User talk:Tomwsulcer/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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) |
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Btw I emailed her asking for a photo of her, or her garden, hope she responds.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
You may have noticed some more bulk deletions from Union County College, courtesy of the same editor who made the last two batches of deletions. Unlike the last ones, the new deletions use edit summaries, which is good, but also make me wonder about a WP:COI, which isn't good. (And, of course, there's still the deletion of a very large quantity of cited content, which isn't good.) I've written a lengthy response for the talk page, meant to accompany reverting the deletions, but I have not yet done either (reverted the deletions or posted the response). Could you take a look at the deletions and the edit summaries and provide a second opinion? (And, of course, if your conclusion is that deleting something approaching half the content of the article should be reverted, please feel free to do so without waiting for me.) Thanks! Unician ∇ 06:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. Thanks for calling my attention to this. Probably in future we'll have to get administrator intervention, either to padlock the article, or block the offending user. Chopping out half of an article without much discussion, other than a few comments in the edit summary, seems to me like borderline vandalism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, it's reassuring to get a little confirmation that I wasn't over-reacting. I've added my lengthy feedback to the article talk page here. If the other editor replies there, I'm expecting he/she will announce that they're employed by the college and are making edits here under instructions from the college. If so, that is very likely to be a WP:conflict of interest, and if done as an official duty or assignment of their paid employment, possibly even the dreaded “paid advocacy” which is rejected so forcefully at WP:NOPR.
- This isn't terribly unusual, I've seen a number of new editors find articles about their town, or their school, or their employer, or even themselves, and assume that, as an “authority” on the subject, they can make whatever changes they like. Any suggestions on the best way to educate such enthusiastic contributors on the local rules of the road? Or is it best to just point out the classics like WP:best practices for editors with close associations, WP:ownership of articles, and WP:neutral point of view? After all, those deletions did take some time, thought, and effort, unproductive as they may have been, and I'd hate to see someone like that get blocked just because they don't yet know how Wikipedia works.
- Unician ∇ 13:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Stuff happens all the time in Wikipedia. It is my view that all of us, contributing here, have our own particular agendas, and what prevents things from getting way out of whack is that the agendas compete in a framework of rules and guidelines, and somehow the process works so that the crud and original research and half-baked junk gets whittled out, and the good stuff remains. What's probably a good idea is not trying to infer motives, like why somebody did something, just rather stick to the rules, argue in terms of them, and there is widespread agreement in Wikipedia about what these overall rules are, such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOTE and such.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Another way of thinking about this, in a simple way, is to focus on content, not on contributors (or their motives), which is in keeping with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Remember [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rima Laibow]]?
You might want to take a look at it with the socks struck, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electromechanic. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Doug, not sure what you're asking me to do; I am not an administrator and am pretty much unfamiliar with how sockpuppet investigations work, although the Rima Laibow article was properly deleted for lack of reliable sources. Let me know how I can help.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just FYI really. They are all blocked, no need for you to do anything. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for blocking the socks and for alerting me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just FYI really. They are all blocked, no need for you to do anything. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Judaism in Nepal, again
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for informing me. The article History of the Jews in Nepal is such a battleground that it has little interest for me in the near future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
ANB discussion
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for informing me. The article History of the Jews in Nepal is such a battleground that it has little interest for me in the near future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
- We need a reliable source for her birthday; there have been several contributors changing it, and since this is a biography of a living person, we need to make sure this is right. If you wish, please read WP:RS for further information, thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Friend zone
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)
