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)
- 1 Archives
- 2 Talkback
- 3 Talkback
- 4 NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22
- 5 Disambiguation link notification for August 14
- 6 Disambiguation link notification for August 24
- 7 Thank you, Tom
- 8 August 2013
- 9 One Correction, Perhaps
- 10 Quarterly Review of Film and Video
- 11 Disambiguation link notification for August 31
- 12 Keep up the great work and good humor!
- 13 Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn! Saturday September 7
- 14 Rutgers Univ.
- 15 Disambiguation link notification for September 12
- 16 T off
- 17 Your photo, subtitled, "Atlantic Highlands from the Oceanic Bridge".
- 18 Wikimedia NYC Meetup! Saturday October 5
- 19 Photo of Rutgers Spelled Out in a Hedge on College Avenue Campus
- 20 Two-party system
- 21 Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon! Saturday November 2
- 22 Roofs, ideas, gun ownership, violence, etc
- 23 Arbitrary break (about roofs, constitutions, protests, etc)
- 24 Disambiguation link notification for November 6
- 25 So then...
- 26 TCNJ
- 27 Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6
NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22
|Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park|
|You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bronxville Union Free School District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Cain (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Thorburn (scholar), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas E. Ricks (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.
Thank you, Tom
Dear Tom: Not to be too effusive about it, but you did a superb job on my article, Wheeler Winston Dixon. A very pleasant surprise, and many thanks. Now, if it isn't too much of a hassle, could you possibly do the same, when you have a chance for the entries on Gwendolyn Audrey Foster and Figures of Light, when you feel like it? They also need significant work, and you obviously know what you're doing. Again, much appreciated, and all best wishes. WWD— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdixon (talk • contribs) 05:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words, and you are welcome. Hope it is an improvement. Today I'm building an anti-mosquito enclosure, possibly repairing screens, and organizing tools; my time is limited, plus I am writing a novel in my non-handyman time, so working on other projects is a back burner project at the moment. Wondering: did Gwendolyn attend Rutgers? About Wikipedia, as you know, there's a learning curve, a method; pretty much anyone can master it. Consider, possibly, asking your students to read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:CITE, also, WP:SECONDARY, and seeing that after possibly attaining such wisdom they might spruce those two articles you mentioned, and if they do an unsatisfactory job, fail them. I'll put those two articles on my watchlist but I make no promises for the immediate future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wheeler Winston Dixon 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:
- Aug. 25, 2013, Quote = “The Bigamist (1953) ...Film scholar Wheeler Winston Dixon has noted (in an informative essay he wrote...”</ref> Hollywood film moguls,<ref name = DailyNebraskan>
- * ''Mysteries from the Bible'' (1979)<ref>[http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Mysteries+from+the+Bible&Search_Code=TALL&
One Correction, Perhaps
Dear Tom: On my Wiki page, if you want to make the correction, in fact ALL of my experimental films were acquired by the Museum of Modern Art in 2003, all of the ones you list at the bottom of the page. MoMA used to have the entire schedule up for my retrospective, but they took it down over the years; they gave me two days in which they screened all my films, and then I donated all of them, prints and originals, to MoMA. Josh's existing notes just list a few of them as examples, as in "films include," but it was my entire output as an experimental filmmaker; they are now in the museum's permanent archives. I realize that with Josh's abbreviated notes, this would be hard to discern, but nevertheless, that's what happened. Further, I was paid by MoMA for the donation with an honorarium, so that perhaps "acquired" would be a better word. But I don't want to make this change myself; it's up to you, whatever you think is right. WWD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Chris Agee -- a notable poet (I read one of his books of poems) -- but the excessive irrelevant material might persuade someone, coming across the article for the first time, that Agee was less noteworthy than he really is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Done. Minor factual changes are fine to make, please go ahead. The problem comes with articles over time, when improper references are used, or unsourced material added, again and again, like barnacles accruing beneath a boat. It slows sailing; the text becomes sluggish. As an example, check out Wikipedia's entry on
Quarterly Review of Film and Video
Tom -- one last thing -- for the Wiki page on Quarterly Review of Film and Video -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarterly_Review_of_Film_and_Video -- the journal I co-edit -- which was also tagged -- the questionable notability tag is simply wrong. A quick glance at the journal's official website from Taylor and Francis -- http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gqrf20/current#.Uh9g9JWxpG4 -- you can toggle back through the issues, and see for yourself -- should convince anyone that it's a major journal, founded in 1962, and the second oldest scholarly film journal in the United States. We have published the work of the top critics and theorists in the field since then, and Gwendolyn Audrey Foster and I took over the editorship in 1999. Please edit as you see fit with the rest of the text -- I have no intention or violating any Wiki policies -- but QRFV is clearly a notable journal. Yours, WWD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, except the notability tag is properly applied, since there are no references listed to the article Quarterly Review of Film and Video, therefore the content is unsourced, and the article appears unprofessional, and (as an unfortunate side-effect) makes your journal appear unprofessional. Can you see how the article needs improvement? Wikipedia has a learning curve, an approach. Do you wish to improve it? Or do you have students or associates willing to learn Wikipedia's style? I'll be glad to offer advice but my main priority now is working on my novel. What I recommend is (1) start the QRFV article from scratch (2) find other publications when mention "Quarterly Review of Film and Video" -- nonbiased, impartial assessments (3) collect these references with inline citations using the standard referencing format then (4) write the article from an impartial viewpoint, with each sentence having a reference which supports that sentence. Do that: everything should be hunky dory.-- Best, tom--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Modernist literature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Starry Starry Night (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.
Keep up the great work and good humor!
|The Barnstar of Good Humour|
|In recognition of your much appreciated efforts to keep Wikipedia a better place to hang around. --Murus (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)|
Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn! Saturday September 7
|Please join Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013!
Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of—
photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks.
