Your'e absolutely sure that she didn't have an off screen romance with elvis? as soon as i find an online source that matches the countless books that talk about it, it will go back up and you will not delete it...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfbinc ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- This edit? I did not say I was "absolutely sure" of anything. I said Douglas is a living person and a controversial claim would need a reliable source. - SummerPhD ( talk) 16:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, You added back a prod to robosapien - rebooted. I had to remove it again because as per WP:PROD
"If anyone, including the article creator, removes a prod tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."
As it has been removed previously, This now needs to go to AFD if you feel it needs to be deleted. thanks - Tracer9999 ( talk) 13:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
{{helpme}} Re Kelly O'Donnell. I do not want to violate 3RR, but there is clear vandalism (personal attack) and a BLP issue. Thanks! - SummerPhD ( talk) 19:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- See User_talk:70.116.134.247; I added a final warning. I hope they will discuss it on Talk:Kelly O'Donnell. If they do persist in adding it, please report them on WP:AIV. I will also try to monitor it myself. Thanks, Chzz ► 19:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Clarification; The following actions are (some of the) exceptions to the three-revert rule.
- Obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language.
- Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates Biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
- From WP:3RR#Exceptions_to_3RR.
Update: Please see Talk:Kelly O'Donnell#Controversy but please also note my comments on User_talk:70.116.134.247. Whilst personal attacks are absolutely not tolerated, I hope that we can get this back on track. Thanks for your cooperation in this. Chzz ► 20:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
When did i attack anyone?? STAT- Verse 04:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You removed my placement of Professor Rob Pascoe from Victoria University because he is non-notable. He is one of the very few professors at that insitution who is notable. He is listed in Who's Who in Australia 2006 with his Melbourne High School status clearly listed, together with a long list of achievements. I haven't got a copy of Who's Who in Australia published since as it's too expensive (I bought the 2006 edition secondhand for less than ten per cent of the new price). I'm sure Pascoe is in all current Who's Who in Australia editions. I agree most of the books listed written by Pascoe will not be cited much but he wrote a book about Australian historians in the 1980s that was considered a classic by the late and distinguished Professor Henry Mayer and he was the convenor of the panel of judges for the Grollo Ruzzene Foundation Prize for Writing about Italians in Australia about 2007.
Please don't be put off by the reputation of Victoria University. There is at least one person there who is notable and that is Pascoe. I am a bit prejudiced myself about that institution as a chapter of a book I wrote was cited in a published work by a PhD student at that institution and the credit was given to the editor. My name was not mentioned in the book, yet I did the work. I was told by the student's supervisor (a professor at VU) that that was how it's done. It is not. The author of the chapter is given credit for whatever he or she writes in the chapter. That is the calibre of academics at that place. I complained to the publisher who agreed with me and told me I would be given credit in a future reprint, which will never be done as the book probably sold less than 1000 copies.
Who's Who in Australia no longer lists automatically professors at Australian universities other than the leading ones as there are too many of them. Only professors considered notable (and I know that's a value judgment) are now listed.
Hope you will consider relisting Pascoe. I have met him but it was some years ago. I think he does have a good reputation. I wouldn't list most Victoria University professors. Just for the record I do not consider myself notable and I do not have an entry in Wikipedia, not would I ever be so silly as to write one (as some people do). I have never been in Who's Who in Australia either.
Carola56 ( talk) 10:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is not about my opinion of any particular institution, another publication's standards for notability, etc. This is about Wikipedia's standards. If Pascoe meets our standards for notability, establishing an article for him will demonstrate this fact (note the need for "significant coverage in independent reliable sources"). Passing that bar will allow us to consider him "notable" enough for inclusion, if we have a reliable source that states he attended Victoria University. - SummerPhD ( talk) 13:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I'll write an article about him when I get around to it. There are plenty of reliable sources about Pascoe that should meet WP quality requirements. I hope so anyway. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Carola56 (
talk •
contribs) 14:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Carola56 ( talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Kwong Lee Dow is a former Vice Chancellor of the University of Melbourne. I assume from your edits you are an American. The Vice Chancellor is effectively the CEO of an Australian University. The Chancellor is the titular head of the University and is normally an honorary appointment. It is very prestigious, of course.
I think former Vice Chancellor of one of Australia's top universities, the University of Melbourne, is very notable and Kwong Lee Dow ought to be included. It's the equivalent of saying a former CEO of GM is not notable. He is listed under Lee Dow, Kwong in Who's Who in Australia 2006.
