Jump to content

User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Casino Royale (2006 film) - Reboot

Hi - Could you have a look at a comment I just made on Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film) about the reboot revert you just made? Many thanks. --Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You should count your eggs before they hatch, my friend!

Aren't you a bit too gung-ho on refusing to allow any edits to the Smash Mouth Wikipedia page to reflect the $10,000 egg challenge? I'm looking through some of the dialogue here and you seem to be a bit of a 'deletionist'. I'm not a regular Wikipedian, but I do know some of the lingo, if you know what I mean. Anyways, I'd cite, as an example, your premature deletion of the Bang Bang Bang (Selena Gomez & the Scene song) article, which you were wrong about as that song did end up charting. I know precedence is important, but this isn't a true bureaucracy - don't make yourself struggle through the extra paperwork of deleting an event you know is on the verge of notability anyways! Thanks for reading, thanks for your time and oh, by the way, consider donating to the cause? Ten dollars closer to $10k is ten dollars closer to that notability you so desire :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.204.136 (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I should count my eggs before they hatch? Well, that would be reckless of me, especially with the old adage saying "Don't count your eggs before they hatch."
I am not blocking edits from the Smash Mouth article. Yes, I've reverted some trivial unsourced and poorly sourced crap. Yes, I asked to have the article blocked from unregistered editors (the better to track and block those who choose to repeatedly ignore our policies to repeatedly ignore the consensus view that this is not sufficiently covered in independent reliable sources.
No, I have not deleted any articles. I've initiated discussions about what should possibly be deleted. "Bang Bang Bang" was not notable before it charted. The article should not have been created before the song charted. Consensus had formed that the song was not notable and the article would have been deleted, had it not charted. It charted, the article stayed. The process worked. I've started the discussion for the deletion of well over a thousand articles. Articles about someone's garage band, a movie that might never be filmed, songs that never charted, actors with bit parts, minor islands, fake bands, fake movies, fake songs, fake actors, fake islands... you name it. Maybe one in a hundred has not been deleted. I'll "batting" about .990. Boo hoo.
At the moment, the egg "story" is a bunch of guys goofing around in net forums and Twitter. It isn't notable. It isn't a cause. You want to donate to a cause? Find a charity, write a check and mail it to them. Better yet, find a charity and donate your time working for them. That is a cause. Some guy eating eggs? That's called "lunch". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
[1][2] Looks like there's egg on your face, friend! And this is about more than lunch. We're raising $10,000 dollars for St. Jude's Children's Hospital so that Smash Mouth gobbles up all 24 of those eggs, eats them up good! If you don't want to count your eggs (there's 24 of them, so we're clear), maybe you should count some cash and donate to a worthy cause Even a minimum $10 would be greatly appreciated, and I know we can count on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.96.244 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Worthy cause? Great! Mail your check directly to St. Jude's today. Oh, wait, this is about someone eating lunch, not charity... - SummerPhD (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fuck off please

Quote:

Talk pages are not for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussing ways to improve the article in question. In addition to the pages listed above, and others you have been previously warned for, your additions to Talk:Space (TV channel), Talk:Zoophilia, Talk:Yevgeny Petrosyan, Talk:Klezmer, Talk:Sholem Aleichem, Talk:Oasis HD, Talk:Ossetians, Talk:Shish taouk (Montreal), Talk:Semitic, Talk:Lockdown (TV series) and plenty more have all been reverted. Please consider this your last warning. If you continue to post unhelpful comments to article talk pages, you will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You are making things up as you go along. I have been warned for just ONE of the above. You just now made a bunch of reversions. Fuck off. --KpoT (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Nice. If you read a bit more carefully, there are the ones I listed (which I reverted), others' you were warned for and more I've reverted. You have had plenty of warnings for this: [3], [4], [5], [6], ...interrupted, see below...
You have also been warned about personal attacks before: [7], ...interrupted, see below...
Well, no reason to complete this now, as I see you have now been blocked. If needed, I'll pick up on this after 31 hours. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Quick heads-up: there's not currently consensus that in-effect block-messages need to stay (I think they should, but that's just me). Declined unblock requests definitely, but not the block itself if no unblock request stemming from it. DMacks (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I was fairly certain I had seen this enforced before and was just looking for a guideline/policy/whatever. Oh well, back to the salt mine. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "religion" from template

I saw your question on the infobox template talk page. You may be interested in this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,

I'll take a look. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why

WHY
Why do you keep changing my changes in the Attractions" Section of Phoenixville? I am simply adding attractions. Everything is properly cited i believe, so why change it? Pdakeyboardplaya (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Hey, you continue to remove some of the edits a make to Phoenixville, under the "Attractions" section. My question is Why? I believe that my edits are properly cited and i am typing in a neutral tone. All i am doing is adding attractions to the Attractions section. If they are improperly cited, i would like to know how to do it properly, seeing as I am new to wikipedia editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdakeyboardplaya (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page. Additionally, each edit's edit summary is available on the article's history page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Independent Reliable Source.