I know you've been involved with the Rutgers article for many years. I had been years ago and while briefly working on it here and there the last few months, decided it needs a rather large revision effort. I'd like to bring it up to FA status by the end of the year. I've been working in my sandbox on a revision here: User:ColonelHenry/sandbox/Rutgers University if you'd like to keep track of what I'm planning.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Great! I have visited the campus a few times and taken photos. If you have ideas for photos or diagrams or maps, let me know, since I will be visiting periodically. Let me know how I can support your effort. My experience has been that articles improve when the number & quality of references goes up. My experience with doing revamps is to try to include as much of the (good) information that is already there, adding references, but redoing it to improve the writing and especially the organization; that way, past contributors don't make a fuss if their past contributions get nixed; good idea to reach out to people ahead of time. Some articles I've written include History of citizenship and Equal opportunity (major revamp) and Wall Street (revamp). I'm writing a novel but from time to time I can contribute, let me know what you'd like, I'll defer to your good judgment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- I received my BA back in '02 and get down there every 2 or 3 months. I've been planning to get down there this month...so we should plan to go together and do a photo tour. Coincidentally, a lot of the content on the article is stuff I wrote 8-9 years ago that has been added to here and there or just decayed. I just fell in love with the history and tradition of RU when I was there. What I have been doing is copying a section at a time to my sandbox to work on, then adding, subtracting, altering, redoing citations, and when I get the entire article done in the sandbox, I'll move it over. I moved over the lede and university presidents today. I recently started an article on Kirkpatrick Chapel, started repairing Old Queens and will do one for Queen's Campus eventually (have a great DYK for that). Most of the article I've worked on have been on poetry Duino Elegies (an FA, 90% mine), my current project of Holy Sonnets (revamp), or booze-related (an FA: Alcohol laws of New Jersey). eclectic. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. At Wikipedia, I frequently run Wikipedians more skilled than me, who know more, write better, organize better, reference better, and you are one of the best contributors here, so I salute you, Colonel, and will defer to your judgment about the Rutgers and Rutgers-related articles. Cool you got a BA degree there; in English? I recently revamped a wikipage of an RU grad, film professor Wheeler Winston Dixon who is now teaching in Oklahoma. I'll probably visit during parents visitation days; I think it would be cool to get photos of students in the wikipage; wondering what you think. I am trying to learn more about poetry; my favorite poem is Hymn to Intellectual Beauty by Shelley.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swatting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kardashian family (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.
Since this isn't really bout the T... If you've got car show pics, do upload them all at Commons. They're likely to be welcome. Anything hot rod or custom car related, especially. And any passing mention of the Hirohata Merc will get you Barnstarred by me in a second. :D TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the nudge, I will try to do this. Problem is, I am not knowledgeable about cars (or anything, for that matter) so I may have difficulty labeling some of the photos. But when I do, I'll post something here. Maybe be a week or so.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Your photo, subtitled, "Atlantic Highlands from the Oceanic Bridge".
Although the photo you posted here is really nice, it is not a photo of Atlantic Highlands from the Oceanic Bridge. It is impossible to see Atlantic Highlands from that vantage point since A.H. is on the bay side of that particular piece of land, which is actually Middletown, NJ - Navesink, to be exact. I know this because I was born and raised in Atlantic Highlands, spent many years in the area, and drove over the Oceanic Bridge from Middletown to Rumson many times. Please change your subtitle and move the photo to the appropriate page, which would be one about Middletown or Navesink, NJ. A picture of Atlantic Highlands would be nice to put here, but this is not one of them. Sorry to point out the obvious to those of us who have lived there for many, many moons - and thanks for changing this photo out with one that actually is of Atlantic Highlands, NJ - my home town.
- Thanks Bonnie. I take many photos, but it helps when others are willing to correct me when the inevitable errors occur. I'm not sure which photo you're talking about -- would you mind correcting it yourself? Just click on the word "edit" and make your necessary changes, thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia NYC Meetup! Saturday October 5
|Please join the Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013!
Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach
for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA.
--Pharos (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Photo of Rutgers Spelled Out in a Hedge on College Avenue Campus
Hi! I just wanted to make sure I understand the information provided correctly and this photo is open to use for any purpose without any restrictions? We would like to use it for an online brochure that is being put together by the Rutgers Office of Undergraduate Admissions for international students. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, use that photo for ANY purpose, no need to attribute me as photographer, it is a public domain photo, it is yours as much as anybody's, enjoy. PS Sorry the leftmost R did not get enough sun at the time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Tom, that is a great shot, too...I lived in Hegeman 4 in the building behind during my junior year. That building was a dilapidated hell hole. I started a mini-fire in the basement there when the microwave in the commons room decided to turn my Hotpocket black and crispy. Oh how the times changed, I remember that quad being broken-up blacktop and neglected rusty basketball hoops where that gazebo is, they redid that entire old quad the year after I was graduated.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Colonel! Good you did not burn anything down. Cool how they get the letters right. Guess it takes a good eye I suppose. I take lots of photos and if lucky, sometimes they're usable and good.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do you, perchance, have any that I could use for Kirkpatrick Chapel, the museum at Geology Hall or the other older buildings on the Queen's Campus and Voorhees Mall?--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Next time I visit, I'll try to get more photos there, hopefully remembering those two. Would this one be any good? I took photos of buildings a while back but I did not know which ones were which. Those are great articles you did, by the way -- kudos to you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Colonel! Good you did not burn anything down. Cool how they get the letters right. Guess it takes a good eye I suppose. I take lots of photos and if lucky, sometimes they're usable and good.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The National Assembly of South Korea regularly elects more than two parties but only two parties (Saenuri Party and Democratic Party) have sufficient influence about South Korean politics. Other parties do not have sufficient influence about South Korean politics and only have 11 seats in the National Assembly. So South Korea has a two-party system. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- This concerns the article Two-party system so I will copy this comment to Talk:Two-party system.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon! Saturday November 2
|Please join Wikipedia "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon on November 2, 2013!
Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach
for Greenwich Village articles on the history and the community.
--Pharos (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Roofs, ideas, gun ownership, violence, etc
Yes falling off the roof is not a fun time. I realize that each time I could have been seriously hurt. The fact that I wasn't just proves your point. The falling through the unsheathed part was a perfect example of that. I was fine doing what I was doing but have a conversation and driving screws was a bad idea. Hence basically more work redoing the ceiling. The first good fall was utter stupidity. Breaking up an ice dam and then completely not thinking that the ladder would be covered in ice and snow. Dumb! The second time I was just too complacent and was blowing leaves and got off balance thanks to the leaf blower. It was one of those dumb things. I could have left the leaf blower fall or I thought I can correct this. Well it didn't work out that way. Actually the leaf blower did get saved, it got caught up on the gutter but there I was , laying on the ground again. You are laying there thinking did I just suffer massive internal injuries or am I just going to be sore as all hell. The last time which was two years ago was completely somebody else's fault. A roofer none the less. He was flashing my sky lights and I have no idea what he was thinking. He actually put his knee on one, I saw this from about 10 feet away and came running. I knew he was going right through and as the glass was breaking and falling onto my dining room table I grabbed his arm. This gave him time to grab the roof but his shirt tore and I was in a bad way. Totally off balance, falling backwards down the slope of the roof. I dropped on instinct but that thing called momentum and gravity was having no part of it. About five feet from the edge I was flat on my back sliding headfirst towards the edge. Grabbing and trashing the gutter slowed me a bit but sure enough on the ground again. Just so you know this is not a common occurrence, this has happened over a span of 19 years. Anyway enough of my issues with my roof.
Yes anybody who writes an article called Common Sense II is definitely going to draw some heat or be ignored. Being from Illinois I have a different opinion. I live in Dupage County which is a predominately Republican County. Our ballots are still basically you vote the whole Democrat or Republican slate. Trying to vote for individuals regardless of party is purposely made difficult. If you dare put a Democrat sign on your lawn chances are it will last two days tops. My point of all this is even though our President is a Democrat and Illinois is a blue State, the first time around he lost in my County and the second time he barely won. The State of Illinois is broken, the whole country is broken. This bipartisanship thing has gotten way out of hand and threatens to destroy our country. Yet other then friends, close neighbors or family you cannot even talk politics. Even then it can a bit dicey. Like I have stated, I do not agree with some of what you say. I do agree with the fact that regardless of who will actually win, you vote for the best candidate. The problem is for many years it has become voting for the lesser of two evils. You vote for someone else and even though it might be considered a wasted vote, you have still exercised your fundamental right to vote for who you think is best. At 47 I am a bit younger then you but seeing a bunch of my nephews and his friends being so adamant about Ron Paul was encouraging. They were volunteering and getting their word out. Whether you think he would have been better or worse is not the point. The fact that a bunch of 20 somethings being so passionate and realizing that change was needed was encouraging. These are the same kids who are going to their friends funerals because they are dying in a war that makes no sense. None of it did, Iraq was a joke and promises were made that everybody would be coming home from Afghanistan. Just not in body bags. Do I think that the Constitution will be rewritten? Not in our lifetime. There would have to be an all out civil war. Without have read most of what you have written we could be miles apart. After I have read some of it I totally agree. You have no right to privacy outside of your house. Well in a public bathroom. There are no simple answers, it is a sword that cuts both ways, I have had a local cop actually pull his sidearm during a polite conversation in my yard. Basically I had enough of my neighbor pilling his leaves against my wood fence, told him politely that one more barrelful and I would call the police. The fence is on my property and the rotting leaves were really taking a toll on the one section. Then bam he slams his wheel barrel into the fence not thinking for a moment I would actually call. I did, the police showed up, one officer was talking to him and the younger officer was talking to me in my yard. I had a copy of my survey and it was a polite conversation. This was 4 years ago and that neighbor was just a mean sneaky old dude from the day I bought my house. He hated my fence, tough I have a dog and want a little privacy in my yard. The way the yard is set up there is dog run around the edge, it is all big round stones and gets cleaned daily. The dog is never just left out. I am either at the door or with her in the run and the yard is for play. The cop thought it was a pretty cool setup. He asked about my dog. I said she's a 80lb Belgian Sheppard but don't worry she's in the house and on top of that she has passed the AKC good citizenship test(CGC). The next thing I know he's patting his gun. "We have ways of dealing with dog attacks". Then he actually upholstered it and my immediate reaction was like please holster your sidearm, there is no reason to have it unholstered. He was like I have right to do this. I responded "you are out of your F****** mind". You are on my property, I pose no danger to you and you are waving that around like its a toy. At this point the other cop was at my gate and screamed "is everything alright in there?" I walked outside of my gate, told the other cop to get the watch commander here now, that this was totally unacceptable behavior. He got on the radio and about 5 minutes later a Sargent showed up. He was the watch commander. To condense this I told him my side of the story, he talked to the cop outside the gate who said it was very possible, then he talked to the cop who was obviously oblivious to what his actual powers were. He freely admitted that he was waving his gun around but tried to defend it with his dog attack excuse. The Sargent asked me if I wanted go to the station and file a report. I asked the cop who went from cool to dangerous if he had learned that his gun was not a toy and he smarted off. I went and filed a report and a month later there was a hearing. It turns out that 1) The cop was still in his probationary period and 2) He had done this twice before. He was terminated with a strong suggestion that he not be a LEO. To this day 4 years later I have not gotten any grief, as a matter of fact a couple cops said good, it was a matter of time before this rookie made a big mistake that would cost a life and the village money. While most LEOS are great cops, some just do not belong. This was one.
