User talk:Tomwsulcer/Archive 9

Metropolitan Museum of Art Edit-a-thon (Nov 19) and global online Wikipedia Asian Art Month (Nov 1-30)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Permission to use photos
Hi Tom, May I use your Castle Rock State Park images (and perhaps others) in a hiking guide book that I'm revising? I cannot offer money but will fully credit each photo to you. If okay, how would you like the photo credit to read? And would you be okay signing a permission form by my publisher? however, since your work is Creative Commons, I'm not sure this is necessary.

Thanks a lot! Linda Linda@storiestolast.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8400:EA90:C889:1AC2:10F0:7693 (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need my permission. The images are public domain. They're as much yours as mine. I gave them to the public when I uploaded them. Credit them as you wish. Enjoy!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC) also feel free to use the image with me standing among the rocks -- it gives scale. I love it when my images get distributed and seen.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Lisa Mandelblatt for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Mandelblatt 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 Articles for deletion/Lisa Mandelblatt 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. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of Reedsy without attribution
Under discussion at Conflict of interest noticeboard. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I responded on the noticeboard page. Look, it's great you noticed the earlier conflict of interest and did something about it, but the fact is, the subject of Reedsy is clearly notable, with numerous reliable references. The article has been totally rewritten by me, an unaffiliated contributor, so it is in good shape. I'm baffled by your "without attribution" allegation. What do you mean?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Reedsy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reedsy 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 Articles for deletion/Reedsy 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Look, it's good that people noticed a COI earlier, but clearly the firm is notable, with great references, so my sense is this AfD nomination is a big waste of time here in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!


 * Hey good luck with your contest. I have floated many articles on notable women and will continue to do so when I come across them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

December 13: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

List of crossings of the Rahway River
Wonder if you've got anything in your collection that would serve the the article List of crossings of the Rahway River? Thanks. Djflem (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try to snap more photos when I'm in the area.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

RE Tom Cotton
REGARDING Reverted to revision 820207732 by 2601:14D:8501:B3A1:3915:625B:3D75:4DB0: Rv yes hearing loss a possibility (more likely: Cotton has moral cowardice) but we need references in Wikipedia to say these things. (TW) Please do not misuse edit summaries to score partisan points or make snide comments. There are numerous online fora available for that, not this online encyclopaedia. Quis separabit? 01:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a better edit summary?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Rahway River Parkway
Rahway River Parkway would be a great place to use some of your great pictures. Since you know best would you mond to add and caption them? Thanks.Djflem (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I added one -- I hope that's the one you'd like....--14:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC at Rockettes
Just a heads up, I started a RFC at The Rockettes about including Trump in the lead. JDDJS (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. When a dance company performs for the president of the US, it's notable in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Balancing the 7th District
In terms of this edit and your previous edit to the article for New Jersey's 7th congressional district in which you removed Lance's official photo, I'm not sure how to best handle your concerns abiut WP:BALANCE. The 7th District *IS* represented by Lance and this is an article about the 7th District, not about the 2018 election. Mandelblatt may well run in 2018, but she's not even the Republican nominee at this point, nor do I see a reason to have the second of two sentences in the lead focusing on who might run in 2018. I am more than sympathetic for your balance concerns, but I'm not sure that putting in a photo for potential candidate Mandelblatt or removing a photo for Lance creates balance. Again, Lance *IS* the congressman while Mandelblatt is a potential candidate to run against him.As always, thanks for all of your work on editing and improving New Jersey articles, including many where I firmly agree with your efforts to reinsert material removed by other editors in flawed attempts to achieve "balance". Alansohn (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While Lance *IS* the congressperson like you said, he's also running for re-election this year -- only showing Lance on this page gives him an unfair advantage in my opinion. Better to have either (1) no images or (2) images of Lance and challengers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Until the June primary, Mandelblatt is only someone who's tossed her hat into the ring. It would be appropriate to include her here once she's the nominee, and until then to include details in United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018 for her and for other properly sourced prospective candidates. Alansohn (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Linda Weber for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Linda Weber 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 Articles for deletion/Linda Weber 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. Marquardtika (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

