User talk:SummerPhD/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about User:SummerPhD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

hi, i'm a little confused about the references for the birth and death of Michelle Thomas. for the death, there is "quality sources" beeing quite clear. and some other, 3 liner sources, beeing unclear. would it be possible to ignore these low quality 3 liner websites? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at some length. Please see the article's talk page. If you disagree with the consensus, please discuss the issue there. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

oh, i see it now. this was indeed a lenghty discussion, not to say quarrel. wikipedia and michelle thomas is not important enough to let one drag into such a discussion ... and to be honest i am unable to see the consensual statement on the talk page. if you really doubt the dates, i'd personally prefer you put these doubts in a paragraph of the article and not cluttering the whole text with either/or clauses. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We cannot discuss "doubt(ing) the dates" in the article because we do not have reliable sources discussing it. We have reliable sources giving one date and other reliable sources giving another date. We cannot simply choose one or the other, so we cite both. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

hehehe ... you _really_ seem to be convinced a source is reliable if the date of death cannot be determined? WP:OR does not mean that you need to make a text unreadable. you are free to choose one date, e.g. the one out of the best researched article, and add a paragraph that no source does exist to confirm the date, citing the other sources including the dates they offer. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I am convinced that a source is reliable if it is reliable. If you have suggestions for improving the article, please discuss them on the article's talk page. If a consensus can be demonstrated to match what you propose, that consensus will be reflected in the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

i cannot follow. are two sources stating differing death dates of a person reliable or not? and if yes, what makes them reliable? it cannot be the research, otherwise they would have found the real date. or is there as well room for interpretation - i.e. a person can have two death dates? @talk page and consensus: do you think you and i can find a consens? if yes, i put it on the talk page. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources are "reliable" if they follow the guidelines set up at our guidelines for reliable sources (which I have repeatedly linked to). A broad over simplification of that is that the source (newspaper, magazine, book publisher, etc.) "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This is not the same thing as the source being "correct". For her age at death, we have the Miami Herald vs. The New York Times. For her date of death, we have one date from Variety, Entertainment Weekly and The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel vs. People Magazine and the Bay State Banner. All of these sources are reliable sources. It is obvious though that not all of them are correct. The consensus established on the talk page is to include both dates and both ages. If you disagree, you will need to address the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

obviously we do not agree on what is reliable. your stand point is that these sources are reliable, even if you know that some of them are wrong. and i am saying, if these sources did not make the effort to really cross check and state it in the article that they did so, the source (beeing the article, not the newspaper) is not reliable. the proof is that we cannot tell the date. this does of course not mean that ny times or variety in general has a less good reputation now. and i am saying the date of publication matters. if a 2 line article goes out during the holiday season, and a lenghty written article goes out 2 weeks later, common sense says that the chance of beeing right is greater on the latter case.

that we do disagree here is fine for me. what does this mean for the article? i guess not a lot, we agree that the dates are not sure. so there is one single question remaining: are you open to formulate it without the and/or clauses, and move the discussion about the reliable sources and varying dates into a separate paragraph? this means _both_ dates are in the article, just not on the place they are now. (i am asking only you, as you reverted the article, and if you do not agree it is 100% sure now that we do not hav a consensus on this) --ThurnerRupert (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Feel free to address this on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're informed. - 124.168.221.199 (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have responded there. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that our IP editor with the suspiciously comprehensive knowledge of ancient arbcom cases has stopped editing, and the ANI case has been archived to [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive780#Request_for_input.2C_and_if_it_boomerangs_that.27s_fine ].