That's part of the problem of tightening our rights, we very well could become a Police State and there are some cops that just shouldn't be cops. Just to site an example closer to you. On August 25, 2012 two New York Police officers shot 9 innocent bystanders outside The Empire State Building. Now you will call this propaganda but I saw the video leading up to the shooting. I also have had an NRA ranking since I was 11 years old. There are 10 simple rules. Rule #4 states know what is behind what you are shooting at. In this case it happened to be a crowd of innocent people. In reviewing the tape and personal accounts of what happened a year and a half ago I believe it could have been handled differently. The two officers knew who they were after and were right on him from behind. He had no clue they were on him until one of them yelled "stop police"! That is from eyewitness accounts. Had they waited 2 seconds and not yelled he never would have turned with his gun. He could of been tackled or shot without 9 innocent people being injured. 3 were shot by them and 6 others were hit by fragments. They were both veteran officers. You may think I have a bias from my experience four years ago. That is not the case. I firmly believe that 2 seconds could have prevented unnecessary victims. Once he turned with the gun they had no choice but to open fire. Another thing is in a fire fight if you have time seek solid cover. If you have no time you double tap twice center mass. A lot easier said then done but you don't let 16 rounds fly. That's why the police train. Don't get me wrong many officers would have emptied their Glocks completely. All the training in the world will not prepare you for a real situation. The point that shooter never got a shot off just sort of proves that it was an overreaction. Believe me four to the chest and you're dead on your feet. Do I think they should be kicked off the force? No. Do I think it could have been handled differently? Yes. These are some of the differences you and I have but should not prevent us from dialoging. Anyway I have to go and get some chores done. Get back to me with your take when you have time. Gibco65 (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Issues like policing the police will continue to be an issue, including under the current arrangement or under a new one. Thank you for sharing your views with me. At our ages, neither of us should be on roofs! :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- True but I have a Crimson and a HUGE Sugar Maple that grow over my house. They have to be trimmed, leaves have to be cleaned or clogged gutters ensue. The roof itself is two years old and looks awesome. Someone has to do it and it's not going to be a roofer! I saved that guys life. Believe me I am much more cautious up there. As for your policing the police I just want you to know that I am not anti-police. I have many first cousins and friends who are cops, those were just two examples of where bad judgment was shown. Nobody was killed but could have been. I'm not a gun nut, would never shoot a living thing but love to match shoot. The major problem in part IMO is honest citizens such as myself following the laws while the criminals do not. I'm not calling for a wild west mindset but if you ever spend time in Indiana they have a whole different atmosphere. You assume that most are armed, hence they have a lot less violence then in Illinois. Chicago is out of control and on it's way to being the murder capital of the US again. We have the FOID act which many complain about but I personally have no problem with. Its not perfect but keeps the guns out of the hands of most loose nuts. The background check is more thorough to even get a gun then Indiana's check for concealed carry. Our FOID act is what they want to implement nationwide. I have already passed a complete background check so it doesn't bother me in the least bit. The problem is you are never going stop someone with a insane agenda. An example would be what happened at LAX. A disturbed individual who had a nonsense "New World Order" obsession. 23 years old, wanting to die and take some people with him. His family had a weeks notice that something was wrong with him and yet did nothing. Who's at fault other then the shooter? Gibco65 (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful on that roof! I understand the arguments for and against gun ownership. My essay did not explicitly advocate for either gun control or gun ownership, although personally I would prefer a world in which private citizens did not have or carry handguns. Rather, I see a larger overriding issue about movement in public (outside our homes), that is, I think what people do in public should be tracked and recorded but this information should be kept behind strong privacy fences, and if this publicly-held private information was abused, there would be ways to track the abuse, and punish the abusers. I realize this is a tough order but if implemented properly, I think crime would practically become nonexistent, except, of course, as you rightly point out, for the occasional nut who grabs a weapon and goes on a rampage in public. So, if implemented, and legislators decided to allow handguns, then this could happen, but they probably would not be needed much for defense against criminals, because public movement was exposed. I imagine there would be much greater exposure in more concentrated urban areas than in lesser populated rural areas or mountainous regions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's an interesting take but it would result in a full out civil war. Being in Illinois, the State Police know I have guns and exactly what they are and the serial numbers. The criminals and gangbangers, not at all. As of 6 AM only 8 people were shot in Chicago. A pretty quiet weekend. My point is even the police encourage responsible gun ownership. Case in point I (yes even me) have been pulled over. The police are right at your window. You explain every movement you are going to make so nobody gets nervous. You get to that point where you are "I'm going to take my seatbelt off and my wallet is in my right rear pocket". You get your wallet and with your drivers license is your FOID card. Its in plain view and 90% of cops see it. You would think that would kick up the anxiety factor for the police but actually the reverse is true. They don't see you as someone who may have a loaded gun, they see you as an honest citizen who has passed a very thorough background check. Most of them actually point out that they saw your FOID card. Unless you were doing something really stupid, the traffic stop ends right then and there. The last time this happened I was pulled over by an Illinois State Trooper for going 12 mph over, he saw the FOID card and said you are free to go. At that point the stop is over, you can go. I had to ask. You aren't even going to check my record? No, in 17 years of being a Trooper I have found that if someone has a Drivers License, insurance and a FOID card that they have made a mistake and everyone is entitled to a mistake now and then. It was a actually a pretty cool traffic stop. I was respectful, he was respectful and the FOID card proved to him that I was not a criminal, mentally ill, wanted for warrants. I was speeding to pass a convoy of boats on a two lane road. I was also speeding because the left lane is for passing. The second that you are arrested, flip out and end up with a 72 hour hold or are reported by a doctor to be possibly unbalanced, the local Sherriff eventually comes and gets your guns. The key word there is eventually. That is the only problem I have with the Illinois system. As for what we do in public, there is quite a bit of that now. Not to the extent that you propose but if you are on a tollway you have I-Pass. The information they gather cannot be used against you but everytime you go through a toll smile for the camera and the