User talk:Tomwsulcer/Archive 1

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Boozer Challenge has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): (?<![^\s:])[^\s\]\[\{\}\\\|^\/`<>@:]+@\w+(?!\.htm)(?:\.\w+){1,3} (links: ravon@intrstar.net). It appears that you inserted an e-mail address to The Boozer Challenge. Wikipedia pages should not contain personal information. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Biography of Living People, specifically the section about personal information.

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AN/I report

I don't think this self-promotion of your book and such is jibing with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, so I have raised the issue here. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it's been deleted. Please read WP:SPS and WP:COI. And WP:BK. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your email

The deletion of the article on your book has nothing to do with your being an outsider. You really need to understand how Wikipedia works. It's an encyclopedia reporting what WP:reliable sources have to say about a subject, and we also expect subjects to pass our criteria for notability, in your case at WP:BK. It's rare for a self-published book to pass these criteria. It has nothing to do with whether you are wrong or right or if your ideas deserve a hearing. There is another problem which is that you are writing bad articles from a technical point of view, which is being discussed here [[1]]. Take a look at your articles and at other articles, hopefully you will see a big difference. You also need to learn about copyright as there was some WP:Copyvio in your articles, now removed. Writing Wikipedia articles is very, very different from writing essays or books, and it can be a steep learning curve if you are used to the latter. dougweller (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dana Delany questions

NNDB not reliable, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing_BLP_concerns#NNDB_Notable_Names_Database and comments like Jimbo Wales's: "Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia"

news.absolutely.net is an aggregation sits which appears to get most of its content from WENN, which identifies itself as a celebrity gossip blog. Fails WP:RS

whosdatedwho.com and famouswhy.com are similar gossip sites which simply package and pass on content from sources that generally fail WP:RS. Check out the "partners" list for whosdatedwho, I don't think there's a single RS there. Famouswhy, in addition, styles itself a provider of "shocking" news, which should be taken as a warning sign.

I edited out all the "significant others" where all the sources for the relationship were unreliable. WP:BLP requires very sound sourcing for biographical claims, and these don't really relate strongly to Delany's notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also left comments on the Talk page for the article. You might want to take a look at them. Tabercil (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tabercil, I'll take a look at them. Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Edits

You do know there is a "Show preview" button that lets you see what your edits will look like, including changes to references?? Tabercil (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been using the "Show preview" button often, and trying to do all my edits as once, based on your excellent advice. But on this occasion, during the preview, I wasn't sure whether I could click on the reference, to see where it would go, without losing what I had done. It was an unusual type of reference -- a pdf file, archived, of old student newspapers. So, I saved the changes, then clicked on the reference. And I'm still not sure if the reference to the .pdf - student newspaper - Phillipian files is right, because it takes two steps. (1) click link (2) upload pdf file to read it, and then flip to page 3 or 4. I'm not all that technical. I'm working on articles on Vanuatu, Wellington, and other stuff.

When you preview, right-click on the reference link and open it in a new tab. (That works in most current Windows browsers, don't know about Macs/Linux). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, excellent Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I'll try it; I have a Ubuntu Linux operating system but the code is often written to emulate Windows. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

It works! By right-clicking, I can open up a new window to see the reference. Thanks for the tip! Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Wikipedia Excellence Award

Thank you very much for the award. It's very kind of you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Celente

I'll try to get to it when I can. Most of the time, I edit from work. So small quick edits are what I usually stick to. I also don't get a lot of time to sit down and read an entire article (except for stubs). I'll do what I can though... Dismas|^(talk) 23:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks excellent Dismas! The excellent Tabercil and the excellent Hullabaloo Wolfowitz are working with me to get the article up to speed. I think the approach they're doing is to make numerous smaller edits and I'm following their lead, and putting in stuff with solid references. If you need my help on other stuff, let me know. Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

The article is already tagged with the right maintenance templates, and I'm not necessarily up for a whole rewrite. However, this edit has gotten the user banned for making legal threats. Per our policy, I do intend to unblock if she retracts those threats. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Gwen Gale put a lot of work into rewriting the article such that it only references reliable sources. If the article's really causing you a lot of stress, then you might consider taking some time off of the article, and coming back after a time. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm heeding advice and abstaining from the Gerald Celente article for a long while. That's what User Talk:DGG recommended too. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

BMC Software improvements

		The Original Barnstar
		Great job improving the BMC Software article. Keep up the good work! Postoak (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, great job! --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tomwsulcer, concerning the BMC Software article, I would suggest that the lead paragraph be expanded per WP:LEAD. Some of the images being used in the article appear to not to be significantly related to the article's topic (ie, software development flow charts and lifecycle), but that is only my opinion. The article looks great! Thanks Postoak (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's now plenty of material from which to form a proper lede. It would also be good to attract more editors to review the article now.

Also, thanks for the barnstar. Quite a surprise. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it -- the timing was perfect because I just was getting out of an edit war on another subject and your comment picked up my spirits, thanks. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

I'm hoping to get sharp editors to improve the articles, because I think some of my creations are too long, unfocused, and maybe others can get them more shipshape, and advance them up the quality ladder. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tomsulcer

FYI: Foreign currency conversion

WRT to your query at MOSNUM, templates exist at {{inflation}} and User:7/Template:fx; there have been discussions at Help talk:Template, and a bit at User_talk:7/Template:fx Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Areas_for_Reform#Do_we_have_a_problem_recruiting_new.2C_or_retaining_current.2C_editors.3F

Hey there, I read your post at WP:Areas for Reform. Like all the other posts, it was very heartfelt, and I appreciate that you took the time to write it.

But, I'm not sure what anonymity policies you were referring to. When I created my account in 2006, I wasn't thinking very hard and I chose Agradman -- my first initial and my last name. Then I stumbled across User:DGG#who_I_am. My impression is that he's one of the old yogis around here. After than, I changed my signature line to my full name.

Of course, I'm not telling you to do what I did. Other factors might be relevant to your own privacy, such as your age and the juiciness of your secrets. But, it's not too late to change your signature line, or create a legitimate sockpuppet with your own name.

That being said, signing with one's full name isn't quite enough to end the "feeling" of anonymity that you were describing.

Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 08:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Currency conversion (MOSNUM)

I am sure this idea has probably been discussed many times before, but sod it, I am relatively new here (actively editing since 2008) and I am fed up being told "we have heard it all before"-- which is not quite, but almost, what I told you in my response. I have not heard i before at WP but have elsewhere.

To have shakescene behind you saying yeah this can be done (with as he put it the mind of the technically ignorant) is a great credit; not because he has any special status but I respect him (if he is a him) as a very sensible and far-seeing editor.

I hope my criticisms were taken only as constructive; it seems so since certainly Shakescene constructed on them.

Right, enough of the intro, now to brass tacks. I am a technical guy (I've been doing software for about 25 years now and I can kinda find my way around a bit) I still don't reckon this will work as a server side app on Wikipedia. i.e. I don;t think you can build this into wikipedia on the first place. This largely hinges on two things: the user interface and theh currency feed.

• You are going to have to get a feed from somewhere and either that costs money or at least needs permission from a third party provider. WikiMedia I think would be unlikely to enter an agreement with one company to provide that feed.
• Shakescene (? was it, or was it you) suggested that it just needs someone to update it each day (presumably automatically) but that is simply human intervention in the feed, or downloading the feed on one editor's computer to then upload it again. So discount that as being just the same thing but with a kink in the loop.
• With the UI, remember we aim to support as many different devices and sizes of screen as possible (and this perhaps leads to the very plain, and to my eye pleasant, look of WP. I hate clutter and love it being quite plain)

With all that in mind, I think it better to make it a client-side app, i.e. something someone can download with a feed from a choice of sites providing currency spot rates and historical rates. This will take a bit of research to get who provides those rates. But you want a download app (probably java ugh) where whenever they hover over something that looks like a bit of currency it gives them the option to convert. This will take some working out, not the technicalities as such, but so it doesn't get too many false positives and pops up all the time for things that are not, in fact, currency rates. But I think it has to be client side so that it takes the burden of getting the currency rates off of WP and on to the end user.

I know this is away from your vision (i.e. essentially wikipedia is not paper) but the challenge ofproviding it universally on the server side seems to me quite a lot. Not from the technical point of view but simply from going through the mechanics of fixing up the software (this is something the rendering engine probably just does not do right now) and of getting the currency feed. It does open up a lot of possibilities and I am skeptical you would get it through, but if it is not this one, sooner or later another one on a similar technical footing (e.g. why not automatically translate etc, which is already kinda there on the marked-for-translation templates but very very loosely coupled) will request the same. So, with the technical issues in mind I don't see why not to push forward, not necessarily particularly for this (but to have a concrete example is good rather than a waffly suggestion) but to get views from a wider audience of what they think.

I have not written this very well, but feel free to quote it anywhere you think fit. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

About wikification

In our jargon here, to wikify means something along the lines of: "To add internal links to other Wikipedia articles." Cheers! lifebaka++ 20:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

The photograph of the naked woman on your userpage. Do you know that she gave her permission to have this photograph posted on the Internet and released into the public domain. I have inquired on Commons, but it seems to me there is no evidence that she gave her written permission via OTRS. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The photo was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons by a user named "Nudley" who ascertained that the photo was his or her own work and was "part of the public domain". As a user, I am trusting that the proper permissions were given for this picture to be used by the public. If you or anybody has specific information that this photo has been used improperly, or lacks copyright permissions, I would like to see such specific information. Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

The burden of proof is upon inclusion: people must cite proper permissions in order to post content; editors do not need to find proof in order to remove content that lacks proper permissions. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your reply. The whole process seems absurd; I assumed everything on Wikimedia Commons was legitimate. Shouldn't there should be some kind of screening so photos can't be uploaded until approved? And, in general, I favor transparency, particularly when it comes to the subject of women and clothing, and I've always been an outspoken proponent of less is more. And, ultimately, clothing doesn't matter, since I'm skilled at the art of mentally undressing women, particularly at airports on rainy days. I hope you are not on some crusade to empty out the Wikivaults of pictures of naked women since, ultimately, men can see through such projects, and as a man enamoured with the female form, I will continue to celebrate feminine pulchritude at every opportunity (my POV) regardless of whether or not French-writing people can reply in Frennsch or pas. Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Suza Scalora article

I'm having trouble understanding why you deleted a reference to Amazon. I looked through WP:RS and didn't see any specific comments about the unreliability of book stores as sources. Suza Scalora is an author; she writes books. Proof? I can find her books on Amazon.com -- the world's largest online bookseller. So, for me to make a case that "Suza Scalora wrote book X", and reference it with a listing on Amazon showing the title of the book with her name on it -- I don't see what the problem is with that. Doesn't this work for you as a reader -- like, if you're reading an article proclaiming that Person X wrote Book Y, then wouldn't you be convinced with a reference to that book being sold in a bookstore? This seems only reasonable to me. Also, you removed a reference to an online site showing Suza Scalora's photography. I can understand, perhaps, why Wikipedia would prefer references to the NY Times or Newsweek. But, I think web sites which show SS's photography -- with her name on the pictures -- are perfectly valid ways for me to prove the statement that "Suza Scalora is a photographer". I guess what I'm saying here is you're construing general rules a bit too narrowly here -- rules which you may have picked up in other situations suggesting that "Amazon isn't a good source" or "websites aren't a good source", and misapplying them in the Suza Scalora case. I think they're perfectly reasonable, acceptable sources to make the very limited claims that "SS is a photographer" or "SS is an author". Please be reasonable.Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Because Amazon (etc.) are not sites to prove books exist but single company sites to sell books. They are primarily marketing. If you want to prove a book exists, link to something informational instead of commercial, like a library listing (in fact, if you put the ISBN code down it'll automatically link to a page that ties into online library sources) or a news report. Ditto for commercial sites selling photos and so forth. Your approach is basically advertising for sales of products, which is not what Wikipedia is for. DreamGuy (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll go along with your judgment on removing what seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate source of accurate information (Amazon bookstore) since I'm relatively new to this whole Wikipedia process and maybe there's stuff I haven't run in to yet. And I appreciate there are dedicated people like you who remove lots of the junk out there and sift through references to weed out the crap. Still, for me, I think Amazon is an excellent source for making a statement like "Person X wrote Book Y" -- essentially a statement about something's existence -- that a source like Amazon which shows the thing exists with accurate descriptive information (author's name, cover page, number of pages, date of publication) -- for me, Amazon's listing is a better source than some NY Times article which mentions the book. I can see the book. It's there. I don't see how the purpose of any particular site has any bearing here -- whether Amazon's purpose is to sell books -- or a library's purpose is to make books available to the public -- or the New York Times purpose is to sell newspapers -- I don't see how that's relevant. Is there any "source" out there which is ONLY for the purpose of providing accurate, free-of-charge information? I doubt anything like this exists. Even your vaunted public library has a commercial purpose -- to satisfy residents' reading needs -- so I think it's impossible to separate the commercial aspects of any person or thing away from the thing-in-itself. For example, by Wikipedia even writing about anybody gives, to varying degrees, some more commercial weight to it, whether it's Michael Jackson, BMC Software, Dana Delany, anything -- it's like Wikipedia is saying "X is noteworthy" or "X is important" and there is some commercial component to this that perhaps we're all overlooking, and I don't think it's bad either. Last, I don't think using Amazon as a reference is advertising for either Amazon or Suza Scalora any more than using the New York Times is advertising for the New York Times, or using Newsweek as a source is advertising for Newsweek. All three -- Amazon, NY Times, Newsweek -- have strong motivations to get the facts right since they won't make money if the details are wrong or their integrity is called into question. I don't think Amazon is a good source for much beyond "Book X exists" -- I'll prefer the NY Times or Newsweek to tell me whether the book is any good. Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Experimental area

Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Allegheny College under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa Note: I was just experimenting with getting pictures from Flickr -- what a total pain, so complicated, so many crazy licenses and permissions and forms to look at. I am venting to nobody in particular here.Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

It's not too horribly awful, although it could certainly be better. See Commons:User:Teratornis/Flickr examples for a record of my struggle with the beast. (The beast is probably up by several scores.) I might play around with writing a bot program to efficiently harvest Flickr photos for a City wiki I am setting up. --Teratornis (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The beast definitely wins in my struggles. I have NO clue about copyrights. My eyes glaze over at how complex it is, and I hurl epithets at walls that look at me the wrong way. If you write a great bot program, I'll salute you in advance!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Experimental Area II -- the great BLP tag on the Tom Hanks page has great way to find sources

Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)okay it doesn't work; how come if this notice, posted on the Tom Hanks article, makes it possible for users to find news articles quickly? But it won't work if I paste this: "North Shore City" source:"-newswire" source:"-wire" source:"-presswire" source:"-PR" source:"-press" source:"-release into Google directly? Google says it's "not supported" for this application. What is going on?Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Synergy Beverages

I assume it meets notability requirements for a business. Hopefully some a few more sources will be found.Cptnono (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it meets notability requirements for a business. It's a small start-up with high power talent, with a good idea; but only 10 employees according to one (not-so-good) source; perhaps people from Synergy Beverages could provide more information? My marketing sense is its likely to grow; but who knows. But if the James Glasscock article is deleted, at least there's the Synergy Beverages article, but I realize that article may be deleted too (probably will, but it's less likely, I don't know). I just feel for the guy (JG) -- probably a nice guy, and WP has definitely an anti-business bias (anything "commercial" is suspect) and there are BLPs in WP who are flaky yet famous (I won't name names here, but you probably know what I mean). And business is what makes America great (in my view) and Wikipedia doesn't celebrate it. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

By the way, there's a great new tool for finding good sources but I don't know how to use it without loading the "BLP tag" (above). So, what I've been doing is this: Suppose I want to learn about Allegheny College. But it's not a living person. So I go to the Allegheny College TALK page, click on "edit this article", put the BLP tag (above, with the squiggly double brackets) in, PREVIEW the changes (not SAVING), and while looking over the previewed changes, click on the Find sources -- news button. And I get fast access to news (which I copy offline) and it sifts out all the junk on the web, making for efficient searching. It's possible to modify the search terms "Allegheny College" in the quote on the Google search bar, say, for "Meadville" or "Allegheny faculty" or whatever -- the Google search still works. I used this roundabout way for updates to the Carlton Aaron article. When I'm done finding sources and references (and pasting them into my offline text editor), I go back to the Allegheny College talk page, but don't save the changes (I cancel my edit) so the BLP tag never appears on the talk page. That way, I don't install a BLP tag where it doesn't belong (possibly confusing other editors), yet I have the benefit of quick access to all the good sources, since it filters only news articles, or books. And, I can put my saved information and sources into the Allegheny article on the article page when I'm ready. I'll probably try it with scholarly articles on the Allegheny College article (I expanded this article but about 5x, hoping to make it as good as University of Pittsburgh. Note: there may be a quicker, more efficient way to filter sources (to get rid of all the web junk, such as blogs, random sites, non-useable sources stuff, but I don't know what it is yet.Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Speedy deletion nomination of Rate It All (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Rate It All (disambiguation), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Chzz  ►  01:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

About the speedy deletion -- I'm a nooB who was working on a redirect for another article, and I thought I had to create this disambiguation page to make the redirects work, but now I don't think it matters. I didn't realize there may have been a spam-like effect at work so I agree with the decision to delete it. I am still learning how this stuff works, and I am anti-spam like everybody around here is trying to be.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Experimenting again

Just trying something Tomwsulcer 14:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying something different Tomwsulcer 14:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Trying again --Tomwsulcer 14:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying something different again Tomwsulcer 14:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

new trial Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

again --User:Tomwsulcer (User Talk:Tomwsulcer) 14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

again --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

trial and error --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

trial --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• /my sandbox

Languages

Wow looked at your user page -- vous parlez francais aussi? Tres bien! -- and Bislama -- you speak this? Very cool!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh…I finally succeeded in impressing someone with my knowledge of languages! Thanks.

(You'll notice, though, that they're all at a basic level except for the slightly better French.) Actually I had to learn the French and German in school (with considerably more emphasis on the French), and picked up what I know of Spanish and Bislama on site, so to speak, with help from a few books. Wish I knew more, or at least knew these better! (P.S., I hope you don't mind my moving this talk here, where it won't confuse the Vanuatu fans.) Tim Ross (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page. What articles are you working on? I like working on stuff I know nothing about so I can learn.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to spend a good deal of time on biologically-oriented articles, which I know a bit about, and on biographies of people I've never heard of before. The combination keeps me on my toes. When I get really bored I sometimes put some effort into the new-page-patrol, but that can be pretty painful. Tim Ross (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk BMC Software‎

I've removed [2] your latest comments per WP:TALK, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, WP:BATTLE and WP:CIVIL.

You had suggested we try some other dispute resolution method. I suggested WP:THIRD. Your response was instead to make the comments I've now removed. I again suggest WP:THIRD, but if you choose something else, please follow WP:DR and WP:TALK.

In no way do the tags or the current issues with the article shed a bad light on you or your contributions to the article. You've done an excellent job on the article.

In response to your comments, I've pointed out numerous ways that the article could be improved. You've indicated that you're not very interested in pursuing any of the approaches I've listed. That's fine. --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you've restored your improper comments. Please remove them. You may want to review WP:OWN before considering any other action that violates Wikipedia's behavioral and dispute resolution policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(removing my rant)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have any evidence for your concerns, provide it. Otherwise you're wasting both our time. You might want to look through WP:AGF as well. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ranting

(removing my rant; I think now it's the structure of things that causes everybody on WP to fight, not any one person's fault)Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

I have absolutely no time to slog through your harassment of me. I'm sorry if Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines and policies are obstacles in the way of how you've decided to defend your contributions to Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I wish you would not abandon the article since you've done so much to improve it. Why don't we all work together to tackle the minor tweaks with the goal to have it listed as a good article? Suggestion: The charts located in the "Financial performance" and "Operations" segments are great but will become dated after this year. Should we summarize the section in prose without any dates if possible? What do you think? Thanks, Postoak (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Battleships

Tom, we'd be glad to have you. Take a look through User:The_ed17/Sandbox2 and pick an article you would like to work on (the "stubs" and "starts" need the most work...). If you need any help, advice or anything, feel free to ping me or any one of the coordinators at WP:MILHIST. Cheers friend, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Battleships

Howdy.

I figured that the right thing to do here wold be to introduce my self and leave an explanation as to the message I left for you so that there won't be any hard feelings between us.

My user name is TomStar81, and I am arguably the man most responsible for the battleship articles on Wikipedia as they appear currently. Although not an expert on maritime matters (I live in the desert, and have never been out at sea beyond an occasionally tour boat trip for a few hours) I have unofficially assumed responsibility for the improvement on the battleship pages here on Wikipedia, which is why MBK left a message on my talk page after you left the message on his talk page. After looking through your contributions I did see a few things that concerned me, but as you yourself have noted you are a noon here, and as such are probably still working a few bugs out the operations on Wikipedia. You've also explained the reason for the ownership issues, and while I find that a little hard to believe I am open to giving people a chance to prove that there are here to help. This is the very essence of AGF, and since we are all bound to it we are obliged to follow it even if we do not want to.

As for your work on the battleship articles, pick any article you like, but know that the articles rated at or above B-class are bound to community consensus and tighter regulations for information presented in them. As MBK noted, it would be best for you to start with a stub or start-class article, the upper class articles need specialized attention that at this point I'm not sure you are ready for yet. If you stick to the battleship articles though you will in time reach a point where you will be able to edit the upper class articles with ease. Ed has volunteered to assist you should you require help; he's a good man and a veteran editor, so do not be afraid to ping him if you get stuck.

Lastly, I regret to inform you that the File:Alleghenycollegelogo.png is used on Wikipedia under fair use guidelines, and as a result can not be displayed in a user space such as your user page. I'm afraid you will have to remove the image, hide the image, or text link to the image if you wish to display it from your user page.

As noted above, if you need help, if you get stuck, if you are unsure how to do something, or if you need an explanation for anything, you can leave a message on the talk page of The Ed17, or on my talk page. Good luck, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks TomStar81, I'll find a start or stub class and see if I can improve it, and get feedback about sources and stuff first so current users are happy. I'm kind of learning that it's important to check in with established users first before making major changes -- I think this was one of the problems I've run into before, that I did substantial work on articles which were being watched, without checking what established users thought was best. And thanks for catching the logo issue -- I assumed anything on Wikimedia is fair to use, and have trouble deciphering what all the copyright issues are (I'm not a lawyer). I substituted the logo for a bouncy wiki. And it's great that you've done so much to advance Wikipedia with the battleships so far.Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Thought regarding images: go through the Commons and see what is there (everything is freely licensed); sometimes you can find really cool pictures. :-D Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 11:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks the_ed17! I put the Newton's ball-thingie on my user page, very cool! Plus great ship picture! I'm reading over the battleship USS New Jersey -- what a great history.Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

You're welcome! Yeah, all of the Iowas have a great history—if only because their careers span a long length of time. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 12:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I worked on USS Iowa (BB-4). Hope it's better. I'm interested in what you think. Very impressed that you have made so many articles into FAs. Do you think this battleship has any chance of getting to GA or FA? I probably won't work on articles for a day or so (other stuff to do).Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

(out) - looking good so far! Just a couple things with WP:MOS I'll be working on, particularly MOS:IMAGE. I will also be adding stuff from Norman Friedman's U.S. Battleships: A Design History, and you might like to look through [3] for additional info. Don't forget to cite the articles with {{cite news}}! :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's one thing. Instead of The Patriot Files, use [4] and {{cite DANFS}} -- Patriot is only copying the Navy's Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I copied the DANFS template to my templates file. And the NYTimes references are excellent. I'll try to do more tomorrow morning.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I always use the New York Times when writing about any pre-1923 ship; it's a GREAT resource.[5] and click "advanced" to search a specific date range). —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

←Some helpful advice, you've got way too many images in the article for its size. In fact, you need to choose about five to six to remove. The link to commons at the bottom of the article will suffice for those who would like to see more. The references section needs to be clear of images and a good ruberic is to keep only one image per level 2 header in the article. You do not need to illustrate every single thing, that is why the link to commons exists. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree way too many images but I didn't know which ones were keepers and which were dumpers. Wondering what you think about the idea of a photo gallery at the bottom of the page like University of Pittsburgh. And I'm kind of waiting for input from you and from Ed about whether to keep trying to expand the article (will I find more stuff? not sure how much more is out there, or where I should look) or what people want to do with this now, like, how does it read, and what needs to be done at this point to get the article ship shape so to speak possibly for GA or FA status? I hunted for video of the BB-4 blasting its guns (to try to make it into a moving "gif" image) but didn't find it) -- but that would be so cool to watch -- a batleship firing its guns, boom, maybe even with sound too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't done much research on the pre-dreadnoughts to help you on the content expansion side (Ed will help you there), but on the image gallery, that is a no-no for high-quality content. The commons template {{Commonscat}} is there for a reason, to preclude an image gallery. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK then maybe I should wait for feedback from you and Ed about how long the article should be, or whether there may be more interesting stuff, or about the style, or what you want to do with it at this point. I don't know which of the images are best but I agree let's keep the ones people like and let the others be found by the link to the Commons like you suggested. Wondering if you or Ed knows where there are videos of BB4 or even other battleships with no copyright problems (like US Navy=source, or before 1923, or public domain) so I can edit them to turn them into a gif file, perhaps of guns shooting, or rockets launching or other stuff that might be more visually appealing. But this may be a lot of work and I'd like to have a green light before doing it. My son knows how to do this -- extract images and make a gif. But would you consider something like this in one of the battleship articles?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're about ready for a peer review, that should shed some light on where to go from here. By inviting other people to comment on the article you can collect a pool of suggestions from which you can gauge where the article still needs attention. Like MBK, I've never had any experience with predreadnoughts, but there's no time like the present to learn. PR would also help with regards to your images; by allowing people to comment on that front you can get an idea about which ones people like and which ones the article can do without. Also, on the matter of length, there are general size requirements at WP:SIZE, but from where I sit your article is not in length trouble yet, presently Iowa is only 40kbs, USS New Jersey (BB-62) is double that :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the PR instructions: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Review#Peer_review -MBK₀₀₄ 05:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I've been gone for awhile I guess; look at all this I missed! :-) I doubt that there is a video, simply because of how long ago it was, but you never know. Try archive.org? Sorry for not being able to help you more lately; I decided to get out of my room this weekend to hang out with other people in my hall. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for others before doing anything on this article (which is tagged "under construction"), and I'm content to have others take the lead here, including initiating the peer review. Let me know if there's more I can do. If you want me to try to lengthen Iowa to NJ's article length, I'm not sure how much more source material is out there (or whether it will be interesting); my sense is the best stuff has been exhausted? There might be some book online somewhere which has great stuff but I haven't found it yet. And offline books -- they're harder for others to check the sources. I perused YouTube somewhat extensively but didn't have any real motion-picture videos of Iowa BB-4; there were videos of later battleships.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just spotted the barnstar you left on my userpage. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Under construction