For future reference, I'm curious as to what you mean by an "independent reliable source". The classic towns of greater philadelphia is a plenty reliable source, though I'm curious as to your definition on a website being "independent". It's not like some random person is putting it on the web. But it's an actual organization sponsered by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, and it has a seasonal newsletter and everything. It's a legitimate title. Also I would like to ask what the problem is with having additional information on a page? This is an encyclopedia (kind of), is it not? The more information the better, right? When people are contemplating moving somewhere, more often then not they will look at the place on wikipedia. What is the problem with showing people what Phoenixville has to offer? The YMCA and the gold courses are not really recentism, presumingly considering that they will be around for quite some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdakeyboardplaya (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of this is already discussed on the article's talk page.
  • an "independent reliable source" would be one that is A) a "WP:reliable source" in our terminology (see the linked article) and B) independent of the topic being discussed. For instance, yes the DVRPC acknowledges that it has a website that mentions Phoenixville and Phoenixville (the city, their chamber of commerce, etc.) might mention that DVRPC has a website that mentions Poenixville. The DVRPC page might be a reliable source to cite for information about Phoenixville. However, you are attempting to say that it is some kind of honor or award bestowed upon Phoenixville. For this to have any kind of meaning, we need an independent source to show there is something meaningful about this. Imagine a newspaper reporting "In 2011, Phoenixville was featured as one of the Classic Towns of Greater Philadelphia". Can't imagine that? It's trivial.
  • Yes, this is an encyclopedia. "The more information the better, right?" Not quite. If we added all of the information available, this article would include every person's phone number, every businesses' hours, etc. Obviously we have limits as to how much we want to include. Please review WP:NOT for a partial understanding of what we are not (a directory, for example). Also consider WP:WEIGHT. With such a large section you intended to add on the local Y, it seems to be just as important as the history of the town. The Y will change. It's "state of the art" (according to them!) whatever will be dated. Heck, it could close tomorrow. The town's history, however, will not vanish.
  • The problem with "showing people what Phoenixville has to offer" is that it is not what we are here for. Imagine you were writing about, say, Baghdad. Would the article be about what Baghdad has to offer? If you wanted to know about Baghdad, would you be wondering about the specifics of the facilities at their Y? How about a reasonably balanced article discussing what is notable about the city, based on reliable sources instead? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I dislike you. Are you like an actual person doing this for fun? Or are you paid to do this? That's actually a serious question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdakeyboardplaya (talk • contribs) 21:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not very polite. Feel free to try again. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal life is valid

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contessa_Brewer&oldid=441099599 It's on MANY articles. She publicly said she was pregnant. Oh, and i have been editing wiki's longer than you've been alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your continuing problem with chat on article talk pages is not valid and I earned my master's degree before you first logged on to the 'net. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
"been editing wiki's longer than you've been alive" .. and yet you don't know of simple things like signing your posts and using edit summaries? what a laugh. -- Ϫ 17:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't look for logic. You can't get blood from a stone. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Ericg33 then received a 6 month block for chronic disruptive editing.

FYI..

There is currently a discussion taking place on Sondra Locke that could have some bearing on the discussions we've had in Michelle Thomas. The topic is using a cited age to obtain a birth year by subtraction. Sounds familiar, does it not? If you'd like to contribute, I invite you to do so now. Thanks. Erikeltic (Talk) 02:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Tomboys

Stop deleting our edits of the fictional tomboys page (Incorrectly added to my user page, moved here for response.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.163.112 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 3 August 201

I have been removing all unsourced additions to that list. If you have reliable sources, please cite them. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Primary school Branko Miljković

Hello SummerPhD. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Primary school Branko Miljković, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing the Talk Page

The comments on Talk:List of Tomboys in Fiction were my own. I forgot to Login — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny 42 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 August 2011

The comment was also chat, so I'd suggest not re-adding it. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Blonde from 3's company

"I am unsure why you feel the need to repeatedly refer to Jenilee Harison's hair color at Regggie Jackson."

