User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Burt Shavitz

Hi,

I added Mr. Shavitz's full birthdate, and the full birthdate of his former business partner Roxanne Quimby. I was doing a research project where I needed their birthdays, so I got the information by running an intelius search on these two based on their currently public place of residence info. There is only one Ingram Berg Shavitz in Maine on Intelius so that seems like a reasonable source. I am not sure how to cite intelius, or how to add a citation to birthday. I've never seen a citation for birthdates of most public figures on Wikipedia. I guess it doesn't really matter, I just thought I would add the information in case anyone else was doing research and needed their full birthdates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellyjonez (talk • contribs) 03:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an Intelius search is not usable as a source. Wikipedia relies on secondary published sources from reliable sources. An Intelius search result is not "published". Additionally, it is not a reliable source (in our terms) in that it is not subject to fact-checking -- the system draws data from unknown (to us) sources and generates a result which is delivered to the user without oversight of any kind.

Yes, it is likely IMO that the info is correct. However, given that it is not in published sources (that we have found), it isn't really widely disseminated. Similarly, we could likely find public figures' addresses, GPAs, etc. Unless reliable sources are discussing them, though, we don't. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Would US public records be a citable source? the same information is available by searching public records via ancestry.com. A sample citation from them: "Ancestry.com. U.S. Public Records Index, Volume 2 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010."Ellyjonez (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Public records are neither "published" nor secondary. Joe Schmoe is born and a birth certificate is issued. That is a primary source and researchers use primary sources all the time. Those researchers gather and interpret primary sources (public records, diaries, letters, interviews, etc.) to publish secondary sources (books, magazine/newspaper articles, etc.). Wikipedia generally does not use primary sources. We do not use our own research. We are particularly strict in the case of living and recently deceased persons. Our policy on this is clear: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

I know there are some sources out there that discuss these two. However, they all seem to be focused on them in relation to Burt's Bees. I personally haven't found birth dates in reliable sources and wouldn't be surprised if none of them bothered with their birth dates (rather trivial in the overall story). What usually ends up happening here is the article sits there with an obvious gap. Users try to fill the vacuum from various unreliable sources and more experienced editors try to enforce policy by removing same. Eventually, a significant event results in the material being published: legal troubles and court cases, a published biography, obituaries, etc. often end up solving the problem. Until then, IMO, we're pretty much stuck. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

devils pocket

I just wanted to reach out regarding the edits made to the article. I am not trying to be rude, but for the sake of brevity, I must simply tell you that the cited sources are wrong. My family comes from this area, and I am well acquainted with it. The Devil's Pocket is the two/three blocks north of Christian St, West of Grays Ferry Ave, and south of the "Naval Home" (as locals called it).

The area directly north of the Naval Home was called Schuylkill, which went roughly north from Bainbridge to Locust St and from 23rd Street to the river. The area along Schuylkill Ave. south of Bainbridge had no name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loser Joe (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be missing the important point here. The information -- from a very reliable source -- give boundaries for the neighborhood but do not give a date. Some of those that are dated go back to the 17th century. As there are no "official" boundaries for neighborhoods in Philly, two things happen: There are varying definitions at any given time (I've seen residents, community development corporations, civic associations, recovery groups and business groups all using different boundaries) and the boundaries move over time (construction is a big driver here: different groups expand or contract their boundaries to include or exclude whatever they want or don't want to be part of their neighborhood).

With this in mind, we need to discuss the boundaries on the article's talk page. This will allow other editors to weigh in (if any do, it's of rather local interest) and create an accessible record for anyone who comes along afterwards. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Our mutual acquaintance

Hi, I reminded[1] the IP that you are still owed an apology for the accusation[2] made on my Talk page. And I know that its been read because it was deleted[3]... :) BTW, I have also banned the IP[4] (in any iteration) from my Talk Page so the apology will need to be made here or on their Talk Page with a ping of some kind. Happy New Year! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

200.83.101.225

Regarding your warning to this IP, if you do file a report you may find these recent warnings that have been removed from the IPs talk page useful: [5][6][7][8][9]

They are all recent. Chillum 22:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Chillum, I am well aware of that user's extensive history. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I see. Chillum 23:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Summer. I note that you had kept away from the IP until that warning, but I don't think it was useful for you to be the one to add that. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Because if someone else had warned him it would have made a difference. This time for sure.

