User talk:Tomwsulcer/Archive 2

Reference cite templates vs inline refs without templates

Hi, Tom. I agree with you that editors new and old, but esp. new editors, can certainly use the help of citation templates Wikipedia_talk:Referencing_for_beginners_with_citation_templates. I'm not so new but I use cite news and cite web templates all the time for consistency and am a recent convert to Wikipedia:RefToolbar 2.0 (cf. your suggestion on the sadly neglected Wikipedia:Areas_for_Reform] article, "Pop-up form enabling easy input of reference info"). A well-formatted reference has a longer lifetime, in my experience. I also think the metadata, or tagged fields, preserved by use of cite templates can be very usefully extracted by other tools -- the awesome [Webchecklinks], for example, or a tool to intelligently export such field-tagged Wikipedia reference data to the proper fields in Zotero's citation manager (still looking for that holy grail).

An established editor of Deepwater Horizon oil spill is considering going to inline citation only for load speed. I think the loss to/of new editors, as well as useful reference metadata, would outweigh the advantages, but would like some hard data. I was intrigued with your cited experiment: "my sandbox page with single lines of text, with 1000 references. First, I did it with the template method. Second, I did it with the non-template method. Then I compared how long each page loaded. With the template method, it took 3 to 4 seconds to load. With the non-template method, it was about 3 seconds to load, maybe a TAD quicker. But what I noticed was this: the template page had 345K bytes; the non-template page had 245K bytes" Do those pages still exist, or can you easily retrieve them? If not, I can recreate them, I suppose. Thanks, I resonate with your POV expressed on both pages cited above. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Thanks for letting me know about the toolbar. I've become used to a method of cut-and-paste so I'm fairly adept with my current method using a text processor, so I don't know if I'll begin using the toolbar. But if you feel the toolbar will speed things up for most users, perhaps consider putting a link to the toolbar article on the "Wikipedia:Citation Templates etc" articles?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I used to be a heavy contributor here, but now, my contributions will be minimal, perhaps a line here, or a reference there, on non-controversial subjects; I'm working on other projects. I don't know which direction the people in control here at WP want to go in, in terms of reference styles. If the community likes citation templates, or non-template methods, then I'll use whatever becomes accepted. I don't know how important the issue of referencing formats is, or whether factors like "load time" or "page length" are important. But my experiment from a while back suggested to me that the load times for template vs non-template were not substantially different, but that the non-template method used less room in terms of byte size.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response. Citation templates are definitely the way to go for 4 reasons I cited at at link below. For further efficiencies with copy and paste (short of ultimate efficiencies and customizations possible with Wikipedia:RefToolbar 2.0, but with zero install) check out Citation generator.

I can well understand scaling back your commitment to non-controversial articles: meta-talk on developing articles takes too much time and causes needless frustration.

As to load time with or without cite templates, it appears cite templates are cached on save, so should not affect load time for readers. From Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Are_all_those_Citation_Templates_to_blame...:

The citation templates only cause the article to load slowly when you are editing and saving the article. This means that for most readers, the article does not load slowly. Gary King (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't all templates get parsed at page render time? Are citation templates an exception? Paulscrawl (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Pages are cached. After submitting an edit, you essentially recreate that cache since you are redirected back to the page. Therefore, templates should only slow down the page rendering time for the person who edits the page. Gary King (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to work these recent discoveries (for me, at least) into appropriate article(s) for new or old editors not afraid to learn a new thing or two.

I strongly encourage your continued participation in Wikipedia -- your voice and veteran's empathic insight into the new editors' experience is sorely needed here. Let me know anytime if and where I can add my voice to yours. Regards, Paulscrawl (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, will do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's disingenuous of you to deny the obvious

Your revised text with references is much, much better. The part of your previous text that was troublesome is as follows:

“ After the signing of the Constitution in 1787, and gradually over time, power and decision-making authority for many local issues shifted to county, state, and federal legislatures. Local authorities retained control over matters such as zoning ordinances, schools, property taxes, public parks, and so forth. As citizenship shifted away from political participation to more of a legal status, and as political participation declined while the definition of citizenship widened to include African-Americans and later women, local authorities tended to hire town managers to manage municipal affairs to deal with increasingly complex matters. ”