Why not. There were multiple women on that show. She was the blonde. --Ericg33 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"The" blonde? She was one of four female roommates on the show, three of whom were blonde, that's why. You might just as well have specified that she was right-handed. - SummerPhD (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Peter Pepper (musician)

Hey there. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Peter Pepper (musician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's additional sources now that weren't included last time it was created. Needs to go back to AfD if necessary. I'll move it back to where is should be (without the disam). Thank you. GedUK  07:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Birth

I would be very interested to know your views as to whether or not it is worth mentioning Leslie Weatherhead's [controversial] suggestion regarding the Virgin Birth of Jesus. That was included in my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_birth_of_Jesus&diff=446053315&oldid=442209340 ... but my contribution was reverted yesterday (21 August) by Wiki-Editor "History2007".--DLMcN (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than canvassing for support, you'll need to take it to the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Your question was probably a great help in "stirring the pot" - triggering off quite a fast and furious discussion ... [I wonder if that broke the Wikipedia record?] Thanks anyway. Good wishes,--DLMcN (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The King of Rock 'n' Roll

Hi, SummerPhD. I understand the rule about talk pages being for the discussion of articles, not their subjects, but it is in the interests of Wikipedia to have omissions pointed out so that articles can be improved. Often this takes the form of someone asking a question on the talk page that is not answered in the article, in the hope that the information can be incorporated into the article for the benefit of all readers. Given that many articles on songs with videos say something about where the video was filmed, who directed it, what inspired it, etc, I think it is reasonable to ask on the talk page of The King of Rock 'n' Roll if anyone knows where the video was filmed. Thanks. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Roughly half of your addition (from "Presumably..." to the end) was not your typical roundabout requests to expand the article. It was chat. Further, there are expansion templates for requesting additions to an article. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

List of collective nouns

I have finally finished combining these various lists of collective nouns

and published the new article at List of collective nouns.

As you have been keeping an eye on the old pages and reverting dubious edits, I was wondering if you could have a look at the new article and check whether I have made any glaring errors or omissions before I get the old pages deleted.

Each entry should now have at least one reference. I have left out any entries on the old pages that had no reference or a dubious reference. I am aware that there are some entries still to be added (e.g. parrots and walruses, just to name two), which I will add later.

Once this is all sorted, I will work on merging these articles as well -

as I don't believe that separate articles are justified.

Thanks!

Ozzieboy (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Socially responsible investing

You left a comment (quite a while ago) on my talk page complaining about an edit summary on Socially responsible investing. I should have been more careful, but I wasn't trying to mislead. Here's what happened (other than the dash, which I think is uncontroversial). The sentence "Religious institutions have been at the forefront of social investing ever since" had been in the article for a long time. On March 9, User:Stevendoll tagged it as unreferenced. On March 21, an IP user added "the days of yore" and removed the tag. We both noticed this; you responded by removing the entire sentence, with the edit summary, (-joke (?)). I'm not quite sure—given the delay—what the timeline of my actions was, but my intent was to remove "the days of yore" only, and my edit summary reflected that intent; given your intermediate edit, that was not what I actually did. And I suppose I may have been influenced by your edit summary, which I interpreted to mean that you had an issue only with "days of yore" and not the entire assertion.

Sorry about the confusion, and I suppose what I should really do is try to find a reliable source for the statement. "Socially responsible investing" church leadership "19th century" finds 800,000 Google hits, with a smaller number for 18th century and even some for 17th, so that should be feasible. Matchups 14:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicole Polizzi

I saw that you reverted my edits about Polizzi. I suppose I should express my confusion over what constitutes a reliable source (since you pointed me to our policy article on the subject): Is a video of her saying those things, particularly one that is likely to be up for some time, not sufficiently reliable?KlappCK (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