Yngvadottir: I think you meant to say it was the "height of stupidity", idiotic, rude, provocative, in violation of policy, idiotic, infantile, unhelpful, harassing, harassing, harassing, stalking, trolling, persistent destructive behaviour, grudge-bearing stalker, stalking, grow up, immature, trolling and harassing. You would say all of that, of course, without edit warring or calling names, not making personal attacks, dialing it back a notch, not calling people names, stepping back from making personal attacks, not personally attacking, not using attack words like "trolling", avoiding accusations of trolling etc. as those are attack words and, OF COURSE, after swearing you wouldn't make personal attacks and edit war. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yngvadottir: I would think some kind of response to the above would be appropriate. Note that some of his recent edits have specifically repeated the earlier language you directly suggested was a attack. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This user is changing IPs, edit warring and generally being a bit of a grouch. I don't see any reason SummerPhD should not give this IP warnings for edit warring. Frankly it is how we would respond to any edit warring IP. Chillum 03:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to both - now I see the list of quotes above, yes, I apologize on behalf of the IP :-( Chillum, he is and always has been on a dynamic IP; has he changed IPs again today? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No but it was not hard to find a couple of his prior IPs, 46.37.55.80, 82.33.71.205... I see similar behavior there too. Regardless of if the editor has a naturally changing IP or is changing on purpose the net result is evasion of scrutiny. I think this user would do a lot better if they registered an account. As it stands it seems they are using their dynamic IP to skirt the rules. Chillum 05:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Chillum: The user has stated that their IP changes by itself from time to time, but has also stated that they deliberately changed their IP on numerous occasions to evade blocks. They've also stated that they enjoy making personal attacks, which is always a good sign that we're dealing with a consesus-minded, civil contributor.

A partial history here gives some of the low-lights of the 5+ years of personal attacks, edit warring and repeated block evasion. After another trip to AN/I failed to find a clear consensus for a ban, Yngvadottir and Drmies (who apparently has been interacting with this vandal edit-warring, personal-attacking, block-evading misunderstood angel for at least 4 years) discussed it with the user. They agreed not to edit war and to stop making personal attacks. Yngvadottir unblocked them. They quickly returned to edit warring and personal attacks and were blocked by another admin. Yngvadottir unblocked. They're back at it again.

Based on Yngvadottir's apology on behalf of the user, it seems Yngvadottir agrees the user has made additional personal attacks and/or edit warred. (I'm unclear as to why an admin is again apologizing for a vandal edit-warring, personal-attacking, block-evading misunderstood angel, but that's just me.) I do not see anything in the hour or so since that leads me to believe anything new is going on.

The IP edit wars, makes personal attacks, evades blocks and/or talks their way out of them and continues doing as they damned well please. They are either unable to be civil and deluding themself or are unwilling to be civil and simply lying repeatedly. It simply does not matter which. Cannot change or will not change? It doesn't matter. I'm thinking we'll need another trip to AN/I to see if anyone with a mop cares to use it to block the vandal edit-warring, personal-attacking, block-evading misunderstood angel and enforce the block if the user should happen to evade the block. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been chummy with you for a couple of years as well. I don't understand why you don't just leave them alone. There's plenty other Recent changes patrollers. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I cannot fathom the comparison you seem to be drawing between me and an editor who has racked up three solid years worth of blocks for repeated and unrepentant personal attacks, edit warring and proudly defiant block evasion. I don't understand why you feel the need to endlessly defend an editor who finds nothing wrong with "idiot", "moron", "fucking retarded little cunt" and the like, while demanding apologies for labeling five plus years of personal attacks, edit warring and block evasion "vandalism". If you feel there isn't a problem, I invite you to take it to any broad forum (i.e., not the talk page of an IP being used by someone who frequently (often deliberately) changes IPs) and suggest the removal of the 0RR that has just been accepted. After all, you have their word (...again...) that they will not make personal attacks or edit war. In general, responding to a block with, essentially, "fuck you, you're wrong" doesn't lead to an unblock with "Aw shucks, please try harder not to edit war and make personal attacks."

The two of you have repeatedly said you are sticking your necks out for this user. He's still throwing around a lot of axes. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Given this users promises and their actions I don't think it is reasonable to assume good faith anymore, which is a pity because many of his edits are of value. It appears another admin has blocked this IP. I am sure he will be back in another form. If they come back I would just ignore them until they edit war and if that happens a report to WP:EWN should handle it. Chillum 06:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you very much for safeguarding so many pages of en.wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Shoooo

This probably isn't formatted right, but anyway, I just wanted to say, speaking as a random vandal, you provide a really valuable service, and you're way nicer about it than you could be. In short, you are a really valuable and smart person. Shoooo (talk) Shoooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoooo (talk • contribs) 23:37, January 3, 2015‎