You removed a third person as non-notable. I know nothing about that person so can't say whether your judgement is accurate or not in that case.
Carola56 ( talk) 10:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- The way to show a person is notable is to establish an article about them, citing reliable sources. Once that's done, we can list them as a graduate of whatever school(s) by citing reliable sources. Failing that, we're listing a name next to a title in an article with no indication that the name matches the title or the article. - SummerPhD ( talk) 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for the comments. Kwong Lee Dow should also meet the WP quality requirements. Also Who's Who in Australia is a quality publication, and no person can pay for entry in it. There are editorial guidelines as to notability before a person can be included. There are some Who's Who type publications where people can pay to be included, and I think WP has an article about one of these. I once received a questionnaire from the particular Who's Who organisation, but I ignored it as it was just an attempt to get me to pay for inclusion. Who's Who in America (in the same way as Who's Who in Australia) is I think a quality publication also, but I think WP would want another source of information about notability as well. Where people fill in the questionnaire themselves they sometimes overpromote themselves. Who's Who in Australia editors can usually pick this up but some get through. Thank you also for your professionalism.
Carola56 ( talk) 14:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You and I have both made similar edits to this article, which have been undone. Rather than edit-war with IPs, I've left a question for discussion on the talk page, which might interest you. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 16:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't add it into the article, because it is semi-protected. but it needs to go in there somehow. that's why I mentioned it on the talk page. See here for a reference: http://www.whotv.com/news/who-story-shawn-johnson-london-2012-050410,0,771524.story (Also, please be a little more tolerant of flippancy in talk. Debating is better than cutting others comments.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.145.33 ( talk) 04:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Don't tell me here. Discuss the article on the article's talk page. (Also, given your absurd article edit, I saw little reason to take your "talk" comment seriously.) - SummerPhD ( talk) 16:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi SummerPhD, could you please elaborate on the reason for removing the picture from Jennifer Lien. There is no better picture available. Why can this picture not be used? Please specify what exact part, of the page you link to, it violates. Taketa ( talk) 12:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia:Nfcc#Policy, #1. Wikipedia regularly holds that images of living persons are replaceable. That is to say it is possible (though not necessarily easy) to take a photograph of the person that would serve the same purpose as the photo under consideration. If this article were about the character, it would not be possible to take a photo of her dressed as the character as the show is no longer in production (and was presumably filmed on a closed set). Were Ms Lien no longer living, it would again be impossible to photograph her. Specifically outlining this as an unacceptable use, see Wikipedia:NFC#UULP. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is that every page I add something you or anyone else deem to have the need to overturn it? eddie5000 —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
- Every edit I make typically includes an edit summary explaining the edit. Phil Lipof, for instance, was tagged for notability because of a lack of independent reliable sources with an edit summary of "notable?". Annie Wong has the same problem. This is not "overturning" anything, it is identifying problems with an article that need to be corrected.
- I also changed numerous uses of the familiar "Phil" to the encyclopedic "Lipof" in Phil Lipof. This is in keeping with our Manual of Style.
- If there are other edits I have made that you do not understand, feel free to ask. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 20:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Please try to help make the these two site better with me eddie5000 —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
- Both pages need reliable sources. To the extent they are found and added, there is no problem. If reliable sources are not added to the articles, deletion becomes an option. - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for figuring out what I had done there! It's indeed nowhere near my fields of interest or knowledge. DMacks ( talk) 04:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I did provide significant coverage in an independent reliable source. How many sources woudl you like? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I could be snarky and say something like, "Well, more than one would be nice" (which is true). The truth of the matter is I haven't had a chance to verify the one source you provided so I don't know how substantial that coverage is. The closest thing to a hard and fast rule is "substantial coverage in independent reliable sources" (not a lot of help there...). Essentially, if the source provided is A) independent and B) reliable, it will hinge on how substantial that coverage is. If it provides a fair amount of depth on the album, I would be comfortable with just one more source of similar reliability and depth (though 2 or 3 more would, of course, be better still). If the coverage is less substantial, we'll obviously need more. I'll let you know what I find if you don't address it before then. Thanks! - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I know they were not in the article when you came accross it, but it seems the individual has received a Gemini Award win and two Gemini nominations. He meets WP:ANYBIO. I'll get on some cleanup and sourcing later this evening. Best -- Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Did some expansion and sourcing. I feel that the his participation as creator and puppet master in multiple notable projects meets WP:ENT, his awards and nominations meet WP:BIO, and the significant coverage of him in multiple reliable sources meet WP:GNG. Lots more available for further improvements. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. -- Confession0791 ( talk) 03:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Alpha and Omega is listed on IMDb, but thanks for caring. andycjp ( talk) 03:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- IMDb is not a reliable source. (And it certainly isn't "substantial coverage in independent reliable sources".) Incidentally, edit summaries help explain your reasoning before we get to discussing it on talk pages. - SummerPhD ( talk) 04:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if your comment posted on WhatGuy's talk page was an admonishment to me about my query or to him about the original post. Can you clarify for me? I hope I've not done anything wrong or broken any rules. That wasn't my intention at all. 86.135.214.70 ( talk) 13:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, the note I placed on his page relates to a different article. It was placed using a semi-automatic system that did not place a heading between your discussion and my note. I've adjusted the note. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I nominated 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up for AfD. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I had removed obvious vandalism in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, which you reverted. Why are you talking about maintaining the policy of verifiability, when you keep the unsourced vandalism? Csigabi ( talk) 06:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. We have a simple crossing of wires here. When I looked at the article, the difference from my last edit was the addition of "Now phoenixville is being takin over by gang violance." Obvious vandalism. I hit revert. This undid your edit to the article. Unfortunatly, your edit was not the vandalism, but reverting half of the vandalism by IP 72.94.255.138. I'm fixing the article now. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 13:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
While it does not seem that the article contains any information not already found on the Therion website, may I humbly ask you to consider if you can find a way to salvage its contents; for example, by moving it to a subpage of the Therion talk page, transwikiing it, moving it to a user subpage, or integrating it into another article (perhaps Of Darkness...). Florian Blaschke ( talk) 00:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, so I can't personally help you. However, it sounds like you'd like to "userfy" the page: have it moved to a sub-page of your user page right before it is deleted. I'd suggest adding: "{{helpme}}" (without the quotes) to your talk page along with that request, asking an admin to assist. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 02:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am and independent writer who created the Capriotti's page. I have no stock in this company. Can you either make the changes to the Capriotti's page or tell me exactly what needs to be done, because every time I look, there is something new that you've flagged. Let's just fix this so I can be done. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.177.26 ( talk) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my edits for the release date of the other guys and re-tagged it with citation needed, mentioning Imdb as not a reliable source. I just wanted to point out that I had referenced 3 sources, 2 others in addition to Imdb.com, I understand the need for reliable sources but a movie's release date should not be this disputed. you can take a look at the movie's official site here, [2], the yahoo page for that movie here [3], release date according to comingsoon.net here [4], release date according to box office mojo here [5]and according to the movie insider here [6]. All the pages I listed above unanimously list the release date as August 6th, and the list above is not exhaustive. I am going to add the official site and one other source for the release date if that's alright, do let me know if that's acceptable. Thank you.-- Theo10011 ( talk) 21:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah. The official site is plenty. Anything beyond that is overkill. - SummerPhD ( talk) 19:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. It was macadam, and various people insisted it was asphalt, and that no one would know what macadam was. Incredibly, this was a topic of contention during one of the reviews. I finally gave up. :) auntieruth (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- It confuses people a whole lot. Airport runways are called "tarmac" and blacktop on playgrounds are called "macadam" though both are asphalt pavement. <badjoke>Similarly, we drive on the parkway and park on the driveway.</badjoke> - SummerPhD ( talk) 19:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I left a comment for you at the Rapture Ready's talk page. Thank you. Kindly refer to that. Geiremann ( talk) 17:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I have again reverted your additions to
Kraft Dinner as they are against the consensus currently established on that article's talk page. Please do not restore the information again so long as that consensus remains. Thanks. -
SummerPhD (
talk) 23:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but two editors engaged in POV editing is not a consensus.
Fred
Talk 00:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Two editors do not have the authority to overrule the general Wikipedia practice that relevant information published by reliable sources should be included in articles.
Fred
Talk 00:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- As you wish. - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Two editors do not have the authority to overrule the general Wikipedia practice that relevant information published by reliable sources should be included in articles.
