User talk:Tomwsulcer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Discussion tracking

Contributions by Tomwsulcer to:
User talks · Article talks · Wikipedia talks

Please add new discussions at the BOTTOM of the page. Older discussions have been moved to my talk page archives.

It is The Reader that we should consider on every edit we make to Wikipedia.

(Thanks to Alan Liefting)


Union County College[edit]

You may have noticed some more bulk deletions from Union County College, courtesy of the same editor who made the last two batches of deletions. Unlike the last ones, the new deletions use edit summaries, which is good, but also make me wonder about a WP:COI, which isn't good. (And, of course, there's still the deletion of a very large quantity of cited content, which isn't good.) I've written a lengthy response for the talk page, meant to accompany reverting the deletions, but I have not yet done either (reverted the deletions or posted the response). Could you take a look at the deletions and the edit summaries and provide a second opinion? (And, of course, if your conclusion is that deleting something approaching half the content of the article should be reverted, please feel free to do so without waiting for me.) Thanks!  Unician   06:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks for calling my attention to this. Probably in future we'll have to get administrator intervention, either to padlock the article, or block the offending user. Chopping out half of an article without much discussion, other than a few comments in the edit summary, seems to me like borderline vandalism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, it's reassuring to get a little confirmation that I wasn't over-reacting. I've added my lengthy feedback to the article talk page here. If the other editor replies there, I'm expecting he/she will announce that they're employed by the college and are making edits here under instructions from the college. If so, that is very likely to be a WP:conflict of interest, and if done as an official duty or assignment of their paid employment, possibly even the dreaded “paid advocacy” which is rejected so forcefully at WP:NOPR.
This isn't terribly unusual, I've seen a number of new editors find articles about their town, or their school, or their employer, or even themselves, and assume that, as an “authority” on the subject, they can make whatever changes they like. Any suggestions on the best way to educate such enthusiastic contributors on the local rules of the road? Or is it best to just point out the classics like WP:best practices for editors with close associations, WP:ownership of articles, and WP:neutral point of view? After all, those deletions did take some time, thought, and effort, unproductive as they may have been, and I'd hate to see someone like that get blocked just because they don't yet know how Wikipedia works.
 Unician   13:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Stuff happens all the time in Wikipedia. It is my view that all of us, contributing here, have our own particular agendas, and what prevents things from getting way out of whack is that the agendas compete in a framework of rules and guidelines, and somehow the process works so that the crud and original research and half-baked junk gets whittled out, and the good stuff remains. What's probably a good idea is not trying to infer motives, like why somebody did something, just rather stick to the rules, argue in terms of them, and there is widespread agreement in Wikipedia about what these overall rules are, such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOTE and such.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Another way of thinking about this, in a simple way, is to focus on content, not on contributors (or their motives), which is in keeping with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Remember [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rima Laibow]]?[edit]

You might want to take a look at it with the socks struck, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electromechanic. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Doug, not sure what you're asking me to do; I am not an administrator and am pretty much unfamiliar with how sockpuppet investigations work, although the Rima Laibow article was properly deleted for lack of reliable sources. Let me know how I can help.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI really. They are all blocked, no need for you to do anything. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking the socks and for alerting me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Judaism in Nepal, again[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. The article History of the Jews in Nepal is such a battleground that it has little interest for me in the near future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussion[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. The article History of the Jews in Nepal is such a battleground that it has little interest for me in the near future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