The problem is that by juxtaposing multiple unrelated events in the second sentence like that, you subtly implied that they are related. With that juxtaposition, you implied, either inadvertently or deliberately, that the decline of political participation and the transition of day-to-day control to professional government executives was caused by expansion of suffrage and other privileges of citizenship to persons other than white males, when of course it did not. As an attorney rigorously trained in close reading (which is a mandatory component of freshman English at nearly all top-tier universities, including the one I attended), I noticed the implication immediately. If you really did not see the bias in that statement and your intent was in good faith, I apologize. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'll have to accept your caveat-laden half-hearted apology. Please assume good faith on the part of your fellow contributors such as myself. We're all trying our best here. We don't know everything. We're not perfect. We're all trying to learn. We're trying to make the best possible encyclopedia we can. I had not intended to suggest any causal relationships in my paragraph in the article Local government in the United States but was merely trying to show what had happened, and yes, I suppose one could see flaws in my wording, but nothing which would justify being called a racist or sexist. Please remember that none of us get paid for this. If you had a problem with my particular wording, why not improve it? Erasing my paragraph, and then suggesting that I was a racist or sexist, was a beneath-the-belt punch. I am neither racist nor sexist and try to embrace tolerance, wisdom, enlightenment, but I have long realized that I am a fallible human like everybody else. If you tried doing a close reading of your own paragraph above -- which mentions you studying freshman English, you being an attorney, you being a rigorous reader, you attending a top-tier university -- a close reading might suggest to people that you see yourself as better than others here -- as better than me -- as smarter than me -- as a more careful reader or writer than me -- that you're better than everybody else here in Wikipedia who presumably aren't attorneys, didn't attend a top-tier university, didn't study basic English, who aren't rigorous, who don't know how to read critically. But I'm going to assume your good faith that you didn't intend any such insinuations. Clearly, you are a humble person here like the rest of us, and know how pride, even of an intellectual sort, can be like blinders on a horse. Perhaps your profession requires you to attack with a good measure of ferocity in a courtroom but I hope that you might keep those kinds of attacks out of Wikipedia? There are enough real bullies here in Wikipedia, unfortunately, and I do not think you are one of them, and I admire and appreciate your long history of contributions. Thank you for your contributions. I mean this. Please remember that this environment makes it very easy to attack, to belittle, to knock down, to revert -- it's EASY to be mean here in this anonymous world -- but it's much harder to praise, to thank, to encourage, to build, and I encourage you to use your considerable intellectual skills to helping people here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

External links to your citizenship article

I saw that you added a link to an external article that, from looking at your user name and the article's author name, appears to have been written by you. I'm not quite sure if it's appropriate. Rather than just remove them, I've started a discussion on the External links noticeboard as the links are across multiple articles. Ravensfire (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment deserves a somewhat long response. Sorry if my response is somewhat long, but this is somewhat new territory, and I wanted to explain my motivations.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the articles on Google. My user handle name here is Tomwsulcer, and my free articles on Google are signed by me with my full name Thomas Wright Sulcer. I used to contribute heavily here at Wikipedia, but found myself getting into content and writing disputes and found the environment toxic at times, and got quite frustrated with sometimes rather mean people (and perhaps I got grumpy myself at times?). I contributed heavily to pages such as Wikipedia:Areas for Reform. And I'm coming to see that perhaps I did have some POV issues, yet I still wanted to contribute, so how could I do this? I am an independent thinker who reads widely. Some of my thinking is WP:OR. At the same time, I've found that working on Wikipedia has a hidden benefit of getting me to question my hypotheses, and explore my biases, and think; it's a useful exercise which helps me get in touch with different viewpoints. Please consider that it may be possible that some of my ideas really help people. I want the freedom to write what I see as truth, and contribute to the ongoing human debate. But how?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two parts to me (and perhaps everybody here at Wikipedia to varying extents?) -- (1) the neutral mainstream fact-checking referencer who enjoys learning new stuff (2) the independent thinker with fresh ideas to solve problems. And I think what I've come to realize is that both are good things, but each has their place. Facts belong in Wikipedia; opinions belong elsewhere. Surely you'll agree? So I write facts in Wikipedia, opinions in Google knols. Perhaps you'll come to see the arrangement as sensible. It's a compromise; I keep my opinions out of Wikipedia and put them in Google knols. And, I can still have my say. It's a win-win solution for me, and I hope you'll see it as a "win" for Wikipedia too -- Wikipedia gets my fact-checking referencing help free of charge but hopefully without the opinions. The external links are a way for me to attract a few readers who may be interested in this stuff, who seek opinions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And, I think the WP-facts Google-opinions arrangement is an excellent way for Wikipedia to handle some of the more blatant POV pushers here, that is, encourage them to write Google knols or blogs or elsewhere, and let them put links to their writings at the bottom of relevant articles for the occasional few people interested. It's like a safety valve. It might make Wikipedia a nicer place.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me demonstrate with a specific article. Consider History of citizenship in the United States. I wrote it initially last autumn I think. I worked about a week on it. I put lots of references in. I found great pictures. I thought it was a great addition to Wikipedia. I still think overall that it's a pretty good article; not perfect, but is anything perfect? But it probably DID have POV issues (and maybe still does?). I believe in citizenship, that it's important, that people participating in politics is good. These are my points of view. They're not encyclopedia (arguably). So the article got tagged, chunks got deleted, and I considered battling with other writers, but what if they were right about some of the criticisms? At the same time, I was frustrated because so much of my hard work became undone. And I didn't get any credit or recognition for having worked so hard.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So I wrote a Google knol. It's an opinion piece. It's a smaller world. But I can control what I write. And everybody knows it's an opinion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the situation now. If the WP article on the history of US citizenship gets trimmed substantially, I won't care provided there's a link at the bottom pointing to my Google knol about history of citizenship. I have much less incentive to battle with the other POV pushers here (who? how about: everybody?). Most people will only read the WP article, but perhaps a few might be interested in the opinions; if so, they can click on the link. What I'm saying is that the external-link system used in this way can work to keep the POV pushers (including me) out of Wikipedia.-Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And I think the external links to opinion pieces is an efficient way to have the best of both worlds. It's clear what's what -- Wikipedia has facts; Google knols have opinions. This is clear. A few external links won't hurt Wikipedia but may help those few readers who want an additional viewpoint. Please know that I do not make money from either my WP contributions or my Google knols; both are free services and intended to expand human knowledge generally. If the community feels, however, that the external links are inappropriate and deletes them, then I think this is a mistake, because you're depriving people who may benefit from opinions from having a chance to even see them, and my motivation to contribute will be undercut substantially, so WP will lose a person who can wear a mainstream hat and reference adequately, and can tell the difference between facts and opinions. :) .--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Whew - that's a thorough response! I'll need some time to go through it, but wanted you to know I've seen it. From what I've skimmed, I think it's on the borderline for EL. The problem really isn't with what you've done, it's the precedent. We could end up with multiple essays on the subject from people, and how do you decide which ones get linked? All of them? Some? Which some? I'll try to give your response the read-through it deserves shortly during lunch - definitely will keep me out of trouble for a bit! Ravensfire (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about all the writing. Hope you're having a good lunch! I looked over the external links criteria and I guess I have to agree -- it's a judgment call, and common Sense should prevail, and I can see arguments either way. And my guess is that there aren't huge numbers of people watching this case, and I think my situation (independent thinker, can think mainstream, can think POV, likes to write) is somewhat unusual, so I wonder if the issue of setting a precedent is that big of a concern, but rather, perhaps it's a way to deal with rather unusual cases? Ultimately I agree it's a judgment call, like the "EL" rules suggest; do the links help? are they useful? I guess that's not my call. I'm not planning on writing too many more of these knols but will be working on a screenplay soon. Plus did you know what quaternary was? -- I just added to the article, but I had never heard about it a few hours ago.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I've also had to remove your links to your personal essay. At the very least, it would have to wait until the matter has been resolved at the EL noticeboard, and as mentioned above there is the real problem with precedent. More importantly, though, there were a few instances where you used your personal writings as a reference source. Discussion about the merits of the EL aside, WP:RS would prevent its use in that manner. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've made my arguments here in good faith. I'll wait until a decision is made. If it is decided to allow external links, please notify by email at thomaswrightsulcer@yahoo.com. Until then, I am once again leaving Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually wishing I hadn't opened this particular rabbit hole. For what it's worth, sorry about it. Bleh. Finally got my thoughts down - a lot longer than I though and a bit rambly - sorry. Trying to pay attention in a code review (that's a train wreck anyway!) and type at the same time has that effect on me.