If you would read the template and its instructions: {{Under construction}} you would see that the template is used to let others know that the article is being worked on by many and they are welcome to join-in. I am not currently doing anything to the article, the reason my name appears is that I was the last editor to edit the article, and I completely forgot to put the tag on the article at the beginning of your work. You are correct that if you have ran out of feasible ideas, peer review is the next step, but I'm sure that Tom and Ed will have more for you as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've got more, but I need the time to add it. Perhaps tonight.... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought MBK was working on it; I use the tag to give a heads-up to other editors not to do extensive editing so as to prevent edit conflicts and wasted time. But I won't do anything more on it until the tag is off, if anything. I'm working on an article for a NZ town. Yes, I think peer review seems a logical step, and I'll support what you and Ed and Tom and others decide.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the construction tag is used to get editor to help with the article, its the {{inuse}} template that should scare you away. Keep at it! This is how a noob becomes a vet; and believe me its going to feel absolutely awesome to be the main editor to an article as it goes up the assessment chain. I believe in you, and I have faith that you can do this if you do not give up. Trust in yourself and your fellow editors and you need not fear any obstacle that comes up, for we shall prevail ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks Tom, I may work on it when I get a chance. I had been picking up vibes that my contributions weren't wanted. Your sense is I should try to keep expanding the text with new info? (if I can find new stuff? -- my hunch is the NY Times stuff is pretty well combed through). And what should be done about the pictures; should we cull them down ourselves or let this happen during peer review? I have no sense which ones are the most interesting. And I'm not good at the formatting stuff -- like dates & stuff, and how to use the right tags for conversions (like knots etc for speed & such). Let me know what to do. Plus, if you'd like a free pdf copy of my book on Amazon, I can send it by email; controversial stuff on preventing terrorism, don't know if you're interested in that; book = "Common Sense II" by tom sulcer on Amazon. Probably won't work on BB-4 for a bit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.

This talk page is not meant to be edited with comments as such, nor signed (see the rules at the top of the page). Furthermore, even talk pages which are for the purpose of discussing improving the article (of which this one wasn't) discourage general "commenting" / "discussion" of the subject, especially in highly POV ways (nearly trolling), as it appeared as you did. Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, looking at this it seems ruder and harsher than it should. Take what I said lightly :) ... you know what I mean!

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh, thanks for your reminder to me about the rule. I know the rule. But it is often hard I find, in practice, to distinguish discussion about the topic itself, from discussion about how to improve the article. They're often intertwined. Thanks for your reminder.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine; normally I wouldn't have said anything, but I noticed that that talk specific talk subpage had different rules listed at the top—more than a talk page, the subpage is almost an article on the talk page (talk about abstraction). I've never seen one like that anywhere else; nor a talk page which says "Do not sign your posts." Just a bit of IAR goodness!

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 21:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Kind of like a "No right turn on red" sign -- people are so used to turning right at the light, like signing their name, that the exception is unexpected. But you caught it; thanks for letting me know. Wikipedia is FULL of RULES, isn't it? Wonderful place for lawyer types.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

List-defined refs

You seem a reasonable enough egg on the United States Congress stuff. Sorry if I came off too strong. I just saw that a large chunk of a paragraph was removed and reverting it completely was the easiest way to restore it at the time. I also used to work for the Senate, and tend to be overly sensitive on the topic. For example, did you know that Senators and their staff are covered by the same federal employee health plan (and pay the same monthly premiums) and the same federal employee pension plan? Staff also have the same access to the Capitol physician for routine care, like colds, sprains, etc. So, it's not entirely accurate when some people say senators get a sweetheart deal on "free" health care or "huge" pensions. Congressional staff, by law, cannot be paid more than a congressman or senator, so the member's pensions will often be larger on that account alone. But I know some staff who have been there longer than most senators, so they could see bigger pensions than some senators bosses simply because they worked there longer.

As far as list-defined refs, this is a new feature added very recently. Check out WP:FOOTNOTES for how it works. Works with a <references/> or {{reflist}} tag. Very useful to reduce clutter, particularly if cites are extremely long. You just make the name the reference in the reference section, and then use the name shortcut in the body. It makes separating the prose from the cites when editing a lot easier. As far as combining the cites, I borrowed that particular nugget from Barack Obama, where another editor made similar tweaks to multiple refs that applied to one sentence.DCmacnut<> 18:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey perfectly understandable. Perhaps I came off too strong too, sorry about that. But I really admire this reference de-cluttering tool! I'm having a problem with David Sirota since the LEDE para is cluttered to the max with references; so your timing is perfect and I'm going to try to see if I can declutter the references on Sirota. But there was considerable edit warring on Sirota so the references are needed; your brilliant fix solves all this -- thank you again. I'm working offline on Sirota. And I'll try to get around to researching United States Congress and I'll be seeking your advice about how to do stuff so you're happy with it while striving for WP:NPOV. And, every time I hear the word "bicameral", I can't help thinking about camels.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck on David Sirota. You've got your work cut out for you. Seems more like a case of overlinking that maybe the fix won't entirely, well, fix. Most of those references need to go away (why would someone need cites that he's from Montana) or go to the end of the sentence/paragraph.DCmacnut<> 19:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks. I don't think I deserve it, but I'll take it. I just used a newly created wiki tool (been available for less than a week), and copied a technique I saw another editor use. Thanks again.DCmacnut<> 02:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you deserve it. I'm not sure I'm qualified to give them out since I'm a nooB, but it's my way of saying thanks. Check out the David Sirota LEDE para now, how organized it is, compared to how bad it looked before clumping the references, and your organizing tool worked brilliantly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Plaudits

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	To Tomwsulcer, in recognition and appreciation of his close study of and tireless research into one of the most crucial areas of human knowledge (not to mention his sagacious ponderings on same). DCGeist (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I went to school with Jonatha and Jennifer. What made me think of this?—DCGeist (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Congress criticism

I moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Criticism section.—Markles 14:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar; my second! That said: the article in question does not claim to include all nominees: the table clearly states "Below is a selection of nominees and the approximate time each was questioned." Also missing from the table: Charles Whittaker, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and Rehnquist when elevated. I think that, on balance, that table needs to go. Magidin (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Maybe I was cruising along a little too fast regarding the NY Times? I assume with a table in the NY Times that it would be thorough. But it isn't, and the omissions undermine its point. I agree; nix the wikitable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the bouncing ball. :) --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Will's Word Balloon

Hilarious. Cheers, mate, and thanks.—DCGeist (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

quoting in references (Supreme Court)

I think you are messing up the citation templates by trying to put "quotes" in the "Title" field. Rather, type the quote directly after the <ref> tag, then put the {{cite xxx}} template, then close with the </ref> tag. That should produce a footnote that begins with the quote, and then ends with the attribution, the latter created by the citation template. Alternatively, but the citation template first, and the quote outside the template but inside the {{cite}}. Magidin (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try doing like you said. But I don't think anything is being messed up; it's just that the quote turns blue, and clicking on it leads to the reference. But the whole thing works as it should, that is, people can check the reference.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"The whole quote turns blue" means you are turning it into a wikilink. A wikilink that is supposed to be a link to the title of the book. That happens at the template level. If someone later changes the template (to, say, link to a Google Books of the book, or to go find the ISBN for the title, or to write it in italics, etc.), then your coding may mess that functionality up. Simply put: when you use a template, you should not mis-use it, because if the template changes later, it will mess up what you are doing. The people who are programming the template assume, rightly so, that in the "title" field you will put nothing except the title of the book. So, in the "title" field you should have the title, and just the title. Magidin (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I'll explore this, and change habits. But what I'd like is a field, within the {{}} brackets, which gives a reference checker notice about what exactly I'm quoting, but which doesn't show up blue. I'll experiment with your suggestion, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to bring that up with the maintainers of the template. Right now, there isn't one. See for example Template:Cite book. The templates are meant to provide a uniform bibliographic and reference formats, which automatically links where appropriate, not a uniform footmark with sundry content. Magidin (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected; you found a field. Good! Magidin (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pushing me to look for this. There are vandals putting cell phone numbers on the Supreme Court page; I don't know how to revert multiple entries. Are you an administrator? I'm a nooB.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not an administrator. The way I revert multiple edits is to go to the history page, find the most recent edit before the vandalism, and click to look at it. Then edit this previous version, and save without making changes (be sure to put that you are reverting vandalism in the edit summary). There probably are easier ways, but that's one way. Magidin (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Overlook Hospital

On October 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Overlook Hospital, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 22:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday (a day late)!

I saw from here that it's been exactly one year since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Tim Zagat

Thanks for the tip on the in-line referencing and NNDB. I had a feeling about the latter. And I knew you were going to be coming after me about the editing down of "Close Call", but I didn't expect it so soon! :) What was edited out was to improve flow: getting Zagat's EXACT position in the theater sticks out in the paragraph. Is it a way to try to establish veracity? Because you don't need to. The fact that you risked your life is more newsworthy and the fact that you weren't thanked more interesting. What do you think? --Aichikawa (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by this?

YOu wrote that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz deserves an award for being a "great watchdog" on wikipedia. Yet, several people have written major complaints about his destructive changes to pages that he has no connection to? Please explain why you are the only one who thinks he is doing good work.

He himself wrote in his bio page that many people hounded him about his erratic changes to pages. Why is he apparently targeting my work? I have worked on two pages in the past 2 weeks- and he continually undoes my work without giving any explanation and without discussing though I specifically ask people to discuss before changing the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougmac7 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness article

I am not sure if you mind or not, but I moved one addition by you further down. As I stated in my edit summary, the lead (intro) is merely to summarize the article (not to go too in-depth about things). This addition by you seems to fit better in the Social effects of attractiveness section, which is where I put it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Good choice you made, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bold

You sure are!! If you really mean to pursue this, my suggestion would be to draft a policy, and I think on the templates page you will find a template for proposed policies or this is not a policy - something that indicates it is not a real policy - and then spread the word that you are proposing this as a policy and inviting debate. I did this once (my proposal was voted down, but so what? There was a lively debate for a couple of weeks and people thought about it).

However, personally, I have to say I disagree. We have barnstars for this kind of thing. I know your objective is different. But I am old-fashioned and believe in the idea of articles not having authors, being collective projects etc. I personaly have to ask you, not to put my name anywhere - I am doing this on your talk page because I do not want to disagree with such a well-intentioned and generous gesture "in public." Let people continue to discuss it and see if it gets traction. But i think you should let "the community"" discuss it and consider it as a general policy, rather than ask individual people's permission to go ahead and list them ... that may be just a little too bold for Wikipedia.

Good luck with everything! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Thanks for the encouragement. I'll pursue perhaps both methods -- the wikiprotest (as a way to stimulate thinking) and template for proposed policies, wherever that may reside. And, I disagree with your disagreement; a "barnstar" is like getting a good-night peck from a ravishing cheerleader, while a "thank you" from real readers is like real sex. Comparatively speaking. And it's consistent with my underlying idea that anonymity hampers Wikipedia, and identification will help it flourish.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Spinoza

hey thanks for contacting me, i like receiving messages hehe unfortunatelly, i wouldn't be able to ocntribute to an article because i am extremelly inarticulate and well.. yes, ignorant of the subject but i appreciate the effort, thx and good luck! --KpoT (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, being "ignorant of the subject" never stopped me from writing Wikipedia articles :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Javascript

You can copy my page User:Rich Farmbrough/monobook.js to your page User:Tomwsulcer/monobook.js. Once it is refreshed you wil se a whole bunch of new tabs when you edit the ones labelled "/" and "m/" do what you want (more or less). You can then tinker to your hearts content getting rid of, modifying or otherwise playing with the rest of the functions. Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Thanks; I'm somewhat confused about whether to copy the main page or the source code page, but when I get time, I'll pursue this further.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Citizenship in the United States

On November 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Citizenship in the United States, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 13:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from User talk:United States

Hello Tomwsulcer, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to User talk:United States has been removed. It was removed by Jclemens with the following edit summary 'Decline PROD, not for user pages. Please MfD instead'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jclemens before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Yeah, thanks. I think I've got it figured out- your instruction helped alot. Still, I have to have been an editor for at least four days to post anything, so that will have to wait. Also, the sourcing stuff is immensely helpful.