transponder timestamp. If you were accused of something you can subpoena this info. The same goes for your smartphone. It tracks your movements to the nearest tower. Getting back to the gun thing, there is no way to actually know how many guns there are in the US. Most estimates say between 300 - 400 million. Either figure could be off by a 100 million. Now as a law abiding citizen I am not giving up my guns. I have a RIGHT to own them. I, under any circumstances will not allow that RIGHT to be tampered with. I'm pretty mellow about it. Most people know that as a society as a whole we are better armed then anybody who would infringe on that right. Talk to some cops, that includes them. Nobody is taking away anyone's guns, not without a full blown civil war which would destroy this country. That's my take on it. Gibco65 (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I understand you feel gun ownership is a right which you feel strongly about, such that if, say, society decided that citizens were not allowed to own guns, and if police came to your door asking you to surrender your gun, that you would fight (shoot the police?), or ally with other citizens who felt the way you do, and start a civil war, so you can keep your alleged right. In the context of today's world, in which there are criminals, armed, in which government does a haphazard job of protecting people and preventing violence, then one can make a case that gun ownership is needed for those instances in which there is unfortunately murder, theft, robbery and other sorts of violence by some citizens on other citizens, which government does not prevent.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Consider, however, that if we live in a society where all public movement is monitored and tracked and recorded, yet the information is kept private via strong privacy fences and only used to prevent violence, then there will be very little need for you or any private citizen to own a gun. Violence will be prevented in almost all cases, and in the few instances in which it did happen (ie a neighbor uses a kitchen implement to harm another neighbor) then the violators would be caught with close to 100% certainty (and knowing the certainty of capture and punishment, almost all people would not commit violence). In such a world, then, it would not make sense for any private citizen to walk around with a concealed or identified handgun, or even to have one at home, since violence has already been prevented, and the existence of the handgun in your possession would merely serve to possibly scare or intimidate other citizens, or increase the odds that yourself or others carrying weapons in public, might injure more people more quickly, or cause self-injury, or enable a suicide by oneself or a family member. A handgun is a walking symbol that the handgun-carrying person does not trust government, does not trust fellow citizens to observe the law, is prepared to act as sole prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner if they believe they are being attacked. A handgun is like a liquid government in one's hand, a primitive one, with power to execute persons instantly without any wait on death row, without oversight, without discussion or reasoning, without impartial questioning by judges and juries. You, yourself, may have excellent control over your weapon, possibly because of your previous police training, but I think we can imagine others who may lack such control, or who were recently angry about something, or who have a mental issue (hard to identify), such as the disturbed person at Los Angeles airport recently who killed a TSA agent, or the teenaged-minded persons detonating bombs at the Boston Marathon last year.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Basically, we live in a society in which we have a compact with other citizens, that we surrender our powers to kill, prosecute, and judge to the overall collective effort and live under a system of law, where the law rules, not us as individuals. We choose to live in such a world; it is a smart choice; there are numerous benefits. In this world, law decides the boundaries between the right of one citizen versus another. If a right is a sphere of possible future action around an individual which others recognize beforehand, then a law is the boundary between one person's sphere of future action and another's; for example, a person has a right to swing their arms but does not have a right to hit another, then the boundary (law) has been crossed, etc. What I am saying is that it is society through the institution of law that decides where these boundaries are, and that society could decide that concealed or handguns should not be carried in public or even that guns should not be in homes. If it happens to pass that a system of identified movement in public becomes our world (what I advocate -- including a revamped Constitution and with Americans once again becoming real citizens as I understand it -- a tall order which will probably not happen any time soon, I realize) and then and only then if law collectively decided that people should not own guns, then citizens should turn over their guns, including you, since it would make a safer world. I think people would agree. In the meantime, I understand why you might wish to keep your gun. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well in Illinois we wont have concealed carry until Jan 1st. Right now you can take classes to prepare. The State of Illinois was forced to do this by a Federal Court. I actually do get where you are coming from, in simplest terms handguns are made for shooting other people. There are a bunch of us that do enjoy competitive shooting though. I shoot at paper targets, nothing else. I see a mentality which has gotten worse over the last few months. Lots of people at the shooting range shooting at silhouettes of people. Never really cared for that. If I can shoot a bull's-eye at 50 feet, rest assured I can hit someone if I wanted anywhere I want BUT that is last thing I would want to do. I'm not some person who shoots with some motive that a piece of paper is a person. There are many who do. Obama Bin Laden Targets had been the rage for years. Now to address your first part of this , if I had done something that would have the police knocking on my door to take my guns, unless I had some mental heath issue I would hand them over but I would already have done that to someone else with a FOID card. On the other hand if the police came to my house to just take my guns because the Second Amendment was violated, well that is really a fantasy point. It would never happen, if it did we already be in a civil war and more then likely the police would be making sure I was armed. Just for kicks since I think everyone on my block is a responsible gun owner, there would be shootouts going on already. I wouldn't be waiting for knock on the door. My neighbor has a FFL. Plus your take on true citizens is interesting. Most people who have been or are in the military consider you to be a civilian unless you have served. If you have served then you are a citizen. I do understand what you want. I disagree with a lot of the NRA type propaganda and am no longer a card carrying NRA member. The argument that I can make which does hold water is this: Most normal people with guns do not commit crimes with guns. Most normal people with cars do not commit real crimes, I.E. a speeding ticket is not the same as running people over on purpose. In that sense which goes to your kitchen implement point. If you go out and run somebody over, you most likely will be caught. A person with a handgun really is no different then someone just driving a car except owning a gun is a Right and driving a car is a privilege. Neither one implies lack of trust of government. We have laws in place that if you feel that if you feel that your life or someone else's life is in imminent danger then you can exercise any use up to and including killing a person. You can use a car, gun, your hands but there must be a clear danger that cannot be avoided. This is much different then "Stand your ground". Imminent danger is always grounds for self defense while Stand your ground is on a state by state basis. I personally think that if you are able to walk away then do so. Basically I'm not a big believer in Stand your ground except for when it applies to the castle doctrine which I think even you would agree to. If someone breaks into your home meaning to do you or your family harm then you kill them, no questions asked. I don't care if you have to throw your cat at them. No state will prosecute you. Nor will any state if you really felt that there was imminent danger in public. Lets just say that Illinois is going to be a much more interesting place after Jan 1st. You see waving a gun around without reason will get you shot. In my life I had LEO waving a gun around without reason and he was terminated. Many people already feel that the government is already too involved in our rights to move around freely. I disagree. If I am up to no good then yes I would be a bit worried. Being that I'm law abiding I realize that I have no expectation of privacy outside of my home. Even that comes into question. My cable company knows exactly what I watch because my cable boxes tell them, hell on Wikipedia I think I was "acquitted" of wrongdoing with my IP address. If you could get the public to buy rewriting the constitution, then yes we would live in a better and safer place. That just would not happen. We are stuck with what we have. The problem lies with our society. Canada has a lot of guns per person yet they don't have anywhere near the gun crimes we do. Like I said "Our Nation is Broken" and there are no simple answers. I wish there were. Gibco65 (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your viewpoint, I understand where you are coming from. I agree it is unlikely that things will change. Not sure what FFL or FOID or LEO means. Interesting the idea of 'civilian' vs 'citizen'; I didn't know that but it rings right to me. My sense of citizenship is one of participation, involvement with politics at the local level, staying informed, really knowing our representatives, learning about the issues, showing up, voting, being there; there are a bunch of reasons why Americans have become divorced from politics (I traced out what happened). My view is that if government bullies specific citizens, unfairly, without cause or without due process of law, then the real protection for that citizen or citizens is not a gun in the home but rather being connected with other citizens. It should be an obligation of citizenship that citizens look out for one another's safety if government becomes tyrannical -- notifying each other, reviewing what happened, following up -- and if this did happen, then the proper (first) course of action should be protest; if we lived in a society where people were real citizens and in which citizens did pay attention to each other and to local government, and did understand the proper relations between citizenship and government, then this protest (with help from lawyers) would surely be enough to prevent any abuse by government towards specific citizens. I am not a fan of more extreme steps such as civil war but I can see how that this might be a last resort if every other legal means failed and if the stakes were very high. About answers -- I do think there is a simple answer, namely, revised Constitution (not easy to do; there are dangers here too), but I agree this is extremely unlikely to happen.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but have to give you a Wikipedia scold on those three, FFL, FOID and LEO are all on here. Basically A FFL is a Federal Firearms License and the background check is pretty much an anal probe. They can transfer firearms from state to state. If I went to say Cabelas in Indiana 2 miles over the border to have the gun legal in Illinois I would need a FFL to complete the transfer and pay them a fee. A FOID is a Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card. That background check is more of a prostate exam. Its roots go back to the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938. A matter of fact some paragraphs are verbatim. The extreme Right opposes it but I feel that it is a system that should be implemented Nationally. You can read a biased link about it here: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3390 A LEO is a cop (Law Enforcement Officer) and if you want to know who has a bunch of guns, go to a cops house. Anyway by explaining FOID it should make more sense of my traffic stop story. Most cops who see a FOID card are put at a greater sense of ease rather then be like, OMG there is probably a gun in the car. Because they know that if there is, it is locked in the trunk or a case unloaded. That all being said now we are going to have concealed carry which you think is a bad thing. I think for right now it is a bad thing, Indiana's has been in place for years and they are rather casual about it. Like I said I'm not for people running around waving guns around. This does not happen in Indiana much. Basically there are not many stories of people at Walmart getting into arguments and pulling guns. In Illinois I have witnessed some of these concealed carry classes and it could be a wild west mentality for a while. The latest news is there will be no permits issued until at least April. Some of the 'Instructors" of these classes have accidentally shot themselves. Sounds like some of them are real qualified. I have taught many people how to properly shoot including people from ICE to security from El Al. That's another long story for later.
I am in no way a conspiracy nut. On the other hand I know what I saw. You have people claiming that the whole Sandy Hook thing is a lie or there were actors and no dead children. To make my self perfectly clear before I go any further I think what happened was a tragedy that actually made me, a grown man cry. That evening on the national news, I saw the police take the rifle out of the trunk of the car. I saw this with my own eyes. Do I think that anyone but Adam Lanza was involved? No. I believe he acted alone but the AR15 did not come into play. You can look on YouTube and see the broadcasts of the police taking the gun out of the trunk of the car. He shot all those children with a handgun. He took out the 6 adults and then killed the children. What happened afterwards is subject to debate. Then the parents of these innocent children, slaughtered by a maniac went on a PR campaign against "assault rifles". I ask you this, how long would you grieve if your 6 year old was gunned down at school? Yet most of these parents went out on a Obama PR tour touting how AR15s were bad within a month. The truth of the matter they are. They are not a great gun. Strictly from a tactical standpoint, there are much better "assault rifles" to use if you are going on a mentally ill killing spree. Many more would have been killed at Aurora if an civilian version of an AK 47 had been used. Its harsh but it's a fact. Back to Sandy Hook, they are still fighting about the funds raised. Almost a year later and it comes down to $281,000 for your dead child. That all being said you can Google it and there are plenty of people who claim that it never happened. I am not saying that. I despise it. It happened, but I SAW the police take the AR15 out of the trunk of the car that evening and then these parents went on a Air Force One PR campaign. Basically I believe what happened after was borderline Tyranny and a personal crusade. It split the sides even more. Did it take away my belief in the system? No that was already broken but the fact that Obama wanted something and the Republicans said no just because he wanted it was a very twisted checks and balances. Far from perfect but it worked.
