Jump to content

User talk:Tomwsulcer/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
Hello, Tomwsulcer! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

music bios

Hi, Tom, I saw your fab review of one of my favorite Portland bands, Sallie Ford, and I am curious about your work. Would you be interested in creating entries for any family/kids' music artists? My company, Sugar Mountain PR, works with some great groups that often get good press. Beth Blenz-Clucas 503-293-9498 http://www.sugarmountainpr.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbcpdx (talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Beth, sure I am interested but am present I am fulfilling a volunteer project for Partisan Records and Knitting Factory Records to write articles on their artists; these record labels have donated generously to Wikimedia Foundation. I would be willing to consider a volunteer project for your artists too but perhaps in a few weeks or so if you're willing to consider a donation to Wikimedia Foundation as well. Or else I could send you a sheet with guidelines about how to add articles to Wikipedia. There's a learning curve but I think in the long run it's a good idea to develop this skill, and I am willing to share ideas about how to create content that passes the rules and doesn't get deleted, if interested. If you google my name you can find my email address most likely.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Mention at RfAR

Hi, please note that I have quoted a comment you made a couple of weeks ago at WP:NPOVN, describing your views of the Joel Anderson artice, at WP:RFAR. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Jayen466. Best, --JN466 18:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Noted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

David Nathan (music writer)

Umm... yes, well, where do we start? Firstly, as the originator and major contributor to that article, it might have been nice if you'd told me what you were doing. I wasn't aware it was at COI, for a start. Although Nathan has obviously (as I tagged it in the first place) had some input to the article, that has essentially been of a trivial nature. He is not me. So, I'd better get to it I suppose... Grr..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey I was trying to save the article from being deleted. Almost all of the article was unsourced, clearly looked like WP:SPAM, and there were users in the history of the article which looked a lot like the subject of the article. I added valid references which may keep the article from being deleted; there were invalid references before which were removed. As a major contributor, you should know about the importance of references? I saved the material on the talk page -- please find suitable references and restore it when they're found; if you would like my help let me know. And please understand that I understand the irritation when stuff gets deleted; I've had major articles (ie 50-100 references even) deleted; see my user page for an idea about how to use Google knols as a way around this (like one's own Wikipedia). :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
By "invalid" references, do you mean "unreliable" references or something else? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
David Nathan's profile page at LinkedIn or SoulMusic.com is not a valid reference; I found no mention of him at ReverbNation (when I clicked the link). It's my view that Nathan as an article topic is borderline-notable; the new references I added are a way to try to keep his article in WP (since there is a risk that others will come along and PROD it in a jiffy, given the attention) -- still I sympathize with how you feel.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
One of the problems with journalists is that they write a lot about themselves (here for instance - although on re-reading it it's not clear who wrote that piece), but tend not to be much written about themselves. I'll see what I can do (probably not immediately - life....) but would certainly contest deletion on notability grounds. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree. The link doesn't say who wrote about Nathan. I'll support you if the article comes up for deletion and vote "keep" but what I'm saying is, based on past experience, that if an article gets challenged, it's survival chance rate drops somewhat (if challenged), perhaps with a 50-50 chance, and keeping the article in its new form (short, well-referenced, neutral-sounding) will likely prevent a challenge. So I hope you might begin to see the editing changes as a good thing. Further, readers coming along and seeing the Nathan article now in its trimmed state will get that he's a music writer that is, someone to take seriously -- the older version had more information but without references, it looked somewhat promotional -- do you know what i mean -- so I hope you see that by following Wikipedia's rules, the overall product is more powerful. The article, shorter, has more ooomph. Less is more as you know. Further, if you can find articles that Nathan has written in music-related publications, please let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll work on it. Re articles, there are all the ones listed here (after the bio) for a start. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanx. I added info based on what you gave above. Anybody who wrote that extensively about soul music must be an authority on the subject so I added that to the lede sentence. Any way we could get a picture of DN? And an infobox would be good too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken Ring, longrange forecaster