Again, thanks. In.Lumine.Tuo.Videbimus.Lumen 21:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inluminetuovidebimuslumen (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I think I'm slowly beginning to understand this. Again, thanks for the help. I haven't really done anything with my page beyond signing it. In Lumine Tuo Videbimus lumen is latin for "in your light we will see light." but the real reason I choose it was because when I made the account I was drinking from a Columbia University mug, I wanted something in latin, and that's their motto. It's not my alma mater, but I'm hoping that in nine years from now it will be. We'll see what happens. Part of the reason I started editing in an official capacity, beyond a sense of civic duty and the need for a more constructive thing to do than facebook (i'm sure you know what these things are, i'm just proud of my ability to create hyperlinks) when on the computer, is that I think I'm going to through this down on the app for community service. Still, money is tight and grades aren't ideal, and so I'm also looking at some state schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inluminetuovidebimuslumen (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ah, i forgot to sign. i've got to stop doing this. In.Lumine.Tuo.Videbimus.Lumen 03:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC) there we go —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inluminetuovidebimuslumen (talk • contribs)

Yeah, and a good value is what I really need. Some scholarships would be nice as well. It's so expensive. And that's cool, it's a good way to spend a little bit of spare time. Community service that provides you with knowledge and where standing up is unnecessary. Sounds good to me. A question- I've mainly been using this account to update errors as I come upon them in my regular use of wikipedia (I fix grammar, correct formatting, etc.). Beyond that, what's there to do to contribute? Should I try to create articles? I'm not sure my knowledge is broad enough for that. Where can I find articles that need fixing up?

In.Lumine.Tuo.Videbimus.Lumen 20:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inluminetuovidebimuslumen (talk • contribs)

Good question. There's some debate about this -- are all the possible articles taken (and only stuff left to do is improve them?) or can we add new articles? I've added a few articles (see my User page) when I came across a general topic, and looked for things, and didn't find it; so, I added a new article on this like Citizenship in the United States. Think about people you know, stuff you like, stuff you find interesting. Whenever you come across something in a Wikipedia article in red letters -- such as Why women are beautiful -- if you click on it, it's possible to start a new article. There's a list somewhere on a Wikipedia site of "Requested articles" -- check here: Wikipedia:Requested articles. That is, people wanted an article about something, and it didn't exist, and posted a tentative title. And I wouldn't let lack of knowledge stop you; most times, I don't know much about what I'm talking about; but by researching it with a split screen, and working offline, I can put together stuff that's well referenced and somewhat logical that passes muster. Remember that launching any new article means there are a slew of deletionists looking at it first -- checking sources, seeing if it makes sense; if they don't like it, or think it's relevant, they'll begin a process of deletion called AfD. Sometimes they'll try to delete it rather fast!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to write an article, I suggest you consider working offline with a text processor, copy and paste the following:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(site:newsweek.com OR site:post-gazette.com OR site:usatoday.com OR site:washingtonpost.com OR site:time.com OR site:reuters.com OR site:economist.com OR site:miamiherald.com OR site:sfgate.com OR site:chicagotribune.com OR site:nytimes.com OR site:wsj.com OR site:usnews.com OR site:msnbc.com OR site:nj.com OR site:theatlantic.com OR site:businessweek.com OR site:crainsnewyork.com OR site:CSMonitor.com OR site:cbsnews.com OR site:abcnews.com OR site:npr.org OR site:msnbc.com OR site:cnbc.com OR site:news.yahoo.com)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Suppose you're searching some new topic such as Beaver migrations of the 19th century. So, what I would do, is have the left side of the monitor screen with a blank text file (what I call a "data dump") and the right side of the screen is google. In the google search bar, I type perhaps "beavers" "19th century" migration?. Then I cut and paste the (site:newsweek.com.... ) stuff to the right of it in the search bar area. So the google search is limited to referenceable stuff. (Or, you can make your own list of sources-sites if you're researching something different, such as science, or art, or whatever you're studying.) When you hit return, anything that comes up will PROBABLY be an excellent source (from a respected mainstream publication) which means you don't have to sift through all of the irrelevant unusable garbage (web sites, press releases, advertising etc). When I find good stuff, I copy and paste the author, title, quote, date, and url (haven't figured out yet how to copy and paste the publication name) right into the data dump followed by the shell for the reference. So it will look something like this:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Beavers migrated mainly from Western Ontario to Ohio by swimming in parallel lines across Lake Erie in late October, 1803, to fake out mathematically-inclined storks.

Reflist

Then when I get enough material, I rewrite it into an article, with sections like references laid out, infoboxes (check out similar articles on Wikipedia; click edit; copy the infobox (mark, then CTRL-C); then cancel the editing. Paste the infobox into your text file, etc. Or, copy an entire Wikipedia article shell, and switch in all the new stuff. Then, when it's more or less ready, I paste the whole thing into my sandbox page, so I can see what lights up in red (and fix it, or the wikilinks). I check categories, see if they exist, but then disable them with the so my sandbox page doesn't show up on Wikipedia. When ready, I create the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope that's helpful. I just created History of citizenship in the United States so there are probably some errors in there, or sections that need better writing. I'm also going to be working on an article about Spinoza's philosophy, also possibly one about Dating Dysfunctionality too; you're welcome to work with me on these things if they interest you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, instead of writing your user name, use the four tildes; that way, the computer doesn't keep doing it for you. (or click on the squiggly thing to the right of the red thing in the box above this editing box.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

deletions

Remember, the criteria for inclusion is notability. And all biographies of living people must ocmply scrupulously with WP:BLP. You know, it is always possible that someone coming to Wikipedia claiming to be the subject of an article is a seat-puppet. You have no idea who I am, I have no idea who you are, so it is always best to stick to policy. But I can speedly delete an article at the author's request and it looked like you were the sole provider of content, so was glad to delete. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know what a seat-puppet is, but I appreciate your fast action and hopefully we're all done with this matter. And, while I don't know much about you, I can tell by your actions that you are smart and good (in this instance). I still think the key to Wikipedia's continued success is identified editorship. Like, my real name is Thomas Wright Sulcer, and I'm quite googlable on the web, with my address and email and stuff out there, and I think Wikipedia will become a better place to the extent that we all emerge from the shadows.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Atari 8-bit family

Hi Tom,

I did some work on Atari 8-bit family, and more on e.g. Atari BASIC and disambiguating Page 6 and Page Six. (I'd like also to split what are really the OS description at Atari BASIC to a separate article, but not sure there is really enough content to make it worth doing so.)

Personally I appreciate the thanks, and I agree that grumbling at a computer who is trying to say a constructive thanks is, er, not very constructive. So, at least one editor appreciated it. Si Trew (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a great article! I enjoyed reading it. I was surprised to find such good, accurate information in Wikipedia, so you people have done excellent work researching all this stuff. I miss my old Atari 800! I wrote lengthy BASIC programs in it to process whole market research surveys, but those days are long gone, with the advent of object-oriented programming, and MS-DOS, and Windows, and now Linux.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I did quite a lot with them, more in machine code than in BASIC. Some of my stuff got into magazines and is around for emulators, but none of the really good stuff, it seems. mostly little demos which were not intended to be good of themselves, but to just show off some aspect of the computer or system. Si Trew (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Super cool, Simon Trew! You got to a level of programming which I never quite got to, like you REALLY got into the guts of the machine and learned how to make it tick! Impressive! I think I did a few PEEKs and POKEs but nothing much more than this! And I never did any assembler or fancy stuff. Still, what a cool machine. I remember saving some programs to a tape recorder! Those were the days! --Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Response.

I rescind my earlier arguments. Do what you may, I will no longer interfere. Andy120290 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. You're what makes the United States great, not presidents, not Congresses, not the Supreme court, not business, but citizens, people like us, us Wikipedians, who have a small chance to tell all sides, to tell the truth. You're better than all presidents squished together. Please realize, however, that if we're citizens, but citizens in a land in which "citizenship" is practically nonexistent, since nobody really participates in self-government any more, the deck is stacked against us Wikipedians. I have no doubt that sooner or later, the forces of paid lobbyists will overwhelm our little Wikipedia project here and whitewash what is said, but it's kind of cool that at least we have a moment to tell the truth.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't have to wait long. A "columnist on the London Times" (as far as I can tell he had a letter published once) had a five minute rant on a very respected consumer programme on BBC Radio 4 (a bit like PBS in the US) at lunchtime today, "You and Yours", saying WP is useless cos the editors all know nothing and it is all consensus, implying pretty much, you get the lowest common denominator. Since at the time I had spent three hours helping translate a detailed article about a battle of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 (I am not telling you which as we are not finished yet, but you can easily enough find out which) after spending probably twenty hours editing another translation request and about eight hours doing a reasonably accurate four colour SVG map of somewhere I am not telling you as I haven't finished, but is rather nice, having translated in Latin and French and the odd bit of Arabic and Spanish, having researched and added on subjects as wide ranging as atari 8bits, pancakes, disused railway lines of the 1850s, Palestinian battles and French geography and basically anything that comes my way, always improving and knowing it will never be perfect, for this iconoclast to use my licence fee money to tell me why he is right and I am wrong... well... some people will never learn. It's those you have to worry about.

He just doesn't get it. I think he is simply not used to the process of peer review, whereas for me as a scientist and engineer it is very natural and expected. That does NOT mean you can write whatever you like. It means you EXPECT others to criticize it, constructively, and improve it. And if they spot a real cock-up, well, phew, I am glad they spotted it.

For example, one of my hats is translation. I'm not a professional, but I don't charge like a professional. On the other hand, I might be translating articles I can't just pick up the phone and ask "do you mean in this sense and that sense". I have to research or make a best guess. AND then I have to put all the scaffolding, the "wikifying", into the article too. It is BLOODY HARD WORK. And, I accept, that is just a starting point. Having got a translation, others with better knowledge of the subject can clean it up and correct things and change terminology etc. BUT WITHOUT ONE, THEY CAN'T. So, we ALL HELP EACH OTHER.

I think he is just peed as he doesn't have an entry on WP, and doesn't know how to use it, and is worried. Si Trew (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow Simon! You're amazing that you are this skilled with so many DIFFERENT kinds of articles with so MANY DIFFERENT LANGUAGES under your belt. I'm impressed. You're right it's bloody hard work, like you say. My thanks to you. I really appreciate the excellence of the Atari articles, thank you again. When I get a chance I'll check out the Hungarian stuff you listed. I'm working on a section to improve the article Citizenship in the United States which is practically a joke these days. I think Wikipedia needs reform, still; I have some ideas on my user page, plus I used to write on the WP:Areas for Reform page. I see a dwindling supply of editors, and that has good and bad; I'd like to see more honoring-of-editors (bylines perhaps on articles?) and less anonymity, but it might be that things are fixed and can't be improved? I don't know. But I honor your contributions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I really only got into it because I am off long term sick (I have a meeting on Tuesday and hopefully, the wheels of industry grind exceeding slow, someone said, Dickens?, but back in the New Year) and well I am an omnivore really. My Hungarian is not very good but I am learning it a bit. I lived in Cairo, Egypt for a couple of years and so picked up a little arabic there. My French is quite good, I am not so good at the others, but I pick up and forget languages pretty quickly. Really I don't know very much, but I can kinda learn anything very quickly and am just FASCINATED by everything, which makes me somewhat a bore also. I can be as genuinely interested in the history of the letter W to the mating habits of peregrine falcons or whatever it may be, and my brain usually links them up in an extraordinary way which I don't understand myself but is kinda perfect for Wikipedia with a network as opposed to hierarchical structure, because I automatically think of relevant, useful links branching out of subjects that others would not connect in that way. I only have a basic degree, I am not that bright, I just have picked up a lot of stuff along the way. No money, though!

I kinda agree with you about bylines. I am not entirely sure about it as such, because of the "ownership" thing which I have seen badly enough in organisations when one goes and changes another's code or suggests improvements. (This may be why all my templates are documented.) I do think though that there should be a trust level for users beyond IP/registered. I don't think this should be confined to "he is OK on Ataris but useless on soccer" since you're not likely to want to edit articles on soccer if your big deal is Ataris, but to kind give a little weight that an editor may have some experience and half a clue what he or she is talking about in general, regardless of the subject. I don't weigh much on edit counts or anything, I firmly believe in what gets measured gets managed, sometimes I do maybe 100 edits in a day which are mostly just little typos etc, sometimes two or three edits after working hours on a section. I've never got a barnstar and don't want one, but a "thankyou" is incredibly important to me, which is the point where we started. I've never asked for admin and don't want it, though I respect that most of the admins do good works, and it is that paradox that it is the ones who ask for it should be automatically prevented from getting it. (This actually happens in real life. When I was a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional, I didn't ask for it, they asked me. Kinda a thankyou for doing a lot of work on the newsgroups. I don't any more and I asked them not to consider me for renewal after being renewed twice, as I didn't want to block someone else's chances of getting it when I had too much other work to do. But really I did feel it quite an accolade to be one of only 150 in the UK and Ireland, and only one of four in my specialism of C++. But as I say, I can kinda specialise in anything very quickly.)