- Friend zone is a controversial topic, a veritable battleground between the sexes. Wikipedia is not an editorial, but a compendium of articles, and Friend zone is an article trying to cover the topic neutrally. The idea is not to even the balance between the pro-men and the pro-women camps, but simply to report what secondary sources say, and there are views, both pro-male and pro-female, in the article. About why some consider the term misogynistic, it is that beneath the 'friend zone' logic is the idea that women are expected to provide sex if a man gives sufficient "friendship", and if she doesn't, she's somehow now lived up to her part of the bargain, and she is "bad" because she has friendzoned a man. Is this logic right? Doesn't matter, it is what some people believe, and it is sourced. Same thing with misandric: source it. If you feel the concept is anti-male, find sources saying so and include them in the article. It is how Wikipedia works.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sophie Hunter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- html?pagewanted=print Something Wicked This Way Comes], Retrieved Oct. 3, 2014, "..three witches (Sophie Hunter..."</ref><ref> Elysa Gardner, April 9, 2008, USA Today, [http://usatoday30.usatoday.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Sophie Hunter
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)
- Yes, thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
- Ok, if you really want to cut the line, please do so, but please keep the references since they support keeping the article. I think the sources about the relationship are solid, with several having repeated photos of the pair in public, so I think we're safe, but I'll leave it up to your discretion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, have a look at The Accounting Review and Genes, Brain and Behavior (the two GA journal articles that we currently have). Getting a journal article to GA is less hard than one might think. After your expansion yesterday and today, this might be getting close. Once it gets GA, you could then also take it to DYK. Just a thought... --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hey thanks, if you can lead the effort to making the article get up to GA status, let me know what I can do to support you. I work on lots of types of articles and I am not particularly knowledgeable like you are about academic journals, so I will defer to your leadership here. I restored your scope section with a slight copyedit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sara Ballini
Regards. Instead of deleting it, can you help me improve the article?? I know she is very respetable and pretty well known on Italy for her work. There is a fact about her she don't want to share, but she work as a prostitute on 2003 https://www.meneame.net/story/entrevista-a-una-ex-prostituta (interview to an ex-prostitute Sara Ballini). Her life is interesting. Bnotepr (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'll think about it. Big thing is finding good sources. Do you speak and read Italian? How are you connected with this person?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Another thing -- if the article gets deleted and you still would like for her to have a web presence, see about uploading photos -- Wikipedia is about information, so photos of her in lingerie won't be that helpful, but other kinds of photos possibly, such as famous places in Italy, or in other contexts.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. My comunication with her is in Spanish, she is fluent spanish speaker as I am. Thanks for the advice about the picture, actually, Im getting rid of that one, and ask her to give me a normal picure on a public place and upload to flickR with all the licenses. So thhere is a change on the image. It has the Commons flickR license. Please, for me, she deserve the wikipedia article.... thanks. Hope you can help. Bnotepr (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I looked over the sources in the current version. Maybe only one meets the WP:RS standard which is this one. Can you find more sources like this one? While it is true that anyone can edit Wikipedia, there is a learning curve, with rules to learn and processes to grasp, and this takes time. Plus, I don't think I could rescue the article if I tried (but that is only my guess). Good luck.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I found she has a photo featured on Vogue http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Portfolio/500bf16e-165d-4fc8-9ed7-dbc890f63d67/Image , I added as a reference just in case Bnotepr (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Slightly helpful, but what is really needed are a few articles, or other sources, talking about Ballini in some kind of depth -- why she is notable, what she's about, so that when you upgrade the article, you can fill in the rest of the sentence which begins with "Sara Bellini is an Italian model and writer who is notable for..." and add something, rather than launching in to her education, as the article currently does.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi.. well, I included two interviews on spanish, on the rference list you got ref #1,#7,#10 and #17, one of them is in italian.. also the newspaper of Spain "El Diario" made a small interview inside the article of prostitution in Spain'.Hope it can help Bnotepr (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Banner
