Jump to content

User talk:Tomwsulcer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheVerge0000 (talk | contribs) at 14:38, 4 October 2014 (→Removal of unconfirmed relationship status of Sophie Hunter: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussion tracking

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

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

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

(Thanks to Alan Liefting)‎

Archives

Talkback

Hello, Tomwsulcer. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Margarete_Rabe.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

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

NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22

Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park
You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)

Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn! Saturday September 7

Brookln Public Library
 Please join Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013!
Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of—
photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks.
--EdwardsBot (talk)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6

Queens Library
 Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013!
Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach
for borough articles on the history and the communities.
Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~

Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon

Jefferson Market Public Library
 Please join Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014,
an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!

There are also regional events that day in Brooklyn, Westchester County, and the Hudson Valley.
--Pharos (talk)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:

I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

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

Boraie

Can I draw you attention to this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boraie Development?

Generally not a good idea to canvass regarding article disputes. Generally, as in all things Wikipedia, your best bet is to follow Wikipedia's excellent rules: you know, reliable sources, reference, NPOV, etc etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Data

Thank you for your direction on this page. it was very helpful. I have found a third party source for the information. I tried to mention this in my revision summary, but it did not appear. My apologies. Stuartzs (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Geology Hall, with your help, photographs, and hard work, was promoted to FA status yesterday evening, 13 April 2014.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job getting Geology Hall to FA! Thanks for saying thanks for my (minimal) contribution. Wikipedia is lucky to have excellent contributors such as yourself who know how to do FA articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday PAC

Thanks for your help. I'm sure journalists and others will start editing the page on their own soon enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Boyko (talk • contribs) 23:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I've found is that following Wikipedia's rules works best all around, that is, the article will be more effective, believable, powerful, with excellent sourcing, impartiality, trust me on this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James T. Butts, Jr

I would like to a add a more complete biography but it keeps getting removed. How can I accomplish this? There are also some inflammatory portions from sources considered non-reputable locally that I would like to remove or challenge in some way. Any help would be appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MorningsideCitizen (talk • contribs) 17:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, please learn to sign your posts with two dashes and four tildes like this --~~~~. Second, Wikipedia has a learning curve; it takes time to learn it; are you willing to invest the time? If so, please read this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. The overarching idea is that individual contributors such as yourself or myself are not paramount, but rather the community's rules govern--rules made by many contributors over time--and respecting these rules means that we can cooperate to write a truly excellent, useful, informative, and powerful encyclopedia. My sense, based on your past removal of referenced content at the article James T. Butts, Jr. is that you have an agenda of furthering this politician's career, and this is fine, provided that you first learn to follow Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sticking it out with me! I hope you never felt like we were in an argument per se, but rather two editors coming from different positions that are trying to sort it out. It's useful to get a few editors involved to get a broad range of perspectives, especially editors that are veterans on BLP pages.
You probably saw my COI disclosure, but I wanted to clarify. I usually represent a lot of corporate marketing departments to help them obtain GA-ranked company pages (the other participants in the BLPN page all know this, but I thought you may not). I'm actually one of our most prolific contributors of highly ranked content about organizations and most of that work was sponsored by the subject of the article themselves. So even if someone merely inquires about my services, as is the case here, I disclose a COI and leave final content decisions up to disinterested editors. This is intended to avoid the appearance of covertly manipulating articles for PR purposes.
Just wanted to explain why I have not made edits and have instead sought consensus and used Request Edit. If you have any questions, let me know! CorporateM (Talk) 23:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. Yes I think overall the result is much better, it is good to hash out these issues, so we all can get on the same page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yuppers. I appreciate your civility, assumption of good faith and focus on the content. I never know jumping into these types of situations what to expect and it does seem like local politics in that specific city are especially heated (maybe they always are, I have no interest in politics). Regarding the Request Edit you may fulfill it if you are comfortable doing so by copy/pasting the draft into article-space, or if not, it would be useful if you voted or commented on whether you support the proposed draft as other editors may be waiting for any objections. Thanks again! CorporateM (Talk) 23:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I know you worked hard on your draft, but many others have been working hard on this article too. My personal sense is your draft is too positive, omits important information such as the CACJ vs Butts court case. Further, swapping in your draft will start the battling all over again. Trust me -- there are many divergent views on this subject, and I do not think you have achieved any kind of consensus. Rather, the Drmies version, in my view, is the best, is least likely to reignite the battling.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI ...