Specifically the Atari articles, I probably did or revised about half the Atari BASIC article, and unfortunately from memory as I don't have any sources, I hoped others would add them in. There is one big big flaw in it right now, well two: Needing to split the OS from the BASIC proper, and also it jumps between the past and present tense all the time, not making its mind up if it was or is a language. (I would go for the latter, considering the presence of emulators etc. and that language specifications etc are generally always written in the present tense.) There's some inconsistency in the keywords where I retabulated it and added a brief summary of what each command does. I should revisit that at some time.

But I've hardly touched the other Atari articles. I want to put in some stuff about how the joystick ports and analogue to digital pins work (through the POKEY if I remember correctly, on PIN 5 of the 9-pin joystick DIN, grounded to PIN 0, I forget the clock frequency usual primitive A/D). The touch tablet used only one port though, so I can't remember how it got two A/D lines on there. One of the bizarre things, now I think of it, you get a genuine random number generator on an atari as it takes it from the signal noise from the POKEY chip, i.e. white noise, which is truly random and not pseudorandom.

I had a couple of bits published in Page 6 and in other UK magazines. In a sense Wikipedia was not new in the idea of Free, nor even GNU or Open Software or whatever, it was pretty much all PD then, and I was amazed when I got my latest copy and my software was on the front of it, something I had submitted some months before, and even more amazed when I got a cheque (check) for 50 pounds (about 100 dollars then) a few weeks later, which I was not expecting. This was in 1988 or so I guess, and that was a LOT of money to me, nearly a week's wages as an apprentice, but more than that was the "thanks", that was worth more.

Which is why I totally agree with you about citizenship, the same is here, nobody helps each other out very much any more. I am not Christian in a believe in god sense, but I could be a human being without helping others when I can.

To be honest, your brief comment restored my faith in human nature. The "rescind" from Andy above confirmed it. I've not read the interim of that though I intend to, but I am glad you are both making it a bit better.

Sorry to make this so long. As Blaise Pascal wrote to his cousin, "I have only made this longer as I have not had time to make it shorter." Si Trew (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes, I agree about it takes more time to write something shorter. I remember using the RANDOM command on the Atari in some of my computer programs (but I don't remember the actual command -- RND? or RAND?). Didn't know that it was truly random. What I liked about programming the Atari was being able to control the code. I once wrote a software program in Atari BASIC called "The One Minute Letter", put an ad in Antic Magazine, and sold about 10 or 12 copies for $29 each. And the ad was about $400 so basically I somewhat recovered my cost of advertising. So I discontinued it. I also bought an Atari from a store in London (by mail) and had it shipped to the US, to give to a relative who was going to India; it used the same power supply (in London, and in India) so that's why I bought it in London. What a great machine. Cool you know all about the pins and stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember the "One Minute Letter". If I recall correctly it allowed you essentially to pick boilerplate letters and just stick them together add Dear Mom or Dear Bank etc. Or am I thinking entirely of something else? If I am right, I have a feeling it kinda its way onto the PD market somehow, rightly or wrongly (or perhaps after not having too much success you just decided to release it to PD.

It was RND. This was used to generate the "noise" for sounds, too, by the POKEY chip. In one sense it was still pseudorandum, but not in the sense mostly used, where a RNG is designed to be predictable so that the same sequence of random numbers can be generated again and again. RAND on most BASICs was used to set the seed of the sequence, and would generally take either a number that specified the seed, or if blank would get it e.g. from a system clock (though of course real-time clocks were a rarity on microcomputers of this time). POKEY's was a bit different in that it was CONTINUOUSLY generating random numbers just from electrical noise.

I've a lot more work to do for references etc for these articles, but kinda wanted to get the meat in first. Many others have worked on the articles, although it is probably fair to say I have done a lot of the meat at Atari BASIC. It reminds me while I think of it, while there was a PRINT # command, I don't think there was the equivalent ? # command. I would have to check that.

Thanks for the barnstar, my first. Undeserved, though. Si Trew (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your barnstar=Totally deserved, in my view. Your articles are excellent and require hard work and patience and you've done a super job.

About my "One Minute Letter" program–it asked users to type in a bank of stock sentences as a kind of database; then, users could quickly construct a focused targeted letter from the stock sentences with a few keystrokes; that was the concept; it would have been particularly helpful if a letter writer was writing lots of repetitive sentences which required some variation, such as someone searching for a job, or a company official responding to lots of routine requests. That was about the mid 1980s? But for most writing situations, simple text processors would suffice. And word processors kept getting better with shells and other aids, as you know, so my "One Minute Letter" product wasn't that useful. And it was somewhat too complicated to use; one buyer returned it, asking for a refund, which I sent. I'm not sure what you mean by "PD" above (public domain?); not sure what RNG is -- it's been awhile, and I didn't get into the nuts and bolts of the computer like you did. About the random stuff -- I was asked a question recently about how a computer could generate a "random" number; and wasn't sure about what to say. So you comments about RAND and RND are interesting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote Philosophy of Spinoza recently; some think it has too many animations, while others think they're helpful. But I'm trying to stay hands off my creation, and I'm kind of wondering what will happen to it. Ditto History of citizenship in the United States. I'm thinking of writing an article about Lies Told by US presidents; researching it. I wonder what kind of reaction it will get. My sense is the numbers of Wikipedia editors are decreasing since there seems to be less and less static out there, fewer reactions, fewer discussions and reverts, and in some ways this seems good, and other ways bad. Like you said, the good thing about constructive edits is that mistakes can get spotted and removed; but the bad thing is sometimes too many cooks spoil the soup, or endless fussing about trivialities.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The best text editor I ever worked with was in the late 80s early 90s called ZEdit. It ran on MS-DOS. It was Unix based. It was great! So fast, simple, powerful, easy to use. You never had to lift your hand from the keys to use it. Navigating was fast, intuitive. I did all my writing on it. But now other products have come to use the term "ZEdit", and the platform kept shifting out from under it. When Windows came along, it got buried; then somewhat forgotten. Text processors today aren't as great, or I haven't found one on Ubuntu Linux (what I work with now) which was as good as that great ZEdit program.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah by PD I meant public domain. I also remember ZEdit. Not used Ubunto but do use Linux, also Irix (and Windows).

(P)RNG = Pseudorandom Number Generator. I suggest you check it at pseudorandom number generator. The basic idea is that a formula defines a sequence of numbers one being computed from its predecessor, but that the two are not related in any obvious way (e.g. "+1" would make a very bad generator) and the formula may have well-known statistical qualities. There are lots of naiveties with this approach, for example it is obvious that once one arrives at a number that is already used, the sequence repeats, and the "period" of a sequence (i.e. how many numbers before it does so) may be surprisingly small. As a rule of thumb most RNGs have periods that are roughly the square root of the largest possible number that can be stored in the variable (assuming it is an integer). Of course, floating-point numbers etc. can be made jsut by dividing the result or, more commonly, just slapping a radix point in a defined place. For example, most RND functions return a number 0.0 <= n < 1.0, and this can then be multipled and truncated to get an integer in a required range. For a more detailed discussion see Art of Computer Programming Vol 2. Seminumerical Algorithms" Chap 3 "Random Numbers". On the other hand, if a truly random number source is used such as one deriving from electrical white noise or a quantum effect, this problem of periodicity need not occur. Si Trew (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I forwarded your comments about number generators to another person interested via email. Thanx. I remember using the random feature in Atari Basic and was never quite sure how it worked.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism removal

No prob!--Thatguyflint ^{Talk to me!} 21:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Randy Disher as Summit, New Jersey fictional character, chief of police

Re: your message: If it is re-included, it should be in a "in popular culture" section instead of in the notable residents section. Notable residents are usually for real people. The popular culture section is for fictional works like TV appearances or references. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Jersey Boy

Sorry, I was over eager. People tend to put random, not especially notable people in small town articles, but this guy is obviously legit. I put him back. Czolgolz (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm not familiar with Mr. Rabid, I can't give you an answer on that. You might take it to the discussion page. Czolgolz (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy of Spinoza, new section

Hey, Tomw, I just skimmed through what appears to be your new Wikipedia creation. I mean, just by coming to your page I was made aware you "created" it. Wow! When did you do it? On the surface, by just skimming through it from top to bottom by scrolling the mouse and stopping here and there to see the captions to the incredible pictures, it looks like a very nice "creation" indeed. Just makes me wonder what Spinoza would think by looking at your incredible technological "creation," which was supposedly spawned by his Ethics... Kudos on a nice, very pleasurable to the eye, wiki-creation! --warshy^talk 17:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Warshy, thanx. I was HIGHLY tempted to put in the famous Spinoza bagels, and avoided any Woody Allen inter-galactic time travel jokes. I wanted to make it look pretty and hopefully be helpful for high school or college students. I whipped it together in about a day and a half but it needs more sources which point directly to Spinoza's stuff and less towards Nadlers. My problme is the best translation -- by Edwin Curley -- isn't online. I edited it very fast so I'm wondering how people will react to it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Tomw, I will try to look at it with more time and see if I can help. I'm not even aware of the translation you mention, and I still read the Ethics, whenever I can (I never finished the whole thing, far from it...), in my old Dover paperback edition by that 20th century guy I forget the name at the moment. Maybe, when I can go through your new wiki-creation with a little bit of more time in my hands, I will finally start understanding the Ethics maybe a little better. Do you have Nadler's book online? Nice job again, nonetheless. If I was a little more of a wiki whizz than I am I would certainly try to give you one of those barnstars here! Nice job again! --warshy^talk 19:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Warshy, I appreciate your words. I lost my old Spinoza's Ethics, unfortunately, or it's somewhere in my house but I can't find it. Unfortunately I don't have Nadler online so it was a lot of typing. And I'm not sure I have everything down either about Spinoza; he used terms in a very exacting way, such as "action" or "passion" as you know, that it's hard to keep sense of what he's saying because the terms have changed so much since the 17th century. I'm trying to enlist the help of Spinoza scholars to look over my shoulder and offer guidance, but they're mostly busy and unhelpful. So I'll probably re-source much of it rather soon but with new sources, if I can find them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of multiple entries

In order to do that 'wholesale' you need to be approved to have 'reversion rights'. Not hard to do, but it's somewhat like asking to be an administrator (albeit a whole lot less stringent, I think). It is a very useful way to deal with a single vandal with multiple entries. It also gives you the ability to use tools like Twinkle. Hope that helps. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

I had tripped on some earlier correspondence on your talk page. It was meant to be an answer to an apparently unresolved question. In any event, I am a "reverter" and recommend that you become one too. I have no aspirations to be an admin, and you don't have to be one either. Nonetheless, reversion is a useful tool when the vandals take the handles. If you need help to find out how to do this, I can look at my talk page archive and let you know. In any event, I had run across some of your editorial work, and wish to express my support. If I can be of assistance to you (I am obviously not technically up to your level -- but I do make up in perseverance for some of my other shortcomings), please let me know. Best regards and happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

There are a lot of people here who labor in anonymity, particularly on the fringes in articles that almost nobody ever reads. As you have witnessed, the destroyers, deleters and blockers vie with the --WP:inclusionism adherents. For some people it is a whole lot easier to mindlessly enforce rules than it is to actually create. I well know that criticism is far more common than kudos. But hang in there, as you really have a relevant perspective and good creative skills. Don't let the naysayers rain on your parade. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

Thanks for your words of encouragement. It's appreciated.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

rollback. That's what I meant. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

Cool about the rollback. Thanks for showing this. Looks like more fire than I should be allowed to play with. Hopefully I'll never have to think about using it; if I encounter a multiple-vandalism feature, though, I'll contact an administrator who knows how to use it wisely. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

rights

I have reinstituted a modified version of your edits to rights. please review Piratejosh85 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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

NJ

Thank you for your kind words and for updating the NJ article. Thanks also for the link to your sandbox article, which I have added to my own sandbox, for future reference (re referencing!). Eagle4000 (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the discrepancy. I'm still learning stuff myself about Wikipedia but I'm glad to share what little I know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

NATO

Hi TomwSulcer, just thought I should drop you a note as I've reverted your addition of a see also section to NATO. I've worked very had over a couple of years to improve this article, and all see alsos were incorporated into the text, as is usual for FA-standard articles. Foreign policy is covered within the first paragraph of the article, through the link military alliance. The other thing is that listing only the United States privileges the U.S. - we could list every NATO country's foreign policy, and then Russia, USSR, Belarus, Ukraine etc, which would make it unreadable. All of these countries' foreign policies can be accessed through the various country links. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good job improving the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pipe character (|)

Have you figured out how to get it yet? I don't know your computer keyboard layout, but usually it is on the extreme left. either left of the 1 key or left of the Z key. The printing on the keyboard might show it as | (U+007C VERTICAL LINE, 124 decimal) or as a split vertical line. Either might or might not work; keyboard producers seem rather nonchalant in this matter. For myself I use a Hungarian keyboard and it is at AltGr+W, and shows it as split but appears as |. At worst, you can hold down Alt and type 124 on the numeric keypad, then release Alt. Works for me, though I still can't get a proper pound sign which should be Alt+0163 but that still comes out as Ł, which is the Hungarian "pound sign" (for old weights), so that must be done at a higher level of abstraction in the keyboard driver.