Hmmm, quaternary - have not heard that before. Surprising, given that I am in that sector, and my reading habits are pretty far and wide. Gotta tuck that one in my back pocket and bring it out at times, it's a useful tool when talking economic history/future with friends over a beer or two. Given the rapid grown of that industry in just the last 20 years (let alone the last 50!), it's a pretty powerful point to make.

As I was reading through, I hit a line that really struck a note. That there are two parts - a neutral fact-driven one and an independant one - that drive you (and agree, many others here). The split you mention is (to me) what the various WP policies strive to keep in place, albiet not without some strife and drama.

For some articles, the facts are out there and are pretty set. Most, however, get away from that black and white world and delve into opinion. Look at many sources in the citizenship articles - lots of opinion there. So who decides which opinions count? Ahh, we rely on reliable sources! Umm, and on how many other sources agree with that view! (oh yeah, there's a wee bit of sarcasm there) And suddenly, they become stated as fact. Intentional at times, accidental at others when 3 months of edit-warring produce something that neither side likes, but doesn't totally hate either, and caught in the middle was an opinion that someone missed the qualifier as they hurriedly typed.

But, umm, are they right? See the global warming mess. Not just here (although it's a great example of utter disaster), but in the real world. That might be a more hostile topic than health care! Lots of facts and theories. And many, many more opinions out there about those facts and theories. We'll happily quote someone that runs their own blog and manages to get quoted in lots of papers. Hopefully they've got some idea of what they're doing, but with scientists being found out playing fast and loose with data, who knows? The point is, however, we've got LOTS of opinions in Wikipedia.

I've read through your citizenship article, and quite enjoyed it. Interesting, though-provoking and well written. Better than some of the stuff I've read through of late. But it would be dismissed as a source here with various policies quoted. So what makes that opinion count less than a 2 inch column? (Insert stuff from the WP:RS page here - blah, blah, blah. I know it.) Compelling, but when you get arguments where people want to keep an opinion or fact thats "reliably sourced" even when it's blatantly wrong? And not mention that? SYNTH! OR! Find something that says this is wrong! *head into desk*

We live in an age where opinions are easily shared and published. Between blogs and sites like knol, it's easier and cheaper than ever to get your view out there. Oddly, get enough people to read you and you might become a WP:RS. But what about the things that are well-written, that hang two facts together and create that interesting view/opinion that makes people think? They just get ignored?

I like the idea of trying to find someway to have opinions like that referenced in WP, somehow. Because those are what can push people into new thoughts, views and make them ask "What if?" and "Why?" Questions that are vital to society and need to be asked (and not just from scientists). Whether it's in the External Links (or Essay Links!) or in a separate tab, right next to the Discussion tab, it's useful.

Right now, I don't think Wikipedia can handle something like that though. It IS too open, too easy to make an Essay Link section junk. Imagine Steven Colbert telling his audience to add links to essays about pink elephants to the Zoo articles. Good or bad, it's often the holders of minority opinions that are the most active. Suddenly, links to a good opinion piece, such as yours, are buried or removed. Exercising any control over that section would end up with more drama than we have now. How many articles? How many for each POV? What about fringe POV? Articles such as your are easily a benefit, but I fear so much dross that it would be an overall loss.

Tom, I honestly don't have a good answer here. I absolutely think that essays along the same caliber as yours would be a net benefit to related articles. I'm kinda wishing I hadn't brought this up, and just let them slide. As policies are currently written, I don't think they are likely to remain. I would suggest adding them to your user page - there's far, far better material there than 99% of user pages have. The worst part is that there are probably many, many pages that are pure OR on Wikipedia presented as fact. There should be a way to present well-written and reasoned opinion identified as opinion on a specific topic, but I just don't see it. Ravensfire (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

United States Congress criticism section was deleted

This was a good, well-referenced (over 60+ mainstream references -- NY Times, WSJournal, etc) section to balance out a highly POV article about how great the US Congress is. It got deleted in early September 2010. The section had been there for over a year I think. But somebody thought it was "opinion" or "biased" (perhaps a Congressperson or aide?). They didn't like the US Congress being criticized. So it got deleted from the Wikipedia article with LITTLE OR NO DISCUSSION on the talk page. So, is the criticism section fact or is it opinion? Well, who's to say? I think it's fact. But somebody else differs with me. What I'm saying is -- INSTEAD of having one more stupid editing battle about this, why not move the criticism section to a google Knol here, put a link at the bottom of the Wikipedia page on United States Congress, and leave it at that? No edit warring. No wondering whether criticism of Congress is fact or opinion. It's one more way in which Wikipedia and Google Knol can co-exist peacefully, each doing what it does best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jenny Gomez

A tag has been placed on Jenny Gomez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I created the article but I can see arguments both for and against keeping Jenny Gomez. After writing it, I'm not going to take either side in any possible future dispute, so her fate rests with the community. But I noticed how most of the people I write about here on Wikipedia have money, fame, prestige, probably fancy automobiles, new suits, designer apartments etc etc. These people make it into Wikipedia all the time. In contrast, this lady works hard, for little, and there are few, if any, Jenny Gomez's here on Wikipedia. She's like us -- isn't she? Hard-working, underpaid -- rather, NOT paid, since we all volunteer here at Wikipedia (hey, where is my paycheck?). So I'm kind of rooting for her from the sidelines. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan Last: 05/22/2010

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Where Ansel Adams died

Hello, You have edited Ansel Adams regarding where he died. He did not die in Carmel. He died in the ICU at the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula. That ICU is in Monterey. Please see his obit in the New York Times as well as the lengthy description of his final hours in Mary Street Alinder's biography. She was at the hospital so she should know. Some souces say he died "near" his home in Carmel. That is true. His home was in Carmel and he died nearby, at a hospital in Monterey. Cullen328 (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

/* Meryl Streep */

Hi, Tom. We actually know each other--last time I saw you was at the 7-Eleven when I was doing market research. I'm seconding the opinion that Meryl Streep wasn't raised in Summit, and neither was Ice-T. I won't make the page edits, though, because I usually make a hash of things. (You may see that I added a link from the Summit page to the Calvary Episcopal Church page. I'm so proud of getting it almost right, but it still has that little arrow thing :P )Katharine908 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Katharine, thanks for seconding the opinions about Meryl Streep. I'll check into Ice-T. Generally Wikipedia policy is not to put external links inside the body of an article as per WP:EL. If you want to put an external link to Calvary church in the external links area, then we probably have to do it for all churches in Summit, and then the links section becomes rather long, and I'm not sure what the policy is, but my guess is that it's not a good idea. My sense is that it would be opening a can of worms here. If you can make a case that other WP articles on towns have lots of external links to churches or can demonstrate that it's allowed (and doesn't result in edit wars or religious battling) then I'll allow it; until then, all of us, myself included, have to abide by Wikipedia's rules here even though it doesn't always suit our interests. The benefit is a better encyclopedia for everybody, and maintaining integrity, which is important because it means a better encyclopedia for all of us. Is there a Wikipedia article for Calvary church in summit? It's notable. Lots of sources. I don't see anything here.Why not float an article about Calvary church? Then you could have an external link to its website at the bottom and I think this would be in keeping with WP's policies. If you need help, let me know. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Monosodium Glutamate

I reverted your recent edit to the article, mainly because the information would fit better elsewhere; particularly at Glutamic_acid_(flavor)#Excitotoxicity (though I'm not sure whether that section actually requires more sources on this). The health effects of glutamate are mainly described in that article, with the MSG article just briefly summarizing it. There's also a minor factual error, in that MSG doesn't resemble glutamate, it actually contains it. Which is the reason for this odd article setup. Sakkura (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Chris Agee

Hello Tom. I've replied at Talk:Chris Agee. Good work on the US Congress, btw :) Regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of SkillSlate for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article SkillSlate, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkillSlate until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Timneu22 · talk 16:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Chegg Customer Service Telephone #

Please provide the telephone # to Chegg Customer Service Dept

I worked on the Chegg article a while back -- a year ago? DK the customer service # sorry. Also, please identify who you are when writing on pages by finishing with four tildes (~), thanks. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

CoalSwarm

Hi Tom. I just patrolled and passed your article on CoalSwarm. I was left thinking, after also reviewing the editing code, that it might be much better if most of the actual prose content from the heavily text-laden footnotes were to be incorporated into the article body, and the inline refs just left as links to sources in the way we generally format pages. What do you think? --Kudpung (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I've just been battling on the Earl Killian article, and so my aim is to make it easy for the deleter-types to see the references, including the quotes within the references so they're easy to find. Typically what I do is trim the quotes within the references substantially after a week or so, for copyvio reasons. If you wish to make changes go ahead you seem like you know what you're doing, all I ask is to not make any changes which results in endless battling over AfDs (even though it can sometimes be fun!)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks documents on China