I have been bending into a pretzel to avoid taking this guy to ANI or something disciplinary. He has not pursued any additional AfDs that I know of (I haven't trolled his contributions), he just pisses me off by aggressively (lying) trying to sustain his ill-conceived current ones. So in the disciplinary sense, we could say he has backed off. Strategically, if he tries to push this agenda again, then we need to gang up on him and cut it off. Hey, its nice to see I'm not fighting all alone. Trackinfo (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What about this proposed deletion? I think we need to keep monitoring his conduct. I think the community is aware how much a single bad apple can spoil things and cause so much unnecessary fuss that maybe it is time to nip this problem in the bud.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah he still persists. More comments today. If you want to take it along, you can count on my support, just let me know where to go. You are not canvassing, I asked for the link. Trackinfo (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Please show me (with diffs) where he is persisting. I searched through his contributions with the phrase "Nominated for deletion" and I do not think he is rapid-fire AfDing beauty contestants any more, but rather going after other targets, and some of them seem somewhat dubious, based on a cursory review.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC) For example, search this page set it to 500 on the list, and search for the phrase "Nominated for deletion" and tell me which ones you think are problematic. I think the only way to approach this is to stick to a category (eg Miss Universe beauty contestants), then we can show that none of the AfDs resulted in a deletion, that it wasted much of the community's time, and we can bring it to the attention of administrators.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Btw, your talk page is getting rather huge; do you know how to set up automatic archiving? What I did was copy the code from somebody else's talk page, and it pretty much takes care of itself.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to this, and this yesterday. He also speedied this and this old one. This also went unnoticed. Trackinfo (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
On my talk page, maybe I should archive. I've kind of avoided getting too technological. Trackinfo (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but my sense is Banner has backed off from rapid-fire AfDing beauty contestant articles. About your talk page, yes, Wikipedia can get contentious, but having a disagreement like that is not a good reason to involve administrators, provided that comments are kept clean and in WP:AGF. There are many admin eyes on the AfD pages; if Banner keeps rapid-firing AfDing articles, they will spot this and call him on it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sad to see he's back at it. Miss Manabí now he is trying to get it done through speedy so no defense can be launched. He just isn't getting the message. Trackinfo (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] How petty can we get? Trackinfo (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, suggest that you focus on the encyclopedia and not on specific contributors, okay? Let the community as a whole deal with problematic contributors.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Lele Pons[edit]

Hello. I have noticed that you have removed the birth date of Lele Pons. Please do not do this action otherwise you will be blocked from editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savannahhh1207x (talkcontribs) 19:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We need a reliable source for her birthday; there have been several contributors changing it, and since this is a biography of a living person, we need to make sure this is right. If you wish, please read WP:RS for further information, thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Friend zone[edit]

Why in the world would anyone consider friend zone misogyny? That's ridiculous and sexist of itself. The idea of the friend zone portrays men as weak and pathetic. The friend zone concept represents women as the power gender.

Pol-lease, it is definitely more anti-male than anti-female.

Thank you, leave my editorial balance in or leave the needless misogyny reference out.

Roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRichardFader (talkcontribs) 00:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Friend zone is a controversial topic, a veritable battleground between the sexes. Wikipedia is not an editorial, but a compendium of articles, and Friend zone is an article trying to cover the topic neutrally. The idea is not to even the balance between the pro-men and the pro-women camps, but simply to report what secondary sources say, and there are views, both pro-male and pro-female, in the article. About why some consider the term misogynistic, it is that beneath the 'friend zone' logic is the idea that women are expected to provide sex if a man gives sufficient "friendship", and if she doesn't, she's somehow now lived up to her part of the bargain, and she is "bad" because she has friendzoned a man. Is this logic right? Doesn't matter, it is what some people believe, and it is sourced. Same thing with misandric: source it. If you feel the concept is anti-male, find sources saying so and include them in the article. It is how Wikipedia works.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sophie Hunter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • html?pagewanted=print Something Wicked This Way Comes], Retrieved Oct. 3, 2014, "..three witches (Sophie Hunter..."</ref><ref> Elysa Gardner, April 9, 2008, USA Today, [http://usatoday30.usatoday.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Hunter[edit]

Hello! I have found out that you're helping with the Sophie Hunter article. I have found another article which suggests notability and press coverage: Hope you can add it to support the argument. Thank you! (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of unconfirmed relationship status of Sophie Hunter[edit]

Hello there! Hope the tweaks I did with the Sophie Hunter page are fine with you. I don't want to have edit wars with seasoned editors but I thought they're all constructive. Anyway, the relationship status of Sophie Hunter with Benedict Cumberbatch is from tabloids and gossip sites, so I don't think they're reliable/notable sources. Just my two cents.TheVerge24601 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if you really want to cut the line, please do so, but please keep the references since they support keeping the article. I think the sources about the relationship are solid, with several having repeated photos of the pair in public, so I think we're safe, but I'll leave it up to your discretion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Quarterly Review of Film and Video[edit]

Hi, have a look at The Accounting Review and Genes, Brain and Behavior (the two GA journal articles that we currently have). Getting a journal article to GA is less hard than one might think. After your expansion yesterday and today, this might be getting close. Once it gets GA, you could then also take it to DYK. Just a thought... --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey thanks, if you can lead the effort to making the article get up to GA status, let me know what I can do to support you. I work on lots of types of articles and I am not particularly knowledgeable like you are about academic journals, so I will defer to your leadership here. I restored your scope section with a slight copyedit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sara Ballini[edit]