List of crossings of the Rahway River
Wonder if this foto is one of the dams mentioned in above article? Would love to add if you can identify. ThanksDjflem (talk)
 * Yes I think it was taken in the watery-foresty area east of Union County College, and I think it is part of the Rahway River (or a tributary?). I remember walking over it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

February 21: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Comment
Just wanting some clarification on the removal of references as spam. I can see quite a few on this page and notice my update also was labelled spam, though the reference was a blog article regarding the topic. Also noticed quite a few references to dead pages, do these need to be updated or removed or just new sources validating the information? Elliottwalton (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of David Hogg for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Hogg 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 Articles for deletion/David Hogg 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. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you
Thank-you for the barnstar in relation to the article on Positioning (marketing) and the link to your mini-lecture. It is interesting that the recommended format for writing positioning statements is a close parallel to the sequence you presented, i.e., name - category- point of difference.

I have been editing on Wikipedia for just over a year now. It had been my intention to overhaul some of the key marketing articles, many of which were half-baked, confusing, contradictory and in many instances, just plain wrong. In my first six months, I completely rewrote some 20+ marketing related articles, and added substantive new sections to a further 24 or so marketing articles. Some of those articles have since been upgraded to "B" and "C" articles. However, in second half of last year, I pulled back considerably due to continual stalking and harrassment by an editor who is associated with the External Links Project and who, I believe, is using vindictive editing to punish me for failing to embrace a recommendation that redlinks should replace seven external links on a specific marketing article. Although I began writing up a complaint about the persistent deletions, tagging, questioning and regular comments to the WPELP about my editing activities, my heart was not in it, so I did not proceed the complaint. The editor in question has a long history of bullying with ANI. At various times, I quit editing altogether a vain effort to shake him off, but just as soon as I resumed editing, he would emerge with a new barrage of aggressive reversions and hostility. I tried asking the Help Desk for advice on how to proceed when virtually an entire article was reverted, but was informed in no uncertain terms that the only people who complain about bullying are themselves bullies. So, now I confine myself to making minor edits - adding images, correcting grammar, adding in references to pre-existing content etc. BronHiggs (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Well I'm impressed with the progress of your work. I remember the marketing-related articles being seriously sloppy before you began to work on them, and then I recently revisited some, and wow -- such an improvement. I recognize that you are one of the people that really upgrade the encyclopedia -- great job -- and I also recognize that contributors with your level of commitment and expertise are rare.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding bullying -- I too have been bullied in the past, and I've been thinking about this subject. Years back, I took a day or so and created the article Philosophy of Spinoza -- it was good stuff, referenced from books I'd read, with great photos; then somebody came along who didn't know anything about philosophy, saw I was a handyman, assumed I didn't know anything about philosophy, and then got some grad student in philosophy (apparently) to re-do the article, but with some serious shortcomings (eg such as emphasizing deontology -- a gross misinterpretation of Spinoza). Or, a more recent article, there are numerous article owners of National Rifle Association so that even with the current fuss about the Florida shootings, when perhaps 60% to 80% of the public wants gun control in the US, these whitewashers have turned the article into a public relations puff-piece for the NRA; so I figured I would not waste my time on it, since it's so obvious to pretty much anybody with a brain that the article is junk. Anyway, getting back to the Spinoza article, I had done so much work on it, and it was wiped out in a few clicks, and I thought -- is it worth pursuing this? I let it go; it wasn't that big a deal; I could create stuff elsewhere, and I found I could write a Google 'knol' article (although Google then came along and deleted their knol service -- but my writings can be found in WordPress, also in books that I write and self-publish on Amazon. Further, as you see, I'm learning to make YouTube videos, so there's another way that my contributions can be found. So I've found that a multi-layered approach is best, with me contributing in different areas.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * A general problem in Wikipedia is that it takes much more time and effort to create high quality content, and very little time and effort to destroy it, or question it, or muck it about; so it is possible for malevolent editors to do real damage here while appearing to be impartial well-meaning contributors. Further, the way the structure is set up (and maybe this is a good thing?) is that it is relatively hard (but not impossible of course) for groups of editors to team up and follow what the others are doing, unless they have a mutual interest in specific articles. (the good thing: since most of us in Wikipedia are pretty much alone, it helps keep the community impartial, in that we all have our agendas, and it can restrain some of the overly-zealous contributors perhaps; but the bad thing is that yes, malevolent types can unfortunately team up if they really want to, and it's hard to prevent them from wreaking havoc.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * A further problem is that the judges and police-type people here in Wikipedia are themselves volunteers, and really don't like to be bothered, so even just bringing a dispute to their attention, irks them; it is as if the complaining party is seen as a nuisance just by complaining. So even bringing up a dispute is like being an unwanted guest at a house party. I've found that to prevail in a dispute, you have to make it simple, brief, try to make it as plain as day why your side is right, make it easy for others to spot the trouble, and undo it. Even then, that's problematic, in that a fairly-adept troublemaker can still make life difficult with distractions, seemingly plausible arguments, etc. I've run up against a few troublemakers in the past, but they bothered many others here at Wikipedia, and the community expelled them generally. It's like the dumbest wackiest types are easily done away with, but the semi-wacky types are more difficult.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Tell me which articles I should follow. Please only a few, and please write on my talk page when you run into troubled waters.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all that. It is always some consolation to learn that you are not alone in the bullying game. It is very kind of you to share your experiences.