Gee, thanks. Buh-bye. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Shoooo has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL, get famous enough and even the weird ones like you. Welcome to the club... :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalhotrod (talk • contribs) 20:34, January 4, 2015‎

Our mutual acquaintance could learn a lot from this vandal. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I'm sorry that I couldn't get an apology for you. I suppose its possible that the IP may see the error of their ways, but for now they seem long on demands and short on contrition. Oh well, on to better things... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion on Food Combining

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Please notice I have traced you as being the source of Edit Warring and creating Bias on Food Combining. Your long history of edits have left the page a stub and brief definition of Food Combining. Wikipedia is not a dictionary it is an encylopedia. Please refer to the talk page of Food Combining were two different people agree a failed weight loss study is bias AGAINST Food Combining. Also refer to the talk page of Food Combining to see where I explain why a weight loss study, especially a failed one doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Also I talk about how you can remove personal bias from the article, by putting yourself in perspective of the readers of Wikipedia. Coming to Wikipedia to learn about Food Combining only to see a brief definition of Food Combining and a failed weight loss study is NOT encyclopedic information and the disappointed reader would think Food Combining is only about failed weight loss (bias). Sincerely Qwesar (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

One edit to the article in seven months and you're at the edit warring board. I wonder if that's a record. Meters (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My biasism knows no limits. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, this only causes more editors with biasisms to put the article on their watchlists. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)" that isn't a

That article needs some work. I can't find much in the way of sources that match my biasisms. It's kinda hard to find anything on "food combining" that isn't about food that combines things. "Hay diet" brings up livestock feeding research. Maybe I'll go work on the Atkins article. Much easier to search for. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Try searching for "food mixing", tons of stuff comes up. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I do get tons of stuff: Blogs, typical woo from Mercola et al. Reliable sources on this subject are relative hen's teeth. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Neon Icon

How about instead of getting involved on the page and starting ANOTHER problem with me just because you don't like me. You should consider actually helping me with the the vandalized of the page that I'm trying to deal with. Nobody's gotten involved yet to aid and I could use assistance, how about trying to have an actual conversation with me where we can sort the problem instead of immediately jumping to any side I'm not on because of our history. If you really are the person you say you are, prove it and help me. Funkatastic (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I neither like nor dislike you. I don't know you.

Yes, you have some things to learn about Wikipedia. You're rather new here; that's normal.

My involvement at Neon Icon came about as our ...um... "discussion" at Talk:Top Dawg Entertainment was mentioned in the discussion of your edits on the edit warring noticeboard. Checking your edits on Neon Icon, I noticed both of you were edit warring: frequent reverts without discussion. I also noticed your blanking on the talk page, corrected it and notified you.

This is not about either "side" of the dispute. This is not a battleground. There is one and only one side here: Building an encyclopedia. Those who have other motives -- whether promoting an ideology, business interest, religion, whatever -- are eventually shown the door.

(As a side note, you have been using the word "vandalize" in a way that could cause you problems. On Wikipedia, It has a very specific meaning involving changes to content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Unless you have reason to believe the other editor is deliberately trying to make the entry worse, please choose a different word. Merely disagreeing with your opinion is not "vandalism".) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Understood, my problem with the user on Neon Icon isn't that he disagrees with me. It's that he's deleting referenced information, and refusing to accept edits that go against his vision of the page. I need assistance because he will not stop reverting edits, he's giving no explanation for his constant reversions, and I'm getting in trouble for edit warring because I'm the only one restoring the damage he is causing. Any assistance would be appreciated. Funkatastic (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss the issues on the talk page, one at a time. Discuss the issue, not the editor. Explain why you believe the material should be included, the sources are valid or whatever the case may be. Then walk away from the page for at least a day or two. If the other editor does not respond, make that one change and discuss the next one on the talk page and repeat.

If the other editor does respond, consider their position: is there a compromise possible? (Perhaps a first contractual album after a self-produced album is a "label debut"?) Figure out the specifics of the problem: You say something is "grey", someone else says it's "black". Maybe it's "dark" or "colorless". You say a source is reliable, they say it isn't: Take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. You say it's "released", I say it's "scheduled": Get a third opinion...

Reverting an edit once tell someone you disagree. Reverting a second or third time sounds an awful lot like "fuck you" to a lot of people and guarantees pointless conflict, with plenty of heat and very little light. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation

How is referring to the Bill Cosby scandal, which has major media coverage, on a TALK PAGE a BLP violation??? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, start by reading WP:BLP and specifically this section where it states, "'BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages..." --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

As Scalhotrod explained, WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well, making your criminal accusation a problem. Additionally, an article talk page is for discussing improvements to the associated article, not for general discussion of the topic. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for changes.