I suspect that what we are looking at here is a banned user using an IP address as a sockpuppet, then dropping off the radar after repeating the behavior that got him banned. If so, he may turn up again. Please drop me a line on my talk page if you run into a "new" user with the same behavior pattern. I am unwatching all the pages associated with this. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find the duck for this quack, but I'll let you know if I do. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your page was an invitation! What's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.96.84 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"If you're going to vandalize my page, please update the counter." By updating the counter, you confirmed that you were vandalizing the page. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It turns out that this issue has been discussed numerous times. The reference indicates that about Catalonia is not a country but a region of Spain. In infobox is clear that the country is Spain. Greetings.--Marcospace (talk) 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to link to that discussion on the talk page of the article in question. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've done it. --Marcospace (talk) 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

South Philadelphia High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Negro National League, Baltimore Colts, Fabian and Sumerian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for tagging this for notability back in Jan 2008. I'm not sure but am inclined to think it's not notable. You may want to take it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Your first message on my talk page states that "Wikipedia says the Ancient Greeks believed the Earth is hollow. Clearly the Earth is not. Is Wikipedia wrong? No, because the Ancient Greeks did say that." However, my complaint was about listing Juggalo as an allied gang of the Bloods/Crips, which is directly calling Juggalos a gang. I cannot see how you do not understand why there is a problem with directly calling a music fanbase a gang. I cannot see how you can claim that calling a music fanbase an ally of a gang is not calling a music fanbase a gang. I cannot see how you can compare this to an article on the Ancient Greeks saying that the Ancient Greeks believed that the Earth is hollow. I am not complaining about an assertion that the FBI claims Juggalo is a gang, I am complaining about articles DIRECTLY CLAIMING that Juggalos are a gang. It is blatantly patronizing for you to claim that placing "Juggalos" as an ally of a REAL GANG is not an assertion that a music fanbase is a gang. --BigBabyChips (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Summer, you might be interested in this: [1]. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

BigBabyChips: I believe I do understand the issue. I do not believe I am superior than you, but I'd expect that after 8 years on Wikipedia I might have a more complete understanding of our policies and guidelines. (Your claims of an exemption from 3RR based on NPOV was a red flag in my mind.)

Niteshift: Thanks for the heads up. I won't be commenting. Typical handling at the various noticeboards will take it from here rather well, I suspect. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, you may want to contribute to the discussion linked above, and consider nominating the article is merged. You tagged this for notability back in 2008. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just realised you also prodded it, but it was removed by a person who only edited about this band. You may want to consider AfD, but I think the recommendation would be merge. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey I have had ideas for my own films and I will created them for real when I'm 18. My first film is Dreamworks' A Journey to the Golden Coconut Tree. It is from the creators of Shrek and Kung Fu Panda. It takes place in South America and has the voices of Ricky Gervais, Katy Perry, Steve Carell, Jane Lynch, Martin Short, Ben Kingsley, Sofia Vergara and Danny DeVito.Crow54 15:40 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Good for you. Let us know when ANY reliable sources report on your dream. Until then, we'll leave it out of Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I won't do it until I start production on the film. The film also stars will.i.am, Denis Leary, Michael Caine, Jada Pinkett Smith, Wanda Sykes, Isla Fisher, Ben Stiller and I voice a character too even though I am the film's director and producer.Crow54 10:51 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. Sure. Good luck with that. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

When I start the film for real, you will like I'm sure. The movie is in Real 3D and IMAX 3D and the film's rated PG. It is to be released 2018 and production starts 2017. Crow54 19:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh huh. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.chacha.com/question/is-jon-stewart-atheist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.155.84 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

To add that Stewart is an atheist to the article, you need to find a reliable source and cite it in the article. An answer by "Eric S." in an online forum is not a reliable source. Giving a link here is not citing the source. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This interview may be helpful. Stewart does suggest that he believes in deities in this statement, "It may be true that the Hebrew prophets used humor in that regard" but that's really just suggestive and not iron-clad. About halfway down he describes his beliefs in a way that may be more usable

Hope this helps. The source isn't the best, but for something like religion, if it were me I would prefer to get something said directly by the article-subject, in an interview such as this. CorporateM (Talk) 01:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

)

Mister Exe (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

hi, just so you know, there is no source needed for the Asda page as it is common knowledge in Britain that this is Asda's jingle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojoeheh (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

JoJoeheh has been indefed as a vandalism-only account. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello SummerPhD,