Best wishes and Happy New Year. Si Trew (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Simon, yes I have figured it out. I had been so frustrated for such a long time cutting and pasting pipes from other places. And it wasn't on my keyboard. So, I held CTRL and hit every key; I held SHIFT and hit every key; I held ALT and hit every key. Guess what? I eventually found it! ||||||||| Ta Dah! Best to you, and have a happy New Year!!! Btw do you have one of the old Ataris, and does it still work?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners

The page has been in use in its present form for two years with minor tweaks by several editors, who have not changed its overall approach. Your edit has made it into a very different guide. I guess this is acceptable per WP:BRD, but you have to accept that after B you are likely to get R. You changed a much greater amount of work than just two hours' worth. I find the new version very confusing. It uses the word "shell", for example, without even explaining what the word means, and it is not one that will be generally understood.

It also goes into how to get references with this list of sources:

(site:newsweek.com OR site:post-gazette.com OR site:usatoday.com OR site:washingtonpost.com OR site:time.com OR site:reuters.com OR site:economist.com OR site:miamiherald.com OR site:sfgate.com OR site:chicagotribune.com OR site:nytimes.com OR site:wsj.com OR site:usnews.com OR site:msnbc.com OR site:nj.com OR site:theatlantic.com OR site:businessweek.com OR site:crainsnewyork.com OR site:CSMonitor.com OR site:cbsnews.com OR site:abcnews.com OR site:npr.org OR site:msnbc.com OR site:cnbc.com OR site:news.yahoo.com)

This is totally US-centric for a start, and a rather cumbersome approach. It's much easier to just search Google News or a dedicated news repository. But, more significantly, it introduces an unnecessary complexity to a guide whose purpose is to enable editors to use references and understand the formatting, not teach them how to find references in search engines.

The original said:

Make sure you put two single quotation marks round the title (to generate italics), rather than one double quote mark.

You changed it to:

Remember to italicize titles using double single-quote marks.

This compression does not stress the importance of two single quote marks, as the original does, but ends up with the juxtaposition of "double single", which is more likely to be misunderstood.

You say:

Overall the best format is yyyy-mm-dd. It avoids confusion.

It doesn't. 2010-09-10 for those not used to this format can mean either 9 October or 10 September. Normal US usage is 9/11, but normal UK usage is 11/9.

You've deleted the paragraph which links to the example of multiple references in use in an article. It is very useful for a new editor to be able to see the result in action.

These are just examples.

It may well be useful to teach editors how to find sources, but not in this guide. Do it properly and write a guide dedicated to that, so you can go into it in the necessary detail.

Likewise, if you think that the use of "shells" is the easiest way, then write a guide to explain their usage. The normal terminology is "template". The existing guide explains how to set up references without having to know about such templates, and I think this is far simpler to master. If you write one from a different approach and people prefer it, then it will gain general usage, and this is the real test.

Ty 13:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. You make some good points. Do you have any interest in working with me to improve this article? I suggest we take the best of both worlds. I agree with many of your comments like the problems with the (site:newsweek.com etc...) . I still think, however, that the "shell" or "reference template" or whatever we call it is the best, most powerful & versatile referencing tool. And we should focus on that. And, as much as possible, we should strive for simplicity in the sense of "less is more". I bet many nooBs take one look at this page, see how long it is, see turn-off words like "code", or struggle with many different considerations, and click out of the page. I don't understand why the top hatnote about administerships is there. And I don't think the "essay" tag applies.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I support anything that makes this simpler for the new reader, but not anything which introduces more things to learn, i.e. citation templates. These may work for you, but they still require another technical set of considerations for the new editor. I think the best solution is another help page, e.g. Wikipedia:Citation templates for beginners which can be linked from the existing help page and give new editors that option if they want it.

If there is a more user-friendly way of putting things, e.g. "code", let's examine it. I think the best way is to find a specific point to address, propose a change on the article talk page and discuss it; and take one point at a time. When existing text has gained implicit consensus over a long period of time from users who have participated in it, change is not overnight.

A certain length in the guide cannot be avoided because various basic points have to be explained. The aim is to take the new editor through these points in simple steps.

Ty 11:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ty I see somewhat what you're saying, but I'd like to explain my position further, and I'm changing my own perspective from before, somewhat. You've been using Wikipedia now for several years, right? And you've probably been looking over the article Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for a while now. In your eyes, the article may not look complex since you know how to reference. But nooBs, looking at this article, are most likely intimidated. What's happened, over time, to this article, happens to most Wikipedia articles as you're well aware. As new issues crept up, new material was added, bit by bit, and the article lengthened to include ancillary (in my view) issues such as handling references that aren't online, Even the beginning is problematic in my view: explaining which references are good or suitable seems somewhat off-track, like about the Mt. Everest example; rather, what the reader probably wants to know is: how do I reference? They're probably already on board about which references are good. So a statement like "Any editor can remove unreferenced material" is unnecessary since readers already know that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If the original purpose was to teach nooBs how to reference, in my view, that the extra added material hampered this purpose. The length of the article, itself, deters reading. It makes the subject look complicated. The word code looks intimidating as well as the word template. What I'm proposing is reducing this article to ONLY the really important must-know stuff about referencing. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And, from my experience, the basic template or shell or construct or whatever we must call it, is the MOST useful, BEST, most VERSATILE referencing tool. It can fit every situation (online editing, offline editing). And it's basically SIMPLE to use once a reader gets the hang of it. Here it is, as you know:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

<ref name=yourIDtag>{{cite news | author = | title = | quote = | publisher = '''' | date = | pages = | url = | accessdate = }}</ref>

That's what the article should teach. The basic idea should be: fill in as many of the spaces to the right of the equals as possible. Stick it RIGHT AFTER the line being referenced. That's it. Lesson over. As the article title says, "for beginners". The rest of the article: let's CUT. Cut out discussion of italics, wikilinks, date formats, split-screen editing. Cut out the (site:newsweek.com OR...) stuff. These issues are covered elsewhere. Maybe we should even cut out the "repeated references" stuff too since it adds further complication. It's a technical issue that perhaps we can put in a daughter article. And let's cut the tag which isn't appropriate. And put one of those "This page in a nutshell" thingies on top. That's my suggestion for this page. Let me know what you think. But I think this issue is important, because a critical way in which almost all new volunteer editors fall flat on their faces is their inability to reference; their unreferenced stuff gets deleted, they quit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove Julian Hatton from Abstract art?

Surely you have a good reason?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed a relatively unknown artist - from an article that has a relatively short list of very well known artists. We cannot include every painter in the last 100 years who has made an abstract painting - please realize some perspective, thank you...Modernist (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hatton is established in New York City as a prominent abstract landscape artist. He's achieved critical acclaim for fusing new styles. I don't understand how you can determine he's a "relatively unknown artist" when he's been written up in the NY Times, NY Sun, numerous art magazines, and has an established teaching career. There are references to this effect which you removed. There are other artists in Abstract art and Landscape art who have no references whatsoever. I don't see how you can remove a mention of a well-referenced artist while leaving unreferenced artists in. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved this thread here, I will watch your page for your response. While he is a perfectly fine painter he is a relatively new artist with less than say 50 solo exhibitions and few if any retrospective exhibitions at a major museum as do all of those artists listed. The idiom of abstract landscape was pioneered arguably in the 1950s and 1960s by artists not included on the list. Artists like Jules Olitski, Friedel Dzubas, Brice Marden, and hundreds of others could be included...Modernist (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way I looked over the excellent pictures on your User page. You have excellent taste in art. I didn't know that stuff was in Wikimedia; I may borrow a few of the pictures for my user page. :) Back to Hatton: do the other "100" artists have great reviews and strong references? And I don't see how adding one artist is going to upset the balance here; there's no requirement that if we add one name, that we have to add 99 more.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Brice Marden has great stuff too! I lived in Bronxville years back, where he was born.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnett Newman, Agnes Martin, Donald Judd, Frank Stella, Robert Motherwell, Patrick Heron, Kenneth Noland, Sam Francis, Cy Twombly, Richard Diebenkorn, Helen Frankenthaler, Joan Mitchell are all internationally celebrated, and with due respect to Julian he isn't as well known, everyone cannot be added. Please understand this - I like Julian's work, I've seen his paintings at Elizabeth Harris I think, but we can't include everybody on these survey articles they would be too enormous. You can borrow the paintings on my page - they are some of my favorite paintings in the public domain...Modernist (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has lots of room. The only things limiting article size are whether an article loads quickly; if we "run out of room" we can split off subarticles, or parent & daughter articles. Who are we to decide what goes in and what stays out? Plus, JH has exhibited internationally in France. My interest in the Julian Hatton is building readership. So where can I put wikilinks so that at least some people might read what I wrote? btw I might use one of your paintings for my Philosophy of Spinoza article to jazz it up or else History of citizenship in the United States -- I like my articles being beautiful visually (even though I've been criticized for some of the animations).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There will be other contexts in which to list his paintings. I will keep them in mind in future articles. I encourage you to write some new articles, incorporating high quality imagery, you know Tyrenius and Johnbod and a very few others are some of the best editors in the visual arts project. Without them this project would be a wasteland. I've made a few additions as well as you noted from my user page...Modernist (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool painting

.

Fair enough. I respect that you and others on the arts project have done a super job overall. There are some GREAT LOOKING articles about art on Wikipedia. The landscape art and the abstract art articles LOOK GREAT. I also wrote Maeve Harris a while back -- Maeve's mother in NJ is a nurse who gave me a flu shot, and she mentioned her daughters paintings were on the Trump show, so I did the article in about a half hour. There's a video of Maeve painting using a ROLLER believe it or not; that's my tool (I'm a handyman in real life). If I hatch an article idea relating to art I'll ask your opinion? I don't specialize in one area but dabble everywhere and love the idea of putting great looking stuff in whatever I'm doing. I'm trying to get Tyrenius to work with me on Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners btw. Thanks for responding to my questions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey I put Gauguin into Spinoza, thanks. Spinoza.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done, I added Julian to a couple of lists...Modernist (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Handyman art! There's actually a light switch IN the middle of the painting which turns on the light. It took two weeks to fully dry.

Thanks Modernist. If you happen to know of any good-looking art relating to Handyman or Kitchen cabinet or Allegheny College or Criticism of American foreign policy let me know and I'll put them into these articles which I've written or expanded. I'm trying to make my stuff look better. Btw are you an artist yourself? You have excellent artistic sensibility. I once dripped something that's hanging on my living room wall but I don't think it's properly called "art", rather, "paint recycling". Here it is:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of kitchen cabinets

There are lots of photos of kitchen cabinets around, but unfortunately almost all need to be presumed to be copyrighted -- since after all kitchen cabinets were invented roughly in the 1920's, and pretty much anything created since the 1920's has to be presumed to be copyrighted. Maybe some of us need to 'raid' the local kitchen cabinet stores and take some good photos of overall looks and details.... --macrakis (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've found myself trolling thru Wikimedia looking for pictures, but it's hard to find stuff in there since the categories and descriptors don't work well. Before the 1920s what was there -- cupboards? Are they the ancestor to the kitchen cabinet. I might snap a picture of a Lazy Susan next time I'm in one of those stores.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your paintings

My philosophy of painting is to think for yourself and to see for yourself. It is also my philosophy for looking at other paintings. I'm not a potential subject to be written about on Wikipedia. I'm just an editor. I just thought I'd include that bit of information on me as an artist in case anyone was wondering where the speck of yellow paint in the corner of their computer screen came from. Thank you for saying hello. Bus stop (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's a cool philosophy Bus Stop. Btw that's one of my favorite songs from the 60s = "bus stop". Still, I like looking at real art, but I don't understand it. I'm having trouble figuring out what kind of movement or category Georgina Starr is; I'm proposing a revamp on Starr revamp in case you're interested; is she a modernist? You, User:Modernist, User:Tyrenius and others have done a great job with the Wikipedia stuff on art that I've come across; much better than other sections. Highly professional and intelligent, and of course prettier to look at. I'm wondering about the yellow speck but I don't see one. If you have paintings of stuff on Wikimedia Commons, let me know, and I'll post them in my articles if they're relevant to what I'm writing about. I'm thinking of revamping Handyman -- do you have any stuff related to that, like a picture of a hammer, saw, or some tool? I'll post it in my article and credit you as the artist if you like. I tried painting but it's really more of a dripping (it's on my wall at home) but it's too much like Jackson Pollack I think. But it was fun, and it's prettier to look at than the blank wall, but I bet it nowhere compares to any of your stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim Dine comes to mind concerning hammers, tools, etc. Bus stop (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bus Stop. Jim Dine's work looks interesting; I searched Wikimedia Commons but there's not much stuff there yet, but maybe in future? I write articles on diverse topics and I'm always trying to think of ways to build readership (wikilinks, better pictures, animation if relevant etc). I check "traffic stats" of stuff I've written to see how they're doing. When I first started writing on Wikipedia about a year ago, there were articles I did that I thought were great but later learned few people actually read them, such as my article Karyn Marshall. So, my focus today is either improving heavily-read articles, or starting new ones from scratch and growing readership hopefully. And cool art -- great looking pictures, colors, vibrancy etc -- if added to an article can help help readership. Please let me know if you have any creations relevant to one of my topics that you'd like people to look at, and I'll be glad to put your art in my articles and credit you as the artist and fuss with folks if they try to delete your stuff. My "handyman art" drip painting wasn't serious art, rather, me having to get paint out of cans before recycling, and having an empty wall to cover, and I figured I could copy the Pollock premise and not look too stupid, but I'm not a serious artist, just a handyman.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This, for instance, is interesting. I believe it is by Jim Dine. But I don't know if it would be available for upload to Wiki. Bus stop (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Great picture. My experience with uploading pictures has generally been negative, that is, the only stuff that seems to stick is pictures I took myself. I've had little luck getting others to submit pictures, like if I do an article about some person, trying to contact them by email to submit a picture -- lots of work on my part, little to show for it. If there's stuff on Wikimedia commons, then that's great -- perhaps I'll try searching for "wrench" and see what's there. That's why if I can find Wikipedians willing to submit stuff they've created, then that's great. What kind of art do you paint?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually an abstract painter. In that sense my paintings would be similar to the one created by you. From a formalist perspective "intent" would probably not count for as much as, say, appearance. Therefore your denials that it is art might count for less than its appearance in determining whether or not it is art and determining its quality. We find, at Formalism (art) that, "The context for the work, including the reason for its creation, the historical background, and the life of the artist, is considered to be of secondary importance."