I have been bending into a pretzel to avoid taking this guy to ANI or something disciplinary. He has not pursued any additional AfDs that I know of (I haven't trolled his contributions), he just pisses me off by aggressively (lying) trying to sustain his ill-conceived current ones. So in the disciplinary sense, we could say he has backed off. Strategically, if he tries to push this agenda again, then we need to gang up on him and cut it off. Hey, its nice to see I'm not fighting all alone. Trackinfo (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- What about this proposed deletion? I think we need to keep monitoring his conduct. I think the community is aware how much a single bad apple can spoil things and cause so much unnecessary fuss that maybe it is time to nip this problem in the bud.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah he still persists. More comments today. If you want to take it along, you can count on my support, just let me know where to go. You are not canvassing, I asked for the link. Trackinfo (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please show me (with diffs) where he is persisting. I searched through his contributions with the phrase "Nominated for deletion" and I do not think he is rapid-fire AfDing beauty contestants any more, but rather going after other targets, and some of them seem somewhat dubious, based on a cursory review.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC) For example, search this page set it to 500 on the list, and search for the phrase "Nominated for deletion" and tell me which ones you think are problematic. I think the only way to approach this is to stick to a category (eg Miss Universe beauty contestants), then we can show that none of the AfDs resulted in a deletion, that it wasted much of the community's time, and we can bring it to the attention of administrators.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Btw, your talk page is getting rather huge; do you know how to set up automatic archiving? What I did was copy the code from somebody else's talk page, and it pretty much takes care of itself.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- I was referring to this, and this yesterday. He also speedied this and this old one. This also went unnoticed. Trackinfo (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- On my talk page, maybe I should archive. I've kind of avoided getting too technological. Trackinfo (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but my sense is Banner has backed off from rapid-fire AfDing beauty contestant articles. About your talk page, yes, Wikipedia can get contentious, but having a disagreement like that is not a good reason to involve administrators, provided that comments are kept clean and in WP:AGF. There are many admin eyes on the AfD pages; if Banner keeps rapid-firing AfDing articles, they will spot this and call him on it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- On my talk page, maybe I should archive. I've kind of avoided getting too technological. Trackinfo (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- I was referring to this, and this yesterday. He also speedied this and this old one. This also went unnoticed. Trackinfo (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Sad to see he's back at it. Miss Manabí now he is trying to get it done through speedy so no defense can be launched. He just isn't getting the message. Trackinfo (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
[1] How petty can we get? Trackinfo (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Again, suggest that you focus on the encyclopedia and not on specific contributors, okay? Let the community as a whole deal with problematic contributors.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
WSJ copyright
Hey Tom—are you sure the licenses on File:Forfeitures around the nation from Justice Dept.jpg and related images are correct? The image appears to have been made by WSJ, so they would hold the copyright to the image even though they received the (free?) data from the Justice Dept. Eh? czar ♔ 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good question. Beneath each article it says "Source: Treasury Dept" or "Source: Justice Dept" so I figured the newspapers simply copied the chart from the government website; but if the WSJ altered the image somehow, then I am less sure. I'll try hunting for sources which are direct from the US government. Also do you know if Wikipedia has a graphing tool, so I can plug in numbers, to make our own charts?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Update. I replaced the red bar chart and requested speedy delete. Wondering how I can get the data for the states (the green bubble chart here. The cool Create-a-graph software just doesn't enable bubbles. But if I can find the data on a US site, I'll try something different.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the papers do their own visualizations but get their raw data from the source cited. You can get blank maps here and can request help with making maps here. Depending on how similar it would be, making an identical map perhaps in different colors might still violate copyright, so perhaps the "bubbles" aren't the best way of displaying the data? I doubt WP has its own graphing tools, but I'd be interested myself if you found one czar ♔ 15:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Sophie Hunter
Hello! I just find the wording of the lead paragraph awkward. "Sophie is a theatre, opera director and actress"? She's a "theatre" too? It just causes confusion. I suggest that since the first lead paragraph just talks about her theatre work, it should just be "Sophie Hunter is a theatre and opera director." The last lead paragraph mentions that she is an actress of stage and screen anyway. It's in the infobox too so it's not as if we're omitting that fact.
Also, isn't the Personal life section always has been placed before the credits? Can you please amend these things. Sorry, it just bothers me. And as you can see, I don't have access to the page yet. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!Croneberg Process (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but there's a lot of sockpuppet activity in the Sophie Hunter page, as well as a contributor who persistently edits the page while wanting it deleted; admins are looking in to it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Benedict Cumberbatch Personal Life
Hi there! Favor? Would you mind amending the paragraph regarding Cumberbatch's engagement to Sophie Hunter? It's rather ambiguous and I think a good context is necessary. I have checked Hunter's page and the paragraph about her engagement is just right.