I don't know who you are and am having difficulty finding where to argue my case. I am not an astrologer and have never done a horoscope for anyone in my life. I am a longrange weather forecaster. If it is good enough for the media in 3 countries to call me that then it should be good enough for Wikipedia. I do astronomical cycles and apply them to weather. If I am an astrologer then so is someone who writes tide tables. Trying to hook me to astrology is an attempt to denigrate my work. There is a campaign by the New Zealand Skeptics to ruin my business if they can. They have called for the government to investigate me, for the Commerce Commission to curtail me etc simply because they do not understand what my science is about. Wikipedia is not the place for them to debate the worth of my work. Wikipedia should just report facts, and in my edits that is what I keep reducing the content to. Let the New Zealand Skeptics have their own Wikipedia page if they want some sort of public profile. Neither is Wikipedia the place to post comments and opinions of meteorologists etc who do not understand lunar science. I do have a public profile and a substantive following. My almanacs sell 10,000 per year in NZ alone. I am Australia's biggest TV channel network's longrange consultant. NZ Skeptics may not like it, may disagree with my ideas, but this is not the Taleban or Stalinist Russia. Why should the public have to wade through a plethora of negative comments to find out what I do? I have done nothing wrong. On the contrary in the field of earthquakes I have helped thousands of people for no renumeration and intend to continue doing so. Ken Ring (Kanola51) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanola51 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am an unpaid Wikipedia volunteer, a handyman, living in New Jersey, merely following Wikipedia's rules which suggest that, for starters, a person should not edit their own article, that reliable sources be used which are verifiable, that articles be neutral. I found out about you on the WP noticeboard about conflict of interest. If you are, indeed, Ken Ring, then you should not be editing your own article because it's clearly a conflict of interest, and you should not be removing criticism of your deeds by public officials in New Zealand. About you being an astrologer -- if you are making predictions about events on earth, based on events happening to the moon, then my sense is that's astrology -- but there may be a case to make that you don't see yourself as an astrologer, so maybe that should be put into the article? The article in my view is highly biased in your favor -- borderline advertising for you (again, against WP's policies) -- and is not neutral; my additions were a mere way to try to restore some of the balance. Wikipedia is an excellent encyclopedia when people follow the rules, since it leads to objective reporting, factual information. In the end, readers themselves will make up their minds about you; if you are telling the truth, and believe in what you are doing, and if you are as popular as you say and sell 10,000 almanacs, and believe in the veracity of your earthquake predictions, then you shouldn't fret what an article in Wikipedia says, from New Jersey, of all places. Last, this discussion belongs on the talk page of the Ken Ring page so I will copy it there.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. I resent being labelled a "quasi-mystic mathematician". I am a math teacher who specialises in math motivation. There is nothing quasi about me or mystical. That is a mischievous derogation. There are 6 other derogatory remarks designed to make me look a fraud. These are from David Winter, a student, 3News who say they have not found a single scientist, geologist or seismologist which believes in Ken Rings theories, but that is because they haven't asked enough of them and I had sent them 6 links to scientific studies which they chose to ignore/not read. In fact a phD student in geology from Otago University has been researching my work for his thesis and has been "under my wing". Further, it is not surprising that scientists don't concur - it is not in their training. There are not 6 balanced supportive quotes, which makes for unfairness. In any court of law or debate to portray one view requires opportunity for it to be offset by an opposite. I find it upsetting that Wikipedia can be used as a platform for the views of skeptics, when the article is supposed to inform of my work for those who wish to read of it. Let skeptics provide their own viewpopints on their own pages. I am not an astrologer and resent the label and implication. I am a scientist using astronomy for cycles and seismicity for location. I am no more an astrologer than someone who puts together tide tables. In fact the process is exactly the same, as I am applying tide cycles to archived weather data, and tidetable authors apply tide cycles to archived water data. My profession is longrange forecaster. I am known for that in 3 countries - I am not known for astrological work/reports. I have nothing against astrology but I am nowhere near it in style, content or method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.222.183 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining this to me. I understand how you might resent being labeled a "quasi-mystic mathematician" but please understand that I didn't label you this, rather, a reliable source which is verifiable described you with these words. Please take up the issue with them, not me; rather, I am merely following Wikipedia's rules which say that I must quote the sources, that's all. About your not being an astrologer -- well, my sense is that if someone predicts natural events by looking at astronomical or astrological events (eg the moon), then that's astrology; but frankly I'm not an expert here, so maybe there is a case for having your article retitled. Last, and this may be the hardest thing for you to appreciate, but it's true, and I think if you think about it, you'll agree -- and it's this -- that when you are criticized in the media that this is a good thing in one sense because it means that people out there in the world are listening to you and heeding what you say. It's a sincere compliment. And what I'm trying to suggest is that when politicians such as New Zealand's minister Nick Smith criticize you, that you're on the public radar. That is, when your article in Wikipedia has both positives and negatives, that's it's a more serious, better article overall, reflecting a boost in your status, than one which has mere bland pronouncements. Won't you agree here? And, I believe that you believe in your own predictions (right?) -- that is, I believe that you believe that you are not a fraud -- so why worry? You should smile and enjoy these days. Being human, as you know, is a finite thing, and we should strive to enjoy every moment on the earth because these days will not last forever! Cheers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Need_admin_involvement_in_user_dispute

-- Avanu (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Avanu. Much appreciated. Let me know how I can help you in future. I remember past kindnesses, like forever.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


Sallie Ford image nominated for deletion

Hi, I see that the image on the Sallie Ford page was nominated for deletion. I assume you put it there, and since you are an expert Wikipedian you will know what to do to keep it up or replace it. I think I'm the only other person who has edited the page. I'm just a Sallie Ford fan and a beginner Wikipedia editor. I only have a not-very-good photo I took at a show. I would hate to see the picture come down. Can you fix this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeaniac (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeaniac. I wouldn't call myself an expert Wikipedian by any stretch but I continue to learn new things, new procedures, and I find that other Wikipedians, including you, plus the content itself, helps me keep learning. The current Sallie Ford photo is probably safe now since the record label gave permission, but would you like to upload your photo and perhaps we could include it in the article? If so let me know. Also, you should write something on your user page here (not just your user talk page) and save it (there's a reason for this). If you took the picture with your own camera, then it's usually possible to upload it. Remember to sign your posts with the four tildes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration

 United States National Archives WikiProject
Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.

There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

Dog camps help canines learn valuable socialization lessons such as learning to take turns.

