Welcome to my user page! Feel free to add comments at the bottom of the page preferably (easier for me to find).-- generally I'll respond underneath your comment whether on my talk page or yours unless you request otherwise.Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Illegitimate Changes by Alansohn to Pulaski Skyway Article 
Alansohn's cited Record article for the Pulaski Skyway is filled with information, which contradicts many facts in the Wikipedia article and would confuse readers and contaminate the validity of those facts. The cited Record article also briefly summarizes some, but not all info that is now cited for reference from an official NJ DOT press release.
Alansohn's cited Record article should NOT be used as a reputable citation.
I updated Pulaski Skyway article with correct information about number of arches and NJDOT plans for handling traffic problems during upcoming construction. I removed the Record article citation since it had wrong info about the number of arches and provided a brief summary of some, but not all info in the actual cited NJ press release about all of these issues.
I then notified Alansohn that the Record article was unreliable and filled with mistakes.
Instead of communicating with me about this Record article, Alansohn went back and reinserted the Record article I had removed and also used it as reference for another statement, even though it is an unreliable article.
He has also tried to undo many of my changes in other Wikipedia articles without notifying me, even though I previously explained the basis for my changes.
Please see my 2 communications with him about Illegitimate Edit Warring and Changing References for Leanna Brown in Chatham Borough Article.
Alansohn seems to be using EDIT WARRING to undo my changes, even after I explain the basis of my changes.
If Alansohn wants to do undo my changes and reinsert an unreliable Record article, which contradicts many facts in the Wikipedia article, it is his responsibility to make his case on the Puylaski Skyway Talk page prior to undoing anything I have done and which I previously explained to him. It is not my responsibility to start this dialogue.
I am a novice to Wikipedia editing and have done extensive investigations prior to making any legitimate changes in good faith.
I thought it was Wikipedia's policy to welcome new users and welcome legitimate changes made in good faith.
If my changes are undone for a third time prior to any further dialogue, I will bring a claim against Alansohn for EDIT WARRING. Thanks for your consideration and understanding.Wondering55 (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- TWS, take a look through Wondering55's edits and share your thoughts regarding Wondering55's edits at WP:ANI. You only saw the Pulaski Skyway edit, but use your familiarity with highway articles in general and share your opinion on the quality of the sources and the justification for their removal in the whole string of edits. Alansohn (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wondering55, Wikipedia has rules and policies which can take some time to learn; and one way we learn is by having discussions like these; most of us here at Wikipedia continue to keep learning the rules as we go along. My experience has been that Alansohn is an established editor with a long successful track record of constructive edits and a reliable contributor who understands the rules well. I see the reference in the source Record as an example of a reliable source; it is not a good reason to delete a reliable reference on the basis of it disagreeing with other supposed facts in the Wikipedia article. Remember this is a cooperative project. Sometimes other editors will chop out contributions we've made (legitimately -- according to the rules) or rewrite our verbiage. It is a part of the process and is not "edit warring". If you stay here long enough, you'll learn to appreciate the beauty in the give-and-take process, and you'll begin to appreciate Alansohn's contributions as helpful, with the overall result -- superior articles on rather mundane subjects such as the Pulaski Skyway -- as beneficial overall.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
re: rob dunn/citizen science 
Several months ago, you asked me if I had published references for including Rob Dunn's work in the science 2.0/citizen science article. I am sorry I am not around editing too frequently, and even less checking my talkpage. My response is that the best I can point you at is his own page. I have seen his lecture, read the papers, the blog and the book, on the ants and on the body bacteria... I think if his navel bacteria project is not citizen science in Biology, then I really have to re-learn this term. Check out his page... cheers. Land Moil (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Could you please explain what you are talking about? What exactly are you asking me to do? And where.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Given your good faithed attempts to work with User:Causeandedit to try and improve Hoopla Worldwide I'm informing you about a bunch of afds. First is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoopla Worldwide where I have directly pointed to your stub. Others strongly related where you may have no direct involvement are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birdgang clothing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audio Stepchild, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina (pop singer)
- Totally agree. Thanks for pointing it out. I had stopped following Hoopla Worldwide, after repeated tries to get User:Causeandedit to follow the rules. I initiated discussion at ANI about this. There are even more "articles" out there and lots of junk unfortunately.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback deployment 
Hey Tomwsulcer; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for notifying me. Let me know if there is something you'd like me to do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Re: Confidence trick 
Well, the photostat of the check was sort of the tipping point. But in general, I've never been a big fan of the viewpoint that Wikipedia is improved by adding more unsourced material to an already poorly sourced article. And the whole addition was so specific, it just sounded like an "I have a friend who..." story. The phenomenon is real, however; I'm just not up to revising and properly citing it right now, but perhaps you could make use of some sources like these to develop a more generalized description:
- Thanks for explaining your reasoning. I may get around to fixing up this article sooner or later along the lines you suggest. Problem is, I deleted the file with all of my newspaper sweeps, so it may be a while before I get around to it. I still think it is helpful to have examples of how scams work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
33 Thomas Street 
Your change to 33 Thomas Street has been reverted. The information in question is not supported by the references given. Personal knowledge of the site unfortunately isn't sufficient to meet verifiability guidelines. If there is a reliable 3rd party source for this information you can point to, the information should be restored and that information cited. Thanks --RadioFan (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've been doing Wikipedia a while now and I don't need to be quoted on rules which I am well acquainted with. The information which you keep insisting on removing, despite the choices made by myself and another editor, with you running the risk of violating edit warring guidelines, is correct, and hardly controversial, and to insist that it needs a reference is, in my view, pushing it; rather, it is wise to keep the noncontroversial (and correct) information, keep the "citation needed" tag, and leave it at that. It may take you a while, but a big part of Wikipedia is learning to trust the eyes and knowledge and skill of other contributors here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
You Tube is great 
- Yes YouTube is great. This video of somebody reading Wikipedia's Union County College article as of April 2013 has been added as an external link to the wikiarticle on UCC. Thanx for sharing this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Palfrey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transparency (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.
Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14 
Hi Tomwsulcer! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.
Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 17:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
April 2013 
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Nat Gertler articles 
Thanks for the help with the apparent vendediting of the article about me. I'm always a bit reluctant to call directly for help on edits such as those you fixed, or the not-yet-addressed edits by the same editor at About Comics, in concerns of it being called a canvass attempt; however, as you've requested that I reach out to you on such occasions, then I'm just fulfilling a request. I do try to avoid direct editing for WP:COI reasons, and also because I've always regretted rolling back the edit that said that I suck donkey balls; it would've been better to add a Citation Needed tag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Lol. Yes, thank you, this stuff happens here, unfortunately, and the community respects your contributions as well as your commitment to abide by the rules. So please continue to alert me about such matters. Seems to me like the article About Comics is ripe for an overhaul or revamp, and I will try to get around to it but it may be a few months. I am writing a science-fiction novel plus revamping my terrorism prevention strategy after watching the mess following the Boston Marathon violence. If you might remind me sometime over the summer I'll try to have a go at it, if interested.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Higher education in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Underemployed (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.
Urban coyote 
Hey Tom. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I expanded the article, mostly with content trimmed from the main article. Take a look and see if I missed anything, and there's one quote I think we could cite a little better. Awesome topic, and thanks for starting it! Steven Walling • talk 01:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
IRS processing of tax returns 
Dear Tomwsulcer: Regarding your concerns about the delays in processing your children's federal income tax returns: Although there were indeed big delays in getting things set up, the IRS processing systems for the year 2012 individual income tax returns were supposed to be pretty much up and running by Monday, March 4, 2013. I don't know what data you are looking at that says the electronic processing of your children's returns (filed in March) was not completed until May 19, 2013. I would be curious to know: Do you have copies of the actual account transcripts from the IRS (that would show some of the processing information), or are you talking about something that the FAFSA people told you? From early March to May 19th does seem like a long time -- especially for electronic filings. Famspear (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Famspear: For each kid, I have a document from my accountant saying the IRS "accepted" the returns on March 6 2013, and gave a "Federal Submission ID" number of many digits, plus a document from the IRS itself, dated April 22 2013, saying "no record of return filed", complete with an IRS tracking number. I can photograph these documents and email them if interested. I have been thinking of posting the documents to Wikimedia Commons.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Tomwsulcer: You might want to just hold on to those documents, which are of course your confidential information. I was just curious. I've been out of my office, but later this week I might do a little research and try to find out how long it should take for electronically filed returns to "post" to the IRS "books", so to speak. I'll let you know what I find. Yours, Famspear (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Famspear, thanks. According to FAFSA, the wait time should have been only three weeks at most. My hunch is overall that this was IRS incompetence, backlog delays, that sort of thing, but given the scandal, and my affiliation with a (semi) partisan group Fair Tax which calls for reforming the IRS, there is a possibility the delay was deliberate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library! 
|World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!|
|Hi Tomwsulcer! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)|
- Hey Sarah Stierch. You, m'dear, are a COOL Wikipedian. Right now I am writing a science fiction book about a high schooler who flies to Betelgeuse and encounters sexy aliens! That is my priority for the time being, as well as mentally preparing myself for a cicada invasion; after that, I may have time for your project if you ask me on an article-by-article basis. Best of luck to you!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)