As for the citizen vs. civilian that is something they teach in the Marines. My response to this is rubbish. One of the biggest spouters of this is a person who was a screw up, ended up in the Marines and doesn't even vote. Not to mention he wasn't enlisted when anything went down. As friends we can joke about it but it is like you were in from 84-88. You have Semper Fi over everything. Where were you in '91 when it hit the fan? Oh working for UPS. Yeah OK tell me all about war and firefights, you never left the country. It's a moot point but I thought you would find it interesting.
Onto the my last point, a revised Constitution. The stakes are VERY high. So high it would be impossible to do peacefully, The government and the civilians would both scoff at such an idea. You would have to convince the people to destroy what this country was founded on. I just don't see that ever happening. To sum it up if it were to happen would you be the one to break the glass and burn our Constitution? The same document that many took an oath to honor both in spirit and to the letter? The same that millions died for? The backbone of our country? Would you strike the match that burned it? Food for thought.Gibco65 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. About the Constitution, I would revamp it, keep the good stuff, fix the broken stuff. I believe it can be revamped, peacefully, if sharp non-partisan minded folks got together and proposed a document later voted on by the people (with a 10-year provision that if it wasn't working in 10 years, the old Constitution would be in effect). The Constitution itself says it can be amended; what I am talking about is a lot of amendments. Here is my proposed revised Constitution which has (1) improved foreign policy (eg less Vietnams --foreign policy is a huge weakness with the current Constitution in my view) (2) citizenship spelled out as an active relation chosen by person and government (3) term limits for congress and Supreme Court (4) expanded states powers in a federal system (5) privacy rights (6) much stronger prevention of terrorism (properly understood as three types) (7) tax reform (8) parliamentary multi-party arrangement (better representation for voters). It would be a huge stimulus to the economy too, get people working again. If it passed, I'd simply put the new Constitution beside the old one; tourists would love to see them. No need to burn anything, my friend.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I have read your proposed "Second Constitution" and have drawn some conclusions. The chances of you ending up in Gitmo is much more of a possibility. So lets go through it. "I would revamp it", No it's WE the people and always will be so it would be we would revamp it. Second of all I could see a Supreme Court Judge actually executing you. While the Constitution does allow for amendments, you actually expect politicians to give up their cushy jobs? Remember that First Amendment gives you the right to express this but your chances of disappearing from existence are far greater then anything you propose. It would never come to a civil war because you would be done in by the politicians first. I'm sorry but you have to a greater understanding of the political process then you actually do. On a crazy notion say you could get some people in higher power to agree to this which would NEVER happen, you would all be arrested and disappear. While you see it as reform, others would see it as an act of lunacy. I mean it's interesting but basically you would be calling for an overthrow of Government and subversion of a Constitution. At the very least that's sedition. That's all very meaningless because if you had a movement in place, you would basically just disappear. You assume that the Government would play fair and follow the Bill of Rights. I doubt they would. They would simply kill you and be done with it. If the next President was your brother or sister, this still would happen. That's assuming that you get a movement going. More then likely you would be ignored, your mental health status would be challenged and you would be made to look like you belong in a tinfoil hat. Those are the cold hard facts. Any real change would have to come from a civil war and that's treason. That would require an act on the Governments part so stupid that that would not happen. Today, 2 hours ago I saw a peaceful protest on an overpass. It was Overpasses for Obama’s Impeachment and against the Affordable Care Act. People were hanging banners and traffic was greatly affected. They were exercising their First Amendment Right but were also causing quite the traffic jam. The Police were there. They watched as they hung signs, but then something happened. A traffic accident. Then another. At that point public safety overtook the Right to Assemble. They were ordered to disband and leave. They had become a safety hazard. I mean I only saw a little, I was stuck in traffic but it was put to an end. I talked to a friend who is a local reporter when it was going on but he was quite busy. The banners were taken down by police and the spectacle was over. The little crowd on the overpass was moved. I have really have no idea how much force was used. I will know more as it becomes available but my question is: Were their rights violated?Gibco65 (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary break (about roofs, constitutions, protests, etc)
- I disagree my proposing a revised Constitution would cause me to "disappear", be executed by Supreme Court judges or end up in Gitmo. Supreme Court judges do not execute people. Are you implying that they might uphold a lower court sentencing me for treason or sedition? It is hard for me to imagine a judge punishing me for simply proposing an alternative constitution, by free speech (protected by the Bill of Rights), peacefully, for purposes of discussion. Your worries are absurd. Further, you misinterpret my intentions, saying that only I would revamp the Constitution (as if this was possible); of course any revision would be a consensus effort involving many others, would go through approved processes (votes by state legislatures e.g.), be approved by the public in a referendum; all I have done is propose an initial draft. The Constitution itself asserts that it can be changed via amendments; all I am doing is proposing many at once.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that any substantive change is highly unlikely, but not because some power elites would not permit any change and would therefore kill off opposition, but rather because government has become so complex, with various different and often competing centers of power, with frustration to the point that nothing really gets much done anywhere (such as social security, health care reform, immigration, etc). There are sensible reasonable nonpartisan tax reform proposals such as Fairtax which struggle to get a toehold in the US Congress, and have been struggling for many years, so I do not see how more substantive change could happen in the foreseeable future. Further, I doubt any movement would ever get going, because ordinary citizens are essentially uninvolved consumers focused not on politics but on jobs, shopping, entertainment. Let's face it -- there is much right with the nation overall -- the US has many economic strengths which should not be underestimated or subverted. I see my proposed revamp as protecting and expanding these many good things.