The Civility Barnstar
For posting and responding in an unfailingly civil and reasoned tone, despite our disagreements on the rugby issue. Ravenswing 20:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I am far from perfect, I get cranky at times, but I try to be nicer; and it is time, sharp contributors such as yourself who make cogent arguments, and the many folks here smarter and more knowledgeable and politer than me who keep me trying to improve. I appreciate your gesture.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Factlet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • , Accessed June 10, 2014, "..Paulie, who had a 34-3 amateur record ... because of the Ayala name (Mike Ayala is still a junior featherweight contender..."</ref> He is notable for being the [[World

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • , Accessed June 10, 2014, "..Paulie, who had a 34-3 amateur record, ... because of the Ayala name (Mike Ayala is still a junior featherweight contender, and Sammy Ayala was a ranking junior

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 2014, "...settles in Athens to look for his estranged son and winds up happily in bed with Strella (Mina Orfanou, ..."</ref><ref> Prothema magazine, [http://www.protothema.gr/life-style/Gossip/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best seller

"Author of a NY Times bestseller => notable."

Of possible interest ResultSource and NY_Times_Bestseller_list#Criticisms. -- GreenC 02:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, and I agree nothing is perfect, and while book sales are subject to manipulation, overall, a book making the NY Times bestseller list, for whatever reason, indicates (to me) notability (and there were other reasons too for notability in that specific instance, while of course there were problems with the article.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sharon Gamson Danks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princeton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:

11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library.

We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

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

Thanks for your hard work!

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For your outstanding work sourcing out and revamping Israela Margalit at AfD. Nice work! Carrite (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this an oak leaf cluster on that last barnstar, I don't often take time from trying to close AfDs to actually voice my own opinion, but your work at Thumb Tribe was appreciated and very possibly made the difference between a solid article and a deleted one. Well done. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, which I'm writing using my four non-thumb digits.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Motion capture acting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Hobbit (film)
Tatyana Kozhevnikova (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Weightlifting

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two different Paulie Ayalas

I should have caught this but I didn't. After I sent Paulie Ayala (featherweight boxer) to AfD debate you added more information and references. Normally that would be a great thing but in this instance it was from a different Paulie Ayala who confusingly also is a boxer. I don't know why I left it at that point because I did know about it - just did not remember. I think what I should do is revert Paulie Ayala (featherweight boxer) to my June 8th version and resubmit to AfD debate. I am pretty sure the revert is a must (but my paranoia suggests that the wrong one could be changed) but what is your opinion on the AfD submission?Peter Rehse (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think you're right. There is a definite discrepancy; two fighters, same name, one born 1962, another born either 1970 or 1971; the latter one is notable; the first one is probably not. I came across the 1962-Ayala article, saw it up for deletion, added references pointing to the 1970-Ayala, and thought that was that. What I bet is happening is that these fighters or promoters sometimes fudged their ages, possibly to help them qualify for a match, who knows. Look at this reference in the NY Times: talks about a Paulie Ayala, about a 17-year old fighting in 1984, that makes the birth year around 1967, right, in this reference. What a mess. My sense is to move the references from the 1962 Ayala (which belong to the 1970 Ayala), to the pre-existing Paulie Ayala article, then delete all the rest of it. Let me know what I can do to help.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factlet

Hello, Tomwsulcer. Thank you for your edits to Factoid. It looks as though the relevant content from User:Cnilep/Factlet is now in Factoid, is that right? If there is no further need for the user page it can be deleted, but there might more to merge. Cnilep (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think that is right. I agree with you that the whole factoid-factlet subject is encyclopedic and notable, and I hope that the redirect page (Factlet => Factoid vs factlet) remains since I think it will be helpful for people. Sometimes, I keep my sandbox pages since I can use them again for other stuff, so I don't know what you wish to do with your User:Cnilep/Factlet page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

1pm–8pm at southwest section of the Great Lawn, north of the Delacorte Theater.

Also, before the picnic, you can join in the Wikimedia NYC chapter's annual meeting.

11:30am-12:30pm at Yeoryia Studios, 2067 Broadway.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Tomwsulcer. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we'll take the discussion there.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding movie/TV credits

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and trying to update a page that's in jeopardy of being deleted. Can you tell me what sort of references are considered acceptable to prove an actor appeared on a show or movie? It appears that IMDB isn't considered reliable so does a news story work?