Hey, thanks for giving up your time to work on the dog camp article. I was really impressed with how much effort you put into improving the article! I thought your work merited a barnstar for saving the article during AfD. Note: I'm completely new to awarding barnstars, so I hope directly editing your userpage was kosher. Thanks! I Jethrobot (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! It's okay to add barnstars to my user page if you wish. And thank you for your improvements as well. For one of the pictures, I thought up a better caption but I'm still kind of in semi-formal probation about the Palin-Revere kerfuffle so perhaps I'll just leave it here on my talk page for now. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I Jethrobot (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(Also, If you feel like my recent award will color your judgment, don't feel obligated to comment.) I Jethrobot (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Richard Schwartz wiki edits

Hi Tom,

First, thanks for taking the time to edit the wiki page about me. I like what you wrote, on the whole, but the math section is a bit inaccurate. Being new to wikipedia, I am not sure what the etiquette is in this situation. I don't want to spend too much time tinkering with my own wiki page. It seems too narcissistic.

I went there this morning and amended a bit of what you wrote, correcting some factual inaccuracies. The only remaining thing I don't quite like is hard to fix: Somehow the emphasis, as it relates to my mathematical work, is not right. I got most of my mathematical acclaim for work on things other than the pentagram map. I am best known for my work in geometric group theory and billiards.

Best Wishes RichardEvanSchwartz (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard -- yes thanks for the praise for the good stuff and for criticism for the inaccuracies, and a general thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please feel free to fix things accordingly -- in this case I think it's best since it's a specialist subject, and there are few as knowledgeable as you about this subject. Unfortunately I don't have access to math journals so it's somewhat difficult for me to find good sources on you. I had a few questions: how did you first get interested in pentagrams (my sole knowledge of pentagrams was from the Crosby Stills & Nash song Guinnevere. Also I tried to follow the logic in the article pentagram map but it quickly got way beyond me -- I was wondering whether there were simpler ways to get the concept across. I tried drawing a polygon, inscribing diagonals, and making an inner polygon -- I think I did this twice -- resulting in three polygons -- and then spinning them around, expanding the smaller ones -- to see if there were similarities in shape -- I didn't see any but maybe I was doing something wrong, or I don't understand the concept yet. Wondering, also, are there any practical applications for geometric group theory or pentagram map? Like, is this a case where pure mathematics leads, and then some application down the road may come from it, but it's not apparent now? And, can it help somebody win at billiards? Also, if you know how to upload a picture of yourself to Commons, please do so, and tell me the filename so I might add it -- that is if you'd like your picture in Wikipedia -- or else please email me a picture at thomaswrightsulcer (AT) yahoo (DOT) com -- I'm getting better at working thru the permissions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

The Hope Diamond has been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can vote for this or other articles article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For being so supportive in the past. A great team-mate Tesseract2(talk) 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! Also I note you have great ideas for improving Wikipedia on your user page. Interesting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Tomwsulcer, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Tomwsulcer/sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.
  • If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo of 'Little Oneroa Beach'

Just letting you know this photo you've submitted on Wikipedia is of 'Oneroa Beach' sometimes called 'Big Oneroa'. Little Oneroa is the small beach around the rocks in the distance in your photo.

Cheers Debbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.7.166 (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Debbie. Which photo? Is it the one with the sandcastle? If you see an error, please feel free to fix it. You can edit almost anything here at Wikipedia, including pictures. That's how mistakes get fixed -- we correct each other.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey Debbie, I updated a beach photo -- did I get the right one here? If not let me know, okay? Thanks for your help. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Jonathon Dalton help

Thank you so much for the help with my article. I'm rereading through the references page you cited right now, and hadn't even considered the national post. How did you dig up those quotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistergiantrobot (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've been doing Wikipedia for a few years now, and I've developed a slew of shortcuts to do things quickly. In the Dalton article, it only took me a few minutes, if that, to add the references, and a few more minutes for copyediting. When I can I like to rescue articles, since I know how it feels when an article gets deleted (I've had my share of articles getting axed). My favorite stuff is revamping, meaning take a troubled yet high-traffic article, researching, and adding new stuff with a good copyedit, like for Hope Diamond or Equality of outcome. If you continue to contribute here, bug me about my secrets and shortcuts and settings; one is you should write something on your user page -- anything -- and save it so your user name doesn't light up in red. Another: remember to sign your name and leave an edit summary. Another: Wikipedia is like camping outdoors and it can get very windy and rainy, fast; references are like strong pegs which hold down your article when the wind picks up. Good luck!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have some information. You are invited to comment at the relevant thread. Thank you. CycloneGU (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

STRAWBERRIES!