Fred
Talk 00:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This edit was not vandalism. If you carry on using TW to revert good faith edits as vandalism, TW may be taken away from you. Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- My tagging one of the repeated additions of the ingredients as vandalism was born of misremembering several of the contributers to the talk page as having opposed such an inclusion (when, in fact, only one of them had actually weighed in on the issue) and frustration from the WP:SYN/ WP:OR that has frequently been included with these additions. My appologies. - SummerPhD ( talk) 17:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Your'e absolutely sure that she didn't have an off screen romance with elvis? as soon as i find an online source that matches the countless books that talk about it, it will go back up and you will not delete it...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfbinc ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- This edit? I did not say I was "absolutely sure" of anything. I said Douglas is a living person and a controversial claim would need a reliable source. - SummerPhD ( talk) 16:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, You added back a prod to robosapien - rebooted. I had to remove it again because as per WP:PROD
"If anyone, including the article creator, removes a prod tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."
As it has been removed previously, This now needs to go to AFD if you feel it needs to be deleted. thanks - Tracer9999 ( talk) 13:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
{{helpme}} Re Kelly O'Donnell. I do not want to violate 3RR, but there is clear vandalism (personal attack) and a BLP issue. Thanks! - SummerPhD ( talk) 19:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- See User_talk:70.116.134.247; I added a final warning. I hope they will discuss it on Talk:Kelly O'Donnell. If they do persist in adding it, please report them on WP:AIV. I will also try to monitor it myself. Thanks, Chzz ► 19:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Clarification; The following actions are (some of the) exceptions to the three-revert rule.
- Obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language.
- Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates Biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
- From WP:3RR#Exceptions_to_3RR.
Update: Please see Talk:Kelly O'Donnell#Controversy but please also note my comments on User_talk:70.116.134.247. Whilst personal attacks are absolutely not tolerated, I hope that we can get this back on track. Thanks for your cooperation in this. Chzz ► 20:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
When did i attack anyone?? STAT- Verse 04:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You removed my placement of Professor Rob Pascoe from Victoria University because he is non-notable. He is one of the very few professors at that insitution who is notable. He is listed in Who's Who in Australia 2006 with his Melbourne High School status clearly listed, together with a long list of achievements. I haven't got a copy of Who's Who in Australia published since as it's too expensive (I bought the 2006 edition secondhand for less than ten per cent of the new price). I'm sure Pascoe is in all current Who's Who in Australia editions. I agree most of the books listed written by Pascoe will not be cited much but he wrote a book about Australian historians in the 1980s that was considered a classic by the late and distinguished Professor Henry Mayer and he was the convenor of the panel of judges for the Grollo Ruzzene Foundation Prize for Writing about Italians in Australia about 2007.
Please don't be put off by the reputation of Victoria University. There is at least one person there who is notable and that is Pascoe. I am a bit prejudiced myself about that institution as a chapter of a book I wrote was cited in a published work by a PhD student at that institution and the credit was given to the editor. My name was not mentioned in the book, yet I did the work. I was told by the student's supervisor (a professor at VU) that that was how it's done. It is not. The author of the chapter is given credit for whatever he or she writes in the chapter. That is the calibre of academics at that place. I complained to the publisher who agreed with me and told me I would be given credit in a future reprint, which will never be done as the book probably sold less than 1000 copies.
Who's Who in Australia no longer lists automatically professors at Australian universities other than the leading ones as there are too many of them. Only professors considered notable (and I know that's a value judgment) are now listed.
Hope you will consider relisting Pascoe. I have met him but it was some years ago. I think he does have a good reputation. I wouldn't list most Victoria University professors. Just for the record I do not consider myself notable and I do not have an entry in Wikipedia, not would I ever be so silly as to write one (as some people do). I have never been in Who's Who in Australia either.
Carola56 ( talk) 10:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is not about my opinion of any particular institution, another publication's standards for notability, etc. This is about Wikipedia's standards. If Pascoe meets our standards for notability, establishing an article for him will demonstrate this fact (note the need for "significant coverage in independent reliable sources"). Passing that bar will allow us to consider him "notable" enough for inclusion, if we have a reliable source that states he attended Victoria University. - SummerPhD ( talk) 13:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I'll write an article about him when I get around to it. There are plenty of reliable sources about Pascoe that should meet WP quality requirements. I hope so anyway. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Carola56 (
talk •
contribs) 14:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Carola56 ( talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Kwong Lee Dow is a former Vice Chancellor of the University of Melbourne. I assume from your edits you are an American. The Vice Chancellor is effectively the CEO of an Australian University. The Chancellor is the titular head of the University and is normally an honorary appointment. It is very prestigious, of course.
I think former Vice Chancellor of one of Australia's top universities, the University of Melbourne, is very notable and Kwong Lee Dow ought to be included. It's the equivalent of saying a former CEO of GM is not notable. He is listed under Lee Dow, Kwong in Who's Who in Australia 2006.