I saw that you reverted my edits when I added Tory Belleci's birth name and birth date. I decided to respond here on your page instead of the article's Talk page because, as you most likely noticed, I am new to Wikipedia and definitely could use all of the help I can get right now, so this response is really more about seeking advice than it is about the article. I saw your reasons for the reversion and I must say that after reading them, I now agree that the source I provided is insufficient to prove that Salvatore Paul Belleci and Tory Belleci are the same person. This is where I need advice. I do have conclusive evidence that they are indeed one and the same via cross-referencing multiple sources, but the problem I'm having is that each source on its own is inadequate. How would I go about "combining" them to prove that Tory Belleci truly is Salvatore Paul Belleci? If you would like to see the sources and the way I cross-referenced them, just ask and I will provide that for you. Thank you for any assistance you can provide. —Wthrman (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to "meet" you and welcome to Wikipedia. We have a lot of guidelines that we all bump up against from time-to-time. If someone challenges anything you do (as I did), discussing the issue (as you did) is the best way to reach a consensus.

Kind of a side point here, but the source used was also problematic as a primary source, which we generally do not use. (See WP:PSTS, part of Wikipedia:No original research.)

More to your point, we generally do not combine sources. Suppose we have one source that says Belleci was one of several people at filming of a particular segment and another source that says all of the people at that filming were fluent in Italian. It would seem reasonable to conclude that Belleci is fluent in Italian. However, stating this requires synthesis of sources: combining information from two sources to state something that neither one says. (See WP:SYN, also part of Wikipedia:No original research.)

If you don't agree with someone else about content or feel there is a reason to ignore a rule, the article's talk page is a good place to discuss the issue. Other options (when you can't reach a consensus or, perhaps, another editor is being unreasonable) are discussed at WP:DISPUTE.

As a rule, no one person (except Jimbo Wales, who generally stays out of day-to-day stuff) decides much of anything, but most long-term editors can/will answer general questions you might have and point to policies or guidelines that might apply.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your reasonable approach! - SummerPhD (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Summer. You participted in the AfD with some effort to improve the article. There's a request at the Help Desk mentioning something about "I was contacted by a person to take over a wiki page that was about me. I would like to have admin rights transfered to this individual because recent editing from the person who created was malicous."[2] Seems that they are saying that the originally created article was malicious, but that wasn't mentioned at the AfD. I can't see the original article. I'm not sure if there is anything for you to add at the Help Desk, but I thought I would let you know about the follow up to the AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi SummerPhD, this is a very delayed response to you tagging issues on an article in November. You tagged it as unreferenced and explained in HTML text that its only source was a "pseudo-source" because it's a blog. I thought you might want to know about the {{unreliable sources}} tag for such cases. I've already updated that article. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but is there anything on Wikipedia that can help me search for images that were posted on it. Is there at least a search bar for looking for images. If there isn't, is it okay if I describe the image I'm looking for to you. Maybe you will be able to help me find it.Peta8 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know of any image search function on Wikipedia. Good luck. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it okay if I describe the picture to you? If you can't find it, do you know anybody who can? I really want to find this picture. Peta8 (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peta8 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you wish to help build an encyclopedia, we'd love to have you join us. If you are just here to ask people to research when individual episodes of "That 70s Show" were filmed, what the birth dates should be for fictional characters in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and similar nonsense, you are clearly not at the right website. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peta8 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about asking nonsensable questions on talk pages. I'll stop. Just so you know, I didn't want to know when each individual episode of That 70s show was filmed. I only wanted to know when each season was filmed. This website says when each season of iCarly was filmed. I just thought they should do that for That 70s Show. Anyway, I'll stop.Peta8 (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This thread really inspired me: Talk:Duct tape#Inappropriate Uses

It's obvious that Wikipedia needs List of inappropriate uses of things

Example:

Thing	Inappropriate use	Notes
Saxophone	Bong

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me know when you start it. I'm sure I can find academic sources for:

Thing	Inappropriate use	Notes
Lightbulb	Butt plug

SummerPhD (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the deletion of the edit I made on the page of Pimp C. Quick question: do you have any idea who Pimp C is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaguaneroSwag (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Your claim was: "Since death, Pimp C is one of the most mentioned rappers in hip-hop songs, for people showing respect." You did not provide a reliable source for the claims. If you are having trouble identifying reliable sources or figuring out how to cite them, I'd be more than willing to help. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Summer. I wanted to let you know that I am now coaching Guthy-Renker on the proper way to engage with Wikipedians. In the future you shouldn't see any article-space edits from us and I will be the only COI participant from the company. My approach is to offer contributed content for consideration, without editing the article, leaving editorial decisions up to yourself and other non-conflicted editors who serve the reader's best interest. I've told them that being neutral means including (for example) a significant controversy about their advertising in the UK and they seem very receptive to just working on creating a neutral, complete article, bringing it up to GA eventually.

If you have a little more patience left to spend on us, I would like to humbly request your ongoing collaboration on the Talk page. I will aspire to earn your time through valuable contributions and exceptional integrity. CorporateM (Talk) 18:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Summer. Just a heads-up, I have offered a draft for consideration on the Talk page on Guthy's behalf, which I think is much better. Your review and feedback is welcome if you have time. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 20:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please inform yourself, before you "identify" anything as "vandalism". The officials of the town his was born posted a site with informations on his life [[3]]. If you don't trust them, come visit Germany and have a look in the parish register yourself! Rettinghaus (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've restored the name, citing a reliable source. If you have additional material for the article from reliable secondary sources, we'd love to have it! - SummerPhD (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gay male teen fiction, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alex Sanchez and Mesmerized (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What ist the problem with the source? It is used on many other wikipedia language versions. --91.115.30.78 (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The source statyes he is "known as" that name on Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself, nor can Wikipedia use a source that cites Wikipedia. That other projects make this mistake is not a reason for us to make the same mistake. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the IMDB record suitable as a source? --62.46.191.159 (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as biographical information on IMDb is user submitted (and does not cite sources), it is not a reliable source. Unless he's mentioned it in an interview somewhere (which is unlikely) we'll just have to see if it's ever added to his bio page at Mythbusters or his personal website. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hah how is that for a title :)h

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psyllium&diff=543747928&oldid=543729018

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1312763 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7829013 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8554251

In the future if removed, should I re-add with like the above citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceandFitness (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources are always helpful. (Part of the reason I reverted was that your edit was contrary to my understanding. Without sources, your edit simply looks like one of us is right, the other wrong and no way to tell.) First, I'd suggest being sure the sources are saying what you are saying.

Your edit said "(Psyllium) is also one of the few laxatives not to promote flatulence."

Your first study states that psyllium did not increase breath methane. This does not address psyllium as "one of the few laxatives". It says nothing about flatulence.

The second study found no change in flatus. Two issues: Again, no "few laxatives". Because the study reports that their findings were "contrary to previous reports", those previous reports should probably be noted. Maybe the previous reports were wrong, maybe this report is wrong, maybe it's somewhere in between. Hard to say and hard to write objectively.

The third study does not discuss flatus directly (and, again, does not single out psyllium as "one of the few"). More importantly, IMO, is the explanation it gives for the seeming contradiction: the bloated feeling patients interpret as excess gas is likely due to increased bulk.

All in all, I'd say the 2nd and 3rd sources are useful here, but the edit must summarize what the sources actually say. Cheers. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey SummerPhD; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

I am curious about what you think this AfD this time. I reread the guidelines and really felt they would have applied. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello - It is crucial that readers of Wikipedia fully understand how "shart-like" Hartford, CT is. I can only imagine that you removed my comment because you felt that its location (and not its substance) were inappropriate.

I will re-add this crucial information to the (S)Hartford page and trust that you will not fuck around any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.136.192.1 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 14 March 2013‎

Apparently it's a slow week at The Hartford. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

coconut oil is very heathly for you give me a souce where health companies think its bad for you mma fighters n athelets eat it everyday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.170.247 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 March 2013‎

That various atheletes use it does not, in any way, demonstrate that it is healthy to do so. The "Health" section cites numerous organizations (United States Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization, International College of Nutrition, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, British National Health Service, and Dietitians of Canada) saying as much. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi SummerPhD, I wanted to ask why you changed the nutritional data at nori from dried to raw. The data for raw laver that you added isn't really applicable for nori as it is typically consumed, so isn't of much use to someone who is looking up the nutritional data for nori sheets. I have absolutely no objections as to the data itself, but wouldn't it be better suited for the laver article? HMman (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC).

Looks like a candidate for a merge:

• "Laver is an edible, littoral alga (seaweed)...known as...nori in Japan"
• "Nori (海苔?) is the Japanese name for edible seaweed...called laver in Wales and other English-speaking countries" - SummerPhD (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've understood "nori" (in English usage; I'm not entirely sure as to its proper Japanese usage) to refer to the finished, dried sheet, while "laver" refers to the seaweed itself; sort of like with "jerky" and "beef". Admittedly, this is just how I've percieved it; I'll have to do some more checking into it. HMman (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC).

Yes, it really is mentioned in the source, p. 40 of Paul Levy's book Out To Lunch: perhaps you can see this Google snippet view? As to what it tastes like, I can't comment -- I wasn't there :) Andrew Dalby 18:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I knew it had been mentioned in an episode of The League. A quick Google found nothing but copies of our article. I'm kinda shocked/kinda not at all surprised this is real. I know there are editors who love to create articles about bizzare/pseudo-trivial topics. I'd love to see this one, but I somehow suspect that redlink with be there for quite some time. Cheers. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi

There was a long pending case between ICFAI and CFA Institute. Now that case has been resolved, and I've updated the same.

Moreover, as this case has now been resolved, we dont need content like future of this dispute and people's views on the same as both the parties have already resolved the case.

And sorry for not quoting the reasons for deletion. I'll ensure that this mistake will not happen again.

Thanks for taking some time out to review my post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.51.192 (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Doc. There is such a thing as "reading in context".[4] What else would it be but his signature song if the analogy is another signature song? Don't be so literal. That being said, here's another source. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of context, but the context we're working in, coupled with the absurd length of that example farm and the relative ease of finding a better source... well, you get the idea. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough! Agree, article needs pruning bigtime. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Joan Aiken's Literary Executor, so I am officially concerned with how she is presented in the public media. I have studied your ELNO page, checked rules on Official links,and have already corresponded with one Wiki mediator about my edits today.

The situation is that Facebook have put up a page for Joan Aiken which is basically a copy of the Wikipedia page.

The only way I can moderate that page is by editing information on Wikipedia. You will see that I do keep an eye on the Joan Aiken page, have helped edit over the years, and on the whole do not interfere with others' submissions if they are accurate, and take trouble to correct misinformation. I am also Joan's daughter, so am careful about conflict of interest, advertising, etc. and do read your guidelines.

However I would like to direct interested parties to the Official Facebook page as opposed to one over which I have no control - they do not have your clearly very on-the-ball check up teams! This is why I wanted to list the Official Joan Aiken Facebook page. May I now replace it? Lizza Aiken LizzaAiken (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Facebook has many mirrors of Wikipedia articles. There is nothing particularly bad about that.

Their may be numerous Facebook pages "about" a particular person or topic. The same is true for Myspace, Twitter, YouTube and dozens of other sites. The individual may have "official" pages on all, some or none of these sites. In the case of a deceased individual (and some other topics) there may be more than one page on a site claiming to be the official page. Additionally, there are often pages and sites that claim to be official that are not connected to the subject. With all of this in mind, WP:ELNO specifically states that we do not link to "Social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." Additionally, if there is an official webpage for the subject, we assume that page will link to the appropriate social networking sites. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say your signature (and your name on your userpage!) looks great! ☺ – 29611670.x (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Really sockpuppet. Why I'am I being accused of this I did nothing wrong, this flase --Miss X-Factor (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please respond at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miss X-Factor. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the Thermodynamics section to this article to better explain how the reaction causes the fountain from a thermodynamic perspective (for a class project/presentation). The formulas and work were found and simplified by myself and other members of my project group. I am not sure how this section could be referenced unless it would simply be a See Also: First law of thermodynamics note since the formulas I posted are derived directly from thermodynamic energy balance.