Hi! This is Clarinda Romain. You commented earlier on my edits for the page on the friend zone. I want to thank you for your kind words. They made me smile, so thank you. :) It's good that there are considerate people like you on the wiki. Clarinda Romain (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_of_a_page_in_my_userspace_without_warning.2C_cause_or_consensus

Hi thanks for your comments at ANI. I've created a new category [[Category:Wikipedians interested in ways non-admins can hold admins accountable]], I'd be interested if you think this is a good idea. --Surturz (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There is probably little that people can do since the problem is complex (ie boils down to how to police the police and this is a toughie problem). About your specific idea -- well -- let me think about it. I'm in favor of openness, criticism, accountability, of a forum where non-admins can criticize admins which will get some kind of attention and not be shunted to some unread page. What admins may not realize is how non-admins can be easily bullied and pushed around here at Wikipedia with only a mouseclick or two. It's so easy for them to do. And it's hard for people such as you and me to respond to such treatment since we lack tools, can be blocked. It's happened to me in the past when a POV-pushing admin deleted an entire article of mine without consensus, without cause. If I am again bullied, I'm prepared to leave Wikipedia and write about the negative treatment elsewhere, such as Google knols, which are gaining readership every day. I urge you to consider posting your issues on Google knols. It's like you're your own admin and have control over what you write (almost entirely). You can post pictures, links, diagrams, references. Great stuff. But readership is limited. Still, it can be found on the web.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Number 10

Hello! I really like this. #10 is an old friend of one of my best friends. He sent this link to her, and I'm sure she'll be very pleased. Best regards! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you Serge. I did this a while back. I had forgotten it was there. It was a huge surprise to see it there and kind of refreshing to know that I was still goofy back then. I've been working on related articles such as physical attractiveness and beauty and facial symmetry recently but the subject of why women are beautiful continues to baffle me. I stumbled into some progress recently with a hypothesis about how symmetry is attractive and learned that biologists were pretty much on to this already. Btw, I have knols which I need pictures for -- like Dating and mating in the twenty tens and my screenplay Fifteenth Reunion. I'm seeking young good-looking people to be in photos to illustrate the points. If you know people willing to be in the photos let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Filter bubble

Hi!

I was just noticing this edit to Filter bubble. A couple days ago I removed that wording about "left-leaning" vs. "right-leaning" because when I checked the footnote for that sentence I didn't see any discussion of the "past history" of the person making the BP search. Is there another source that I don't know about? Thank you! christian 128.120.205.205 (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

PS, my IP changes fairly regularly, but I'll just check here for replies. 128.120.205.205 (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, um, yes, you're right. I checked into it further and see what you mean. My mind must have filled in the blanks (my writer's instinct?) Sorry about the past change. I'll switch it back soon when I add new stuff. Thanks for catching this!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Shelf

I've recently got back into the job stream after two years outside it. My new inventory control position -- I've got 15+ years previous experience with this over a couple of decades of working -- and fortuitous happening upon your Shelf article aided me in my contribution. Still trying to figure out what references I can add that aren't just price lists for types of shelving one can purchase... RJBaran (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What impressed me about your contribution was how you figured out how to add to the article, when I had tried thinking about what else to put there, and nothing came to mind. I'm impressed. And congratulations for your new position too! Yes I agree about references -- googling "shelf" rarely brings up anything useful, and the term is so generic that it doesn't seem like it would be studied by academics. I'm a handyman and in my basement where I keep my tools, I like putting shelves (4 -- I made them with 2x4s and smaller ones too) on wheels so I can move them around easily. Oh, btw, you might wish to write something on your user page here that way your handle doesn't light up red on edit summaries and such.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Summit Playhouse

Thanks for taking an interest in above. Do you ever do Template talk:Did you know? Think you could come up with a hook for the article, not sure what might be catchy, if anything....ThanksDjflem (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. Good article btw, thanks for creating it. I saw the "speedy delete" notice and wanted to add references to avoid this. If I think of a hook I'll ask you about it first to see what you think. I think one of my contributions a while back got a DYK. Or if I can help with other projects let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions for you

My name is Austin Gaines, and I am a freshman at Clemson University. I am creating a wikipedia page on a lake in SC, Lake Keowee. I was wondering if you could give me some tips on what I should include on my page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel555 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Note for you

On the talkpage of the article on your father. Cheers -Sticks66 11:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Any new info

Hey, any new information you get about lake kewoee, just add it to the live page that is not the sandbox, since I moved all my info there. This was just for an english project so you can add it the the real lake keowee page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel555 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Bathrooms

Category:Bathrooms, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't remember creating this category. Not one of my better creations if I did create it. Okay to pull the lever!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentor an editor request.