Hi, I'm not suggesting for the complete removal of the Wikileaks material, but I believe that it would be better placed on other articles regarding Chinese hacking such as Operation Aurora. Furthermore, the leaked documents largely contain speculation by US diplomats, and it's not actually leaked by China, which I feel might violate WP:UNDUE. I believe the purpose of the article is to introduce the functions of the PRC Politburo based on established facts, not speculation; the article on the US federal government does not contain Wikileaks material at all.--PCPP (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll move this to the talk page of the article in question, namely, Talk:Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China, and reply there. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Tomwsulcer/Archive 2! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Project! Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or suggestions.--Kumioko (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Tomwsulcer. You have new messages at Kumioko's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, Tom!

Appreciated your input and tone. Please see my response to your note on my talk page under "December 2010." I have no idea at this point how to do what you suggested as Google knol. Hoo-RAH! Stay safe! --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation

I read your your kind, generous message a moment ago. Thank you. One clicks on the "new massages" link with a bit of trepidation. At least I do. I love it when the trepidation proves unwarranted. Best, David in DC (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

New Years Message for WikiProject United States

With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In recognition of the great work you've been doing around the wiki. :) œ™ 04:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the helpful addition to Beyond the First Amendment, and the kind words about the quality of the article! Sorry for first removing it - I have a tendency against use of primary sources, but your material supplements the secondary sources quite nicely. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you think of a possible DYK hook to suggest, for a nomination to T:TDYK? (I have not nominated it there yet.) Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

Minor oversight on my part, that external link actually has info for a full citation on the journal from which it was published. I included that info now. Thank you, very much! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No big woof. Not even a small woof. I have other stuff I'm working on. If I can be of help, ask, but problem is, I know diddly squat about practically everything, but it doesn't prevent me from writing as if I'm knowledgeable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, understood, sounds good. ;) Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick notice

As you commented in this thread, I just wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard as well. A link to the RSN thread is at the content noticeboard. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

14th Amendment isn't usurping ...

hey. thanks for comments on the ProfessorStoryteller page. Length makes it hard to address all. Til he returns, maybe we could have a side discussion.

Only individuals have inalienable RIGHTS. All just powers follow from the consent of the governed. The creatures of the people ( legal fictions, not real humanity who are created immutably equal in rights ) , all polities of whatever description, conditionally hold any POWER on probation, by the people. (That is, states, US, counties, SEC ...)

With the 14th Amendment, the Constitution requires its standards to be applied to the state governments, "due process". Erosion of the state powers (segregation, 10:1 mal-apportioned districts) over the 20th century did not necessarily accrue additional power to the US government. But it did advance individual, civil rights.

The increased commerce power of the federal government has been devolved onto regulatory agencies resulting in better meat inspection and prompter recalls, coast to coast intermodal container freight, and water pollution cleanup lowering factory coolant costs, expanding fisheries. How is it to be? Is a state to make good economic choices and lead by moral example, Locke's natural light of reason? You dismiss the major parties on your page, but do I detect the influence of a Libertarian think-tank?

The states certainly have their virtue. Virginia funded the ten year re-forestation program for strip-mined slopes at VaTech, which the US Agriculture Department then picked up and promulgated to other states as its own. But, I guess, I just don’t see how anything is “usurped”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I am not sure if I understand your argument other than you're happy with the current arrangement regarding federal power, and you disagree with one part of my critique of the Constitution. My sense is we have perhaps different understandings of what words like "rights", "usurp", and "power" mean.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, my general sense of how a federal arrangement should function is to have states be the prime economic regulators within their borders; that the federal government should settle disputes when states have conflicts; and the federal government should perhaps work to find agreement among states when many states are involved to help set a common policy. There are many advantages to such an arrangement: since there is less distance between the regulator and the regulated (eg, between Trenton and my town in New Jersey, than say between Washington DC and my town), the state-level regulations are more likely to be sensible and smart. They're closer to home. NJ state representatives may live or drive through my town. As an individual citizen, consumer, business owner or worker, I have relatively greater influence at the state level to effect change. If I become unhappy with New Jersey's economic regulation, I can vote with my feet and leave to a better managed state. And this natural competition between states for residents and businesses will work to everybody's benefit. It enables fifty mini-laboratories constantly experimenting with regulation to see what works best. This is my view of how the United States should work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

But what's happened, in my view, is that Washington has gone beyond these limits to the point of being the dominant economic regulator. It has assumed (usurped? taken over?) the natural role of states to regulate their own economies. Its regulations supercede most state regulations, making state rulings irrelevant in most instances. Washington has a slew of alphabet agencies (SEC, FCC, etc) which are difficult for Congress to monitor and which are generally controlled by the Executive and (in my view) outside of the democratic process. The FDA is (in my view) overly cautious about approving new drugs and, as a result, only pharmaceutical firms with deep pockets and lobbying connections can endure the grueling process of getting new drugs approved; in effect, the burdensome approval process makes it difficult for entrepreneurial start-up firmst to gain entry to this market. For me, this is one of many instances of corruption when a generally anonymous agency wields such great power to set laws which are mostly out of sight of Congress. If Washington's regulations are haphazard, burdensome, difficult to understand, clumsy, or counter-productive, then residents don't have the option of voting with their feet unless they're prepared to become citizens of a foreign country.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the debate about Constitutional wording or interpretation is, in my view, somewhat besides the point. I don't see the Constitution as sacrosanct. Rather, I would like a form of government which encourages freedom, prosperity, and I prefer a balanced federal arrangement to a Washington-only arrangement. The lack of state regulatory authority is only one of my criticisms of the current Constitution. Also, I see myself as non-partisan, or perhaps anti-partisan; I don't side with socialists or libertarians but I am free to take the best ideas from both camps.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

reading into Pauline Maier's "Ratification: the people debate the Constitution, 1787-1788". New Jersey is one of the first four states to ratify. The substantial social, economic, geographical and political divisions in New Jersey then were overlooked due to THE unifying imperative: the Constitution promised regulation of trade by the federal government, nullifying (pardon the expression) the state surcharges made by New York and Pennsylvania for all items shipped through them, imports and exports.

I will not defend the indefensible ... like the FDA, for instance, even the AMA as standing committees to try to fix them. The last time I checked, state-wide campaigns in NJ had to buy air time in NYC and Phili versus a NJ radio or TV station. Markets seem to militate against states as economic units.

Nevertheless, What has changed, that you would trust NY and PA now, what is different about them from the days of ratification, in a proposed reform for states self-governance in economic affairs?

At least I have not found stories of NJ state militias raiding one another with NY and Pa. Va and Md militias took turns making raids, stealing crops from one anothrer during the time of Constitutional ratification.

(Also, I have travelled New Jersey some, and find your state spectacular. Westerly, the rolling topography is like the Shenandoah Valley, and I finally figured out why Woodrow Wilson would want to live there. The south of the state is still the "Garden State", where some of my Va progenitors recruited NJ vegetable growers to relocate into the Norfolk area. The beaches are unsurpassed, unless you prefer the lighter blues of the Gulf. My great grand-father's NJ Lutheran church is experimenting with one service a week in English (all others are in German), so I know the spirit of inclusiveness is alive and well in NJ.)

I would make a modest proposal to try to unify the interests of the states and the nation. It would be based on the people. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I reached the conclusion that the best way to deal with America's problems of governance is with a Second Constitutional Convention. It's risky if it happens and a new Constitution is inferior. But at this point I think it's worth the risk. And the balance between federal and state authority is only one issue on a very long list for new delegates to address.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, that New Jersey ratified so quickly isn't surprising, since the Constitution had a sweet deal for the smaller less populous states -- equal representation in the Senate. The states to ratify last were usually the big ones -- I think New York was last or second to last if memory serves me. Today, the Senate over-represents citizens in rural, less populous states like Wyoming, and under-represents citizens from California. It's a huge imbalance causing, according to some scholars, a steady redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer states, depriving states like California of bridges and infrastructure while states like Alaska get (or almost get) their bridge to nowhere.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What if local, state, and federal are the same people?

I see three geographic expressions of “the people”, local, state and federal. If we align them all, we amplify their voice. A community organizer in one place could impact decision making at every level of government. We no longer meet on market day at the county court house. We meet in malls. Economic integration on this scale overtakes biases based on race, religion or ethnicity.

• Congressional Districts should be compactly drawn to retail sales regions. Then state senate districts inside those, state house districts inside them. This would increase relative power of urban and suburban areas.

• With unfunded mandates on localities, there are unmet obligations in schooling, regulation, human services, homeland security. Counties should be periodically (50-years) redrawn using existing sub-district boundaries to reflect population shifts so as to finance requirements unmet by state funding. This would increase relative power of rural and suburban areas.

• There is a huge disenfranchisement of voters across the Electoral College by the state-made, “winner-take-all” rule. (4.5 M in CA alone). Diversity would be better served with a district-plus 2-at-large, “District Plan” (in CA, it matches the popular vote split). This would allow equal expression of urban, suburban and rural differences (see Omaha City's one urban 2008 E.C. vote).

If counties, state districts, US districts, and presidential electors were all aligned to communities where the people meet, their expressed need would be amplified. As it is now, only political parties can bridge the crosscurrents of contradictory districts. And the answer for many disputes ends up becoming more remote, more centralized, the very thing you are wary of. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Tom Brokaw would also consolidate counties and service districts in all the states to make services more efficient. His example, Iowa has 99 counties, each with its own sheriff, clerk of court, each court house 35 miles apart. (Morning Joe, MSNBC 07:15 ET 27Jan2011) Iowa has nine shopping malls outside of Des Moines (Wikipedia shopping mall list).

So, if we consult the Rand-McNally Commercial Atlas, the retail sales map for Iowa will show us where to begin the redrawing of county and district lines, then the US Census tracts, then existing county/subcounty survey districts. In Virginia, for example, each county has three to five magisterial districts for recording land titles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mall public places and voter turnout

These issues you raise are good ones, and clearly need further exploration. Generally, however, in contrast to your views, I think more fundamental changes are needed. If you write "We meet in malls", my response would be there is no effective political communication in malls; if I try to protest there, I'll be arrested and jailed. Malls are not public space but are collectively owned shopping areas which rarely permit political expression. If you see "disenfranchisement of voters", I see few people, if any, participating in democratic decision-making. In my view, people aren't citizens; we don't know who our congresspersons are, what the issues are. Citizenship is essentially a legal marker signifying membership in the nation, and a legal grant of rights meaning things like freedom from being deported, freedom to have a job, and so forth. As I said, these are only a few of the issues needing fixing; to get America shipshape, I think a Constitutional Convention is needed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Good critique on malls. So, we need a provision for public space. I take the building codes to be the appropriate vehicle. Next time a mall comes in for a remodel, make a public space.

We have requirements for parking space, greenspace, water entrapment for the public good ... how about for new construction, requiring water entrapment in the center of the parking lot withing 60 feet of the mall entrance versus in ditches along the parking lot perimeter. Then a platform/stage could be built over it at ground level. Say, in a pentagon shape with movable partitions for up to five public presentations at a time, with a central service core for restrooms, heating, etc. Rents comparable to after-school activities in a school or community center, to be evenly divided between mall and locality, maintenance by the mall.

Space to be given over to the locality for voting on election days. We make them build turn lanes and install traffic lights, don't we? Why not something for little-d-democracy? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• On the electorate, we are certainly not like ancient Athens of free men in the agora dropping pebbles in the voting box. At some level, there was social pressure to show up, you were going to market anyway that day, and showing up, why not vote?

I've thought about Australia's practice of fining non-voters, but I am not persuaded for here. Without it, we have a sort of virtual democracy. Voting is not rational so much as it is assigning trust. (The only election George Washington ever lost in Va was one in which he did not offer liquor. He thought the electorate should make a sober choice. The experiment failed. Next election, he brought out the booze, and he won. Washington was, after all, the best candidate, but how was a voter to trust a politician to take care of his interests away in the Assembly if he was not willing to drink with a man face-to-face on election day?)

Those who do vote vitually represent those not voting in the district, those who do not, count as trusting the choice of the voters (their betters?, some poli sci research on self-image of non-voters). In Virginia, for local elections, in two counties I've studied, about half of all eligible register, about half of those (1/4) turn out to vote, and about half of those (1/8) vote for the winner. That is, when I vote locally, I have the democratic power of four other resident adults, more with immigration.

This same analysis animates outsiders in primaries or third party campaigns, Anti-Vietnam Ds, Tea Party Rs. These folks see that with a very few new registrations, they could have a majority of those voting. (See Lincoln's Republican registration drives for 1860, Rs capture state houses, governorships, majority of House and Senate -- Bruce Chadwick's "Lincoln for President ... the victory no one saw coming"). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. But I continue to see the problem with America as bigger, deeper, more entrenched and serious than something merely solvable with, say, revised building codes or whether liquor is served before an election. There are reasons that elected politicians do not want citizens participating, making it unlikely that any lawmakers will seriously consider efforts to broaden participation. Generally, in my view, politicians like the status quo -- once elected, their main job is to keep getting elected, and the current system supports their needs nicely. Politicians do not want a wider circle of the electorate meddling in their business of governing. They will not do things to make participation easier, in my view. Voting (as I see it) is a marginal token act with little benefit other than to keep incumbents in power (there is very little turnover in Congress which was supposed to be the main body representing the people -- over 90% of representatives seeking re-election are re-elected.) According to Benjamin Ginsberg, a political scientist from Johns Hopkins, voting was broadened to include more groups partially as a way to diminish the likelihood of more serious threats to power, such as street protests and lawsuits. In his view, when people aged 18-21 (who couldn't vote) protested, lawmakers decreased the voting age to 18 partially as a way to pacify them. I do not see why your view of most people in the electorate not voting as somehow being positive -- with only an eighth of the electorate voting, how can that be good for everybody? How can a fraction represent the majority? I disagree with your view that "Those who do vote virtually represent those not voting in the district, those who do not, count as trusting the choice of the voters" -- in my view, the ones not voting are apathetic and realistic that they have no alternatives, and that voting won't matter. And I think your justification for voting -- that "when I vote locally, I have the democratic power of four other resident adults, more with immigration" is not realistic -- I don't think anybody's votes really count, and that voting is distorted by such factors as negative advertising and attack ads, so that people who marginally follow politics, but are exposed to the mass media, distort the votes of those people who really are informed. For me, citizenship should be a relationship between the person and the state which is (1) marked by active civic participation (voting, jury duty, participation in regular meetings, etc) (2) voluntarily chosen by both person and the state (3) temporary in the sense that either party can break off the relation if it chooses. The way it should be is for some people who are citizens to meet regularly, become informed about current events, actively communicate with their representatives at the state and federal levels, and vote. There's more to my view than just this, such as a requirement to serve in the military if summoned. To continue with this line of reasoning, there may be some people who choose not to be citizens, and the terms of their membership in the country should be set by the citizens and government. That's how it should be. At present, almost all Americans are non-citizens who do the minimal amount -- some vote for president every four years -- that's it -- but they think they're citizens.Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If interested, I elaborate on my ideas about citizenship and government.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• History of citizenship in the United States--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Common Sense II This is a solution to the problem of terrorism; one of my arguments is that without substantive reform of government, then terrorism can't be prevented other than crossing one's fingers (our current strategy.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of what I wrote was meant to be discriptive, rather than ideal ... I do see that you have a well developed point of view. Between the participation (Athens democracy), and citizenship qualifications related to relationship to the state (ancient Roman republic), you are incorporating elements of a classical education that is rarely seen anymore. I'm not sure I can follow you to agreement, but these are timeless ideas everyone should wrestle with. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your view is that the current arrangement, while flawed, is not flawed enough for substantive reform, that is, you're willing to work within the system to effect reform, rather than risk things with major changes? I'm a handyman. I know the basics of things like houses. And America is like a house. I walk on the stairs. I hear the creaks. I see the shifts. And it may be too late to do a major renovation at this point. But I see the original plan as no longer working, that's all, so in my view, it's time to renovate the interior, substantially, keeping the good things, discarding the junk. About my education -- I just read, ask, talk, try to learn stuff, but basically I'm a simple guy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been great. I'll come back again. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WPUS LOL

lol. Glad somebody said that about Kumioko and Racepacket. The two of them just need to get a dang room! Purplebackpack89 00:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. lol. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A more detailed response to your questions

I wanted to give a more detailed response to your questions here but a I mention on the project talk page please let me know what suggestions you have for reductions.

Part of the reason I recreated the project was to try and refocus (or just focus them in general) the scattered thoughts that I saw across WP relating to United States topics (Some good, some bad and some that conflicted with each other between projects), the rogue agents that seem to have their own agendas and to try and centrally discuss and collaborate on issues pertaining to US topics (which could include a number of things including the articles or projects themselves). To again clarify a misconception before I say this next part and someone embroils me in debate for the next 2 or 3 months my intent is not to take over or subjugate the other US related projects but I do believe this project is a good place to manage centralizable things like the Noticeboard, Newsletter, Portal, Collaboration of the month, to fill in the gaps left when projects fail or go inactive or defunct or if the other projects scope doesn't cover articles, or even if the article is generally a US article but doesn't really fall in the scope of one of the more specific ones. I also believe we have some basically uneeded projects that are so specific that they are almost doomed to fail from the begging (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols). Here are a couple general comments that might help the decision process for determining things we don't need:

1. There are 184 members of the project with different areas of interest so we should be broad enough to allow them all to participate in their areas of interest but focused enough that we have priorities of what to work on and maintain first and then work out from there.
2. Minimization was my thinking when I suggested to the other projects of using a consolidated banner that was taken as a hostile takeover of this project. The morale of that story is no matter how honest the intentions the perception could have a different affect than planned.
3. I redirected most of the talk pages of all the subpages of WPUS to the main talk page. There are only a couple of exceptions to this (like assessments) at the moment
4. I dropped a bunch of the old crud pages that were left over from the old project. They were either stuff that wasn't used anymore in WP, stuff that never really took off then, some basically blank pages that appeared to just be sandboxes and the like, etc. I also modelled the existing pages on the pages I saw were actively used by most of the other active projects.
5. I combined or redirected some of the defunct US related Noticeboards (Southern Wikipedians and Northern Wikipedians) into the general US topic one. There are a couple that exist that pertain to specific US topics that are defunct as well but we would need to work with the specific projects to get their buyin before we eliminate those.
6. The same with the Collaboration of the Month. There are a couple like Congress and Texas that are basically defunct and could be combined into the US wikipedians COTM but we would need to work with those projects before officially doing that. Theres's not a lot we can do about all the portals. ut are you talking about the tabs or just the general number of pages that appear when you search the Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Namespace? There are a couple of uneeded pages out there but not too many.
7. Theres not much we can do about the dozens of portals IMO. I might suggest this project taking on the maintenance of a couple of the higher level ones like US or Military of the United States (along with MILHIST of course) but to take on the state level projects would be such a massive undertaking at this time it would be unmanageable and should IMO be left up to the state projects to manage. Although, I would be open to discussing doing things collaboratively that might be shared between multiple portals (such as a consolidated location for the Wikimedia Banner that most of the projects have individual subpages for, the Projects section that many of the projects have, etc.). This would allow a change to be made once rather than 50 to 100 times and would allow a huge reduction in the number of pages needed. Also, if we can find a way to modify the Portal:United States/Selected article/Layout template to be able to identify another project (for example District of Columbia) then we might also be able to share things like featured content and DYK's between portals (for example the content would show in Portal United States but only on District of Columbia if it applied to that portal) although I am not sure how to go about that it at this time but it seems possible. --Kumioko (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Kumioko, I appreciate the great work you've done to restore the project. I really do!!! Good job! My comment was only meant as a kind of guide for a general direction for the future, that is, if possible, make things simpler. But overall, you've done a SUPER JOB!!!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition

Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:

1. Portal:United States
2. the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
3. the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
4. and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

SFX

Thanks for advice on SFX -and for fixing it. JRPG (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanx for saying thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of History of citizenship in the United States for deletion

The article History of citizenship in the United States is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of citizenship in the United States 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Coffeepusher (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it should be deleted and wrote this on the deletion discussion; it was good once but got whittled down; and people don't agree about how to fix it -- just as well. My Google version here will be the definitive version; if readers are interested, they can find it on Google.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good work

Nice piece on Gary Lee. Of all places, he just returned from Afghanistan. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanx!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind offer. I'll have to decline as I don't consider myself notable, and moreover, I'm of the 'old school' who believes that journalists should stay in the back of the picture. But many thanks anyway. Take care and enjoy your weekend. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you change your mind, let me know; my guess is you're notable. The more I contribute to Wikipedia, the more I respect journalists such as yourself.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

LBC United Football League

Hi. Thanks for helping out on the LBC United Football League page. I renamed the article without the year in it, and I'm thinking of moving the 2010 material to a subpage.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good job renaming. Thanks for calling attention to this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)