I am assuming that the apparently living vegetable matter to on the right side of your photograph is not a part of the art proper. Similarly for the small light fixture above. You mention the light in your description. Also you mention a light switch. How do you consider the light switch and the light itself to relate to the painted portion? Obviously the painted portion bears more of the hallmarks of traditional painting, albeit twentieth century painting. Or do you consider none of it art, as you have intimated? If not art, then how would you categorize it? Would you refer to it as decor? Indecorously I will duck out of here and let you respond to my plethora of interrogatives. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm flattered somewhat you're paying attention to my "painting" and thinking of it as a real painting. It was a way to make the big white wall less boring. I thought it would be better to look at than the whiteness, and it is. I didn't know about formalism and that it's possible for others to consider it as art even if that wasn't my original intention. I kind of thought of it more as a handyman project, since that's what I am and do (I fix stuff, although my business is somewhat slow these days), and it was partly a means to dispose of unused paint (underneath). And, lacking any artistic talent whatsoever, I thought the only possible style I might copy is the Pollock approach. It was great fun creating it in the driveway by dripping stuff on it; at one point a neighbor scratched it with a rake. It took several weeks to fully dry; the living room smelled like paint for about a month afterwards. The light switch was afterwards, when I had bought a painting-illuminating lamp at Ikea for $20, but the board was so huge (4x8 feet) that the switch to turn on the light would have been behind the board, or else the light cord would have been dangling in front of it; so, I drilled a hole in the painting itself to put the switch in, and attached the lamp to the painting itself. So the cord is hidden, and the switch is accessible. What I've found is that it's prettier to look at (more accurately: less boring) when light shines on it. And I see all kinds of creatures in there at times, such as a shark, a dolphin, a dancing woman. And you're right -- the green thing to the right is a fake plant in my living room that I was too lazy to move out of the way when I shot the picture. It's cool that you're a real abstract artist. If you have a camera and want to take pictures of your stuff to upload to Wikimedia Commons, I'll be glad to include them in my articles if they're relevant to the article in some way, and credit you as the artist. I'm thinking of revamping the article Handyman with more information (and more room for pictures).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also I was just noticing that we have a fairly skimpy article on what seems to me a fairly important idea in second half of the twentieth century art — Combine painting. I just was thinking to bring that to your attention because of its potential relevance to a painting that also contained three dimensional elements. It is actually an interesting idea to have a Jackson Pollack-like painting with a Rauschenberg sensibility to it. Now if we could only find a way to inveigle Andy Warhol's motif into it we might have a genuine art of all time. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be glad to work on Combine painting if perhaps we could combine collaborations? Like, if you could help me work on it by helping me with guidance and such. I don't know much about movements or art, and maybe it's possible to get others like User:Modernist and User:Tyrenius and others to offer suggestions?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Tomwsulcer/my sandbox

Observations as requested. Good number of refs in use. You seem to have missed one of the most authoratitive though.[6] The ref section should not contain quotations from the sources: these all need to be removed. If readers want the original text, they can read the source for themselves. As I've pointed out before, it is absolutely unacceptable to compose an article from strings of long quotes. Sources need to be paraphrased. There is no exception here. She's no more "different" or "unique" than many other contemporary artists. Here is a direct quote you have used:

During last week's opening party, I witnessed one of several colourful statues of semi-clad women pitched from its plinth and smashed to the floor, part of a performance by Georgina Starr.

It is easy to rewrite this, as it is just factual, e.g.:

During a performance at the opening of her show, Starr tipped a statue of a partly clothed woman from its plinth, so that it broke in pieces on the floor.

Then the ref is used to validate that statement. Ty 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanx! --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

wikified and added categories to Julian Hatton so he is listed now in all the listed categories.

Hi! I added reference to Julian Hatton's award at the American Academy of Arts and Letters. Since none of the categories were functional in the article, I wikified them (see edit) and added some other categories. Now Julian Hatton is listed in all the referenced categories. Good luck with your editing. (Salmon1 (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Reply

Hi! I am not an artist. I am an art book editor. Please click on the bottom categories on Julian Hatton's page. You'll find him listed in every category. Wikipedia is a uniquely efficient and informative encyclopedia. It takes time to get on with it but if you keep with it you'll have a growing experience. Every editor is important. This project will never be

"a wasteland." Best. (Salmon1 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Thanks. Yes I checked out the categories. I appreciate it. I agree about Wikipedia being uniquely efficient & informative; I'm learning as I go. But I think there are some problem areas with Wikipedia needing fixing. I think anonymity underlies much of it -- anonymous handles, vandalism, unaccountability. So it's kind of like a ghost world in which nobody knows who they're REALLY dealing with. In my view, the benefits of anonymity are few, but cause more problems than they're worth. But there is a serious pattern of people not wanting to be contributors any more, as well as wiki-warring and WP:Wikilawyering, as well as little substantial benefits for contributors (such as: $ or recognition or even a kind "thank you") that it really has to be done pretty much for altruistic reasons. I love learning new stuff, so I try to work on articles where I know some things, but want to learn more, and it keeps my mind active.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

H1! Wikipedia like any valuable activity in life comes with demands. Anonymity is irrelevant. Anonymous handles, vandalism, unaccountability are not a problem when you learn how to discover them and you’ll find it is easy. If you have enough knowledge to differentiate then you will not get annoyed by demeaning insults. You can stick to the subject at hand. Number one rule in Wikipedia is: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, NPOV!!! It will keep the Wikipedia:Bully away and you can continue to work. I find the biggest problem is WP:Sock puppetry. Read about it. They can be recognized but I cannot do it on my own. If you have established references they will have to leave you alone. I hope you will continue to edit. Wikipedia needs new editors. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for your advice. Sock puppetry, like you said, is a big problem, and the reason that it's a problem is what I'm saying: anonymity. We can't identify who the sock puppets are. What I'm saying is that Wikipedia, in my view, would be a friendlier, more productive place if the contributors were allowed to identify themselves with their real names, maybe even faces too, so we could all see each other, and it would help on many levels, like encouraging civility, kindness, and honesty.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I think that revealing identity is a given for people who are trained, capable, successful and can in fact project that same confidence that is parallel with those qualities. Wikipedia does not have any such requirement. A great number of the contributors are young, enthusiastic college students. You should attend the upcoming [[7]] and see that they have no problem with revealing their name, and their function in Wikipedia. The problem may lie with older professionals who may have missed the boat many years ago. They may believe that Wikipedia is the place where they can make up for it. I don’t have any problem with what ever their conduct is as long as it is not destructive under the cloak of anonymity. I find that there is a false snobbism when professional people reject participation in Wikipedia because their contributions are subject to editing. For me Wikipedia is a place where one can do good anonymously without accolades and applause from our peers. (Salmon1 (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

James M. Bennett article

Just a quick note on this - good start on the article! I cut down on the wiki-linking. Usually you only need to link once unless it's a long article. I also added a note to the talk page on some of the sources. Blogs are rarely considered reliable sources, nor are self-published sources. Neither of those can be used to describe Bennett as nonpartisan - we need something from an outside observer describing Bennett (not the organization) as nonpartisan. For now, leaving the cite needed tag works well enough. I need to check, but I think there's a nice template for linking to bills in Congress - I'll track that down and update. Ravensfire (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Abuse template being discussed for deletion

i dont know if you want to get involved with this but there is a proposal to delete Template:Abuse:

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_15#Template:Abuse

Please comment there if you wish to.--Penbat

(talk) 15:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. I had already twice made the point in the deletion discussion that whether specific entries should be included or not is a perfectly good discussion to be had - but it is more appropriate for the template talk page.

Regarding subdividing and categorizing, i think it is rather like Template:Emotion-footer. There isnt any comprehensive classification (taxonomy) in the academic literature that i am aware of. It may be conventional in Wikipedia to subdivide large templates into small one but each subject has its own specific characteristics. I suggest tat Abuse isnt conducive for doing that. Abuse, by its nature is a very diverse concept, abuse can happen in any context in which human beings interact and any level either individually or a group level. On top of that the subject is multi dimensional as explained in the deletion discussion. --Penbat (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So what if it's multi-dimensional. Everything can be considered as multi-dimensional depending on how you look at it. I suggest whittling down the list if you choose; pick the most relevant ones. You'll figure out some way in the future to put the stretch-abuse-terms (political abuse, e.g.) in a different template. Keeping it expanded, like you have it, invites the abuse of editors who may delete your template.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism

Hi Tomwsulcer : I am sorry for not being able to be more systematic in my contributions. I have only small windows of time to dedicate to this. Apart I am very "burned" of discussing things that for me are evident so perhaps my comments are too harsh with you sometimes. For me terrorism is a terrible thing that has aquired world renown without people really grasping how it works. I know a lot about the subject and I have books from serious people so I wanted the article to be a good techincal guide to it. I would try to colaborate with you with my available time and I reiterate my apoligies both for my lack of rapid answers and for my harshness. --Igor21 (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey no apologies needed. I didn't find your comments harsh. I appreciate your expertise and I realize this subject is difficult too. I am researching it and writing a new terrorism-related article; but this is unpaid volunteer work for all of us, and we can only contribute when we have time and inclination. I wanted to say that I appreciate your past thinking about the definition and if we can incorporate some of that in the current version let me know. What I think is there now is better than before, but not perfect; it's almost like the definition, itself, is some kind of unexploded ammo that we maybe shouldn't touch too much? When I get the article I'm working on (tentative title: terrorism prevention strategies") I was hoping I could get your feedback about it before going online with it, but it's still perhaps a day or so away?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I will give my feedback on your article with pleasure and I will try also to post something in terrorism talk page to improve definition. One of the reasons I do not feel urgent to do the latter, is that PBS has still not said his last word so at any moment he will revert to his old definition. He seems to be not as active as was in the past but I do not think he will give up so easily.--Igor21 (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If PBS wants to make a case about changing the definition back, I'm willing to consider changes, but there have to be solid arguments supporting one version over the other. Right now the current definition is well-referenced. If it gets reverted without solid arguments, I have no problem with reverting the reverting. I think you and I agreed with some things; like I'm not happy where the term "coercion" is positioned in the definition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Currency Conversion and Inflation

Hi - must have missed it on my watchlist all those months ago. Did anything ever come of this? Thanks.  7  02:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your page. I think it's a good idea; I don't know if much came of it. I'm willing to help push it forward.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Looks like you might already have been in touch with Ohconfucius, but s/he was one of the opponents to this idea earlier if I recall correctly. There were some very valid potential problems brought up here. I am not sure why, but there was previously a strange tag in an different post on that page which was causing massive problems in the other sections on the page - including the section linked above. Strange that the problems were bad enough to break the "what links here" functionality so I couldn't even see where we had discussed the FX template before. In any case, if you have time - read through some of the comments and counterarguments there and let me know if you think we can make something work for what you are trying to do with NZD. I should also note that I have definitely not updated the FX rates in a long time, so if NZD looks close to you then it is just by luck.  7  03:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I read over most of the discussion. I think your idea is EXCELLENT. And Ohconfucius's arguments don't resonate with me. I think a dynamic encyclopedia, which can use the best information we've got, to deliver the best information to readers, is what we should aim for. And your currency converter template is a way to provide dynamic information -- up-to-date information. I'll check with Gadfium; I think the problem was this: that the converter pulled information from a "user page" which could change; Gadfium didn't like that; but maybe if we can put your template on a Wikipedia page? And whatever you think about the updating sounds good -- but if its a lot of work to do it weekly, then it doesn't make sense. Even if it was updated every four or six months that would be better than what we have now. I like your idea about "today". And my sense is it will probably be easier to launch this thing if we keep it simple (and avoid tough issues like inflation). And, if we can get your template on a Wikipedia page and somehow make it official, then let's just USE it everywhere we can, and people will catch on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well - I've updated the FX rates in any case. The argument about where the data is located is not valid. Granted, once a template becomes common place it should be moved into the template space, but there is no additional ownership or auditing or tracking or permissions which can be applied in the template space that can't be applied in my test sandbox, and as you said - where it's located is not a reason to avoid using it - but rather a reason to finish it and improve it and move it to a better location simply so people don't have to type in so much when they want to use it.  7  05:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you put the template into Wikipedia space?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Images