(note: I'm copying this to the talk page of the United States Constitution--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your mentoring me in a situation so that it does not degenerate into an editing war. I've been working on U.S. Constitution for a few months. Trying to build a better encyclopedia article. Most of my edits are correcting and improving my own contributions. My only serious push-back came early on when an editor did not want pictures of Asians or the full-blooded Indio Mexican President Benito Juarez, something about this was an article about America, and these faces were not American. I did the research to source U.S. Constitutional influence on each pictured individuals, in the case of Sun Yat-sen, both a Taiwanese scholar and a mainland Chinese scholar. The editor relented in his criticism of foreign faces as "not relevant.". Virtually every other editorial contribution has improved the article, including the one that blanked my "Note to the Reader" box ... long story.
When I see something sketchy, I try to enlarge on it. So, a while back someone tried to blank out "translations" on the grounds, they said, Everybody knows it got translated drop it, or words to that effect. The original listing of translations seemed to be related to Broadcaster101. It still can be found on his Talk Page. So, anyhow, I did research, opened up the scope, expanded the section with sources, improved the presentation format, and did not change a thing in the original contribution, preserving it, then protecting from future assault by placing it in a larger context of the article structure, which is my favorite thing to do with worthy stubs which are unreasonably attacked with the intent of blanking. I would think that Broadcaster101 would see me as a colleague.
Well, a few months have passed and Broadcaster101 has recently deleted pics in the article. I amended formats, enlarged sources, added transitions, tightened up narrative. He has returned to delete the same illustrations and more as "unrelated" to the text. For instance, the first section speaks of the international situation in the first government including (a) British Forts and (b) Barbary Pirates. Newly deleted pix include (a) a contemporary British Fort on U.S. soil with descriptive caption, and (b) a contemporary Barbary Pirate attack on a French flagged vessel with descriptive narrative. It includes the observation that the French paid the extortion (a word attributed to the pirate activity with comparison of U.S. and French experience and policy by source scholar Pauline Maier, cited in the text with an inline reference).
If there is a common element among most of the Broadcast101 deleted illustration, it is those with international context! I understand that edit wars hurt an article's status in the eyes of WP senior editors. On the article itself, there is still lots of work still to do, like research and extend the place-holder text in "fundamental law" section, and writing the 'original text' bullets into a narrative, and footnote cleanup, and citing footnote sources in references, etc., etc. But one of the article notices had it that the piece may be under consideration for "featured article" status in the near future. Any suggestions on how to proceed to restore the text illustrations and avoid an edit war? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Mentoring an editor request? ??? Since you're a rather experienced contributor here at Wikipedia, what I'm sensing is that you're wanting me to side with you in a dispute about pictures on the article United States Constitution. Generally I do not like to get entangled in disputes, but at the same time, skimming the article, and noting that it is a highly read article (8000 readers/day sometimes) then it may be worth it for me working on it in the future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
From my experience here at Wikipedia, one of the most difficult -- but rewarding -- challenges for contributing is to work with other sharp people here, and there are many, including yourself and Broadcaster101, and learning to respect Broadcaster's judgment about things too. Simply put: we don't know everything. None of us are experts here (even the so-called "experts"). We need to take into account the views of others. They bring a different perspective, sometimes contrary to our own, yet it is important to listen to their suggestions and try to value their views, and work out what is best. Sometimes they're right.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
My sense is the article is (Nov 22 2011) nowhere near Featured Article status. My rough sense is there are too many small pictures -- mugs of players -- and too much focus on the history of the Constitution (there is a separate well-read article on that more specific topic). And the article is not really impartial since it somewhat reflects (in my view) a hubris that the US constitution is borderline sacrosanct. The criticism is buried at the bottom. A big question in contemporary politics today is: is the 1787 Constitution to be interpreted literally, what some scholars call original intent meaning what the Framers intended back then? Or is it a living document which morphs based on new developments particularly what Supreme Court justices say it is? (or some kind of balance?) This issue should have more ink, in my view. Further, I would like to see more discussion about the architecture of government -- choices, analysis of how the parts work together, and such. And the way to improve it is for us to keep learning, to study constitutional scholars more seriously who write about the US constitution, and more viewpoints perhaps from college textbooks analyzing the constitution. Finding good secondary resources invariably improves an article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

add criticism

In the criticism expansion under consideration in U.S. Constitution, I would also add to the "Criticism" section, the "original intent" critique versus the "living document" of judicial review. Or, just maybe, under judicial review below 'separation of powers', becoming 4.2.3? Depending on the length of the section, illustrate it with two opposing jurists and two opposing academics? Tomwsulcer, what say you? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

Greetings, as someone who has signed up to be a member of the United States Wikipedians' collaboration of the Month, I wanted to let you know that several articles have been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Second Constitution of the United States, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Constitutional Convention (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Will fix.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait list

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wait list, and it appears to be a substantial copy of https://www.waitlistcheck.com/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the bot is confused. I JUST WROTE the article entirely from scratch -- no cut and paste -- which I never do anyway unless I'm quoting a quote (and then I footnote it). So I think the bot is in error.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

You are receiving this message because you had indicated an interest in the United States Constitution on United States WikiProject. I am currently looking to improve the pages on the Amendments to the Constitution, and we currently have two Good Articles: 17 and 25. I'm looking to build a Consensus on which format should be modelled for the A, B, and C Class Amendments. Feel free to participate in the discussion here. Thank you, Achowat (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited College admissions counseling in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diversity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of United States Constitution as a civic religion

The article United States Constitution as a civic religion has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This information has been merged into the article American civil religion as per discussion on the talk page; okay to delete United States Constitution as a civic religion as well as talk page

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Partnership at Drugfree.org, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trainspotting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

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

Nomination of Wait list for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wait list 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Quotes in references

I see you also live in NJ and also use quotes in citations to show the original wording. Please come to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and join the discussion. Another editor strongly feels that there should not be quotes in citations except in rare cases and has been systematically stripping them out from Wikipedia. Please join the discussion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Knol

Don't forget Knol is getting deleted in May, but Google will transfer your content to Wordpress. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I know, I have transferred some of the content already; my problem is that I don't know how to integrate pictures with text yet (but I will figure out sooner or later) -- Knol was so easy to figure out, Wordpress will be tougher. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote Parameter in citations

You contributed to a discussion either here or here. I'm attempting to summarize and move the discussion forward here. You may well have this page watchlisted, but as I am trying to carny on in a slightly different place, I'm letting everyone know who contributed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Const. articles thanks

Thank you for your critique, help and encouragement. More to do. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: New Jersey requested articles

Hello and thank you for your message. I am glad to meet another user who is interested (and lives) in NJ. I take it you noticed the list I had created a week ago. Well, to some people they might not be the most exciting topics, however, everything on this site is for educational purposes (not so much to entertain, although there are exceptions). That is why we have Wikipedia in the first place. I encourage you, as well as others, to help build the encyclopedia, and to request more ideas for possible future articles. I am currently deciding on what to add to the list. I began creating several pages on unincorporated places (part of the GNIS database, which means they are notable if found there), along with restaurants, schools, libraries, landmarks, and other similar topics with some claim of notability. Anyways, I look forward to working with you on this project. Regards, Tinton5 (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

May I make a recommendation? Pick one or two topics you think are interesting yet unexplored regarding NJ, and let me know, and we can take it from there. Articles about restaurants, schools, libraries -- fairly boring topics. If I come across something, I'll let you know, okay?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

K Street

Hey, I posted some new thoughts over at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#K Street. Let me know what you think. Meelar (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait list (college admissions)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wait list (college admissions), and it appears to include material copied directly from https://www.hvcc.edu/catalog/admissions/waitlist.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that you have been granted "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

Ok, thanks. I was somewhat curious what "autopatrolled" meant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 USCOTM - The Star-Spangled Banner

Hello, Tomwsulcer/Archive 4! The Star-Spangled Banner has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month article for January 2012 and we are looking for editors to help improve the article. You were identified as an editor or WikiProject with an interest in the article and we thought you might be interested in helping out. Thanks!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Kumioko, for the invite, right now I'm working on Lobbying in the United States but I may have time perhaps next week.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem thats an important article too. Any help would be appreciated. --Kumioko (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Lobbying in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Tyco, Ralph Reed, Del Monte and Deficit reduction
History of lobbying in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to First Street

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback III

Hello, Tomwsulcer. You have new messages at Redrose64's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Leon Panetta as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

Greetings, as a member of the United States Wikipedians' collaboration of the Month, this notice was sent to let you know that the article, Leon Panetta, has been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

History of citizenship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Britain, Good, Equality and Freedom

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Citizenship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freedom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned your work in a discussion

I'm not trying to get you involved in drama but I wanted to let you know that I mentioned you and the work you did on Lobbying in the United states and Wallstreet in a discussion claiming that all WPUS does is tag articles. I don't like using people in discussions without telling them, I hope you don't mind. --Kumioko (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You're free to mention my name if you wish; all this stuff is quite public. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Union Watersphere

Started Union Watersphere. Anything you might add is welcome Djflem (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited History of citizenship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freedom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR access question

Tom, I'm not entirely sure how this works, but I see your name in Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR.

I'm working on improving Mimi Abramovitz. One specific item is getting a better description of an organization called the American Independent Movement. I think there is a description in an article by Kesselman, based upon the summary in this search. See item 6, with the wording "It had an active left organization, the American Independent Movement (AIM), from which the women's liberation movement emerged, and a lively women's movement that flourished throughout the 1970s".

Alternatively, there may be a description in this:

  • American Independent Movement (Conn.) (January 1970). AIM: bulletin of the American Independent Movement. The Movement. p. 78. Retrieved 24 March 2012.

I used a summary on page 78, but I suspect there is a better summary elsewhere in the Bulletin; I have no idea whether JSTOR access would give you access to the Bulletin.

You might wish to glance at the relevant entry on the talk page Talk:Mimi_Abramovitz#AIM_description.

Any help you could give me would be appreciated, even if it is to tell me that there is a process for making these requests, and how it should be done.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
I lack JStor access myself. I am not clear how my name got on that list. Still, I tried hunting for that particular article, entitled Women's Liberation and the Left in New Haven, Connecticut, 1968–1972 and ran into the same blocked access. There are sources which quote Kesselman -- for example, this book on Google may provide some information here or maybe here. If you like I could work up a search string of feminist-related publications, and try that way.
I may have found Kesselman's email:
SUNY New Paltz website although I'm not sure if it is the current one; it has this information:
Amy Kesselman
<redact>
I am willing to ask her for a .pdf file of her article. When I get time, I'll try to look over the Mimi Abramowitz article and I'll ask you what you would like me to do to help; probably won't be until tomorrow. -- tom --Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow, color me impressed. You could have stopped at "I don't have JSTOR access", but you didn't. I will try following up with Amy Kesselman; I have some connections, very limited, to SUNY New Paltz, so would be happy to make contact. UPDATE I sent her an email.
No rush on looking at Mimi Abramovitz, but if you get some time, it doesn't get many eyes, and your input would be appreciated. I'm looking at the article because it may have leaned too heavily on one source, so I'm attempting to make sure that the article incorporates multiple sources, is true to the sources, but doesn't run into close paraphrasing issues, always a potential concern when much of the material comes mostly from one source.SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, tell you what. I'll look at it tomorrow, and if I can find sources, I'll post them perhaps in my sandbox with a link for you so you can see if any will help you; busy day tomorrow so I may not get to this until Monday or later -- tom --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Update. I did a preliminary search for content relating to Mimi Abramovitz. I do not know if any of it is helpful. Since there are quotes, I buried them in the "quote" parameter within the citations (to protect copyrights) so the only way someone can see them is to examine it in edit mode. The sandbox is here. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, some really nice information there. I'm busy today, but should have some time to look at it tomorrow.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Tomwsulcer/my sandbox 2