I wanna say thank you for making correct changes to my edits on every article. I appreciate it. I almost goy myself restricted.68.184.12.79 (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

198.24.31.125

Hi Summer, most of 198.24.31.125's recent edits have been unsourced future content, and look a lot like hoaxes. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw that when you jumped right to a level 3 warning. Everything they've done today is gone, all the pages are watchlisted, they're up for a timeout and all is right with the world... until the next time/one. How about if we semi-protect all kids' media articles? (I'm joking... sort of.) - SummerPhD (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to do much to convince me. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

While we're dreaming, let's add in a 0RR for music genres. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Kill "List of programs broadcast by ____" (ex: Toonami, Adult Swim) as being perpetually unsourced, including problematic date ranges that get changed by vandals hourly, containing non-noteworthy rerun content that cannot be verified, and that are heavily edited by cruft-oriented children, blah blah... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Alvin and the Chipmunks

There was no reliable source that the new CGI-animated TV series would be released sometime in March 2015, because the official Alvin and The Chipmunks website already has it penned for a "March 2015" television premiere. Did you even read the "This was already confirmed by the Chipmunks(dot)com website. [the official website for Alvin and the Chipmunks]" note that I left on those pages? Prince Silversaddle (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If the official website confirms the date, that is a reliable source. Cite it. Mentioning a source in an edit summary does not allow anyone reading the article to easily verify that the information came from a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury

Could you take a look at Murder of Kylie Maybury? There's no doubting the notability - it made the front page at the time, even pushing Reagan's win over Mondale over to the side. I still feel uneasy about using the term "handbag" on its' own, since "handbag" by itself usually indicates the type used by adult women and little girl's handbags are smaller and have licensed themes such as Disney or Barbie. Paul Austin (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking me about this. If you are looking for a third opinion, I'd suggest WP:3O. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Glengarry Glen Ross

Hi SummerPhD! Thank you for your message. My apologies about editing the unsigned contribution in the talk page without signing my own work. I am not a most experienced editor, and was not aware of the convention. I also apologize for failing to include a proper reference to the source material: I have corrected the error per your suggestion. Again, my apologies for your trouble. There seems to be some debate among editors about this subject -- I think I will say something on the talk page in case there is further comment. Thank you again. Xanthis (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

On the Glengarry Glen Ross page you said, "Unless there is an independent, secondary reliable source (or a direct statement in the film as to where they are), we simply have nothing to say."

I must note that this is at variance with your original preference, which was to revert my contribution to another equally un-cited contribution while leaving no note on the page that a reference was needed. Similarly, I must note that you made no fuss at all when the uncited "Chicago" reference was recently inserted into the article.

With respect, you will forgive me for thinking under these circumstances that you are making some editors "run the gauntlet" on references if you don't like the contribution, while quietly giving others a pass. I can think of no other reasonable explanation for the inequality of your treatment of two equally un-cited contributions.

I respectfully submit that this can have an effect on Wiki quality and neutrality that is just as pernicious as poor referencing. Indeed, the effect is even more pernicious since it represents a "silent bias" which the reader is not aware is happening.

(As an aside, I might point out that the level of citation for my recent contribution is already well above the Wiki norm. For example, the opening paragraph of the article "Glengarry Glen Ross" (the play) mentions prominently that the play is set in Chicago, with no relevant reference at all. The un-cited reference has been in the opening paragraph of that article since the stub was created in April 2004, and has survived hundreds of edits.)

Let's work together to make sure that the standards of Wikipedia are equally applied to all contributions, and not preferentially applied for or against any individual contributor. What do you think?

Best! Xanthis (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You "can think of no other reasonable explanation" other than me choosing you (apparently at random) for a higher level of scrutiny? I'd suggest you consider this a poverty of imagination. Let's suppose the "Chicago" in this article was added an I simply missed it. Later, someone changed it to New York City without citing a source. I reverted the unsourced change. Finally, discussion began and, after looking at it further, I noted there doesn't seem to be a solid basis for either one. Just a possibility.

Incidentally, I haven't looked at the use of Chicago in the article for the original play. If you'd like to dispute that, feel free to remove it, add a request for a citation or look for a source. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. Thank you for the explanation, SummerPhd. My apologies for imagining anything other than the best.