For such trivial content, we need an independent reliable source -- one not associated with Polizzi or the show. Your interpretation of her comment as supporting awareness of a particular "issue" is problematic as well. Without this requirement, every article about every prominent person on the planet would be littered with various statements the person made that someone feels is notable. Unless a reliable source discusses the statement, it is trivial and does not belong in the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I have clarified this further at Help desk inquiry. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you even check sources anymore, or do you just revert first? It was discussed by an independent source.KlappCK (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Which edit are you talking about? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit that it is hard for me to assume good faith when you say "trivial unless discussed in independent reliable sources (she's seen eating frequently, where's THAT discussion?)".
Two things: 1) As has been made clear at the help desk, the issue is the importance (you might say triviality) of the subject, not its sources. In this specific instance, you have in one hand the video of Farley pissing behind a bar (and, in a different episode, in a back alley) after saying stating that she could not wait any longer, and, in the other hand you have a video from of her discussion the incident with a prominent third party (one with its own wikipedia article, I might add) on a radio talk show. 2) If you want to include other details, that is your prerogative, provided you can source it and justify its inclusion. This desire to expand upon existing content is how we got up to 3.7 million articles.
What you really should have pointed out from the beginning is its prominence in this relatively small article. If the Farley article had more than 20,000 words, I would imagine that an inclusion like this would have been much less questionable.KlappCK (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I make a sarcastic comment and you assume I'm not trying "to help the project, not hurt it"WP:AGF? I can't help you with that.
A subject, being filmed or speaking about herself is not an independent source. (She is not independent of herself.) The other details I provided as examples are equally sourced and equally trivial. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess we agree to disagree. :)KlappCK (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

NPA

Consider this a rejection of your warning and advice to stop acting like you own that talk page. Sorry you couldn't spot sarcasm on your own and looked silly by treating it as a real theory. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh no!!!!!!!!!!!! Someone said I look silly!!!!!!!!!!!!! Must... crawl... to... corner... to... curl up and cry. sob. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Summer how is this a copyright violation of this source? I wrote the synopsis in my own words and did not merely copy and pate from the source that is included in the article (I don't know where Entertainment News blog came from). —Mike Allen 03:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I might have been editing at a bit of a clip. I searched for a piece of the text (as I've often found plots for upcoming films are copy-pastes). In any case, it looks like I saw "...Their search takes an unexpected turn when Matty tells Michael that he is gay." vs. "...However, their quest takes an unexpected turn when Matty tells Michael that he is gay." I'll tweek it, if you haven't already. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes it can be tricky to write a synopsis in your own words when it's only a couple of sentences. Thanks for fixing it. —Mike Allen 04:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, in retrospect, I think calling it a copyvio was hasty on my part. I usually run across blatant copy-pastes of entire paragraphs. You left in part of a sentence. I'd flag it in a term paper, but I wouldn't fail anyone. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

City of Dunedin Choir and St. Paul's POV / neutrality

Hello. Re CODC, I'm still gathering data at the moment, not much to say that hasn't been said at the discussion page. Am happy to publish content that has come to me that the choir would probably prefer to remain private, if it is needed to support the content posted here at Wiki. As far as I understand, choir letters from committee on official letterhead do constitute appropriate source material for wiki. The real question to ask is whether the page on the choir itself is even noteworthy enough for wiki. Possibly not - there is a question mark over the page and it is listed as of low importance to wiki. I'd prefer the page to stay, I'd also prefer facts to censorship within it, even when those facts aren't exactly pleasant. I sing with CODC, and am not happy about the matter, but will not hide its dirty laundry either.

Re St. Paul's Cathedral, all the content that you have removed has been approved by third party as verifiable and wiki worthy. Removal seem biased to me, and yet another attempt (there have been several) to change history on this topic. I will request a lock on this page if necessary. Let's keep it pleasant, and leave the issue alone. If you have an issue with the way the ODT and the Bishop handled the issue, I suggest you take it up with them, rather than attempt to change fact here at Wiki. Regards, UltraZit (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Ultrazit

Re: "publish(ing) content ... that the choir would probably prefer to remain private". If the material has not been published, we cannot use it as a source. It is not verifiable.
Re: "choir letters from committee on official letterhead do constitute appropriate source material for wiki". Letters to you or anyone else are not published, nor are they verifiable.
If you feel the Choir is not WP:notable, feel free to list it for deletion. That is a separate issue.
That you "sing with CODC" indicates a likely conflict of interest in your editing these pages.
I see no indication of the "third party" you say has "approved (it) as verifiable and wiki worthy". As such, I am neither able to comment on nor am I compelled by their opinion, whatever it might be.
I am completely uninvolved in this case. I have no feelings about any of the individuals and institutions involved here. I am merely trying to ensure that the material presented here is relevant, reliable and unbiased. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ulrika Jonsson