Thanks for your time, Mel7190 (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Mel[reply]

Check out WP:RS. Basic underlying idea is to find sources which are themselves reviewed by others who (hopefully) know about the subject. This is why news organizations, in which reporters have their facts checked, in which editors review the stories, are generally seen as reliable. The IMDb doesn't have this (as far as I'm aware).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lynds

Hi Tomwsulcer. I came across some comments by you regarding some pages that were up for deletion and thought you were very reasonable and fair. If you have the time and interest, I would suggest the deletion discussion of Peter Lynds' page as being in need of some fairness. SamW2 (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially you are asking me to step into an edit war? There are rules against canvassing to try to win adherents in a deletion battle, and by writing on my talk page, you are essentially doing this. I am not qualified to participate in discussions about high-level physics ideas or people, although I spent years trying to work through ideas about philosophy, the cosmos, fate, trying to come to grips with what life is all about, and at this point in my life, I have guesses, but guesses only, and continue to learn, but overall my answer is I don't know. But getting back to Lynds and his ideas: generally Wikipedia is not the place for new ground-breaking ideas (if that is what Lynds' ideas are), that is, let the academic community, physics journals, and such sort out the thinking -- it has gotten some attention apparently by academics -- and when the dust settles, and there are good sources, then maybe Lynds or his ideas can be in Wikipedia, or not, depending on what is determined. Right now, if asked to participate in the deletion discussion, I would probably choose delete based on the history of edit-warring, lack of sources, etc etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tomwsulcer. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Mersini-Houghton.
Message added 08:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Micah Garen
added a link pointing to Vanity Fair
Revenge porn
added a link pointing to Britain

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [http://logger.believermag.com/post/90555791984/what-would-twitter-do WHAT WOULD TWITTER DO? (interview with Mira Gonzalez], Accessed July 15, 2014</ref> A review in ''Rumpus magazine''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind...

Hello. Would you mind reviewing what I've done so far with the User:Corkythehornetfan/Jory Collins article? I've taken your suggestions, and I've also added more info. It's a working progress... and just an FYI, I'm not that good of a writer, which you'll probably be able to tell. Thanks, CorkythehornetfanTalk 04:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking for my view, and I will try to help, although I continue to learn as I go, and I will try to share things I've learned from other Wikipedians. Generally I think you are a competent writer and you have done an excellent job with the infoboxes, coach boxes, references. My sense is, if you float this article in its present state, it will (probably) not get deleted or challenged. If there are any areas of improvement, it might be that you, as a writer, are a bit too close to the subject, almost like a marketing person, assuming Jory Collins is hero-like in terms of college basketball. It might be hard for you to see this, but most people, reading this article, will (probably) not be that enamoured of women's college basketball, Emporia State, coaching, and if they read this article, they may tend to see you as a PR person being the flag-waver for Jory Collins, his press agent, etc, whether you are or are not. Such readers may discredit the article by thinking that you are not impartial (whether you are or you are not impartial). I do not know where Emporia State college is. I don't know what league they play in or how substantial the basketball is (I am clueless about many things unfortunately unless I read up on them.) My hunch is that having a more detached perspective, being aloof from the subject, distancing yourself, trying to see it as a neutral unattached observer, will help you write it better, to be more believable. Like, less is more -- a shorter, more honed article will probably have more oomph. Let the facts of Collins excellent record speak for themselves. Last, I take it as a cue to trust reporters and other secondary sources to cue us in to what is important, interesting. If a reporter doesn't write it, and a Wikipedian does, chances are it is uninteresting to readers of Wikipedia. Like, for example, "Casey is a high school teacher" -- does anybody care about this? Also, using first names in Wikipedia is generally not a good idea unless they're Madonna. Overall, excellent effort, good luck with it, and remember that anything floated in Wikipedia can get edited, chopped up, even deleted, remember it's all part of the process.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response! I am not close to him, I haven't even met the guy. I only know him because he is the coach of where I attend college. I know how the seasons go, but other than that, everything I've written I have found somewhere on the Internet. The seasons (2010-2013) that I put in, I based off of what was on the Bill Self (Kansas Jayhawks) article. More info on Emporia State University is that it is located in Emporia, Kansas, it is a member of the NCAA Division II, and participates in the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association. I plan to work on it a little more this week, and then I'll move it to an article space. Thanks again for your response. CorkythehornetfanTalk 20:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, good luck!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Multiverse

Greetings Tomwsulcer

What do you base that Miss Multiverse is less notable than the numerous pageants listed in Wikipedia? Is there a page or group where people who have experience with pageant within wikipedia? i think people that fallow pageants should look in to this, i meen no offense with this but as i see your profile you have no experience at all with regards to pageants, i would like it if someone with notable experience looks in to this. Jose Cuello (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your frustration. You feel Miss Multiverse as a subject is notable, and you feel that clueless persons, who do not know about beauty pageants, who in your view are ill-equipped to render a capable judgment about whether the article should stay in Wikipedia or be deleted -- persons such as myself -- are making judgments with which you disagree. I have been contributing to Wikipedia for several years now, and it takes time to become familiar with its rules and procedures. There have been occasions in the past where subjects I've written about, which I wanted to stay in Wikipedia, were deleted. What I am saying is that it takes time to become familiar with Wikipedia's rules. About this particular subject, I spent considerable time trying to find good sources for the Miss Multiverse pageant, but couldn't find any; if I had found them, I would have voted for keep and tried to improve the article. Consider the Miss America beauty pageant. Here is a source here which could be used to establish notability; can we find sources like these for the Miss Multiverse pageant? If you can point me to them, and if there are sufficient in-depth multiple independent reliable sources, I'll switch to keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor).

Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided).

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for being able to relate with me regarding the afd. I appreciate hearing that you've experienced similar things, and I sympathize with you. This is exactly why I am lessening my involvement here. The afds have actually done me a favor, and helped me realize that there are other things outside of Wikipedia for which I am more appreciated, less hurt, and not as stressed. Thanks again! Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks, perhaps I'll drink it tomorrow morning, nuke it to warm it up, add some coffee creamer, maybe some mustard to give it some zing. If it is any consolation, years back I wrote a long article entitled History of citizenship in the United States. I must have spent several days putting it together. It was a mishmash of cited sources and some original thinking, my baby as it were, and my article lasted in Wikipedia perhaps a year, maybe longer, until it was nominated for deletion. During the time when it was still around, I kept contributing to Wikipedia, getting into edit battles, learning from other Wikipedians (there are many smart folks here to learn from.) So, I was able to look at the History... article with fresh eyes and see what other contributors were saying. I had become somewhat more detached, objective, impartial. You may find that happening to you if you stay here long enough, like it is kind of a training ground for thinking, helps you develop your rational-critical mind, sharpens your intellect. Long story short: the article came up for the axe, and others persuaded me that yes, I should go about deleting my baby. So I voted delete during the deletion discussion to axe my own article even though I thought my article was right, good, but still, I had to admit, yes, there was some original research in parts, enough so to warrant deletion. It was bittersweet. But, over time, it was not all bad. I learned more, kept open-minded, developed my research skill, and not so long ago I wrote History of citizenship which was not original research, which worked from reliable sources to content (as opposed to the other way around -- that is, coming up with ideas, and then trying to find the sources to prove those ideas are correct). So History of citizenship remains even now, read by sometimes hundreds of people each day, and it is a solid article. What I am saying is if you stay here long enough, you'll grow as a thinker, but whatever you decide, I wish you the best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, You provided the relational aspect of this, and it is what I needed. I really appreciate that you are able to understand what it feels like to invest many, many hours into one's work and contributions here, only to repeatedly have them torn down. I did not come from a professional environment like that. In my arena, writers were all supportive of each other, learned from each other in a positive way. If someone was going to be critical about something, it was done professionally, not as if it was an attack. Then, no one felt hurt, insulted, offended, or threatened. Here, there is the online component, which makes it easier for people to be ugly with each other. The personal aspect of it all is gone. What should be focused on, in my opinion, is what is right with the article. And, if there are things that are not "right" with it, then those things can be worked on and improved. Here, if something isn't "right" in the opinion of most editors (meaning an article), it is put up for deletion. Most times, there is no attempt at improving it. I think it takes a rare, concerned, and caring person who understands the value of others and their contributions to be supportive in trying to work to make an article better, rather than axing it. In regard to your beautiful article on the history of citizenship, I'm sure it could have been edited for improvements or redirected to another article rather than deleted. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if all of the articles that I created come up for deletion. It is just too easy for anyone to do that. I would never do that because I am a person who believes that improvements and further effort should be invested before removing something (unless it is just completely socially unacceptable, profane, etc.). So, thank you, again, for reaching out and sharing with me some things about your experiences. Maybe some folks can cope better with the repeated negativity and harshness, but to me, at this point, and having sacrificed so much from my family, myself, and other obligations, it actually feels like a relief to have given myself freedom from feeling obligated to contribute here. I have worked through and diminished my feeling of absolute commitment here, and am much more detached, however, the repeated and unnecessarily critical experiences caused that. In order for Wikipedia to improve, as I have continued to promote, there needs to be more sensitivity and professionalism here. Best, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You still sound hurt, bitter, resentful, and again I know how you feel, and again let me say, that many of us who have been around here can sympathize. That was how I felt when after that and some other of my articles got nixed a while back and when I quit for perhaps six to nine months. Wikipedia can be a battleground, insensitive, and sometimes bad decisions get made, but overall, and maybe you'll come to feel this way in time, it works for the best in that the process -- which is unfair to some, contentious at times, cold as a law court, with unfeeling facts hurled with sometimes a nasty spin -- the process improves the encyclopedia. It works. It is why Wikipedia is a powerful web source. I contributed to Wikipedia's "competitor", Citizendium, only to run into much worse problems, and it made me appreciate Wikipedia for its tremendous readership. Nobody reads Citizendium; everybody reads Wikipedia. So I came back. It is the motherlode of eyeballs, with spot-on information, not always well-written, but superior (in my view) to Brittanica or any other encyclopedia. During my absence, few cared. When I came back, still nobody cared. It is how it is. If you decide to stick around, there are tips I can offer you about how to contribute so that your contributions stick around; in the meantime, I have to rebuild a porch, tile a bathroom, work on draft #4 of my novel, and othersomesuchstuff -- a new word I thought I'd coin.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tom. I have rationalized my decision based on that no one will likely miss me or care, that Wikipedia will continue without me, and that there will always be someone else who will likely make contributions/creations that I would. Somehow, I thought that I mattered. In my own mind, it made me feel good to create and contribute - that's what I've gotten out of it. But, it's okay that I don't contribute, too. It's not that critical. Certainly, I am saddened, hurt, and disappointed as it is not all that I thought it would be (or could be). I came from a very positive and supportive environment, but I do see an unfairness and an application of policies that are not consistent and that are often based on people's personal subjective views rather than on a definitive understanding. This, therefore, obviously does make Wikipedia political, and is unnecessary, however I also recognize that it is no different than most other places. I was holding it to a standard of idealism that it is unable to attain. I do have more ideas and other things that I would like to create, but it's not the end of the world if I don't. Life will go on. Right now, I am breathing a sigh of relief at the prospect of not having to deal with so much incredible contention, as that is definitely not what I expected here, nor is it what I signed up for. Now I know better what to expect should I have a future change of heart. I don't want to come here being required to suit up in armor. I want to be the real person whom I am - sensitive, caring, openminded, creative, intelligent, positive, and cooperative. I came here with an overall different set of views for harmony among editors that is not supported to my satisfaction. I can look back on it and realize that I made some contributions, and be accepting and happy with those. Right now, I will leave it at that. There are many other people and activities that deserve my quality time, efforts, and attention as well. If you don't mind, I'm also going to copy our discussion to my talk page so that I remember it for the future. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 19:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide in a while to come back to Wikipedia, and want to learn the ins and outs, write on my talk page. There is a learning curve. Best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism in Nepal