On 5 November 2014, through a notice in the "Forthcoming Marriages" section of The Times, it was announced that Hunter and actor Benedict Cumberbatch are engaged.[26] She and Cumberbatch have been close friends since meeting on the set of the 2009 independent film Burlesque Fairytales. However, it was not until early 2014 that they started dating.[27][28][29]
Thank you very much!180.191.65.171 (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry my interest in both Cumberbatch and Hunter is rapidly waning, particularly with lots of sockpuppet activity on Hunter's page, so I am only watching them to try to remove the more egregious junk. If you'd like to participate in Wikipedia, take the time to learn how it is done, get a free account, and play by the rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Burlesque Fairytales
Hello! A user has improved the page of Burlesque Fairytales but it was reverted by an administrator. I hope you can revert it again as the edits were constructive no matter how you look at it or even do improvements of your own. Thank you! 180.191.69.149 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- How about learning to do Wikipedia? How about getting a free account? There's a learning curve to Wikipedia, but people can get the handle of things if they take time to read guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BASIC, WP:NEUTRAL, keep editing, develop a track record, and you'll see, as time goes by, that your edits increasingly will not be reverted, and you can become one of us.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Tomwsulcer, I would be very careful with these users. The majority of users coming to ask for help on Cumberbatch's and Hunter's pages and now Burlesque Fairytales are socks. @180.191.69.149:, as you most likely a sock, the edits were reverted because your presence on Wikikpedia is disruptive as are your edits no matter how "constructive" you think them to be. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, noted, Lady Lotus; I am rapidly losing interest in Sophie Hunter and am removing it from my watchlist, and I will defer to your judgment, but if you need my assistance in future, let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Will do and thank you for your help even though we didn't see eye to eye in some cases ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Unnecessary addition of external image
Hello! Please do consider the matter of unnecessary addition of an external image in Sophie Hunter's page. She's not a model whose appearance is pivotal to her profile nor is the external image notable in her body work. Other pages don't have photos in their infoboxes either and they still exist and work as a page even without an external image. The image the user keeps on inserting is also not solely of Hunter's appearance as she is with somebody else in the photo. This is not at all a very good representation or even rational to have an external image in the page.Eurydice Leus (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Eurydice Leus: please stop socking. I do not understand how you don't get that by now. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Kinda wondering too why Eurydice Leus's page was created only a day ago yet the user seems fairly adept with navigating around Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. They try to play dumb and then spam other editors to do edits for them. These socks are ridiculous and just won't stop. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see a general problem with anonymity, here in Wikipedia, and in public life generally. I can see that in some situations, people, knowing they're anonymous, are more ready to post the truth, since they can not be subsequently punished; at the same time, the anonymity allows numerous ills to happen, such as sockpuppetry, vandalism, mayhem. I prefer an identified world. For me, the downsides of anonymity vastly outweigh the pluses, but for an identified world to work effectively, we must have an environment in which identified users will not be sanctioned in any way. Then, real people could say what they think. I think the problem is much deeper, insidious, with the general confusion being that people think that their freedom and happiness is based on anonymity, on being nameless and faceless and untraceable. But freedom is much better established with concepts such as laws, and rights, and principles of fair government. The confusion is vast: the Internet is almost wholly anonymous, so digital traffic moves throughout the system -- it is only ones and zeros -- it is very hard to know what those ones and zeros mean, or who sent them, or who receives them, or what is going on. Anonymity permits terrorists to move money about, to plan targets; it is a veil under which all kinds of mischief can happen. I wrote an essay about this topic a few years back but I doubt anything much will change; in the meantime, in Wikipedia, I suppose we all have to cope with it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. They try to play dumb and then spam other editors to do edits for them. These socks are ridiculous and just won't stop. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Kinda wondering too why Eurydice Leus's page was created only a day ago yet the user seems fairly adept with navigating around Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
| Thursday December 4: 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 in Manhattan's Greenwich Village.
Afterwards at 8pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided). We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Met Opera
Hi. Thanks for your message. I reverted the edit you added mainly because it didn't belong in the lead, opening paragraphs. This section is intended to serve as an introduction and brief summary of the main points of the article. Speculation regarding ticket sales in recent years really doesn't fit here. I think new text in the Gelb section discussing the financial problems of the Met in the post-2001 era would be a welcome addition. This item could fit there well as an opinion about one factor contributing to the problem. There are many others of course. The source of the comment being a film historian to me makes it less compelling in an article about opera, than from an expert about the Met or about opera. Especially as a standalone item. But as one one comment among many it could have its place. You are absolutely right that the article is woefully undersourced and I'm as much to blame for that as anyone. I'm hoping to start adding more sources and weeding out some errors soon as I have time and I hope others will do so as well. I hope this helps. If you have time to research and write a summary of the Met's recent financial woes that would be tremendous! Best wishes, Markhh (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- You make a good point about irrelevant stuff in lede paragraphs (which should be trimmed further). Still not clear why you simply reverted my sourced addition instead of moving it to another section. About 2/3 of Metropolitan Opera is unsourced and really needs to be trimmed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I know what you're saying. I always hate it when editors just delete something rather than make whatever correction they think is needed. Improve rather than delete. I probably should have done that. But at the moment, it didn't seem substantial enough to stand on its own elsewhere. That's why I wrote such a lengthy edit summary. Thanks for the new edit. Best, Markhh (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you in general. There's a lot that could be trimmed, I think 2/3's is a bit extreme. But length isn't the main problem. I think the content is okay, as far as it goes, but it cries out for sources and improvements in the style and clarity of the writing. I especially dislike the lengthy lists of names and titles. Stronger sourced writing and organization will help keep those from accruing. Markhh (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Then maybe it's a good idea that when other contributors try to add sources, that you don't revert them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I realise it's been a few years since you created the article & others have added to it, but the bulk of the content & wording is still as added by yourself. My issue is that the article is relentlessly positive with absolutely nothing that could be regarded as critical of the band...not really balanced is it? Why is trivial fluff needed on how many hundred or so albums they press & the colour of the vinyl? I'm sure the record company/band/sponsor/donor was well pleased with such a quality looking puff piece! 94.193.14.87 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC) PS I wrote this on the article talk page first before I realised I could edit here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.14.87 (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note, the "bulk of the content & wording" was not contributed by myself. I floated an initial version, but since then, I have not been watching this article for years, and numerous people have added to it, contributing much fluff, and if you wish to fix these problems, there's nothing stopping you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Citation Barnstar |
| Nice work on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Houghton czar ⨹ 04:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks! I used to routinely revamp articles on the chopping block, but even despite my revamps, some got deleted, so now I usually have a wait-and-see approach, so if it gets kept, then maybe I'll do a revamp.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Straw Poll
There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.
The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.
--Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- thanks, but I have kind of become sincerely bored with this subject weeks ago.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Current sources in article sufficient to meet the..... This is you massage in Delectation of SAMIRA SAMII page... You can not believe how you and other users can brake the image for someone... If you don't know a person and just make it for fun.. stop it please...
Most of information in page are wrong and the picture is not a right picture for her page.. many thanks for ur understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmin-Shams (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- What??? The deletion discussion is about whether this subject, Samira Samii, is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, not about the current content of the article, not whether a photo in the article is the right one. If you feel that content or photo are incorrect, you are free to change them just like any contributor can. Regarding whether the subject is worthy of inclusion, I voted Keep since I think there are sufficient sources to justify inclusion. About your allegation that somehow I and others are "(making) it up for fun", I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Seriously?
Should I NPOV template you? Your edits to the talk page were bad. Your edits to the article are borderline vandalism IMO. Different POVs I guess. Please take it back to the talkpage, but without the obvious bias and silly premise. --Onorem (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've responded on the talk page of Budweiser. You have removed not only referenced content but removed commentary on the talk page. While I in good faith will try to trust that your motives are good, that you wish the best for the encyclopedia, that you wish to be impartial, can you see how others here at Wikipedia might think that your deletions of referenced content here and your deletion of commentary on the talk page here might lead others to suspect that you have an agenda of promoting Anheuser-Busch or Budweiser, or might possibly work for one of their publicity or marketing agencies?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon
| Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join us at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign (which also includes events in Brooklyn and Westchester!).
The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
degenerative disc diseases
Hello my name is Margaret. I was just informed That I have degenerative disc disease. My Question is. Is this something that will come and go? Or will the pain stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.93.90 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're asking me this question. I'm not a doctor. Best to see one. There is information in Wikipedia about this subject here. Best wishes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Merging Coffee nap into Power nap
My sense is these are two different (although related) terms. Still, a decision to merge one article into another, like you did here, is a major one requiring community consensus. If you wish to pursue merging the article, place a merge proposal tag on both articles and see what happens in discussion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I gave appropriate policy related reasons in the edit summary. This was a standard merge. You are welcome, of course, to seek consensus for splitting the article. See Wikipedia:Splitting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyrille Aimée, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jazz singer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Your support is key
Hello. Please support me in creating an article on brotein. The article will be surely nominated for deletion, but I will feel better once I am assured of your Keep vote. I have found the following sources that reference the term:
News:
- Radio host Jules Lund designs Brotein smoothie 'to shed bumbag gut' and donates proceeds to youth charity Reach Foundation which he says saved him (2014)
- After Video Goes Viral, Gatorade Makes ‘Brotein’ Bottle For Brody Smith’s Brother (2014)
Academic:
Scientific:
Perhaps one or more of these will make it for you!
Cheers,
--IO Device (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- IO Device, I go by Wikipedia's rules, so if the article brotein gets written, and I come across it up for deletion, I'll go by what the rules say.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Jonathan Palfrey's role as chair of the Knight Foundation board
Hello. I added a well-sourced item to the page on John Palfrey referencing his role as chair of the Knight Foundation. You removed it, indicating (reasonably) that his mere chairmanship of an organization may not be important enough to merit inclusion. I would argue that the Knight Foundation is a large enough ($2.3B in assets) and widely-spread enough (operations in 26 U.S. cities) organization that its inclusion is merited. I undid the edit and would appreciate your support.Juggernautco (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Knight Foundation not a WP:RS; but Philippian is; moved the information out of lede paragraph since his being chair of the KF is not in the same league as his work with Harvard Law and being Andover HofS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense. Perhaps as time goes by someone will congregate other minor-league items as this and create a new section for it under "Career" -- Juggernautco (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
| Wednesday April 29, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our inaugural evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
Featuring a keynote talk this month on Lady Librarians & Feminist Epistemologies! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Julie Strauss-Gabel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Green. 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) 09:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
youtube
I can see that privately published, pirated youtube episodes are not a reliable source, but I fail to understand where it is defined that an official youtube channel, published by HBO itself, is not a reliable source. Can you give a citation for that? This is not social media, this is just a one of several commercial distribution channels. --Gregor Hagedorn (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- You ask a reasonable question so let me try to explain why I think what I think. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for five years now, and am fairly sure that it is general policy not to use YouTube as an official source for content in an article. It is not the New York Times or Boston Globe or another encyclopedia or a respected author or study; rather, YouTube is essentially a medium for entertainment, videos; it is a great medium, no doubt about that, but generally unsuitable for Wikipedia. If you try to find other articles where YouTube is used as a source, please show me; I suspect that they may be difficult to find. What is more often the case is that YouTube is included as an external link (which is what I did with Civil forfeiture in the United States; I feel the link to John Oliver's show is properly posted there, in the external links; here is a policy about using YouTube for external links. Generally, what Wikipedia wants are secondary sources, ideally news-related or academic-related, impartial, neutral, objective, looking at a subject from a distance slightly removed. Now, what about comedian John Oliver as a source? His show is primarily entertainment, and while I trusted the facts in his broadcast about civil forfeiture to be correct, Oliver's piece was essentially satirical in nature. Oliver's show presented only one side of the argument, so it was not really neutral. Oliver's show on YouTube, by the way, prompted me to write the article for Wikipedia. So I agree Oliver needs to be included (his photo is prominent on the page), as an external link, fine, just not as a reference, that's all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- The official YouTube channel of a generally reliable news organization is (depending on context) just as reliable as a newspaper, a TV broadcast, a magazine, or an online news website from the same organization. All bets are off with unofficial random YouTube videos. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have no problem with an official YouTube broadcast of a television news broadcast, since the source would be, say, NBC News possibly. But that's just it -- is John Oliver's show Last Week Tonight a "generally reliable news organization"? I loved the show, but I just don't think it qualifies as a reliable source, that's all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- The issue of the reliability of John Oliver as a source for a given claim is entirely unrelated to the fact that the show is archived officially on YouTube. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well I think there is a relation, in the sense that accepted news channels, TV, newspapers, journals, tend to have their own websites, and entertainment media may have their own websites, but much of entertainment-related television is accessed through intermediary channels such as YouTube. In Wikipedia, generally, media sites such as YouTube are generally not used as references, why, because they tend to have lots of entertainment (such as John Oliver's Last Week Tonight segments). But is it really necessary to make such a big deal about this? Oliver is clearly represented in the article, via the external links, and in a photo; we're leaving the text in; all we're doing here is quibbling about a reference; I am simply trying to follow the accepted procedures here, which is not using YouTube stuff as a reference.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- The issue of the reliability of John Oliver as a source for a given claim is entirely unrelated to the fact that the show is archived officially on YouTube. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have no problem with an official YouTube broadcast of a television news broadcast, since the source would be, say, NBC News possibly. But that's just it -- is John Oliver's show Last Week Tonight a "generally reliable news organization"? I loved the show, but I just don't think it qualifies as a reliable source, that's all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- The official YouTube channel of a generally reliable news organization is (depending on context) just as reliable as a newspaper, a TV broadcast, a magazine, or an online news website from the same organization. All bets are off with unofficial random YouTube videos. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Julie Strauss-Gabel and John Green
Hey Tom, I saw your message over at Talk:John Green (author). I don't own an image, but I did do a quick search on Flickr and found these:
- SG with JG (copyrighted, but you can get in touch with the photographer on Flickr)
- SG with author Sara Wilson Etienne (CC-BY)
Maybe one of these will do the trick? I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hey thanks Jethro. I'll try to follow up with these; I have had mixed results trying to use photos from Flickr but will get around to this when I can.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Not an admin yet??
Hey there. :) Any interest in trying out an WP:RfA? I think you have a good chance at success. -- Ϫ 02:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hey thanks for considering me. Yes I've been around here a while; used to be more contentious, now I've mellowed considerably. At present, I'm kind of happy contributing stuff, writing or revamping articles, contributing to AfD discussions, and think the current admins are doing a good job. I guess I have two questions (1) does the community need more admins? (2) how much more of my time would it take? I am not sure if I am admin material since I am not always patient, still make mistakes, don't know much about sockpuppets or the internal workings of Wikipedia, so I don't know whether I'd be a good admin. But I am willing to consider it; thanks again for thinking of me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- (1) The community definitely needs more admins! (2) It would only take as much time as you choose to put into it. You could only make a few administrative actions here and there and it would still be a benefit. In my opinion, all it takes to be admin material is to have common sense and a good knowledge of policy. You don't have to wade into sockpuppet territory, there are plenty of easier admin areas to work in, CAT:CSD for instance, which is consistently backlogged. -- Ϫ 12:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, you sold me; how do I apply?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- On second thought, I started to look through the instructions and got bored. If the community really needs me to become an admin, it will say so, until then I'm happy just being a revamper.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Funeral strippers
 | On 4 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Funeral strippers, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that funeral strippers are sometimes hired to remove their clothing during a funeral in an effort to attract more mourners? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Funeral strippers. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cool! Thanx--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that what brought me to the article was a post by Ms. Crump herself at WP:BLP/N#Conflation of two different people in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Crump. Nice article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I royally goofed on that one, working too quickly, good thing that sharp folks such as yourself caught it, with help from Dr. C herself. Thanks for your rapid fix. What do you bet nothing happens on the photo? My bet is 15% chance there's a photo of her within the month.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Finding photos of living people can be a challenge. Good luck. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Institute for Justice Litigation Section, NPOV
Hey! I think the idea of a summary is a great one - thanks for suggesting it. I tried, but I could not summarize to 20 words. But I got it down to about 40, which is very good for me. :) Thanks - James Cage (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Great if you can get it down to 20, maybe I'll have a look?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
| Wednesday July 8, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month will also feature on a review of past and upcoming editathons, including Black Lunch Table Editathon @ MoMA on July 13. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Sunday August 2: WikNYC Picnic
| Sunday August 2, 1-7pm: WikNYC Picnic | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.
We hope to see you there! --Pharos (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC) (Bonus event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednedsay, August 19) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Nomination of Nellie Bly Cub Reporter Award for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nellie Bly Cub Reporter Award is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nellie Bly Cub Reporter Award until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Expected as much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I was actually going to surprise you and try to make amends by creating this article to go on the Front Page Award page, but you reverted my redlink to Newswomen's Club of New York. I am not reverting it back because of the 3RR rule - you are welcome to do it now or I can wait 24 hours do it then. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Impressed with your article creation. I reverted my revert.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)