If you believe this section cannot be posted without a citation I understand, but if you have another suggestion for me to be able to keep my submission on the page as an alternative to a reference, I would welcome it.

--Seankieran (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, to add the material we would need a reliable source discussing this in direct reference to the subject of the article. Otherwise, it constitutes original research. While this may seem pointless, please understand that similar additions are often made to other articles in attempts to "explain" that the evolution is a myth, veganism is the "natural" human diet, homeopathy somehow works, etc. As a result, we generally do not add unsourced explanations of how or why basically anything works. Basically: This is why we can't have nice things. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Jessie Creek Winery, there was also a brief discussion of this at the talk page of WP:WINE. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Responded again.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Summer, I really think you should realize that Wikipedia is not a game of whac-a-mole. We're here to build an encyclopedia, to share the knowledge of things we love with others who may be interested in learning how to love it. I look over your contributions and I see a user wielding rules, deleting, reverting, and not really contributing much. One thing I don't see much of in your contributions is actual contributing, just rule enforcement. When it becomes about bludgeoning others with rules and deletionism, you've missed the point of what this project is. I think you need to reevaluate your dogged hatred of this article and ask yourself "is the world going to end just because Jessie Creek Winery has an article?" You've written more than enough articles that are marred by the very shortcomings you're trying to hold against this one. And if you want this to go down that road, I have all the time in the world to take it there and would indulge you, but I don't care to--I believe you have to offer what you love, I have to offer what I love. Stick to that. Even if you think the subject is not-notable, and in violation of other policies, it isn't grounds for stomping on an area of knowledge other people might be passionate or other people might want to know about even though you are not so inclined. I could care less about the Doctor Who, Pokemon, and other nonsense articles that get accolades around here, but I don't think they ought not exist. When it comes to cases like these, let the dogged persistence in enforcing rules go. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring all the rules for no reason results in an "encyclopedia" that is not an encyclopedia. I'm sorry if the gym teacher/garage band/winery you love is not notable. We have guidelines for a good reason: to weed out the non-notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That's your entire oeuvre, it seems--when you actually do (on few and far between occasions) contribute content. Perhaps I will take a little time this evening to give your paltry non-notable contributions a taste of your own medicine. It's only fair. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you intend to make a point by going after my contributions. That's probably not the best frame of mind to edit articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Summer, I replied to your comments at Talk:Jessie Creek Winery. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard on the question of whether it is fair to limit this article to uses of the term "War on women" to attack conservatives/Republicans.[5]William Jockusch (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've responded. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "J. Leon Altemose is blatant COPYVIO. Need assistance.". Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll not leave a template per WP:DTTR, but this is your only warning for copyright infringement via excessively close paraphrasing — any more will result in a substantial block. Nyttend (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm--I didn't see the deleted versions so I can't comment on the paraphrasing issue, but I'll take Nyttend's word for it. And while we're piling on, it's probably best not to call someone a dick (repeatedly)--then again, they were rightfully blocked for calling you an asshole. Hey Summer, how's it going? Haven't seen you in a while--maybe we should write an article together. Oh, I received my copy of Fun Home today. My boss said it's titillating: I can't wait. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine what I did there. I must've hurried through re-writing info from the source (and inadvertently left in some of the original) to get something up, figuring I'd clean it up later. I guess that didn't happen. Urg. I assume since it was killed as a copyvio I can't really see what was there. (When the tag went up, I assumed it was more of the point being made and only checked the first paragraph or so against the source. I didn't see anything close and left.)