Regards. Instead of deleting it, can you help me improve the article?? I know she is very respetable and pretty well known on Italy for her work. There is a fact about her she don't want to share, but she work as a prostitute on 2003 (interview to an ex-prostitute Sara Ballini). Her life is interesting. Bnotepr (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Big thing is finding good sources. Do you speak and read Italian? How are you connected with this person?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Another thing -- if the article gets deleted and you still would like for her to have a web presence, see about uploading photos -- Wikipedia is about information, so photos of her in lingerie won't be that helpful, but other kinds of photos possibly, such as famous places in Italy, or in other contexts.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. My comunication with her is in Spanish, she is fluent spanish speaker as I am. Thanks for the advice about the picture, actually, Im getting rid of that one, and ask her to give me a normal picure on a public place and upload to flickR with all the licenses. So thhere is a change on the image. It has the Commons flickR license. Please, for me, she deserve the wikipedia article.... thanks. Hope you can help. Bnotepr (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked over the sources in the current version. Maybe only one meets the WP:RS standard which is this one. Can you find more sources like this one? While it is true that anyone can edit Wikipedia, there is a learning curve, with rules to learn and processes to grasp, and this takes time. Plus, I don't think I could rescue the article if I tried (but that is only my guess). Good luck.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I found she has a photo featured on Vogue , I added as a reference just in case Bnotepr (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Slightly helpful, but what is really needed are a few articles, or other sources, talking about Ballini in some kind of depth -- why she is notable, what she's about, so that when you upgrade the article, you can fill in the rest of the sentence which begins with "Sara Bellini is an Italian model and writer who is notable for..." and add something, rather than launching in to her education, as the article currently does.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi.. well, I included two interviews on spanish, on the rference list you got ref #1,#7,#10 and #17, one of them is in italian.. also the newspaper of Spain "El Diario" made a small interview inside the article of prostitution in Spain'.Hope it can help Bnotepr (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

WSJ copyright[edit]

Hey Tom—are you sure the licenses on File:Forfeitures around the nation from Justice Dept.jpg and related images are correct? The image appears to have been made by WSJ, so they would hold the copyright to the image even though they received the (free?) data from the Justice Dept. Eh? czar  05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Beneath each article it says "Source: Treasury Dept" or "Source: Justice Dept" so I figured the newspapers simply copied the chart from the government website; but if the WSJ altered the image somehow, then I am less sure. I'll try hunting for sources which are direct from the US government. Also do you know if Wikipedia has a graphing tool, so I can plug in numbers, to make our own charts?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Update. I replaced the red bar chart and requested speedy delete. Wondering how I can get the data for the states (the green bubble chart here. The cool Create-a-graph software just doesn't enable bubbles. But if I can find the data on a US site, I'll try something different.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that the papers do their own visualizations but get their raw data from the source cited. You can get blank maps here and can request help with making maps here. Depending on how similar it would be, making an identical map perhaps in different colors might still violate copyright, so perhaps the "bubbles" aren't the best way of displaying the data? I doubt WP has its own graphing tools, but I'd be interested myself if you found one czar  15:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Hunter[edit]

Hello! I just find the wording of the lead paragraph awkward. "Sophie is a theatre, opera director and actress"? She's a "theatre" too? It just causes confusion. I suggest that since the first lead paragraph just talks about her theatre work, it should just be "Sophie Hunter is a theatre and opera director." The last lead paragraph mentions that she is an actress of stage and screen anyway. It's in the infobox too so it's not as if we're omitting that fact.

Also, isn't the Personal life section always has been placed before the credits? Can you please amend these things. Sorry, it just bothers me. And as you can see, I don't have access to the page yet. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!Croneberg Process (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a lot of sockpuppet activity in the Sophie Hunter page, as well as a contributor who persistently edits the page while wanting it deleted; admins are looking in to it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Benedict Cumberbatch Personal Life[edit]

Hi there! Favor? Would you mind amending the paragraph regarding Cumberbatch's engagement to Sophie Hunter? It's rather ambiguous and I think a good context is necessary. I have checked Hunter's page and the paragraph about her engagement is just right.