If you look at the article, I made a suggestion, though feel free to revert as I only glanced it at very briefly. But it may give you an idea. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You're brilliant! Thank you! I didn't know galleries could go in articles too. Thank you! I fussed with it for what seemed like an hour and couldn't figure it out. Mucho appreciato. And the TOC choice -- excellente. Thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and many thanks for the barnstar. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just another point: I reverted to the previous version of the Terrorism lead, mainly because of all the ref tags. [8] That's taking WP:V a little too far. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 05:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome for the Barnstar. The terrorism definition will always be subject to battling, and while I agree the previous version "reads better", it really misses many key points; so references are needed, while at the same time emphasizing how contentious there is, with considerable disagreement. :) .--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your substantial overhaul of Chegg, and transforming what was little more than a puff-piece into a decent, well-sourced encyclopedic article, I award you the Article Rescue Barnstar! Keep up the good work. –xenotalk 16:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Operation Banner

You might find this link interesting: AC 71842 Operation BANNER. -- PBS (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism prevention strategies

I posted the following to Talk:Terrorism prevention strategies but I think it is better placed on your talk page as it is not really about the specific development of that article:

I am not biting a new editor, nor am I being uncivil. From your suggestion below "Another possibility ..." I think you now understand what I was saying. This was a very large piece to write and I have not edited the article, personally before I wrote a piece like this I would have posted a message to counter-terrorism and discussed my ideas for an article such as this before I wrote it. But this is history and we go from where we are. All I have done is make two suggestions on how you can improve this article. The first is to consider putting in an overview and splitting this article up (see Wikipedia:Summary style) and secondly to phrase the article so that it has a neutral point of view. Both of these are not issues of content but issues of style dictated by Wikipedia policies and unless the policies are changed non-negotiable. I am not going to actively edit this page, all I am doing is explaining how you can edit this article to make it compliant with Wikipedia policies. If you work out how to do these things your understanding of how to write good articles on Wikipedia will improve. See Wikipedia:Article development and Wikipedia:Good articles -- PBS (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

--PBS (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Terrorism prevention strategies#Requested move -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Reform page

Please don't insert your response before another's in the same thread. I had already replied.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. We had an edit conflict. And I was responding to Mattisse's point, not yours. By the way, good article about Attachment Theory. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. Thanks. There's no end of psych articles that need attention if you were ever at a loose end! Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

History of citizenship in the United States

Hi Tomwsulcer. I just read the article History of citizenship in the United States and honestly I most say that I found it both biased, un-encyclopedic and not adequately referenced. I'm posting this on your talk page since you are the major contributor. Can we please discuss improvements of this article on its talk page? P. S. Burton (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. Nothing's perfect, and I respect how all of us, working together, can improve the encyclopedia. I don't know everything. I tried to do the best with this subject that I could. The gist of the subject is this: US citizenship used to mean (circa 1640s) participation in local government; today citizenship is essentially a legal relationship (ie "a right to have rights") with much more focus on the economic aspect -- that is, US citizenship is a right to participate in a vibrant economy. Essentially, it shifted from a political to an economic orientation. How did this happen? And the idea was to show the history of this changing relationship -- what factors caused the shift, and there are a slew of them (in the article). There are some writers who think citizenship is important and in trouble (Ginsberg, Wolf) while others who think it doesn't matter (Kaplan) since if we have $$ then political participation isn't important; I tried to include both viewpoints. And there are some who feel the breakdown of neighborliness (a factor in citizenship) is a problem (Bowling Alone) etc while others feel it doesn't matter if we can get great television (Bill Cosby show, eg), entertainment, etc. Things change over time, and a variety of factors are at work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The source material is derived from a variety of places including high school civics books, political philosophers (Tocqueville), contemporary thinkers such as Friedman, newspaper articles (NY Times etc). It has perhaps 60 references? (I'm going from memory here) but there could always be more. I read widely, but have been reading widely over decades, and wrote much of this article from memory; please forgive me here but I didn't know ten years back that I'd be doing this, and would need to cite every source; so I went back and found many of the sources but not all. The problem is that there's so much clutter on the Web, it's hard to sift through it using keywords. This article took me a few days to write it but I worked quickly. And my sense this is what history civics teachers would say yes, this is basically how citizenship changed, although some might dicker with some of the factors, or possibly have some others that I didn't come across, but should have included (I don't know everything).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But generally I don't think this article is that outlandish or biased, but boring (which is why I try to include pictures whenever I can) and does a fairly good job of explaining the shift. Some heavy duty academics like Jurgen Habermas in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere offer a tough sociological look at the changing processes which is much more sophisticated and powerful, but it's difficult slogging through his book (I recommend it, but it's tough going!) if you're interested in this subject. My sense is this article is not that interesting to most readers, since ultimately citizenship is not that important to most people today, since people are focused on jobs, careers, making $, success, entertainment etc. What's interesting in Wikipedia? Penis and vagina and Michael Jackson and surprisingly Pear for some reason (? why pear?). That's where the readers are. And one of my biases is trying to write stuff that people actually read and stuff about citizenship isn't one of these topics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So it will be hard to get me worked up about this topic in the future. My interest in Wikipedia is waning; I work hard with little psychic reward here; I spent two to three days of my life writing this article about citizenship, and nobody praised it, few read it; I think you're the only person who had a good look at it, and you haven't said one kind word about my effort, but rather accused me of biased, being "un-encyclopedic" which I see as code for "I don't like this", and "lacking references" even though this article has more references than almost all articles on Wikipedia. So please understand that I'm tiring of participating on Wikipedia, that I find little community support and much criticism and blame and finger-wagging, and the people that seem to prevail here and become administrators are grumpy types with axes to grind, and little patience, and little respect for the fact that much of our hard work is unpaid volunteer work which is anonymous. I have a hearty yearning to abandon Wikipedia to the grumpy finger waggers, and leave you all so you can wag your fingers at each other. Please understand that if I decide to abandon Wikipedia that I made a good WP:FAITH effort to participate here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey cheer up Tom! there is no them, there is only us. You don't really get rewarded, even for FACs or TFAs - apart from friendly reviewers who appreciate your work and say nice things. It's just nice to know you've left behind you some more accurate, well-sourced information that somebody, somewhere will benefit from. Bother the finger waggers. It takes a while to get the hang of the wikipedia style. One way of doing this is to watch some GA and FA reviews. I did wonder if the popularity of Pear was due to the mis-spelling of Pair though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Kitchen Cabinet article

Hi, and thanks for the kind remarks on my userpage regarding edits to the Kitchen Cabinet article.

I just wanted to comment on your remark to the effect that the article should not be a guide for buying kitchen cabinets.

It's been my feeling that objective information is hard to come by but can be extremely helpful to navigate the confusing situation confronting consumers. Why wouldn't a consumer faced with a major expense of remodeling a kitchen benefit from objective non-commercial information available in Wikipedia? I was amazed when I was personally faced with the decision to find how incredibly difficult it was to figure out some of the basics. The consumer is faced with salespeople who are not particularly knowledgeable and (more to the point) are incentivized by the terms of their employment to indeed misinform the buyer!!!

There are so many examples. Basically, a salesperson will seek to get a buyer to make a purchase decision based on superficial cabinet qualities while guiding him towards higher-profit choices. Note that higher profit can be achieved by using inferior manufacturing techniques that are not immediately obvious to a non-expert.

The question of particle board, of course, is one of the most difficult-to-explain issues. While particle board is indeed cheaper than solid wood or plywood, it is not necessarily less suitable for a given consumer. The issue of the quality of a particular particle board formulation and of the way in which particle board is used, however, are of paramount importance.

This brings me to the subject of Ikea. I certainly have absolutely no vested interest in praising Ikea. The problem is the appearance of a vested interest because I believe that Ikea offers unique value and is alone in its marketplace segment. I.e., for the Wikipedia article there seems to be a problem specifically referencing Ikea because it is one particular purveyor of cabinetry and therefore any reference smacks of perversion of the neutrality that users expect from Wikipedia. Ikea was indeed mentioned in previous versions of the Kitchen Cabinet article. But well-intentioned editors have deleted that reference and I don't see it in the current version of the article.

The issue of Ikea is important because of the unique quality and price combination of its kitchen cabinet offerings. All Ikea cabinetry is of the "ready-to-assemble" variety. I.e., it comes flat-packed and the buyer needs to assemble the cabinet carcases. Whereas "ready-to-assemble" cabinetry has a lower-quality reputation, in reality Ikea has identified ready-to-assemble as a major cost-saving innovation that enables Ikea to offer superior ready-to-assemble cabinetry at a dramatically lower price.

I'm not saying that Ikea cabinetry would be my first choice. No, my first choice would be hardwood (maple or cherry) frameless cabinets, with plywood carcasses. But the cost of such cabinets is pretty high. If one then opts to save money by insisting on hardwood, one is left with mass-produced framed ("traditional") cabinetry available at, e.g., Home Depot or other mass-market retailers. The problem is that these cabinets provide (as stated in the current article) limited access to, especially, base cabinet interiors which are increasingly populated by drawers and pull-out drawers, not shelves. Therefore, one is dissuaded from the mass-market framed choice.

So many buyers, in any case, are attracted to the surface finishes and the less-expensive cost of particle-board frameless cabinets. The problem is obtaining quality cabinets of this type.

Ikea, quite simply, by offering (what I believe to be) a higher-quality particle-board product in a ready-to-assemble format combined with surface finishes that include real wood veneers has altered the cost-benefit analysis of the cabinetry market.

My understanding is that a kitchen for which typical frameless, lower-quality particle-board cabinets sold by other retailers for about $8000 can be had from Ikea for about $4000, and still obtain a significantly higher quality cabinet. By this I mean that Ikea shelves, despite being made of particle board, simply do not sag. This is not the case for other manufacturers. In addition, since Ikea sells components any broken parts may be replaceable in the future. The same cannot be said for the "fly-by-night" retailers who seek to obtain the consumer's signature on the contract followed up later by buyer's remorse.

Unfortunately, the article simply does not seem to have the ability to provide objective information enabling consumers attempting to research the facts to discover what I infer to be the advantages of Ikea's particular ready-to-assemble cabinets.

I do not own any Ikea cabinets myself nor does anyone else I know. What I have written is a result of long exploration since 2005 of the cabinet market following being thrust into this market as a result of a grease fire in my own kitchen. There is an Ikea about half-an-hour away from my home and I've frequented the place for other purchases.

Jabeles (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest read the first paragraph of my user page. I'm really turned off by Wikipedia at this point. I've been manhandled by abusive administrator types and am looking for other stuff to do, but am just winding down here at Wikipedia, contributing minimally. About this subject: I agree with you about Ikea -- why not post comments about their cabinetry on the Ikea page, but make sure it's well-referenced? And please strive for neutrality and fairness. But posting any company name such as Ikea in an article such as Kitchen cabinet is against the rules such as WP:SPAM -- it doesn't matter whether we stand to benefit or lose from the act of mentioning the name -- but Ikea would benefit -- and that's unfair for its competitors. If you stick Ikea's name in there, then ALL its competitors will want their names in there too, and whoosh --> what you have is one big advertisement. Please learn to be thankful for all those articles on Wikipedia which don't have advertising -- isn't Wikipedia much more enjoyable as a result? And to achieve an ad-free encyclopedia, we should be strict about keeping the WP:SPAM out; I hope you'll learn to agree that it's best in the long run.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bye!

Understand how you feel. May see you back one day. All the best.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Bye! P. S. Burton (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism prevention strategies moved to user space

Tom I appreciate you put a lot of work into "Terrorism prevention strategies", but I do not think it is yet up to article standard (it is basically a very very very large stub) so I have moved it to User:Tomwsulcer/Terrorism prevention strategies so if you decide to rejoin the project, the text will still exist and can be worked on further before it is placed into article space.

As you mentioned the article to User:Igor21 I will point him/him in this direction, so that (s)he can take it on if (s)he wants to. -- PBS (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Criticism of American foreign policy

I have nominated Criticism of American foreign policy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of American foreign policy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pcap ping 15:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of History of U.S. exporting democracy militarily

I have nominated History of U.S. exporting democracy militarily, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of U.S. exporting democracy militarily. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area Last: 11/15/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010

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

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

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha!

Welcome back! - Rothorpe (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! Wikipedia needs you!-(Salmon1 (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC))