only organic food itself, but the idea of commercial organic farming. By 1971, Rodale estimated there were 10,000 organic farmers in the US; in 1975, the Sunday New York Times ran a front page story, "Organic Farms Found Efficient." Anyhow, in case you were interested! -Tsavage (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Necks and Beards

You're a neck-beard, right? Not and actual PhD, but some guy who spends a lot of time at home? Am I right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:9180:604:219:D1FF:FEA8:25F0 (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a personal attack? Please try again. This is neither much of an attack nor very personal. Yeah, sure, I'm a twenty-something hipster shut-in in Des Moines. Let's go with that. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct

Hello, at the risk of having you again bite off my head, I am respectfully requesting your help on the New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct article. This article actually lists "controversies" which have had no official finding of police misconduct, such as a lawsuit settlement, conviction, termination, or even so much as a suspension. Listing such frivolous cases detracts from the truly egregious cases that belong on the page. It seems that liberals are controlling the referenced aticle and unnecessarily damaging the reputation of the NYPD. Can you delete the "controversies" and only allow the major misconduct cases to remain?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I would highly recommend that you leave out discussion of who you think is doing what to the article and why in all talk page discussions. ("It seems that liberals are controlling the referenced aticle and unnecessarily damaging the reputation of the NYPD.") It is needlessly divisive and won't really help resolve the situation.

I'll take a look at the the article. I can't promise anything, of course. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll sit this one out. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Linda Fiorentino birthdate

She was born in 1958, not 1960. Imdb tends to be more of a reliable source than wikipedia. However, here is a reliable source for her actual birthday -

http://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Fiorentino

Thanks!

Ax 3/29/15 184.78.168.124 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

1960 is reliably sourced in our article. IMDb and fr.wikipedia are not reliable sources. Please address further questions on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Why?

SpongeBob and Arthur DID come before 2000 and they ARE still making episodes, yet you claim it as "unsourced"? B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T! 108.47.207.75 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they did start prior to 2000 and are still producing episodes. However, your edit also claimed that they are "animated sitcoms" and that they are two of the five most popular. I see nothing to indicate that this is the case. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

One category says they are sitcoms. 108.47.207.75 (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, unsourced categories say they are animated sitcoms. You added that they are "animated sitcoms" and that they are two of the five most popular. This is still unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

108.47.207.75 has been blocked for one month. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Saving Christmas

I am the cinematographer for the film under discussion. I wish to have my name permanently with held from the project, because I want nothing to do with it, and I would prefer to not have my name associated with it. What more can I do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypatch (talk • contribs) 04:17, April 2, 2015‎

You are about to be blocked for edit warring. You will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page once your block expires. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sofia the First music

Hi, I see you reverted my changes to the Sofia the First page. You mention that the edits are "unexplained and unlikely." They are unexplained because I am a new Wikipedia user and did not know I had to explain my changes. They are not "unlikely" since I am the music composer for the series. For verification, please visit my page at www.kevinkliesch.com, or visit my agent's website at www.soundtrk.com, or simply watch the credits of a Sofia the First episode. Mike Himelstein is another Disney composer, but not on Sofia the First. Richard M. Sherman was a famous Disney composer 50 years ago. John Kavanaugh should hold the title of songwriter and music director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Kliesch (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Bunga bunga

Do you have any evidence that this term is or has been used anywhere but Italy, or in discussing Berlusconi? deisenbe (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Per the source cited in the article:"Silvio—I call him Silvio and not daddy as he would like to be called—told me he'd copied that expression, bunga-bunga, from Gaddafi," Ruby told a reporter for La Repubblica newspaper referring to the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. "It's a rite of his African harem." - SummerPhD (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Rip Taylor

Thank you for the heads up about not filling out the edit feature on Rip Taylor's listing when I deleted a paragraph about Patty Duke and him on "Super Password". I just went back, removed the paragraph in question again, and filled out the edit feature as you advised. The reason I removed the paragraph in the first place was because I strongly felt when I read it that the incident described in the paragraph - which seemed to me to be the LONGEST paragraph in his biography - was of a truly minor, trivial incident that added absolutely nothing important or insightful about the individual's life. Genarians (talk)

Problematic Texas IP editor

Hey Summer, a brief note re your warning here. This user has been brought to ANI a couple of times [3][4] Nothing was done the first time, though (Solarra warned the user in the second case). The last time they were brought to ANI (by me) it didn't result in any sanction because other issues came up that required more pressing attention. I'm not quite sure what to do here; the user is problematic.

Typically what happens is they completely fall off my radar, and then like here I notice some edit warring with pissy edit summaries, (like here where they write "I don't know why you are continuously fighting over something but to be honest it's not worth fighting over it" as they reinstate the content they are fighting over.) Then I later notice that they're removing warnings from their talk page with more pissy summaries, and eventually it becomes clear, "Oh, it's that editor."

Since they didn't seem to get your warning and called your warning "foolish", I reminded them of BLPPRIVACY but my warning was predictably not well received. My feeling is that in due time I'll have to drag them to ANI again. I figured I'd at least share some of the backstory with you. :) Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Drop Bear - valid edits

Please debate your issues on the drop bear talk page before undoing my good faith edits. I have not vandalised the page, my initial edits did not change the facts, just slights restructured the first 2 para for my subsequent addition of references and further development of the article. You also undid well referenced subsequent additions. I also intent to further develop this article. So please do not vandalize my work. This is a valid topic for Australian popular culture. I am Australian, if you are not Australian, please do some research before taking action. (I'm sick of defenders of the wiki faith who react without due cause) Regards˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD not WP:BRRRRRD. Yes, "Australian culture" might want to "keep the surprise". This, however, is an encyclopedia. Yes, they are mentioned in a novel/movie/TV show/comic strip/knock-knock joke/etc. We do not list trivial occurrences in popular culture. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

Regarding SummerPhD's edit here:

The intro to the Ku Klux Klan article is very sanitized to the point of being inaccurate. Per WP:Bold, I support the changes made by User:Runikmehrotra. Similarly, I had to add the word "racism" a few weeks ago, as it was nowhere to be found in the intro section of the article (and is currently only found elsewhere once in the article). Take a look at Encyclopedia Britannica. I realize we're not EB, but it can provide a valid frame of reference. Or take a look at encyclopedia.com

Let's be blunt: it appears likely that white supremacists constantly make subtle edits this article to keep it from describing the KKK in any sort of negative light, gradually whittling away at edits that don't sound "historical". Again, I think WP:Bold urges us to not be so protective of the status quo, especially in situations such as these.Strom (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's continue discussion here. Strom (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As this is about article content, I have responded on the article talk page. Suffice it to say my revert was based on the need to keep strongly worded additions to the lede well-sourced and clearly worded. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits to the Keith Ferrazzi Bio Page

Hi SummerPHD,

First, full disclosure I am a new employee working for Keith Ferrazzi, and in my research I discovered that his page was missing a lot of information about his career, writings, and company. It appears that you are the primary editor on the page and I was wondering what I could do to improve his page to accurately reflect his accomplishments and meet Wikipedia standards. I welcome any advice and guidance given your extensive experience editing for Wikipedia. I hope I have avoided being dick-ish in anyway. Looking forward to hearing from you, and ideally learning a bit more about the Wikipedia editing process from you!

Best, David Lepackman (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. To help get you started, I've added a standard "Conflict of Interest" notice to your talk page. The notice gives a few links with suggestions to help you avoid any of the more common problems editors run into when working on a topic they are closely related to.

From the looks of things, the article mostly needs independent reliable sources. By "independent", we mean sources that are not connected to the subject -- simple enough. "Reliable sources" is a bit more complicated. I'd recommend reading identifying reliable sources for further assistance. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

sharon leal edit

how was the to source i provided here not goood enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.57.56 (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edit said they divorced in 2007. The article does not say that. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

America This Morning

Why did you removed America This Morning not airing in South Bend and Savannah market? --24.170.75.206 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

[5][6][7]. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Full House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spin-off (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's been a long time, SummerPhD

Remember me? It's been a while (six years now), so you probably don't. My original account was GreenBayPackersfan09. That was my first Wikipedia account (I was 11 year old when I first used that account in 2009, and 14 when i lasted used it in 2012). I'm 17 years old now. I remember when I would used to create a lot of articles, notably on actors who starred in shows that I watched (wizards of waverly place, hannah montana, etc.) We first crossed paths in 2009 when you nominated a good number of them for deletion (some of them got deleted). If you look at the talk page on the GreenBayPackers account, you'll notice that I actually got vindicated on a good number of the articles you nominated for deletion – a lot of the articles are intact, and in fact have been expanded with pictures, more sources, etc. such as the Harry Shum and Simon Curtis article. I forgot the password to that account, and later used sockpuppets (which I remember you blocked me for, lol). So, how have you been? I've been well. I've started editing a broad multitude of articles productively (I'd argue I was editing productively with that other account as well, and that you were being a tad overzealous). I now edit articles on current events, public figures, politicians, etc. I've learned a lot about Wikipedia's rules, and have made a good number of productive edits. I just stopped by to say it's amazing you're still around. Some people retire after a well. Anyway, just wanted to let you know. Scaravich105nj (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Scaravich105nj has been indefinitely blocked for personal attacks/rants. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Now confirmed to be part of a sock farm. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)c

Avoiding SheZow from WordGirl

Hey SummerPhD Mike2213 here, I just wanna know why did you reverted my last editing from WordGirl article, the SheZow ones? Some fans created SheZow vs. WordGirl pictures and videos and they kinda like it. April 26, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike2213 (talk • contribs) 19:55, April 26, 2015‎

Hi, Mike2213. I removed the link because there is not direct connection between the two. WP:SEEALSO says the list at "See also" should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic. As reliable sources do not discuss a connection between the two, the topic does not belong in the see also section. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

removal of my SS United States edit

I'm curious why you deleted my addition to the Wikipedia article about the SS United States. I felt it was worth noting that it is visible from the Walt Whitman bridge because that is one of the three or four best views of the ship. I realize that the United States or parts of it can be spotted from "the Ben Franklin [bridge], the Comcast building, the aquarium, IKEA's restaurant and hundreds of other places." But *not* with a view comparable to that from the Walt Whitman. I hope you will reconsider your reverting my edit. In any case, I do look forward to your response. Richard27182 Richard27182 (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, it's a few factors all coming together.

It's not encyclopedic: Where can one spot the Walt Whitman Bridge, Ben Franklin, Comcast building, Aquarium, Ikea and hundreds of other places from? While we certainly have some articles discussing how to view their subject (e.g., Moon discussed various aspects of viewing the Moon), most do not. Many things can be spotted/viewed/examined in various ways. Is the view better during a brief trip across the Walt Whitman, a slower drive down Columbus Blvd or a half hour shopping break in Ikea's restaurant? Who knows -- it's a matter of opinion and purpose. If you want an overall view of the ship, hiring a helicopter up the street might give you exactly what you're looking for. Curious about the state of the paint/hull? Walking from Ikea's lot or a small boat might be better. Hoping to just see it while driving by? I-95, the Walt Whitman, Ben Franklin or Columbus Blvd might be just the thing.

It's not sourced: Yeah, no one is going to doubt that it can be seen from the bridge. That's not the point. The point is it is trivial. We don't discuss Mel Gibson's nose (though I swear someone tried to add it to the article) because sources don't discuss it. (We do, however, discuss his unusual kidney.)

Wikipedia is not a tourist guide: The best view of the ship might be to simply trespass. A leisurely hour sipping a soda at Ikea might over stay your welcome. Does the Walt Whitman allow foot traffic? Is driving on Columbus advisable at all (I'd say not, some driver's need to buy a clue). Independent reliable sources discuss various ways to see the Grand Canyon (from the rim, hiking a trail, donkey train, by boat, etc.), so we discuss them. We don't discuss much else about them -- who you meet hiking a trail (not Americans, mostly), what a raft trip costs, etc. -- because that isn't what Wikipedia is about.

Come to think of it, the bit about I-95 shouldn't really be there either. Nothing that encourages traffic on I-95 should be on Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear SummerPhD

     Thank you for replying and for doing so so promptly.  Because the view of the SS United States from the Walt Whitman Bridge is about as good as that from the other two viewing points that *had* been mentioned, I felt it only fair that the Walt Whitman be included with the original two (from "shore" and "Interstate-95").  However, since the original two have now also been removed, I have no problem.  I understand and I do *not* disagree with your arguments for not listing vantage points in general.  And as long as the article continues to avoid suggesting places for viewing the ship from, I have no complaints nor do I have any plans to try to reintroduce my edit.

Sincerely,

Richard

Richard27182 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my edits

Every edit I have made is true. I wouldn't put it there if it was wrong. Please everyone stop deleting my edits. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm having trouble. I would never vandalize Wikipedia but all my edits are being called vandalism. thankyou from supergreg22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergreg22 (talk • contribs) 17:13, May 2, 2015‎

Hi, Supergreg22 and welcome to Wikipedia}}.

Sorry you seem to be having trouble, we are trying to help. A few points that may help:

1. When you make a change to an article, below the editing box is an area marked "Edit summary". Please use this to give a brief description of why you are making the change.
2. If a change is made to an article you are watching and you want to see why, click the "history" tab at the top of the page. This will show you the edit summaries left by other users. So, for example, at Full House (season 6), you would see that I said, "Reverted good faith edits by Supergreg22 (talk): Trivial. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page." (The info you added, while likely true, is trivial.) Rather than undoing another user's revert of your edit, we suggest that you stop at this point and discuss the issue on the article's talk page, by clicking the "talk" tab.
3. With so many editors making so many changes, communication is important. Please discuss disputes on the article talk pages. Please use edit summaries. When editors don't do this -- and repeatedly change articles back to their preferred version -- it is difficult to figure out who is doing what and why. We do get editors who simply want to have the articles "their" way or simply vandalize articles. Without edit summaries and talk page discussion, people start to assume you are one of those!

In general: When in doubt, slow down and talk it out. Happy editing! - SummerPhD (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Incoherent French vandal

Hi Summer, by chance do you have any detailed information on 78.112.129.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? I'm not quite sure what to do here, but this guy has got some tendrils out there. Looking through his edit history I found Draft:MetroQuan (which I see that you've also found), but when you start following the other IPs in that edit history, you find 86.69.112.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which leads to a lot of other draft articles, and other IPs creating these disruptions. Thoughts? We'd pretty much have to get an admin to devote a lot of time to reverting this crap. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Not much help from me, I'm afraid. I noted their repeated use of one fair use album cover in numerous unrelated draft articles, links to draft articles in live articles and other confusion. All I have is a brief list of IPs:

Special:Contributions/77.158.41.12

Special:Contributions/78.126.213.28

Special:Contributions/86.69.112.35

Special:Contributions/78.126.170.122

Special:Contributions/91.68.144.122

Special:Contributions/78.201.236.77

Special:Contributions/78.112.129.63

Where to from here? AIV and sock seem fairly pointless. ANI? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb: In case you missed it, he is now registered as Killian779. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oill keep me eyes peeled! (<--Some sort of seafaring accent) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

MetalMachine Music

hi SummerPHd,

Just checking with you regarding your edits of my additions to the Metal Machine Music article. Many thanks, Deeperknowledge 22 Deeperknowledge22 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Full House

How do I add sources? And what if there isn't a source for it. I'm sorry, I didn't know it was wrong. Full House used to be my favorite show (now it is Boy Meets World) so when I got the account I wanted to improve the article. Please help me put a source. Thank you, Supergreg22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergreg22 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Full_House_(season_6)#Trivia. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Bechdel test

Hi, could you take a look at the latest edits? I think our new colleague is going at it the wrong way, but I'm not sure that I have the time or the patience or the skill to explain how... Regards,  Sandstein  21:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

VeggieTales

My Twilight Zone hypothesis: The VeggieTales vandalism is coming from one kid who travels a lot and who never grows older than 11. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nah. With long-term editors making changes to dates, adding ages for fictional characters, repetitively redundant modifiers, in-depth descriptions of minor credit screen/FBI warning changes and similar stuff, all in kid's TV shows spread over several years... This, IMO, is developmental disabilities. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I had a more creative take, but I was bound by civility and all that rot, but it involved a tiny working brain lobe, a fantasy sequence, and a dank basement in Colorado, and I don't mean "dank" in a gorgeously stinky marijuana way. Although now that I bring it up, whatchoo holdin'? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that the VeggieTales vandal (or any other specific editor) has a developmental disorder. That would be a civility issue. I am saying that the parsimonious explanation for obsessive solo work on minutia related to media designed for children by people who cannot be children themselves is either teens to 20-somethings with developmental disorders and/or academics with very peculiar research agendas. I can't see funding sources for the academics, so I'm left with developmental disorders for most of them.

As for what I'm holding, I just picked up some smooth Columbian over in Jersey. I usually more of a tea drinker, but this time of year, I need the caffeine to get the work done. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You know, I just came across Lyle the Kindly Viking again. There's something about seeing "Larry the Cucumber as himself" that makes me want to commit an act of harm. Like, do the people who submit this crap not know that there are actors doing the voices? That Larry the Cucumber isn't really an actor? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User rankings?

Please cite where it says Wikipedia does not use site user rankings. I find it pretty absurd that a tiny sample of 6 reviews of the film God's Not Dead are considered relevant enough to include as some kind of a critical consensus in an article about the movie, but 39,000+ crowdsourced ratings are not.

I have a feeling you might not be correctly understanding an actual Wikipedia policy, but if you are correctly understanding it that policy should be changed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbutler3331 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Rbutler3331: I believe MOS:FILM#Audience response is the relevant guideline. There are also numerous discussions I'm sure in the archives at WikiProject Film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Could you please do..."

I reported this guy (the linked account, not your account) to HJ Mitchell a while back, but I was told that the editor wasn't really doing anything wrong by being the recipient of these cryptic notes. But clearly there's something funky going on here, not only with the bizarre IPv6 edits, but also with the IPs who have sprung up and reverted these weird notes (IP users can't create watchlists, so are they constantly watching the page for some reason, or is this the regular user's IP and he's trying to throw people off the track?) And this all seems related to that whole stupid world of YouTube where people seem to get off on creating hoaxes in really weird, super-niche communities. Like, let's assume for a second that your major interest in life centered on cataloging the opening logos from all DVDs. Well, this is a really weird, specific and questionable interest, but it's your life and you gotta do right by you. But clearly the IPv6 editor is asking Nickelodeon745 to create prank content, i.e. disruption elsewhere, and wouldn't this be a basic TOS violation? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I wish I'd made a note of it a while back when I ran into the poster child for this. Someone was noting -- with a semi-reliable source -- that a "special edition" release of an older direct-to-video film was coming soon. After detailing what was known, they added speculation that it might restore a scene dropped in the first DVD release and "most importantly returning to the blue FBI warning". My theory on these types of edits again involves developmental disabilities. So long as we have anonymous editing, we will have this problem.

The violation seems to be using Wikipedia as a social network. Is N745 doing anything to encourage it? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That, I do not know. I'll have to snoop around a little later. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at N745's talk page comments, I do see where they seem to be addressing the IPs comments about liking X or hating Y, but I haven't seen any cases where there was any "Yeah, I'll do that." I haven't looked very closely.

If we don't have N745 doing anything wrong, the only thing I can think that we could do about it would be to semi-protect their talk page, but I don't think that's likely to fly. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not hastily remove sections

SummerPhd,

I noticed you removed my section on coconut oil. I understand that I did not give an explanation for removing some content, so let me explain:

First, I'm new to editing articles on Wikipedia and this was my first edit, so I missed the explaination section at the bottom of the page. I noticed that some significant modifications have been made to some pages regarding foods that you might find in health food stores, some of which are completely unfounded. For example, deleting information regarding nutritional composition, or studies linking foods to particular health effects, seems to be some kind of info war to me. If you or others who delete these sections feel that the issue is not so black and white, then additional content needs to placed to challenge those studies, rather than removing the content entirely.

The section I removed seemed to me to read as biased. The section reads:

"Many health organizations advise against the consumption of coconut oil due to its high levels of saturated fat, including ..." (and then a list of organizations are listed).

First of all, none of those references make any statements advising against the consumption of coconut oil, they only talk about limiting saturated fat. If you read the section on saturated fat, you would notice that the issue is not that cut and dry. In fact, some studies show that <7% SFA and TFA may have a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease. The actual picture may be more complicated, and ratios of saturated, mono and polyunsaturated fats may be more important than actual levels of these fats, but this is mere conjecture to me that I am not interested in defending. Although it is not that cut any dry, I still maintain that caution should be taken with the consumption of saturated fats. There is enough data to suggest that, although the picture is much more complex than we originally thought, there may be good reason to limit saturated fat intake. But completely removing a macronutrient from your diet may have unintended consequences, which is probably why none of these agencies advocate a complete elimination of saturated fat, but to maintain low levels of it.

I did not see listing all of those agencies as necessary. It appeared to read like a biased article, and in order to eliminate the feeling I had that it felt biased, I still kept the original argument but in a more succinct fashion with the references in tact:

"Since lauric acid is a saturated fat, moderation is recommended by many health organizations, which advise a higher ratio of monounsaturated fats and polyunsaturated fats." (I included all of the original citations at the end of this sentence).

Nevertheless, instead of restoring the old content in addition to mine, you completely removed my content, despite it containing a good amount of studies, some from notable journals. And the content I wrote was not particularly regarding saturated fat and it's controversy, but instead, it mentioned the antimicrobial effects of MCTs and monolaurin. If you feel that there is some debate in some of the findings that I presented, you should instead include those in the article, rather than completely removing my edit.

I hope this explains things for you, SummerPhd. Please be less hasty about deleting content on Wikipedia, many people rely on it to learn about complex issues. If you feel that the section is biased, please mention how. If you feel that it's more complicated, please explain and cite your reasons with sources from journals. Readers have a right to make up their own minds about these subjects, and wikipedia is all about shedding light on all the complex dimensions of our world, not merely maintaining a one-sided argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.61.2 (talk • contribs) 15:05, May 21, 2015‎

The article you are editing, coconut oil, has been through a few heated debates, including both edit warring and sockpuppetry. The edit you have made makes several substantial changes to the status quo that emerged after those debates (please see the article's talk page and edit history for more information). As such, edits which make numerous changes are probably not going to fly. You'll find much more success if you take on smaller portions of the changes you wish to make, using edit summaries to explain the basis of your changes and discussion on the article's talk page to clarify. Make smaller edits over several days, rather than one set of sweeping changes all at once.

Two more general issues: Sections of this article concern biomedical information. As a result, more strict sourcing requirements apply.

As a general rule, our editing flow follows a pattern described at WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. You boldly made the changes you felt were appropriate. I reverted that edit. At that point, it was time to discuss the issue. As the issue is the content, that discussion is best handled on the article's talk page, where other editors can weigh in. Unless there is a fairly straightforward misunderstanding, policy violation or similar issue, restoring the edit prior to discussion is generally frowned upon. With that in mind, I am reverting your edit again, and ask you to discuss the issues on the article's talk page.

(As an aside: Yes, people do come to Wikipedia to read about complex issues. People also come to Wikipedia to assert that their beliefs/opinions are correct (e.g., the only natural/healthy/moral/normal/reasonable human diet is low-fat/low-carb/all organic/all local/flexitarian/freegan/semi-vegetarian/pescatarian/vegetarian/vegan/raw vegan/fruitarian/paleolithic/Bible based/macrobiotic/based on your blood type/seasonal/whatever). As a result, many editors are vigilant about edits that seem to violate our core neutral point of view policy, especially regarding fringe claims and biomedical claims.) Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: another editor, Yobol, reverted the edit before I had the chance. You clearly will need to discuss the issues on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Talkback

Hello, SummerPhD. You have new messages at Talk:VeggieTales#Cast_list_renovations.
Message added 19:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Motion Picture Association of America film rating system

Hi Summer, I am wondering if you could do me a favor. You expressed an interest in Motion Picture Association of America film rating system a couple of months ago and I was wondering if you could take a look at a new dispute that has arisen at Talk:Motion Picture Association of America film rating system#Alterations to Motion Picture Association of America film rating system#Language. I believe a SPA is introducing original research and synthesis but I could do with a third opinion before I shop him (if you spot anything I missed then feel free to fix, you won't be stepping on my toes). Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Zoom (1999 Series) Edit

Hello Summer,

Could you please describe more as to why you undid my table edits? I would also like a source in Wikipedia as to what I didn't do correctly, or at least some guideline that I didn't follow. Wikipedia tables have the capability of using spans effectively and I think we should be encouraged to use them when needed. In this case, it makes sense to show the season ranges of each Zoom cast member. Having it in its current state is confusing and misleading for readers and I think it's important we show them how long each member lasted. Otherwise, what is the point of the table in the first place? If you could respond to this within a week, that would be great! I'm also up for taking this to a third person (WP:3) if we agree to just disagree.

Thanks! srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you might have the wrong editor. I reverted a nonsensical edit by a problematic editor.[8] I believe the revert you are asking about was the one made by Seston.[9] As they did not use an edit summary (and don't seem to like to communicate...), I don't see a reason for you not to restore your edit. Cheers. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Aimed

Where did this 1991 G-rated romantic drama film Wild Hearts Can't Be Broken aimed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.16.208 (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Presumably it is aimed at people who like romantic dramas but don't miss graphic violence, nudity or "adult" language. If you feel that there are kids looking for romantic dramas, I'll need a source. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)