On 5 November 2014, through a notice in the "Forthcoming Marriages" section of The Times, it was announced that Hunter and actor Benedict Cumberbatch are engaged.[26] She and Cumberbatch have been close friends since meeting on the set of the 2009 independent film Burlesque Fairytales. However, it was not until early 2014 that they started dating.[27][28][29]

Thank you very much! (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry my interest in both Cumberbatch and Hunter is rapidly waning, particularly with lots of sockpuppet activity on Hunter's page, so I am only watching them to try to remove the more egregious junk. If you'd like to participate in Wikipedia, take the time to learn how it is done, get a free account, and play by the rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Burlesque Fairytales[edit]

Hello! A user has improved the page of Burlesque Fairytales but it was reverted by an administrator. I hope you can revert it again as the edits were constructive no matter how you look at it or even do improvements of your own. Thank you! (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

How about learning to do Wikipedia? How about getting a free account? There's a learning curve to Wikipedia, but people can get the handle of things if they take time to read guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BASIC, WP:NEUTRAL, keep editing, develop a track record, and you'll see, as time goes by, that your edits increasingly will not be reverted, and you can become one of us.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer, I would be very careful with these users. The majority of users coming to ask for help on Cumberbatch's and Hunter's pages and now Burlesque Fairytales are socks. @, as you most likely a sock, the edits were reverted because your presence on Wikikpedia is disruptive as are your edits no matter how "constructive" you think them to be. LADY LOTUSTALK 13:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, noted, Lady Lotus; I am rapidly losing interest in Sophie Hunter and am removing it from my watchlist, and I will defer to your judgment, but if you need my assistance in future, let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Will do and thank you for your help even though we didn't see eye to eye in some cases ;) LADY LOTUSTALK 13:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary addition of external image[edit]

Hello! Please do consider the matter of unnecessary addition of an external image in Sophie Hunter's page. She's not a model whose appearance is pivotal to her profile nor is the external image notable in her body work. Other pages don't have photos in their infoboxes either and they still exist and work as a page even without an external image. The image the user keeps on inserting is also not solely of Hunter's appearance as she is with somebody else in the photo. This is not at all a very good representation or even rational to have an external image in the page.Eurydice Leus (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Eurydice Leus: please stop socking. I do not understand how you don't get that by now. LADY LOTUSTALK 13:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Kinda wondering too why Eurydice Leus's page was created only a day ago yet the user seems fairly adept with navigating around Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. They try to play dumb and then spam other editors to do edits for them. These socks are ridiculous and just won't stop. LADY LOTUSTALK 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I see a general problem with anonymity, here in Wikipedia, and in public life generally. I can see that in some situations, people, knowing they're anonymous, are more ready to post the truth, since they can not be subsequently punished; at the same time, the anonymity allows numerous ills to happen, such as sockpuppetry, vandalism, mayhem. I prefer an identified world. For me, the downsides of anonymity vastly outweigh the pluses, but for an identified world to work effectively, we must have an environment in which identified users will not be sanctioned in any way. Then, real people could say what they think. I think the problem is much deeper, insidious, with the general confusion being that people think that their freedom and happiness is based on anonymity, on being nameless and faceless and untraceable. But freedom is much better established with concepts such as laws, and rights, and principles of fair government. The confusion is vast: the Internet is almost wholly anonymous, so digital traffic moves throughout the system -- it is only ones and zeros -- it is very hard to know what those ones and zeros mean, or who sent them, or who receives them, or what is going on. Anonymity permits terrorists to move money about, to plan targets; it is a veil under which all kinds of mischief can happen. I wrote an essay about this topic a few years back but I doubt anything much will change; in the meantime, in Wikipedia, I suppose we all have to cope with it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share[edit]

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop in Manhattan's Greenwich Village.

6:30pm–8pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Afterwards at 8pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided).