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- My sense is there is not one monolithic power elite that runs things in Washington, but rather numerous power elites, many unhappy with the present arrangement, and it may come to pass that one or more of these elites begin to see the wisdom of a constitutional revamp, possibly, since substantive reform might be highly consistent with some of their goals (more sensible foreign policy => less war => better for business => more $$ => better governance). Last, you brought up a rather inane example of a street protest in your state, essentially a problem of a balance of rights (rights of drivers vs rights of protesters) for reasons unclear to me about how that relates to this discussion. I would comment that street protests, themselves, are an unfortunate consequence of politics breaking down and that the proper place for reasoned rational discussion about issues is in local assembly halls which my proposed constitution would require. If something along the lines of my proposed constitution were in place, there would be no need for street protests, bumper-sticker advocacy, attack ads on TV, since citizens could debate these issues in a local assembly hall and make good decisions there. If you get tired of traffic delays because of street protests, then you might see the wisdom of a second constitutional convention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand your passion but I am a realist. The second you were perceived as a danger to the "rather numerous power elites" you would simply disappear. You think that in our wonderful country everyone plays by the "rules". Big hint, they don't. If you could not be discredited, back in the day you became a martyr. Now it is much more sanitized, a perceived threat to the power elites and you simply cease to exist. Like I said they would discredit you more then likely. My inane example was something that had just happened. That was a question to you. Were these peoples Rights under the First Amendment violated? It was not an inane point at all. It was something that happened right before my eyes not a half hour before I typed my response. You had a group of people who were rightfully protesting. They were ordered to leave under the threat of violence. They left. Traffic jam or not I found the whole thing rather interesting because the First Amendment had failed right before my eyes. You see people have strong opinions but when faced with the possibility of being pepper sprayed their opinions really weren't that strong. I feel that their rights were violated. You are basically proposing a Orwell 1984 Big Brother scenario. Basically stripping away basic rights and monitoring everyone's movements. Lets not forget what Orwell said "perhaps" according to Wikipedia. "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." That unfortunately would be you in the eyes of the power elites. Someone would visit violence upon you if you were really perceived as a threat. "In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics.” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia" and never were truer words spoken. That is my point. If the constitution was threatened it would be defended. Amended sure but that's not what you are proposing. You are proposing a rewrite. This country was founded by violence, many died against overwhelming odds. Many died defending it. If you are not prepared to do the same to change the Constitution then no real change will ever happen. Instead you use one of the most influential things ever written, twist it and then call it Common Sense II. Like the Constitution, Common Sense was written 250 years ago and times have changed. We are not face with tyranny from an island far away, we are faced with tyranny from our own Government. No change will come without a full out civil war. You think it can be done peacefully, I say it cannot. That was my inane point. Those people, their point right or wrong were peacefully demonstrating. When faced with violence from Government in the most local form they fled. Had they not they would have been dealt with more violence until they did. Then the ACLU would get involved and the courts would say "great point" case dismissed, you can leave now. Basically the power elites can fight among themselves all they want but the second someone who is not one of them has an issue as big as yours, you can leave now. If you had started this when you were in High School you would not have a chance. Our own President issued Executive Orders and what became of them? Most of the Right had a good laugh. Basically I have no absurd worries because change will never happen as you propose it. The better possibility is our Government will collapse because the National Debt is growing like a fertilized weed. Right now I feel that is the #1 problem. Lets work on that first. We can only print so much money before it is useless. I think that should be priority One.Gibco65 (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have said what I have said. You have said what you have said. Let's agree to disagree. We both have other projects to do, including improving Wikipedia. Enough of this thread. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of citizenship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nomos (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) 09:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I was passing the JH statue the other day and thought of you. I'm sorry we couldn't meet and hope you will get in touch next time you're planning to be in the area. In the meantime, there's still that matter to resolve. How about you and I each take a few days to review the old discussion, and then together take stock of how to proceed. I trust you're well. EEng (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for your comment, yes I felt bad we could not meet, but the trip ended up being (too) much driving, visiting Amherst (UMass), Lynn, Marblehead, a few of motorcyclists in Salem, back again, didn't quite get into Boston like I had hoped. If interested, I uploaded perhaps 50 to 100 photos here although some Jersey ones are mixed in, but after the first page or two, there are the Marbleheads and school ones. About the HU article: how about cutting the three words "culture of cheating" and reducing the line about the poll to something about how the school continues to cope with the issue, keeping the Crimson reference? Would that work for you?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you please help in mediating at the TCNJ page. User:Jerseyresident ONLY edits TCNJ page and tries to downgrade the reputation of the college. There is a clear conflict of interest. (220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC))
- Everybody has some kind of POV here in Wikipedia, including yourself and myself, such that it is almost impossible to keep our biases out of Wikipedia. Rather, what we can try to do is achieve consensus by way of trying to be neutral, following Wikipedia's rules, and doing our best. There are rules against canvassing other users to try to "win" an editing argument. I urge you and others to try to be detached about the subject -- Wikipedia's purpose is not to tout any college's reputation, but to try to neutrally record what is reported via reliable sources. Also you should consider getting a free account at Wikipedia. I am watching the TCNJ article but am busy with other things.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- No one is is trying to downgrade the reputation of any college. I am only seeking to ensure that claims that are made are true and can be substantiated. That is what an encyclopedia is about. Every edit I have made had been about ensuring that citations back up the claim, and that the finding of the references are appropriately summarized. Unfortunately, there appears to be a lot of padding of TCNJ's resume in its Wikipedia article.Jerseyresident (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- People may I suggest? This stuff belongs on the talk page of TCNJ? Also, consider taking a break for a week? The page is being watched by many people and rest assured that statements that are unsupported may be tagged and deleted forthwith. I just had to write a sentence ending with "forthwith". Even though I have no idea what it means. Just sounds cool.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6
|Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013!
Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach
for borough articles on the history and the communities.
Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~