As per our conversation elsewhere on your page, "for such trivial content, we need an independent reliable source -- one not associated with [the person in question] or the show," (these are your words). It would appear to me that the link to a video of an independent news source interviewing said person would satisfy the conditions you had described. Can you elaborate on your decision to delete the information?KlappCK (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your "independent news source" is a copyright violation of an advertisement for Envive pads. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Your propensity for brevity at the expense of clarity is frustrating. I was not aware that this link was copyright infringment. Can you explain (preferably by demonstration of evidence) how you know this is the case? Either way, I believe I have found the content provider. I noticed that this article also features Dr. Sarah Jarvis prominently, which (to me) further establishes credibility. Insofar as this content is provided on behalf of an incontinence products company, I would point you to Mary Lou Retton's incontinence and her endorsements of a particular product (I beleive that, in her case, the product being endorsed is a medication). In this instance, the information was deemed relevant enought for inclusion (and not by me, in case you were wondering). Therefore, in my mind, even if her "speaking out on the subject" is a veiled product advertisement, it seems inconsistent to include the information for one woman, but not another. As I (and apparently many other Wikipedians) have mentioned in the past, you would be doing us all a favor if you tried to be a bit more of an otter and bit less of a vampire when writing your correspondences.KlappCK (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
As the site does not present a credible claim that the site or that the uploader holds the copyright and thereis no reason to believe the work is public domain, Wikipedia assumes it is a copyright violation and will not link to the content. Assuming this is the original producer of the "article" -- again, it is an advertisement, not an independent news source -- we are back to this being trivial content. Jonnson as a paid promoter of pads is likely mentioned in a reliable sources somewhere. Find such a source if you wish to add this. However, I rather suspect you are more, um, "interested" in adding "urinary incontinence" to the article. This is quite common in postpartum women. It is likely trivial, similar to "gee, she had acne as a teenager". If it is not trivial, you should be able to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As for Mary Lou Retton, yes, I see you've added it there as well. Other stuff exists. Possible problems there are not a "precedent" for allowing the same or similar problems elsewhere -- especially when the person citing the other stuff created it. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
1)"Jonnson as a paid promoter of pads is likely mentioned in a reliable sources somewhere. Find such a source if you wish to add this" - here is the information for which I believe you are looking.
2)"However, I rather suspect you are more, um, "interested" in adding "urinary incontinence" to the article." - Not that my [you in the past] has had any apparent effect, but this is argumentum ad hominem, a personal attack, is little different than any other (admittedly novice) WikiGnome's edit behavior when contributing to a WikiProject (in this case, Medicine). I have simply tried to increase the number of relevant articles linking to the subject. Since you seem to question my motivation, may I ask why you give a fuck? Specifically, why did you remove only that "trivial" detail, but not any of the many unsourced or under-sourced one sentence details about her career or personal life? Did it just slip your mind, are where you combing through my edit history, looking to undo my work?
3) As for Mary Lou Retton, yes, I see you've added it there as well.. - Let us look at the diff, shall we? I merely elaborated upon and added an internal link to existing information, which you can check for accuracy by following the reference link. To my understanding, this violates no Wikipedia guidelines.KlappCK (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
1) I see nothing to indicate that "trulyme.com" is an independent reliable source. While I don't have reason to believe it isn't independent, I see no indication that it is a "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."WP:RS
2) Your apparent desire to add "urinary incontinence" to various articles is neither a statement meant to cast you in a negative light nor is it intended to nullify any argument you have put forth, Rather, I am proactively seeking to ensure that we stick to what the sources say. Finding an independent reliable source for her endorsement deal does not necessarily provide a source for your desired addition of "urinary incontinence".
3) "Combing through (your) edit history" was a simple matter of opening the article's history and using "find" for your user name. You pointed out the problem there, I fixed it. If there are other problems with that article, feel free to either fix them yourself or tag them for another editor to resolve. There was no indication that independent reliable sources had discussed this, now there is. What's the problem?
If you would like to add "urinary incontinence" to any other biographies of living persons (or talk pages or other articles discussing living persons), you will want to review our policy on sources for such information, whether you are a "newcomer" (as you implied) or not. As it stands, I do not see such sources for Jonsson. I care because our BLP policy is an issue to be taken seriously. If you do not agree, I cannot help you. If you do not understand, I'm willing to try. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I feel like the subject matter itself limits my ability to find the kind of sources you desire. Could you point me specifically (perhaps even quote) where in our wikipedia policy it is made clear that the (video) source is insufficient in context? From our discussions with others on the Help Desk, it would seem that this video is the closest thing we can get to legitimate evidence from a single source. Similarly, I have been unable to find evidence that urinary incontinence is "common" in postpartum women anywhere in Wikipedia, can you provide a link to verify your assertion? Would you prefer a link/reference to X (where X is the article to which you are refering) rather than urinary incontinence)? To the extent that this information about Ulrika is trivial, and not unsourced, would you be content with posting the information we have collected thus far on the talk pages and putting the decision to include the material up to consensus? It seems more constructive than, say, going to dispute resolution.KlappCK (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Why this is difficult to source is a moot point.
We do not link to copyrighted material that is illegally copied.Wikipedia:Youtube#Restrictions_on_linking Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked to.WP:YOUTUBE The youtube page in particular does not present a credible claim that the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use.WP:ELNEVER
To refresh your memory, please review the discussion you refer to. Of particular interest is this part, "Also, is the link to a copyright-respecting location, not to a bootleg or YouTube upload of copyrighted material?" and this, "Read WP:UNDUE: this kind of junk has no place whatsoever in an article." and this, "If and only if the information has become the topic of discussion in articles about the subject in notable venues. That's why I referred you to WP:UNDUE. In other words, if the articles about this person in TV Guide or Newsweek mention this information, then it might be relevant. If it's only the subject of some derision on blogs and webforums, then generally not." Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

1) I thought we had addressed the youtube video issue by finding it on the source website? You're not saying that that too is a copyright infringement, are you? 2) Where you ever able to find a Wikipedia article confirming that postpartum urinary incontinence is common? 3) Okay...you 'are' slowly winning me over here, but I am of the understanding that the relavent part of WP:UNDUE is "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." To me this sounds relative: if a BLP has 50,000 words, would it be undue if six of them where about a verifiable medical condition? The answer appears to be yes when we look at our featured BLP's.KlappCK (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

1) I didn't see it at the production company's website. "If and only if the information has become the topic of discussion in articles about the subject in notable venues. That's why I referred you to WP:UNDUE. In other words, if the articles about this person in TV Guide or Newsweek mention this information, then it might be relevant."
2) Postpartum UI is experienced by 23.4%[8] to 38.4%[9], likely higher during pregnancy[10]. That is to say, it is very common.
3) This "verifiable medical condition" is more prevalent in postpartum women than the flu. Did Jonsson have the flu that year? Shouldn't we find out? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Does it take much of an effort on your part being such a condescending smart-ass, or does it come naturally? :) I think you should commit those figures to an appropriate article (perhaps here?). Kudos for doing the research though. As you had suggested, I think we 'should' look into the flu thing, especially since vomiting can cause stress incontinence. (I'm jesting, just so we're clear.) Here's the link I was referring to where that video was originally posted (to my understanding): [11]. Cheers!KlappCK (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I've never been one for the nature vs. nurture debate. That said, whatever innate abilities I have have been augmented by years of practice from both sides of the lectern. Feel free to use the study figures as appropriate. The flu thing, of course, would apply to BLPs "If and only if the information has become the topic of discussion in articles about the subject in notable venues." Whatever "digitalnewsagency.com" is (I assume it's an ad firm fronting as a news content provider), I see no indication it is an independent reliable source and certainly not a "notable venue". - SummerPhD (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess we're done here then...and, you know something, you're alright.KlappCK (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Not to question your judgment, but I doubt those who know me best would agree that there isn't something about me that isn't right. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
You question my judgement? What a refreshing change of pace! Here I thought we were just going to agree on everything all the time.KlappCK (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you ever include those sources you found on postpartum urinary incontinence in a wikipedia article?KlappCK (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Still waiting for a response on that last comment.(KlappCK (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You could have just checked my edits. IAC, no, I have no interest in inserting this factoid anywhere. Starting with data and looking for a place to put it is seldom a good idea. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

2013 and beyond in film

So, you contributed to this discussion a fair while ago, and circumstances have changed a little over that time, so if you could look at it, that would be great. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, another response would be nice. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just For Comparison

Just so I can get a sense for the distinction between relevant, well-sourced material and that which is not, can you check out the second to last paragraph about Chloe (pornographic actress)? Is that quote about her sexual tastes appropriate for a BLP?KlappCK (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even looking. If you find a problem with that other article, feel free to fix or tag it. I will note, however that if you can't see a difference between sexual tastes in a porn star's article and a common medical condition in some random person's article, there is nothing I can say to help. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I should just stick to mathematics and physics articles, because my mind has a hard time reconciling the subtleties of what is relevant and what is not relevant. I get that the sexual tastes of someone who has sex for a living is relevant, just so we're clear, I was focused more on the sourcing. If the source was a problem, though, I wouldn't know what do (short of just removing it, like you do).KlappCK (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Totally unrelated here, but your user name seems to imply you have a PhD, what in?KlappCK (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather not say. A bit of digging on your part would likely turn up what my masters degree is (though nothing to differentiate it). Let's just say there is little to nothing in my editing that has much to connect it to my field (and nothing remotely connected to my specialization. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Eh...I don't care that much. Until we meet again, happy WikipediaingKlappCK (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Public smoking ban in Ohio

Please add neutral information to the Ohio portion of the smoking ban page. Which includes telling the entire story, up to and including the lower court case, not just the appeals case. As well as that only ONE report was conducted on the ban in Sept. of '11. The economic portion was conducted by a non-economist. Which was cited and referenced. Tell the whole story, not just your personal opinion of a matter. Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smace05 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

All information I have added is, to the best of my knowledge and ability, neutral. If you have specific problems with what is or is not included, you will need to get past your apparent reluctance to address your concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello SummerPHd

We recently [12] had a sort of difference of opinion regarding a possible conflict of interests in edits made by a new editor. I have been thinking about our exchange even since then and decided to chat with you about some of my thoughts. We can do it here, or at my place, or off wikipedia. I am aware that many editors do not like that last option, since doing it here helps maintain the transparency of wikipedia, but I can do it any way. Starting here and looking for a response here. I am wondering if you consider that any editor who quotes and references their own work automatically represents a conflict of interests? My feeling is that by doing this we loose access to a lot of good material. Self-promotion needs to get deleted. But published - peer evaluated material, it seems to me, is fine to use, posted by anyone, author or not. Secondly, and this is a more sensitive issue, but I will just blurt it out in a most unsensitive manner, have you googled the editor in question and seen what shows up? Ie. her experiences in South Africa and even more germane (in my view) her role in discrimination (gender, not racial) at the U of Hull? I believe that this is an editor who would have a lot to contribute to wikipedia, well beyond her published material, and I would not like to see us loose her. This is one man's opinion, I look forward to yours. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is generally a bad idea for editors with a potential conflict of interest to edit within the area of conflict without openly stating their potential conflict. (As such, I do not edit in my area of specialty and rarely edit in contentious areas directly connected to my more general field.) I have seen cases where editors openly state there possible conflict, edit in other areas with no problem and handle edits in their field in a manner similar to unconfirmed editors attempting to edit semi-protected articles: Take it to the talk page, discuss what you feel needs to be done and possibly suggest specific changes and sources. Otherwise, it is far too easy to simply fall back on what you know best: your own work. If I edit articles related to my work and cite my publications, it is certainly true that I am adding to the articles. However, I am over-representing my work and my findings. The bias is inherent and, for mere humans, unavoidable. Changing users names to hide an apparent COI is a very bad idea. When outed, a COI will then be assumed, with most work by the editor deemed biased. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
So I am one of those folks who, when I see a statement such as, "generally a bad idea", I respond with, " 'Generally' does not mean 'always'." Maybe she is one of the cases that falls between the two words. Also, since she edited using more or less the name that she published under I feel that this, " without openly stating their potential conflict." does not really apply. Now as I recall the situation, you did not undo her edit, you just pointed out a possible conflict of interest and she removed it. We will see where she goes next, but I hope that it is somewhere on wikipedia and not just outta here. Carptrash (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The warning outlines our* particular concerns. I have undone an edit or two from that editor, and I'm not alone. Those edits, though, were not specifically "conflict-y", they were just bad form: "Author A in Book A discusses aspect A of the subject. Author B in Book B discusses aspect B of the subject. Author C in Book C discusses aspect C of the subject. Author Me in My Book discusses aspect My of the subject." That's a problem of a different type. In my experience, an editor who manages to mention their own work in all of the first half dozen or so articles they edit usually doesn't last long. Maybe this one will be different. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Carptrash (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

and a review of the editor in qusetinos work since then strongly suggests that you were right, or to put it in a more painful way, I was wrong. Carptrash (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Food Pyramid