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Met Opera[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your message. I reverted the edit you added mainly because it didn't belong in the lead, opening paragraphs. This section is intended to serve as an introduction and brief summary of the main points of the article. Speculation regarding ticket sales in recent years really doesn't fit here. I think new text in the Gelb section discussing the financial problems of the Met in the post-2001 era would be a welcome addition. This item could fit there well as an opinion about one factor contributing to the problem. There are many others of course. The source of the comment being a film historian to me makes it less compelling in an article about opera, than from an expert about the Met or about opera. Especially as a standalone item. But as one one comment among many it could have its place. You are absolutely right that the article is woefully undersourced and I'm as much to blame for that as anyone. I'm hoping to start adding more sources and weeding out some errors soon as I have time and I hope others will do so as well. I hope this helps. If you have time to research and write a summary of the Met's recent financial woes that would be tremendous! Best wishes, Markhh (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point about irrelevant stuff in lede paragraphs (which should be trimmed further). Still not clear why you simply reverted my sourced addition instead of moving it to another section. About 2/3 of Metropolitan Opera is unsourced and really needs to be trimmed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I know what you're saying. I always hate it when editors just delete something rather than make whatever correction they think is needed. Improve rather than delete. I probably should have done that. But at the moment, it didn't seem substantial enough to stand on its own elsewhere. That's why I wrote such a lengthy edit summary. Thanks for the new edit. Best, Markhh (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you in general. There's a lot that could be trimmed, I think 2/3's is a bit extreme. But length isn't the main problem. I think the content is okay, as far as it goes, but it cries out for sources and improvements in the style and clarity of the writing. I especially dislike the lengthy lists of names and titles. Stronger sourced writing and organization will help keep those from accruing. Markhh (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Then maybe it's a good idea that when other contributors try to add sources, that you don't revert them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I realise it's been a few years since you created the article & others have added to it, but the bulk of the content & wording is still as added by yourself. My issue is that the article is relentlessly positive with absolutely nothing that could be regarded as critical of the band...not really balanced is it? Why is trivial fluff needed on how many hundred or so albums they press & the colour of the vinyl? I'm sure the record company/band/sponsor/donor was well pleased with such a quality looking puff piece! (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC) PS I wrote this on the article talk page first before I realised I could edit here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Note, the "bulk of the content & wording" was not contributed by myself. I floated an initial version, but since then, I have not been watching this article for years, and numerous people have added to it, contributing much fluff, and if you wish to fix these problems, there's nothing stopping you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Nice work on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Houghton czar  04:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I used to routinely revamp articles on the chopping block, but even despite my revamps, some got deleted, so now I usually have a wait-and-see approach, so if it gets kept, then maybe I'll do a revamp.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll[edit]

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks, but I have kind of become sincerely bored with this subject weeks ago.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Samira Samii[edit]

Current sources in article sufficient to meet the..... This is you massage in Delectation of SAMIRA SAMII page... You can not believe how you and other users can brake the image for someone... If you don't know a person and just make it for fun.. stop it please...

Most of information in page are wrong and the picture is not a right picture for her page.. many thanks for ur understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmin-Shams (talkcontribs) 12:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What??? The deletion discussion is about whether this subject, Samira Samii, is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, not about the current content of the article, not whether a photo in the article is the right one. If you feel that content or photo are incorrect, you are free to change them just like any contributor can. Regarding whether the subject is worthy of inclusion, I voted Keep since I think there are sufficient sources to justify inclusion. About your allegation that somehow I and others are "(making) it up for fun", I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


Should I NPOV template you? Your edits to the talk page were bad. Your edits to the article are borderline vandalism IMO. Different POVs I guess. Please take it back to the talkpage, but without the obvious bias and silly premise. --Onorem (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page of Budweiser. You have removed not only referenced content but removed commentary on the talk page. While I in good faith will try to trust that your motives are good, that you wish the best for the encyclopedia, that you wish to be impartial, can you see how others here at Wikipedia might think that your deletions of referenced content here and your deletion of commentary on the talk page here might lead others to suspect that you have an agenda of promoting Anheuser-Busch or Budweiser, or might possibly work for one of their publicity or marketing agencies?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon[edit]

Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join us at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign (which also includes events in Brooklyn and Westchester!).

12:00pm - 5:00 pm at NYPL Schomburg Center, 515 Malcolm X Boulevard (Lenox Avenue), by W 135th St

The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

degenerative disc diseases[edit]

Hello my name is Margaret. I was just informed That I have degenerative disc disease. My Question is. Is this something that will come and go? Or will the pain stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking me this question. I'm not a doctor. Best to see one. There is information in Wikipedia about this subject here. Best wishes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Merging Coffee nap into Power nap[edit]

My sense is these are two different (although related) terms. Still, a decision to merge one article into another, like you did here, is a major one requiring community consensus. If you wish to pursue merging the article, place a merge proposal tag on both articles and see what happens in discussion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I gave appropriate policy related reasons in the edit summary. This was a standard merge. You are welcome, of course, to seek consensus for splitting the article. See Wikipedia:Splitting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyrille Aimée, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jazz singer (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) 09:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)