I can't really say I'm all that familiar with Fun Home. As with any banned book, though, I heartily recommend it. I'd say I'll add it to my reading pile, but I'm supposed to be planning a "vacation" to Georgia. I'm secretly wondering if I can schedule elective emergency surgery: "I'm positively heartbroken. I reeeeally want to spend July in Atlanta, but I really needed to have this dimple on my knee looked at. Darn." Since I've blown off any chance of a reading recommendation, any recommendations for surviving stifling weather while visiting stifling in-laws? I'd assume alcohol is critical. I'm not really much of a drinker, but I'm considering making a three week exception. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that much about drugs; I'm not that hip. If there's a better medicine for stifling weather than a mint julep (or four), I don't know what it might be, and try not to move. Or breathe (wait, that's Athens). Works for in-laws too, but cheap hooch is good enough for that. But you're a girl, you can always claim an illness in the unmentionables in a way that doesn't work for us boys. Did you know I have a boy living in my house now? He's teething too. As for real reading recommendations, I have only one: Austerlitz. And possibly 2666, but that's not for the faint of heart. Oh, wait, Atlanta--I went to school with the author of The Help. I'm sure that will work there.

Like I said, I haven't looked at the actual edits in the history of that article. Wait, I remember I did, a little bit, but I didn't have access to the article cited so frequently in the article. Whatever happened, happened. Water under the bridge. Please say hi to your southern belle, and good luck with that dimple. I'd invite you down further south, but that's probably the last direction you'd want to go. Also, drop me a line anytime you're in trouble and I'll come to your rescue, you being a helpless female and me being a superknight. Ha! Now I'm off to ride my phallus into the sunset. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Gallantry and a disturbing image involving the cowboy from the Village People... I'd better call it a night. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As you're a long term editor in good standing if you really want to see what the content was I'm going to offer to e-mail it to you. I know this is quite unusual as this is something we don't normally do but I'd consider such an e-mail fair use of the material as it would be showing you were you went wrong. This would be on the proviso that the material not be re-added to wikipedia as three separate admins have all said they consider it a problem. Re-adding it, without first reaching agreement with the admins involved, would likely lead to a block. Dpmuk (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dpmuk--I'm sure Summer won't be re-adding that material (and if it's a copyvio she's hellbent on committing, she could just copy it again from the same source). Drmies (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Dpmuk, I would greatly appreciate that. I am not challenging the opinion, I just want to see what I did. After some time has passed (and I'm sure it won't be tagged to death to make a point) I will take another pass at the article, with writing that is based only on the ideas in the sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Just give me a way to e-mail you and I'll do it - it appears you don't have e-mail enabled here and I'd need an address to do it any other way. Dpmuk (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've enabled e-mail. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

E-mail sent. hopefully you'll agree it's too close to the source. If not I'm happy to discuss where my concerns lay. Dpmuk (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And just wanted to add that I've seen you around and this seemed out of character. That was the main reason I wanted a second opinion before deleting as I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Dpmuk (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I deal with far too much plagiarism outside of Wikipedia to want to be part of the problem here. The only explanation I can think of involves a setup by Drmies, the Trilateral Commission and the Stonecutters. I appreciate being given the chance to see what they did to me. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Getting decent biographical information on this songbird is not easy. However, for many Canadian show biz birds there is not wiki information on them at all. Brittany Sara Adams [6] and many like her on Canadian television in the past 5 years have no wiki pages at all. Use of middle names for (North Ameircan) girls in Wiki should be more universal as there are about 330 millions in North America and two part names can't tell people apart. It is reasonable and fair to have more links then text for many show biz birds as often there is not much else. Eyreland (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

For Timmins to be notable (and keep an article), she must be the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. (Whether or not she uses her middle name is immaterial.) - SummerPhD (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how incorrect information can be left up for so long and when the correct information is added it gets taken down almost immediately and then you ban the people who are trying to provide the correct information. If you actually look at the sources and read about shingles then you and everyone else would know NOT to use high pressure or scrubbing methods or robots on household shingles! This is completely ridiculous and could void warranties with shingle manufactures. Please consider revising.

http://roofing.owenscorning.com/homeowner/thingsyoushouldknow/needaroof.aspx#algae (Click on "#1 - Algae Growth")
"High pressure washing is not recommended due to the possibility of removing granules, thereby shortening the life of the Roofing System" "Scrubbing will loosen and remove granules"

http://www.asphaltroofing.org/sites/default/files/press/MS%20Algae%20&%20Moss%20Article%20May1411.pdf
Asphalt Roofing Manufactures Association (ARMA) states: "Apply with a sprayer and allow the solution to dwell on the roof surface for 15 to 20 minutes, and then rinse thoroughly with low pressure water."

http://www.asphaltroofing.org/sites/default/files/tech-bulletin/tb_217.pdf
Asphalt Roofing Manufactures Association (ARMA) states: "Caution! High pressure washing systems for algae removal should not be used."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlZvRCwh0Sk
"If you blast your roof with a garden hose or pressure washer you can seriously damage your roofing shingles"

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/asktoh/question/0,,401167,00.html
"No pressure washers, please. They're likely to damage the shingles"

http://www.doityourself.com/stry/how-to-care-for-your-asphalt-shingles#b
"If you choose to pressure wash, make sure you choose a low pressure wash to avoid any permanent damage to the shingles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleach
"Many bleaches have strong bactericidal properties, and are used for disinfecting and sterilizing and thus are used in swimming pool sanitation to control bacteria, viruses and algae and in any institution where sterile conditions are needed."

--GAFShingles (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The "people" person repeatedly blocked for adding this have all had obvious conflicts of interest. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how to add a citation for IMDB, but that's the only place that I have seen call Great Balls of Fire Jerry Lee Lewis' signature song. Besides, going by what the article describes as a signature song, Jerry Lee Lewis' signature song is Great Balls of Fire. Every time I have brought up the subject of Lewis, the person I was talking to almost instantly said something like "Oh yeah! He did Great Balls of FIre." That being the case, whats wrong with having it in the article? Its certainly his signature song that everyone knows him best for. STCooper1(STCooper1 (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC))

As IMDb is largely user created, it is not a reliable source.

That you feel "Great Balls of Fire" fits the description of a signature song is original research.

If everyone thinks it is his signature song, it shouldn't be too difficult to find a reliable source (or several) saying that. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if all the people I talked to about were older people that had seen and known him for practically their whole lives? Thats what they all were and they all knew him solely by that song, even though he wasn't a one-hit wonder. Going by the article on here, his case would be Great Balls of Fire because it is his most famous. Thats not my own research thats me comparing this wiki's own say about signature songs to that of Jerry Lee Lewis and it comes out compatible. Just read the article. STCooper1(STCooper1 (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC))

You comparing what reliable sources say about "signature songs" (as presented in the article) to what you have heard from other people and determining that the song is his signature song is a textbook example of original research. While it may not be what you call "original research", it is what Wikipedia calls "original research". - SummerPhD (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. STCooper1(STCooper1 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC))

Please participate in the discussion. Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)‎#Inclusion of Pulitzer Prize for History. Solomon7968 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello SummerPhD, Thanks for your message suggesting I have a conflict of interest in writing about "Alexander's Choice", though I cannot help finding the implication unfair. Please tell me frankly how I'm supposed to answer this? I've read this novel, having been alerted to it by an article in a major newspaper (The Daily Mail), I admittedly think it has something important to say and was therefore inspired to write the article. Today I noticed that all the work I put into writing it was under threat because it was termed an "orphan", so I linked it in three rather obvious ways. Why is this a conflict of interest? The links could not seem more obviously justified to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Periandros (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It is, of course, entirely possible that you do not have a conflict of interest. If that is the case, take it as a "heads up" that your writing has been -- in one editor's opinion anyway -- somewhat POV. (That, coupled with your (thus far) singular focus and user name was enough to warrant concern.) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Having only just started participating in Wikipedia, I'm not sure how one avoids coming across as singular, but it is a very useful warning as to how may be misconstrued, for which I'm grateful. You have me lost over my user name though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Periandros (talk • contribs) 04:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You can safely ignore my interpretation of your user name.

In any case, I'd suggest paying a bit of attention to the talk page of the article you've created. I haven't had much luck in finding reliable sources discussing the book. Any you have to add would be helpful. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)