User:Tomwsulcer/my sandbox 2, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tomwsulcer/my sandbox 2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Tomwsulcer/my sandbox 2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Snowolf How can I help? 23:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, nuke it. Forgot it was there.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, thanks. The Helpful One 00:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

David Nathan photograph

Since I am the David Nathan referred to in this entry, I am happy to supply an authorized photograph. Please advise the best way to do so. Many thanks, David (BritSoulMan (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

I found this on my talk page and I am moving it to the talk page of the David Nathan article (here) since it pertains to this discussion. I worked on the David Nathan article a while back. It had been a puff piece, with much unreferenced material, unencyclopedic. I honed down the article to something professional-looking, namely here. It was trim, lean, to-the-point and (in my view) I thought it presented the subject of the story -- David Nathan -- fairly, without bias, impartially, since I followed Wikipedia's rules. Soon thereafter, my changes were reverted by another Wikipedian, perhaps yourself, perhaps a fan of yours, that is, IF you are David Nathan as you claim. So now the article is back to being a puff piece, a fairly obvious bit of self-promotion, something I don't trust, something which when I read it, I roll my eyeballs and don't believe any of it. The current David Nathan article indirectly makes the rest of Wikipedians look rather like amateurs and it undoes the hard work of others here who try to follow the rules. If you have been editing your own article, that's breaking Wikipedia's rules about conflict of interest. So frankly I do not have much interest in getting your picture in there. The exception is that if my revamp is restored, and is allowed to remain for some time, then I may be willing to help in the future; but frankly working on a flawed article is back to amateur-land for me, and does not interest me much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library
Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch.
  • Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227).
  • Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street.
  • Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time)

The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required!

Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible interview about Palin/Revere edit war in June 2011

My name is Sara Marks and I am doing research for a masters thesis at Fitchburg State University. My thesis has to do with resolving conflicts on Wikipedia entries and I am focusing on what happened to the Paul Revere entry after Palin's comments last summer. I have been going through the archives and would really like to talk to you about what happened after her comments, especially your small section of it. I want to get a better idea of what happened and your thoughts on the resolution process. You can get back to me on your talk page, my talk page or via email at librarygurl at gmail.com. I can also answer any questions you may have about my thesis. I look forward to hearing from you. --LibraryGurl (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool! A great experience! I will be happy to tell you about the Palin & Revere experience from my viewpoint. Did you read the blurb on my user page?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Flowchart question

Hi Friend,

I found a Image here you contributed for a wiki about flowchart. In that I read your description, "Driving across town to reach a specific goal can be modeled using a flowchart like this one. It is a constant mental process of adjustment; if a stoplight is red, one must stop; if gas is needed, the tank must be re-filled. The ideal situation is when a human is making intelligent adjustments based on reality while keeping the longer-term goal in view." I find a little misleading. It claims that the car will reach a specific goal, but will it? If we follow the instructions in the flowchart, wont it keep driving forward indefinitely? Please clarify my query buddy, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.201.54 (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Bill Robinson (jazz singer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Violinist and Jazz singer
Capitola Dickerson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Jazz singer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed the wikilinks. Thank you, bot sir!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A fan?!

Wow! A fan?! Are you sure??? :D

Hey, thanks for the massive compliment! I'm still fascinated with Biology (my first love) and think this Collodictyon discovery is going to produce some really neat science about early evolution. And I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one interested in Big History; it seems everyone wants to talk about Physics or Religion these days. I've always been one to appreciate a broader view. Thanks again and have yourself a fantastic day! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I hope your kitty cat is okay.

Yes I looked over your user page and admire your thinking. It is good that we have people of your caliber in this excellent encyclopedia. The Big History was perhaps one of the most influential Teaching Co CDs I have listened to that really transformed my thinking in the past few years, although I continue to learn more. Yes, the kitty cat isn't mine, but a neighbors when I visited New Zealand, and it was probably in the earthquake a year or so ago; a hardy animal, so it is probably okay, but there's no way for me to know. I became a rationalist in my late 20s & 30s after studying the philosophy of Spinoza intensively.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

BRT in NJ

If you have time and feel inclined, any help you might lend to Bus rapid transit in New Jersey would be greatly appreciated. I'd like to bump it up to a B or better. Thanks Djflem (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Cool effort!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Wonder if you would consider doing a Wikipedia:peer review to see if this qualifies for a B or higher grading? Djflem (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Generally I've never done those things so I don't know much about the procedures involved. I am a generalist here at Wikipedia, interested in many topics, but what I like doing is taking a medium-highly trafficked article, usually in a topic such as politics, pop culture, sometimes science or geography or history, which is in need of serious work, and revamping the topic, with references, better organization, copyediting and writing, and overall improvement. It looks like your article is already at that stage -- many references, pictures, organization etc. Still, my hat is off to you. Great effort!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

About your revert on my edit on two-party system.

In the US elections for president in the years 1840-1856, no one except the Whigs and the Democratic candidates won any states. So certainly, the US was a two-party state then, and since 1856 the two dominant parties were the Republicans and the Democrats. The situation was the same in Congress.

The same applies to the electoral fortunes in the UK: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom These facts can be seen in the relevant Wikipedia articles. I don't think this is a matter of quoting research or even doing original research.

Linking to the relevant pages in the sentence will make an ugly blue block. Is it that necessary?

Also, the Wikipedia page for Two-party system gives a short definition. I see the debate of the inclusion of the UK as a country having a two-party system as original research. I've never actually seen a source disputing that the UK is two-party. There was a discussion that the system *might* fall apart (like the US one fell apart a few times in its history), not that is non-existent.

Here is one reputable source out of many, supporting the consensus that the UK has a two party system: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467631/political-party/36670/The-British-two-party-system

I am not disputing that people think that the UK has a two-party system. My point was that, if one compares the two-party system in the US versus that of Britain, you'll find that there are virtually no third parties in the US who are able to get any candidates elected to office, whereas in Britain, while there are two major parties, there are other parties who do manage to get candidates elected.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The 1860 election for president had, I believe (if memory serves) four competing candidates -- four parties. But generally that was an aberration. The US was set up by Framers who did not even think that political parties would play a role -- I do not think they foresaw how the political process would play out. But as you know in the succeeding decades after the Constitution, the two-party system became more solid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's take another look at your addition:
However, it is possible for a third party to take the place of one of the two main parties like the Labour party replacing the Liberal Party in the United kingdom in the 1920s, er the Republican Party replacing the Whigs in the USA.
What would you think about this wording:
There have been circumstances in which third parties emerged from dissatisfied elements within one or both major parties, and these dissatisfied elements became one of the two major parties; for example, in the early 1800s in the United States, the Republican Party emerged from elements of the Whig Party; and in Britain in the 1920s, the Labour Party sprang from dissatisfied persons within the Liberal Party.
Something like that? If so, I think it would be better going in the body of the article, not in the lede, unless we can get references to both switchovers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean this. I meant that one of the parties in the two party system is replaced by another party. Its origin is irrelevant. The Labour party isn't related to the Liberal party. That being said, I don't see a reason for my edit to be reverted. You don't really oppose anything I wrote, you dislike something you thought I implied.

Hmmmm. Let's see what we can agree on. That in two party systems, it is possible for a new party to displace (replace?) an old one. That realignments are possible. That circumstances in which this has happened are relatively rare. Do we agree on these points?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Where I disagree is that the issue of the origin being irrelevant. It believe it is relevant. Let me see if I might explain my thinking here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
If it's essentially the same people in one party, keeping mostly the same beliefs, but changing the party's name, then it's really the same party with a name change. There's that end of the spectrum. On the other end of the spectrum, there's an entirely whole new group of different people, believing something totally different, who choose a new party name and are a different party -- while the old party disbands -- people in the old party give up their beliefs, stop participating. Are you with me on agreeing that there are these two possibilities, in theory?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Now I bet the alignments which you wrote about -- Labour & Liberal in Britain, and Whig & Republican in the US, were somewhere in the middle on the spectrum -- many of the same persons switched parties, but there were some new converts too, and the beliefs of the new parties were a mix of old stuff plus some new thinking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
If you agree with some of this, then you'll see is that my problem is with the word "replace" -- for me, it suggests the whole new party end of the spectrum, whereas I think it is more of a mixed thing, and I have no problem with any wording you might add that reflects this. Also, btw, you should learn to sign your posts, and possibly open up a free account in Wikipedia with a user handle, and write something on your user page and user talk pages -- if you need help with this, let me know. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sea Bright, New Jersey--Route 35?

Sea Bright photo.

Hello! You have a photo here, . You describe it--agreeing with the title--as a view down Route 35 in Sea Bright. Surely, that must be Route 36? Uporządnicki (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant to put in a link, not the actual photo. I don't know how to do that. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the photo so it's thumb-sized. About Route 36 vs 35 -- yes you're probably right, please fix it or I will if you want. I live more inland and thanks for catching my goof.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions and sorry about my previous comments. M0rphzone (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

I made a critical error, my apologies. I made an major error when editing the quote, that was a mistake. The inclusion of various companies and corporations I thought by adding them, added emphasis on the idea of major and influential businesses dealings within government. I will be more weary when doing such again. Again apologies--AMS351996 (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)AMS351996--AMS351996 (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey no need to apologize; no harm done; and I do not think you made an error like you said; rather, you did what you thought was best. But that is how Wikipedia works -- that we all watch each other's edits, and question them at times. And do what we think is right. And try to follow Wikipedia's rules which, by the way, we can also challenge and try to modify (so the rules can change over time). And it is in the back-and-forth process that Wikipedia gets better. Nobody knows everything. We are all guessing. There have been many times when I have added contributions, but others have questioned my contribution, and reverted my edits -- properly so. Like, I am guessing that mentioning specific corporations in a pejorative article like corporatocracy will lead to even more battling.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tomwsulcer/Archive_4&oldid=1085571307"