You entered an RFC asking whether History of the Jews in Nepal should be renamed to Judaism in Nepal. I closed the RFC, finding that the consensus supports the rename. I have not renamed the article because, with the rename (move), the lede should be rewritten. I am asking that either you or User:Nyttend rewrite the lede and move the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the lede. Please review it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Aug. 15, 2014, "...Best friends: The cheetahs appear comfortable around young Malan and Kayla (FIONA AYERST / AFRICA MEDIA / ..."</ref><ref> Institute for Ocean Conservation Science, March 14,
  • during a tuna fishing trip off Cape Town, South Africa. Photo: Fiona Ayerst/Marine Photobank], Retrieved Aug. 15, 2014, "......"</ref><ref> 11 Alive (TV News), [http://archive.11alive.com/news/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • denotes passionate interest in film.<ref name=twsGrantTimes> Catherine Grant (book reviewer), (review of: Patricia MacCormack's Cinesexuality (published 23 July 2008), 18 DECEMBER 2008, Times

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renée Gunter

Nice work improving this article! I have tweaked it a little, and I find I have just one quibble with you: about her age. She was 40 in February 1993 so you estimated her birthdate as 1953. I estimated it as c. 1952, figuring that in February she probably hadn't had her birthday yet - and that she would turn 41 later in the year when her birthday came around. What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks. I work fast and didn't do much thinking about birthday and age, so let's go with your intuition here. Kudos to you for pointing out the landscaping sources, wonder if the article will stick around.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your improvements. My experience (after many years) is when an article is on the block, to keep it short and sweet, nothing extraneous, just the meat, with plenty of references, so that is why I kept out the Organics stuff, but if you want that stuff back in, let's see if the article sticks around. What I found when working on it is that she has done many things (modeling, clothing, landscaping, community block parties etc), and focusing on the landscape stuff helps hone the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the organics stuff was separately sourced I thought I would throw it in. But the main thing is the landscaping which you demonstrated beautifully. Looks like a real article now. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful. Lines like Her landscaping business is called Urbanscapes for Sustainable Living and she also launched a mobile organic produce service called "DO! Daily Organics", delivering local, seasonal fruits and vegetables to residents of South Los Angeles look like WP:SPAM regardless of your intentions and it is the kind of addition that can push reviewers to vote for delete. My advice is to remove those lines until after the deletion review, and if the article stays, to put them back in afterwards, but I'll leave it up to you, and if the article gets deleted, consider it as a lesson for yourself in the future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "local, seasonal". And I dropped "for Sustainable Living" because although that is part of the name, the most Reliable Source does not include it. With those adjustments, I believe it should pass muster. Let's let it be a test of our relative spam-radar (or our anticipation of other people's spam-radar)! 0;-D (Oh, and BTW I removed "community leader" from the lead sentence - that kind of job title reads as spam or puffery to me!) --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Good idea about "community leader" -- didn't know how else to put her organizing of the giant block party. Still think the "Daily Organics" looks a tad ad-ish but I agree the article will probably pass muster, thanks for your help and insight.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since your improvements the article has gotten three "keeps" in quick succession. I think you can chalk this one up as a rescue. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looking good at this point, although I have participated in AfDs when it seemed like a sure thing, only to have a tide of deletes come in later.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Btw I emailed her asking for a photo of her, or her garden, hope she responds.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Venus Nicolino

Tom,

The information you added is false and defamatory. We ask that you please not re-post it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venustruth (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The information all comes from reliable secondary sources which are easily verified. The information you added is unsourced and violates Wikipedia's rules about biographies of living persons. I will copy this to the deletion page as well as the discussion page as that is where this discussion belongs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renée Gunter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yves St. Laurent. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday PAC

Hi Tom,

I see you just flagged some changes I made to the intro on Mayday PAC (was that your intro I changed?). I know you've done a lot of work on this page, which I greatly appreciate, so I had already checked to see who you were. I really liked your point about how people expect "privacy in public." That's something that's been bothering me for a long time and I have not quite been able to articulate it.

Well, back on topic, I think you are mainly objecting to "considered the most effective anti-Super PAC." Perhaps this needs an explanatory footnote, or some explanation further down in the intro. But note that it is actually and extremely modest claim. There are extremely few anti-Super Pacs. It's like claiming to be the tallest guy named Kiwi living in Podunk Nebraska. But still, as the advertisement section of Wiki that you link to says: "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." So that is just what I did when I put it in. Did you read the footnote source I used?

The source is the NationalJournal, probably the most authoritative political website on US politics period. And that's what it's headline says, and it repeats this message in several ways, such as "the most immediately effective at rallying public support." Again, this is not saying much! Where's the competition?! And the article really backs this up thoroughly -- it lists and analyzes all of the competing anti-super PACs or things close to that. There are not many. And I think the Forbes link may be yours. Now Forbes leans Republican and represents big money, but it basically says the same thing. So this point is also made by a verifiable super independent and slightly antagonistic third-party source. I really don't see what more Wiki could want???

One more thing I would note. The claim that they are the most effective does not mean that they are good or deserving of support. If someone disagrees with their objective this would just tell them, "hey these are the guys to take down."

So, I hope this is the right way to reach you, and that you can suggest some clean way to back up what seems to be a very modest and super-well documented claim. In the mean time I will add an explanatory note -- perhaps that will suffice.

All the best, Steven Stoft (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven, yes I noted your improvements, and it is always good to bring in additional references, but please understand that you, yourself, are one of those people who are highly supportive of the whole Mayday PAC idea. (I am too, to an extent, but I also am a Wikipedian -- a creature who loves information, facts, rationality, etc etc, and who absent-mindedly references things while sleeping). If others who are highly supportive of Mayday PAC come across the article, in its present incarnation, they'll agree with what it says; problem is, people who know nothing about it are likely to first get the impression of boosterism and flag-waving and trumpets blasting with full neon signs glowing -- Mayday PAC is the best! It is SUPER! It is not TRADITIONAL but innovative! It raised so MUCH MONEY, and so QUICKLY, that no other SUPER PAC has ever had so many contributors, EVER! EVER! Get what I'm saying? People coming across this current wording will get, instantly, that it's PR, a blurb, it smells advertise-y, and they won't believe anything you say afterwards since they're thinking the whole thing is biased. That is why Wikipedia has policies like WP:NEUTRAL and WP:UNDUE. Follow Wikipedia's rules: only use adjectives when a source says so, and then use them discreetly, in the body of the article, not in the first few sentences. That way, more people will be quietly, sincerely, impressed with Mayday PAC, and think it's a respectable organization, worthy of future donations, and not some wild-eyed idealist project. You'll go farther with your organization simply by following Wikipedia's excellent rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, I see I was mistaken, and it was not your work on this page. Sorry. Also, thanks for being more specific, I think that should help us resolve this, though being even more specific would be terrific. I may be a much more junior Wikipedian, but I have invested at least four days in it recently, and very much appreciate it, and get distressed when I see inaccuracies. And I certainly don't want to introduce any, so I will definitely appreciate any help on that score. I also don't want to mislead anyone with accurate statements that seem to imply something that is not correct. That goes on all the time and I abhor it. So lets take a look at your complaints and see if we can find some solutions.

You say people will get the following impression -- "Mayday PAC is that best." Perhaps so, but it would help me if you would agree that I said nothing of the kind and explain why they would misread it this way. It is easy for you to conjecture what will go on in others minds, and impossible for me to refute. Since you are judge and jury, it would be helpful if you would at least say why you think that.

= Is it because you think that they will miss the "anti-" in anti-super pac, and so they will read it as "most effective Super-PAC" -- totally not my point.
= Is it because you think they will misinterpret "effective" to mean morally good? And forget that the most effective terrorist is not good?
= Is it because you think "is considered" may be misinterpreted "is definitely true" ??
= Or do you think the statement is actually inaccurate? If so why?
==> Would this help resolve it? Mayday PAC is widely considered to be the most effective of the very few existing anti-Super PACs.

You say people will get the impression "It is super"

= Is this because I call it a Super PAC?
= If not, I'm stumped. What are you referring to?
==> Since it is a Super PAC and since that is a very common term, I really don't know how to fix this.

You say people will get the impression "It is not TRADITIONAL but innovative!"

= I assume you are referring to "(not a traditional political action committee)", Right?
==> Here I think you may not understand the terms. The previous intro, which I corrected, said Mayday PAC is a "political action committee." This was simply incorrect. It is not. It is neither a federal nor a state PAC. Instead it is a "Super PAC" in common parlance, which (according to wikipedia) is "officially known as 'independent-expenditure only committees'". This is a completely different beast. The whole reason the anti-super pacs exist is because of this difference. So the previous intro made an extremely fundamental error 9 words into the intro. I think we agree, this is the kind of thing we don't want in Wikipedia, and I think I deserve some credit for fixing this.
==> Now it is the word TRADITIONAL that seems to bother your. I had started with a more neutral word, I think it was "regular" or "normal" but I decided it did not sound formal enough, since I have read that wikipedia prefers more formal writing. So I checked what word Wikipedia used for this distinction. It used "traditional" so I used that (see the PAC page) "Unlike traditional PACs".
==> So I carefully corrected a serious error, and was careful to use wiki language, and you have more or less ridiculed the result as over-the-top boosterism. I know you are trying to protect wiki and I truly appreciate that. But you are not the only one trying to be cautious, and it feels pretty bad to go to all this trouble and then be accused of boosterism.

You say people will get the impression "It raised so MUCH MONEY, and so QUICKLY,"

= I don't say "so much." I didn't not use an adjective. I just said nearly 8 million. There is no way to get more dry and neutral and that is a highly relevant fact.
= And I did not say "so QUICKLY" nor did I say how long or anything at all about time. Again I know your intentions are good, but this seems to be unfair.
= Later the intro says "1.1 million in 13 days" but I did not say that, it has been in there for a month or so and I actually would like to take that out, but did not because I did not want to offend the author (who I mistakenly thought was you -- sorry again). So I will take that out.
===> I hope that will solve this problem, and thanks for being on my side on this.

You say People will get the impression "no other SUPER PAC has ever had so many contributors, EVER! 'EVER!"

= Notice that I did not say this. I was careful to identify this as a claim of Mayday (even using an exact quote, putting quote marks, and footnoting it to Mayday). In this way I clearly ddistanced wiki from it. Wiki is only reporting that they claim this, not that it is true. I think any ordinary reader will read it this way.
= So please again note my caution to make the statement precisely true and not misleading.
= However I would not have mentioned it, except that it seems quite likely to be true, since the whole point of super PACs (as opposed to PACs) is to raise money from a few rich, and Mayday is surely one of the very few (perhaps only) Super-PAC doing crowd funding, and it was in fact, unusually successful. And note that "EVER, EVER" would only mean since 2010 -- remember this not a PAC.
==> So how about this for a solution: After the quote, add "(This may well be true since Super PAC are predominantly used by extremely large contributors.)" I certainly want readers to understand this is a result of their unusual strategy and not the result of them being "the best ever."

You say "get instantly, that it's PR, a blurb, it smells advertise-y, and they won't believe anything you say afterwards since they're thinking the whole thing is biased. "

= Now you may be right that some will think that. I really can't tell. And I certainly don't want that.
==> So let me try the above, and also see if I can add something accurate that gives a sense of balance. If you have an idea, why don't you tell me or put it in yourself.

You say " only use adjectives when a source says so, "

= Now I fully support this policy and hope I didn't violate. If I did, it would be most helpful if you could point out the adjective.
= Perhaps you are referring to "traditional" but some distinction seemed essential to me and to PAC wiki page, and I just followed their lead.

In short, I do think you are trying to be helpful, and I really do appreciate that. But it would help me enormously if you could be more specific and not make me guess so much, especially since this seems to mainly be about psychology of readers -- the importance of which I do not discount in the least. Also, I would appreciate just a little recognition for being precise.

Best regards, Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoft (talk • contribs) 03:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, the article is somewhat improved, although now there are problems with writing and punctuation. There is still a touch of boosterism in the article and it can be hard to see when one is close to the subject. Why not ask some of your friends, whose opinion you trust, who are not so pro-Mayday PAC, to have a look at the article, and get their view? It takes a while at Wikipedia, but if you're here long enough, you get this kind of distance from subjects which helps you see things neutrally, impartially, and by sticking to the rules, you may find that you meet both Wikipedia's objectives (neutral objective content reliably sourced etc) with Mayday PAC's objectives (establish itself as a legitimate PAC worthy of donations, get information to public about what it is about, etc). That is, too much of a promotional tone, especially in the lede paragraph, can hurt both objectives, since people reading the article, coming across the trumpets and flag-waving and overuse of the word super, will discount the article, tend not to believe it, and click elsewhere. Get what I'm saying?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy League

I've left a comment at Talk:Ivy League about the articles you've added. Summarizing briefly: Yes, the Ivy League is mentioned in those articles, but only in the context of "other elite/selective schools". The articles are not about the Ivy League's admission practices specifically, and including the information in the article is giving undue weight to the Ivies. If anything, Ivy League in the context of those articles is just a stand-in for elite. Esrever (klaT) 20:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in adding more material along the lines you've recently added to the main college admissions in the U.S. article, look into "undermatching." It's become a hot topic in the past year and there's quite a bit of information about it out there, including some solid empirical work and policy action. It's a topic that should be covered in that article but it doesn't appear to be anywhere in there (yet). (I guess that one of the perils of having an encyclopedia built largely by amateurs is that articles don't always keep up with the current state-of-the-art if the experts aren't actively engaged in keeping the articles up-to-date...) ElKevbo (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Floated Undermatching; please feel free to improve it since I don't know much about higher ed, and I worked on it fast.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC) When I was a teenager in the Boy Scouts, I might have used the term 'undermatching' to describe not getting a campfire lit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Union County College

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

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

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

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

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

Judaism in Nepal, again

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

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

ANB discussion

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

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

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

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

Lele Pons

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

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

Friend zone

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

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

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

Roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRichardFader (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diana Gonzalez-Whyte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of St. Thomas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

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

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

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

Sophie Hunter

Hello! I have found out that you're helping with the Sophie Hunter article. I have found another article which suggests notability and press coverage: http://www.broadwayworld.com/off-off-broadway/article/Extant-Arts-Company-Presents-New-Version-of-Ibsens-GHOSTS-1151121-20101014. Hope you can add it to support the argument. Thank you! 120.28.125.54 (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unconfirmed relationship status of Sophie Hunter

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

Removal of unconfirmed relationship status of Sophie Hunter

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tomwsulcer&oldid=628212077"