User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WP:Point

I'm going to assume good faith, but your edits to McGillin's Olde Ale House border on violating WP:Point. This is a lot like the mummer's article that you kept editing. Please stop being a disruptive editor. --evrik ^(talk) 20:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry. I didn't realise that it applies to talk pages as well. To me it's kind of stupid. Not that I'm trying to offend you or anything, but why change a talk page. Well I guess you're just doing your job. Keep up the good editing! :) Have a nice day! (Wikirocks2 (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Chiefsalsa Appreciation Day

Happy Chiefsalsa Appreciation Day!

--evrik ^(talk) 19:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah humbug. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And, incidentally, isn't this more acurrate: Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Help for Christianity in China issues

Hi, can you help me with this issue? --Esimal (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Valea Pietrei Mici River

For some reason you have flagged this article for deletion indicating that in does not meet notoriety conditions. The Wikiproject Rivers specifically indicates that there are no such criteria applicable to rivers and that there is no minimum size for a river to qualify for deletion. I would kindly request you to delete the tag which is incorrect. Afil (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

The issue has been raised and discussed in the project's discussion page and is spefically states that there are no notability criteria. There are several thousand articles - at present stubs - which are in the same situation. What is difficult to understand is why there is an objections for Valea Pietrei Mici River when no objections have been raised for all the others. Afil (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Your comments do not answer the issue of why a single river was singled out for deletion.

Besides there are two different issues. The first is related to notability, which is why the article was flagged in the first place. For rivers there are no notability criteria.

The issue you now raise is different. It is related to the existence of reliable sources. I probably misunderstood your point. However the article does quote two sources. Do you consider that they are not reliable enough? Afil (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I suggest that we agree to disagree and let the administrators decide Afil (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Genos

I undid the "source" for two reasons: it isn't independent of the subject (it is the subject) and a link to the place is already on the article, so a second link is redudant. The place is famous, so sources independent of Geno's shouldnt be hard to find. Jacksinterweb (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Geno's Steaks - Mdsummermsw (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

electojects

I saw the website electojects.com/motors and I wonder why you consider it a spam. It has many tutorials on electric motors including stepper. It is informative website (regrading of ads) from my point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.193.74 (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the whole conversation. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Honor System

I suggest that you compare Dan Hanaway's vocals as part of The Honor System to some of his early work with The Broadways, such as "What Happened" [1], and then tell me whether my point was valid. As much as I like all of his work, he wasn't a fantastic singer in his early career, by popular definition. If you want further evidence of his voice's evolution, listen to something by Whale|Horse, his latest band. [2] Hopefully, the MySpace pages which I have linked to will help you to arrive at a proper conclusion.

I won't argue very strongly about Auto-Tune. I don't claim to be an expert on production and cannot be sure if the effect was used on more than one song, with the exception of "Nails", where its presence is undeniable: refer to the bridge ("These nails can build anything we want them to").

I'll ask that you don't revert edits and complain about NPOV or any other initialisms without proper reference to the subject at hand.

- 86.112.* / Drenholm (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following:

"Dan's vocals with The Honor System are notably improved when compared to his early work, resembling his final material with The Broadways, though an Auto-Tune-type effect was still used on Single File and can be discerned with careful listening."[3]

My edit summary said "take your pick: NPOV, BLP, etc." (For reference, that's WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.)

I did not "complain" about anything. The material fails the wikipedia policies cited, so I removed it.

There is no point to suggesting I compare various works to see what I think or "further evidence" from comparative listening. The article must assert facts, not opinions.

This is not about whether "your" (really, the article's) point "is valid" or I can arrive at a "proper conclusion" (actually: opinion). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

You "cannot be sure if the effect was used" because there is no source given, only an opinion stated. Whether "its presence is undeniable" is moot. It is not verifiable.

You may ask that I not "revert edits and complain about NPOV or any other initialisms without proper reference to the subject at hand." However, all "proper references" must be cited. None were. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

This brings it to the "discuss" part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you feel the text is supported, please discuss this on Talk:The_Honor_System.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackface Mummers

Resolved

[4]

Hi. I don't doubt the validity of the info you added one bit, but the link you provided is dead. A search of that particular website for "blackface" also yielded nothing. Please return to Blackface and correct the link or provide substantiation of the material from another source. Thanks much for your efforts at improving the article. Regards. deeceevoice (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User and article talk pages

It's best to just discuss articles on article talk pages. Concerns about particular editors are better raised on their user talk page or on one of the noticeboards. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Pennsport (string band)

A tag has been placed on Pennsport (string band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CastAStone/^/(talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Adelphia (fancies)

A tag has been placed on Adelphia (fancies) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CastAStone/^/(talk) 20:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still borderline on notability, but the Philly Daily News coverage and the About.com coverage definitely are substantive Reliable Sources. Someone from Philadelphia's comments would help me get a better feel for this.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 15:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD question: Recombinant text

I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:DTTR. I removed your tagging it was unhelpful and unwarranted. Furthermore, in light of both that and your response, I suspect that perhaps bad judgement seems to be a somewhat regular feature of your editing. Perhaps, in future, you should try to edit with more clue. Rebecca (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Joan Little

Hello, amiga. You placed an NPOV tag on an article I wrote a while back. You left no comment on the talk page, as is our custom. You did, however, make the edit summary "heavy, unsourced POV throughout." I assure you that I used the Reston text for all of the information in the article. I did not use the Hardwell text at all; someone who seems to be self-promoting added it on. If you have specific criticisms, I would like to remedy them. Rereading the article after a few years, it is difficult for me to where you see a POV in the article. Specific criticisms and suggestions go a long way in helping editors such as myself improve articles. Please comment on the talk page or on my talk. Gracias, --Rockero (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Austin Scott

While I agree that he was practically unknown before the rape allegation to most non Penn State fans, I think the fact that he was a top recruit and had one of the best seasons in high school football history is worth noting, don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recchi51 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is "worth mentioning". However, prior to my edits, the article was basically an article about a football player, with every available stat and game outcome listed -- along with a brief mention about the rape allegation, the one thing that made him unambiguously notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I put in just the stuff about high school, which is what also made him notable. I'm pretty sure it's ok, which is why I just put it. Hope you agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recchi51 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

electojets.com

Looking at this from an en wp perspective (as opposed to Meta) I think it warrants some digging. You may care to post here for some help initially? Let me know if I can help - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded here so that it is all together - thanks for the work - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Choirs of Note

Sorry for the stub, I am working on content now. I also am wondering is there is a template for competitions that I could use to code the side panel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User: Chimzar| Chimzar]] ([[User talk: Chimzar|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ Chimzar|contribs]]) 16:13, January 25, 2008

I will keep working on it, but once more press comes out it will be ok. Thank you for your help. Chimzar (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated this article at WP:AFD, in large part based on your comments, which I have taken the liberty of quoting in the nom. Matchups (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Katherine Neville

Notability is implied by that sentence. Most other author bios start the same way. Herman Melville does not say the subject was a "notable American novelist, short story writer, essayist, and poet". Now, you can argue that Neville isn't actually notable, but the article surely implies that she is. The appropriate way to deal with this would be AfD or putting a tag on it and waiting for someone to expand it. Looking around, it will be hard to argue she isn't notable, since The Eight was reviewed by any number of reliable papers, such as the LA Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree on this. I believe the article asserts her notability perfectly well - it's implied she's a noteworthy author, and she's written several novels of note, which have been reviewed by virtually every American paper that reviews books. Clearly you don't agree. I'm well aware of the SPEEDY criteria, and I don't think you'd have gotten very far trying to speedy it or the book, especially since you already know I contested your PROD. I think the real problem is that it's unreferenced, which is a related but separate issue. I'll be adding a few cites to both articles, hopefully that will resolve the issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eminem is Back (2nd nomination)

Hi. You accidentally created the AfD nomination for Eminem is Back at CAT:AFD, instead of a subpage all its own. I've corrected the nom for you, and created the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eminem is Back (2nd nomination) by copying your original nomination. The previous nom trips a lot of people up, so don't worry about it. Just an FYI, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5