You removed a third person as non-notable. I know nothing about that person so can't say whether your judgement is accurate or not in that case.
Carola56 ( talk) 10:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- The way to show a person is notable is to establish an article about them, citing reliable sources. Once that's done, we can list them as a graduate of whatever school(s) by citing reliable sources. Failing that, we're listing a name next to a title in an article with no indication that the name matches the title or the article. - SummerPhD ( talk) 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for the comments. Kwong Lee Dow should also meet the WP quality requirements. Also Who's Who in Australia is a quality publication, and no person can pay for entry in it. There are editorial guidelines as to notability before a person can be included. There are some Who's Who type publications where people can pay to be included, and I think WP has an article about one of these. I once received a questionnaire from the particular Who's Who organisation, but I ignored it as it was just an attempt to get me to pay for inclusion. Who's Who in America (in the same way as Who's Who in Australia) is I think a quality publication also, but I think WP would want another source of information about notability as well. Where people fill in the questionnaire themselves they sometimes overpromote themselves. Who's Who in Australia editors can usually pick this up but some get through. Thank you also for your professionalism.
Carola56 ( talk) 14:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You and I have both made similar edits to this article, which have been undone. Rather than edit-war with IPs, I've left a question for discussion on the talk page, which might interest you. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 16:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't add it into the article, because it is semi-protected. but it needs to go in there somehow. that's why I mentioned it on the talk page. See here for a reference: http://www.whotv.com/news/who-story-shawn-johnson-london-2012-050410,0,771524.story (Also, please be a little more tolerant of flippancy in talk. Debating is better than cutting others comments.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.145.33 ( talk) 04:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Don't tell me here. Discuss the article on the article's talk page. (Also, given your absurd article edit, I saw little reason to take your "talk" comment seriously.) - SummerPhD ( talk) 16:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi SummerPhD, could you please elaborate on the reason for removing the picture from Jennifer Lien. There is no better picture available. Why can this picture not be used? Please specify what exact part, of the page you link to, it violates. Taketa ( talk) 12:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia:Nfcc#Policy, #1. Wikipedia regularly holds that images of living persons are replaceable. That is to say it is possible (though not necessarily easy) to take a photograph of the person that would serve the same purpose as the photo under consideration. If this article were about the character, it would not be possible to take a photo of her dressed as the character as the show is no longer in production (and was presumably filmed on a closed set). Were Ms Lien no longer living, it would again be impossible to photograph her. Specifically outlining this as an unacceptable use, see Wikipedia:NFC#UULP. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is that every page I add something you or anyone else deem to have the need to overturn it? eddie5000 —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
- Every edit I make typically includes an edit summary explaining the edit. Phil Lipof, for instance, was tagged for notability because of a lack of independent reliable sources with an edit summary of "notable?". Annie Wong has the same problem. This is not "overturning" anything, it is identifying problems with an article that need to be corrected.
- I also changed numerous uses of the familiar "Phil" to the encyclopedic "Lipof" in Phil Lipof. This is in keeping with our Manual of Style.
- If there are other edits I have made that you do not understand, feel free to ask. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 20:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Please try to help make the these two site better with me eddie5000 —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
- Both pages need reliable sources. To the extent they are found and added, there is no problem. If reliable sources are not added to the articles, deletion becomes an option. - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for figuring out what I had done there! It's indeed nowhere near my fields of interest or knowledge. DMacks ( talk) 04:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I did provide significant coverage in an independent reliable source. How many sources woudl you like? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I could be snarky and say something like, "Well, more than one would be nice" (which is true). The truth of the matter is I haven't had a chance to verify the one source you provided so I don't know how substantial that coverage is. The closest thing to a hard and fast rule is "substantial coverage in independent reliable sources" (not a lot of help there...). Essentially, if the source provided is A) independent and B) reliable, it will hinge on how substantial that coverage is. If it provides a fair amount of depth on the album, I would be comfortable with just one more source of similar reliability and depth (though 2 or 3 more would, of course, be better still). If the coverage is less substantial, we'll obviously need more. I'll let you know what I find if you don't address it before then. Thanks! - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I know they were not in the article when you came accross it, but it seems the individual has received a Gemini Award win and two Gemini nominations. He meets WP:ANYBIO. I'll get on some cleanup and sourcing later this evening. Best -- Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Did some expansion and sourcing. I feel that the his participation as creator and puppet master in multiple notable projects meets WP:ENT, his awards and nominations meet WP:BIO, and the significant coverage of him in multiple reliable sources meet WP:GNG. Lots more available for further improvements. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. -- Confession0791 ( talk) 03:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Alpha and Omega is listed on IMDb, but thanks for caring. andycjp ( talk) 03:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- IMDb is not a reliable source. (And it certainly isn't "substantial coverage in independent reliable sources".) Incidentally, edit summaries help explain your reasoning before we get to discussing it on talk pages. - SummerPhD ( talk) 04:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if your comment posted on WhatGuy's talk page was an admonishment to me about my query or to him about the original post. Can you clarify for me? I hope I've not done anything wrong or broken any rules. That wasn't my intention at all. 86.135.214.70 ( talk) 13:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, the note I placed on his page relates to a different article. It was placed using a semi-automatic system that did not place a heading between your discussion and my note. I've adjusted the note. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I nominated 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up for AfD. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I had removed obvious vandalism in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, which you reverted. Why are you talking about maintaining the policy of verifiability, when you keep the unsourced vandalism? Csigabi ( talk) 06:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. We have a simple crossing of wires here. When I looked at the article, the difference from my last edit was the addition of "Now phoenixville is being takin over by gang violance." Obvious vandalism. I hit revert. This undid your edit to the article. Unfortunatly, your edit was not the vandalism, but reverting half of the vandalism by IP 72.94.255.138. I'm fixing the article now. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 13:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
While it does not seem that the article contains any information not already found on the Therion website, may I humbly ask you to consider if you can find a way to salvage its contents; for example, by moving it to a subpage of the Therion talk page, transwikiing it, moving it to a user subpage, or integrating it into another article (perhaps Of Darkness...). Florian Blaschke ( talk) 00:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, so I can't personally help you. However, it sounds like you'd like to "userfy" the page: have it moved to a sub-page of your user page right before it is deleted. I'd suggest adding: "{{helpme}}" (without the quotes) to your talk page along with that request, asking an admin to assist. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 02:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am and independent writer who created the Capriotti's page. I have no stock in this company. Can you either make the changes to the Capriotti's page or tell me exactly what needs to be done, because every time I look, there is something new that you've flagged. Let's just fix this so I can be done. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.177.26 ( talk) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my edits for the release date of the other guys and re-tagged it with citation needed, mentioning Imdb as not a reliable source. I just wanted to point out that I had referenced 3 sources, 2 others in addition to Imdb.com, I understand the need for reliable sources but a movie's release date should not be this disputed. you can take a look at the movie's official site here, [2], the yahoo page for that movie here [3], release date according to comingsoon.net here [4], release date according to box office mojo here [5]and according to the movie insider here [6]. All the pages I listed above unanimously list the release date as August 6th, and the list above is not exhaustive. I am going to add the official site and one other source for the release date if that's alright, do let me know if that's acceptable. Thank you.-- Theo10011 ( talk) 21:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah. The official site is plenty. Anything beyond that is overkill. - SummerPhD ( talk) 19:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. It was macadam, and various people insisted it was asphalt, and that no one would know what macadam was. Incredibly, this was a topic of contention during one of the reviews. I finally gave up. :) auntieruth (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- It confuses people a whole lot. Airport runways are called "tarmac" and blacktop on playgrounds are called "macadam" though both are asphalt pavement. <badjoke>Similarly, we drive on the parkway and park on the driveway.</badjoke> - SummerPhD ( talk) 19:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I left a comment for you at the Rapture Ready's talk page. Thank you. Kindly refer to that. Geiremann ( talk) 17:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I have again reverted your additions to
Kraft Dinner as they are against the consensus currently established on that article's talk page. Please do not restore the information again so long as that consensus remains. Thanks. -
SummerPhD (
talk) 23:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but two editors engaged in POV editing is not a consensus.
Fred
Talk 00:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Two editors do not have the authority to overrule the general Wikipedia practice that relevant information published by reliable sources should be included in articles.
Fred
Talk 00:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- As you wish. - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Two editors do not have the authority to overrule the general Wikipedia practice that relevant information published by reliable sources should be included in articles.
Fred
Talk 00:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This edit was not vandalism. If you carry on using TW to revert good faith edits as vandalism, TW may be taken away from you. Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- My tagging one of the repeated additions of the ingredients as vandalism was born of misremembering several of the contributers to the talk page as having opposed such an inclusion (when, in fact, only one of them had actually weighed in on the issue) and frustration from the WP:SYN/ WP:OR that has frequently been included with these additions. My appologies. - SummerPhD ( talk) 17:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)