Thanks for your contribution on the Food Pyramid page. I have reverted it with some minor changes. I thought it was a bit obvious that the whole section (including the table below it) are extracted from the same work and therefore the reference above it effectively applies to the whole paragraph, and to the table following it, but to aid matters, I have including a piece referring to the "table" that follows in case other people misread it, too. The reference to "that nutrient" refers back to the first part of the sentence, which describes the multiple nutrients in the table directly below it that have no limit. It would be nice to understand what an edit is trying to say, and help structure it, rather than just undo it. I am sure people would appreciate a bit more some help re-crafting it (I certainly would). I haven't yet mastered a double link to the same reference, so if you are able to do that to help make my edit more understandable, it would be great.Ged Sparrowhawk (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Hack

We are not in disagreement, and I already look to possibilities before piping up at an AFD. We both agree fully that verifiability is the key, and I find that key usually opens the lock. When I offer an opinon at an AFD, I do try to back up my opinion proactively. More to do, yes... but improvments and sourcing seem reasonably addressable as issues go.  :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the notability guidelines are rather loose in both directions, with a few exceptions. Cudos for backing up your claims with effort. Too many flatly assert that subject X is clearly notable, that the AfD is procedurally incorrect -- demanding a speedy keep or some other manufactured nonsense. I'll take a look and see what you have. This one's been looking for attention for some time. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Moby Games

As far as I have been able to determine, per WP:VG/EL its use is generally okay for WP:V, though it is not suitable to show notability.[13][14][15][16][17] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the specialists at WP:VG say its OK for an external link. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am not rushing to add it back. As just as with films, credits are okay as sourcable to the film itself. Will be doing more to that article in about 15 hours (long workday). Been otherwise working over at Jenna Rose. Very odd AFD with a strange and quite polite WP:IDONTLIKEIT re-re-nomination. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it does seem to be snowing in the 3rd go for Jenna Rose. I'm sure it'll be back though. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Me too... but we usually try to give something a bit more than 20 days before renominating. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. A current item like this is something "keep" !votes will stick with for a few months longer. AfD was doomed from the start. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
This is an interesting idea, but it won't fly. Let's watch... - SummerPhD (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Tward that "interesting idea"... others seem to accept its misinterpretation of BLP1E despite multiple viral video releases and coverage since 2009. Might you feel an incubation for a few months might make sense, specially as the article NOW is in far better shape than it was when it was renominated 20 days after a keep. This should serve to allow continued collaborative editing and could hold of the expected drama when some "fan" tries to recreate the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Drink up, little Summer, before it's fall. Happy days. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't you have anything darker? And you can't fool me, I know it's already fall. (Next you'll try to convince me the tooth fairy is real. <insert obligatory fairy joke here>) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as the water is swimmable it's not really fall yet. And yes, I do have something darker, but you have to reach down the back of my pants for it--reading and teaching The Summoner's Tale is really a lot of fun. Oh, I don't have to believe in the tooth fairy, since I usually carry an iron object around. I urge you to do the same, since intoxicated tooth fairies have been known to forcibly remove adult teeth just for the hell of it. "Is it safe?" Drmies (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dog! They have you teaching Chaucer! The Philistines! (There's a reason I don't "do" lit...) And to think I was annoyed with having to teach American public policy 1950 - 2000 to a bunch of twenty-somethings. Granted, I hate hearing students flipping through their notes to figure out who I'm talking about when I let slip with an "Ike" or "RFK", but Chaucer sucks... in my opinion... I could be wrong... - SummerPhD (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and you are! Sooooo wrong! What happened? You got farted in the face and now you're taking it out on the Father of English Poetry? I wish you'd drop by and sit in for one of my classes; I'll make a believer out of you. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I had a transesophageal echocardiogram a few years back. The procedure is very unpleasant ("May be uncomfortable for the patient" is Wikispeak for "I'm going to take a plumber's snake down your throat. You are going to want to see me die a slow, painful death."). If someone were to tell me that I am "sooooo wrong" about that, I would be ever so slightly more inclined to believe them then someone trying to sell me Chaucer. No offense, but I'm not buying any today. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
A what? You can spell like nobody's business. Hey, did you ever get your roof fixed? I think we need a roofer now. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. Because the water was coming in through our neighbor's downspout, our insurance companies are still fighting about who owes what to whom. Fun, fun, fun. (I can't spell for 5h!t, but I can piece together scraps of Latin well enough to give Google what it needs to find what I'm looking for. It's the 21st century, don't cha know?) Oh well, off to teach the thumb tribe all about social welfare in Camelot. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SummerPhD/Archive_8&oldid=1089744103"