You see, the reference to the city of the film was originally added by me, to promote uniformity of style with the article on the play. Apparently at some point this was changed to Chicago. Under these circumstances, you can understand that when you revert my contribution to the other un-cited contribution (while leaving no note on the page that any reference was needed for THAT), I might imagine that the dispute was not really about references, but rather about which un-cited contribution you prefer. In other words: contributions that you don't like have to run the full gauntlet, whereas those that you do like are given a pass on references.

But thank you for the explanation. I look forward to working with you more. -Xanthis (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with your chronology. I see where you added an unsourced "New York".[10] Another editor removed it as "not relevant".[11] You restored it without explanation.[12] An anonymous editor changed it to Chicago, mentioning IMDb and a "physical copy of the film".[13] An anonymous editor changed it back to "New York", mentioning the subway.[14] I changed it back to Chicago, mentioning the IMDb summaries.[15] (I could have taken this to the talk page then. Had the IP reverted, I would have. Unsourced edits by a driveby IP don't typically get much attention from me.) You changed it to "New York" with a just so summary, then reverted yourself without explanation, then changed it to New York City, referring to changes you makde to a discussion on this page.[16][17][18] I reverted to Chicago, saying the change was unsourced, gave you a standard warning for unsourced additions, undid your changes to the other user's comments and responded to those comments.[19][20][21] After all of that, this discussion began.

The bottom line is this: I do not care whether the film is set in Chicago, NYC or a quonset hut on Midway Island. I do care whether or not it is verifiable. I see that you believe that various details in the film establish it is in NYC. I feel this matches the known fact that it was filmed in NYC, but does not establish the action as occurring there. I also see other editors who believe it is set in Chicago and/or NYC (here, on IMDb and elsewhere). I have not seen a reliable source say either. I have not seen any indication that it is relevant (you say it is, another editor said it isn't, I'm neutral). New York/NYC and Chicago have been repeatedly added, removed and reverted. IMDb has been claimed for both. Details in the film have been claimed for both. I think we've reached a point where saying what reliable sources say and not saying what they don't say would be a good idea. At the moment, we do not have a reliable source for either one. We have unreliable sources an original research for both. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The only immediately relevant portions of that chronology are that: (1) IMDb was a good enough reference when you wished to establish setting as "Chicago," and (2) you replaced one un-cited contribution with another, and then left the page in that state with no note that any in-line references were needed. Though I was originally guilty of the exact same behavior I must say that, taken by itself, it doesn't represent any desire to promote better citation as much as it indicates your preference for what the article should say.

At this point, I honestly do not believe that removing references is the best use of our time. Let's leave them tagged for the moment -- that's a good compromise. In my opinion, the first and third references are in fact the strongest indication of the setting of the movie. The second reference (while "reliable" in the sense that it comes from a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal) is only a conclusory statement. I believe that you are simply attempting to strip out as many references as possible -- that is Step 1.

After Step 1 is completed and you have stripped out references until the reliability of those remaining is about equal to whatever references you can find for Chicago, you will move [correction: have moved] onto Step 2: continuing to look for offhand comments in magazines or movie reviews that the movie was set in Chicago and then claiming that the information is of equal weight and disputed.

Of course you would prefer, I suspect, that the article simply said "set in Chicago," but if you cannot get me off of your back then you will move on to Step 3: quietly bury the whole (now tangled) mess somewhere deep in the article as disputed information, perhaps with a mental note to remove all "inconsistent and disputed information" at some point in the future as part of a "general cleanup."

I think probably Step 4 will be to replace the text in the beginning of the article with some "neutral and undisputed statement that everybody can agree on" such as "This film is based on the play by David Mamet about four Chicago real estate salesmen..." thus indirectly accomplishing your aim, implying that the movie was also set in Chicago, and perpetuating confusion that would be settled (if not to you, then certainly to the minds of the vast majority of readers) if they had access to the reliable sources and evidence to which I had originally cited.

Please tell me that I am wrong. -Xanthis (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a cloak and dagger plot you've worked out, involving heaps of bad faith on my part at every turn, including explanations for things I did and motives for things that you seem to have decided I planned to do at some future date. Please WP:AGF.

I reverted an unsourced, unexplained edit to the article. Yeah, it restored unsourced, poorly explained material. I frequently revert unsourced, unexplained edits and usually warn the editor in question. We have a vandal who, for whatever reason, loves to change release dates on Veggietales videos. I've checked a few and the changes are simply nonsense. As a result, all unsourced, unexplained Veggietales date changes are reverted -- even if the existing date is unsourced -- and the editor has been blocked under several dozen IP addresses. Another editor was making unsourced changes to the actors in fairly small roles in various films, another editor was making seemingly random changes to demographics in various towns in New York. Another editor was making various midsized towns all along the East Coast, but making each town 20% or so more African American. Another editor makes subtle changes to critical reception sections in various films, bending the critical consensus toward their opinion. Another editor likes to add brief romantic embellishments to film plots. Why? I haven't a clue. As a result, changes to articles that do not give an edit summary and/or source, especially when it might be a matter of opinion or seem to conflict with common knowledge, will likely be reverted.

Interpretation of primary sources is always a problem. Lots of musicians seem to make autobiographical statements in songs. Between outright lies, simple fiction and misinterpretation, I revert anything of the type. Novels, films and plays often include materia[[l that is as wrong as it is obvious. From simple mistakes (e.g., revealing mistakes in Die Hard 2) to misinterpretation (e.g., Fahrenheit 451 is not about censorship, according to Bradbury) and wishful thinking (Shipping_(fandom)), again, I want reliable secondary sources. All of this, of course, has the added flavor from rampant vandalism.

You have my motivations. I want verifiable, balanced information in articles. I am not seeking "The Truth". I do not want to enshrine anyone's opinion either. Feel free to speculate further somewhere else. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi @Xanthis: I first saw your comments a day or two ago and I was tempted to reply, but didn't because Summer's initial reply said most of what I would have, only better. Anyhow, a lack of action on her part to revert questionable information doesn't imply that she approved the inclusion of this information, or that there is any agenda. For unprotected articles, there is no mechanism in place for editors to evaluate EVERY edit unless they so choose. Sometimes problems slip by. I don't know what your watchlist looks like, Xanthis, but mine is jam-packed and I can't catch everything. That's the crux of it. And SummerPhD works hard here as a volunteer. If Chicago was unsourced speculation, and New York was unsourced speculation, than both should be removed until a sufficient source can be presented to support either with some certainty of accuracy. Hope that helps to provide some perspective. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. It is easy to allow frustration to inhibit reflection. I do not doubt that SummerPhd is acting in the best of faith to improve Wiki and make it a better place for everybody. She would not be working hard for no pay if it were otherwise, and I respect that. Of course it is equally true that people can (and often do) behave in unfair ways while attempting to act in good faith. And for many people "good faith" means doing what they truly think is best for Wikipedia, while using any means necessary to achieve their own subjective idea of improvement. Of course, I should take the same lesson to heart and make sure that I am being fair. Thank you again. And SummerPhd, I will take you at your word that this is not your plan. -Xanthis (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Why the deletion in Horse-ripping?

You recently deleted my addition of the category Animal Welfare on the Horse-ripping article. Your edit summary does not make sense to me. Please could you explain.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edit added Category:Animal welfare to an article that is already in Category:Equine welfare. "Animal welfare" is a parent category relative to "Equine welfare": the equine category is in the animal category (because any article about equine welfare is about a form of animal welfare). In effect, all the equine articles are in the animal category. It's explained in detail at WP:SUBCAT. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Citizenship spammer

I noticed you'd reverted a spammer on Citizenship in the United States. It looks like all of their edits were to spam the same site, sometimes using the deadlink seo technique. I went ahead and reported them to AIV as a spammer. Yeah, they'll create a new account but at least it slows them down slightly. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like their first time through. It took four edits the get the first addition right and their domain isn't otherwise on Wikipedia. I'll check them a few more times in the future, but they might be done. Fingers crossed, I guess. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

Did you mean to do this? We now have archives consisting of one post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Cleanup_in_aisle_1 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Laconia incident

I do not understand why you reverted my edit on the talk page.

My comment was directly relevant to whether this constitutes a war crime.

Certainly the comments regarding Hartenstein's intentions have nothing to do with the event being a war crime, yet those comments remain. Jokem (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are entirely your opinion on whether or not it was a war crime or should be a war crime. Your opinion on the matter is entirely irrelevant to the article. The article will never include a section that says, "Wikipedia editer Jokem believes this was a war crime." If you wish to discuss whether or not there was a war crime or what should be considered a war crime, you will need to find a forum to do so. Wikipedia is not a forum.

Discussion on that talk page should be restricted to efforts to improve the article. What do reliable sources have to say? Should we include that material? Is there anything in the article that lacks a reliable source? Is there material that misrepresents what the cited sources say? Are there sources in the article that are not reliable?

Adding your personal opinion about the topic (in the middle of another user's comment, incidentally) is not helpful in that regard. It's also worth noting that you were replying to a comment from a decade ago.

MANY of your comments seem to be aimed at simply discussing the topic. This needs to stop. If you would like to discuss how great the German 88mm gun was, whether or not you feel the action in a movie was scientifically accurate, whether or not a planet in a science fiction novel is believable or any other opinions you have on any other topic simply do not belong on article talk pages. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I note even less relevant comments by others are left as is by you. So I conclude my comments are being given undue attention.

I didn't know there was a rule about replying to a comment made a decade ago. How long does a comment have to be idle until it is forbidden to reply to?

Many of my 'opinions' as you state them are presented as questions, so I conclude one is not permitted to ask questions regarding improvement of the article.

I did not know adding a comment in the middle of anothers comment was forbidden either.

My comment about how 'great' the 88mm gun was had to do with when it was first used as an AT Gun by Germany, NOT, in fact how great it was. Or at the very least, how great it was is incidental. A reference was presented.

The comments about the science of Gor's atmosphere is common scientific knowledge. How obscure does the science have to be before it needs citations? Jokem (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If you feel there are other inappropriate comments, feel free to address them.

Adding comments in the middle of another user's comment is specifically discussed at WP:TALK. Trying to revive an off-topic discussion from 10 years prior is pointless.

You did not ask questions about improving the article, you asked about the topic.

How obscure does the science have to be? Immaterial. For an article to discuss how, for example, Superman can fly, we would need independent reliable sources discussing it. As an example, we have such sources discussing some scientific problems in Gravity. The article does not have various editors speculating about problems they think they have identified. The talk page is not for such speculation either. If Jodie Foster's character sat down on the outside of the ISS, removed her helmet and ate a pastrami on rye sandwich in the near vacuum of space with no ill effects, the article might mention her doing this in the plot section, if it was significant to the plot. The article would not, however, discuss that this would surely be fatal and that she couldn't really sit "down" in microgravity -- UNLESS independent reliable sources discussed it.

There are tens of thousands of Internet forums around where you can discuss virtually anything you can imagine. If you want to discuss the physics in bad sci fi movies from the 1950s or the clothing worn by a character in an obscure kids TV series or pretty much anything, there are sites for that. Wikipedia is not one of them. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for all the time you have invested in maintaining our encyclopedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 23:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The UPN Vandal

SummerPhD, is it possible for you to make a WP:LTA page for the UPN vandal? I would do it myself, but I'm uncertain about the whole thing. Is he even still active? Does he even qualify for LTA? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 14:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations

As you submitted the first instance of this case some years ago, I thought you'd be interested in the second, as it involves identical characteristics. Pax 04:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Kristin Davis Birth Date

Hello SummerPhD, I am new to this editing, but my reliable source for Kristin Davis' Birth Date is from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004862/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phade7 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, IMDb is not a reliable source. While they do "review" user submissions, they are vague as to what that review entails. Wikipedia requires sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, especially in regards to material about living persons. For more details, please see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

?

Summer, I was going to come here and accuse you of being a shill, a tool or part of some conspiracy, but after reading your talk page apparently I don't have to. I'm not the only one who considers such possibilities. Of course it makes more sense to accuse you of being a shill because I refuse to believe that someone of your intelligence could be so ignorant. So there it is. 75.82.68.41 (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi there, @75.82.68.41:! Careful friend, we don't tolerate personal attacks here. If you have a legitimate beef, you should be capable of expressing it without resorting to ad hominem or building up some unfounded conspiracy accusations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I expressed myself exactly as I intended. In fact, I tempered my words. If you would like to ban my IP, please do so immediately. Otherwise, mind your fucking business.75.82.68.41 (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I give up: Who or what am I shilling for this time? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The international cantaloupe conspiracy. 75.82.68.41 (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I maintain my position that scientists reporting on deaths attributable to cantaloupes are all merely falling in line with the hegemony to protect their funding. The UN's so-called "Intergovernmental Panel on Cantaloupe Change" is a corrupted body designed by the Illuminati to allow the United States to nationalize the melon production industry. That my studies are entirely funded by the Cabal of Almond, Nectarine and Cantaloupe Entrepreneurs and Restaurateurs (CANCER) does not in any way imply that I am biased. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask the obvious question. What's a shill? 213.83.127.252 (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC) WT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.127.252 (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone paid to act as if they are a fan of a product or service to convince others to buy it. Suppose I wrote a really book and wanted to boost sales. If I pay people to write enthusiastic reviews online while pretending to be just random people who read the book, those people would be shills. (I have no idea what the IP editor was talking about.) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it's not a word we use in England. For the record, I think it's pretty clear you're not a shill! Don't let the buggers grind you down, you're doing a great job. 79.64.142.98 (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)WT

If she's not a shill then she's something much worse, a true believer. Some of the worst problems in this world were created by people believing they were doing the right thing. 75.82.68.41 (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you OK? Do you want a hug? - WT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.127.252 (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm far worse than a mere "true believer". I am the architect of lies about, um, whatever it is, I'm sure. In the forthcoming final battle between the forces of good and evil, I will surely be unmasked as the lesbian space pope of darkness and cast into the pit of eternal darkness. Until then, we have anonymous editors making pointlessly vague accusations on a Wikipedia talk page; fighting the good fight for the truth. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, nope

Well first of all, the material quoted her as avowing that "She did not learn how to vote until [some late date]" (emphasis added). Learning the actual mechanics of how to vote is very easy for persons of normal intelligence, so although she may have said "learn how" she doubtless meant "bother to even learn how" -- that is, she was either busy or uninterested or just not in the habit, rather than of sub-normal intelligence. Implying otherwise is uncalled for, and that's what the quote does.

Second of all, whatever the material is intended to show -- that's she's stupid, or a hypocrite, or a dilettante, or or otherwise unworthy to engage in political discourse -- I'd want a very good source, or very good multiple sources, indicating that. A deal link to Brietbart doesn't cut it for a BLP. Herostratus (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Kids in America

I see that you reverted my disambiguation of [[New Wave]] to [[New wave music|New Wave]] with the edit summary of Trivial use. Was your intent to revert whole sentence? -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 03:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I've fixed it. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Meek Mill

I do remember saying I would help reflect the changes to other pages, which is why I did just that with: Wale discography, Don Logan discography, Maybach Music Group, Action Bronson discography, Ludacris discography, and many more pages. All of those pages reflect your pointless changes, which is why when I tell you that you're taking things too far (again), you should try actually listening to me for once instead of ignoring any opinion that isn't your own. You constantly police Meek Mill pages with no concern of the inconsistency you're causing for all the other coinciding pages within the genre. You're adding "scheduled" to something that doesn't even say released in the first place! The only contribution you're making is confusing readers who might be interested in reading about rappers other than the single one you've chose to police! You say that that specific section needs to say scheduled, even though nobody is even saying that it was released! It's overkill, it's inconsistent and it's rude to readers. I had much more to say but I'm starting to realize that regardless of what I say you're going to ignore it and continue to do whatever you please.

Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Please stop making personal attacks. Please sign your talk page entries. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

STOP WRITING ON MY TALK PAGE

You have made 4 unanswered posts on my talk page in the last 30 minutes, none of which were relevant. You're bullying will not be tolerated and shall you decide to continue, will be reported.

When you always delete all comments to your talk page, it ceases to mean anything. When you make personal attacks, revert edits without discussion, etc., escalating warnings are to be expected. If you continue the behavior discussed in the warnings, the next step is to have you blocked from editing, as happened with your previous edit warring. You will not find a standard warning for giving editors standard warnings. Here's a list, feel free to dig through it: WP:WARN.

If you would like to stop receiving warnings for personal attacks, you will need to stop making personal attacks. The same applies to warnings for edit warring, not signing talk page comments, marking substantial edits as minor, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your hard work Defending the Wiki from the vandals, I award you this barnstar. It was never work that appealed to me, really, so it's good to have you on team serious business. Have some fun sometimes too though. ResMar 02:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Miranda Lambert Link

Hi SummerPhD, As an avid country music fan, I believe that the http://countryfancast.com/country-artist-news/miranda-lambert/ external link provides a great resource for all things Miranda Lambert. From her bio to her social media presence to her tour schedule. I don't feel that this is any different from the external links leading back to Billboard and the Internet Movie Database. Really, this link is a valuable resource. Please leave it up. Best, Snetemeyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by SNetemeyer (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am aware that you are promoting the site for Miranda Lambert. And Chris Young. Oh, and Chase Rice, Casey James, Garth Brooks and Brad Paisley. Your site, however, fails WP:ELNO. It is an unofficial fan site, not a reliable source. Just to be sure it doesn't accidentally show up...[22] Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you 2 stop the edit war?

on the Bechdel Test page. Take it to the talk page and work it out there. I'll be saying the same thing to NJM. Tamtrible (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think your "edit war" trigger might be a bit too sensitive. Two reverts two days ago with edit summaries and substantial talk page discussion immediately after the second revert is hardly an edit war. A third opinion seemingly resolving the issue is already on the talk page as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)