 * I once had a list of articles that I worked on posted on my user page, but the bully-editor was using this systematically to destroy my work. I removed the list - but that only slowed him down, rather than stopped him entirely. Some of the larger articles that I have reconfigured include - Market segmentation, History of marketing, Brand awareness, Retail, Advertising management, Services marketing and some of the shorter ones are Servicescape, SERVQUAL and Service blueprint. Along the way, I stopped to overhaul a few "fun" articles, such as Costermonger and Street cries and have added to biographies of leading marketing academics, rescuing one from the oblivion of AfD. I started editing the main article, Marketing, but there are just too many editors who exhibit territorial rights and delete all new additions, often within minutes of their being added. It's a terrible article, but I have long since given up on that one. But, I posted a suggested plan for the article on its Talk Page.


 * I taught marketing at a local university for 30 years, so am very familiar with the marketing literature and the current debates. I realised the extent to which students rely on Wikipedia to prepare their essays and reports- and how, even those with some training in marketing, failed to separate the worthwhile content from the shabby stuff. So, I promised myself that when I retired, I would make a concerted effort to improve WP articles in the marketing area - for the benefit of the next generation of students and others who were interested in the subject area. I simply had not bargained on how difficult that would be.


 * Like you, I also have other outlets for my writing inclinations. Currently, I write a weekly blog, on a topical marketing subject of my choice, for one of the international publishing companies operating here in Australia. I also help early career academics to edit their articles to a standard where they can be published in high quality academic journals. From time to time, I am also invited to contribute case studies to Australian texts in the marketing/ advertising area and regularly write up instructor manuals, solution manuals etc., that accompany major text books. I have been responsible for preparing all the teaching resources for the three latest Australian editions of Phillip Kotler's introductory marketing text. Lately, I have expanded a number of WP biographies of Orientalist artists - which is a pet interest of mine - all entirely without incident. BronHiggs (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your thinking. Well just to reiterate I definitely see terrific improvement in these articles since you've been working on them. On behalf of the community, thank you for your excellent contributions. Marketing students and practitioners will benefit greatly from your additions. The community only insufficiently recognizes and rewards content contributors. I put the first four or five articles on my watchlist (there are over 1000 on there now) so I'll try to watch a bit and help but if there's a particular issue please write on my talk page with specific links and I'll try to help.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, I'm fine
Your concern is duly noted and fear not; a wide range of users have hit up my Talk Page on the path to enlightenment over the years. More often than not, they leave marginally wiser for it, and the polite usually score a concession in whichever dispute (or compromise, at least). I get that there's a black cloud of "human rights violator" trailing me since I went down on a well-documented minor misunderstanding, but I've served my time and am now as decent an editor as I ever was (in a "door's always open" sense).

If you can find it in your heart to not append further unrelated discussion on the finer points of Hogg's article with vague drudgery of my shadowy personal character's troubled online past (such as it is), that'd be great. If you can't, please just consider filing complaints to my Talk Page before complaining to a noticeboard. You might find I'm more transparent than I appear.

You might also find deeper substantial meaning in this cartoon about another lad named Tom who likes nothing more than a slice of bread with strawberry jam and honey before spending the rest of the day thinking about nothing at all. It helped me once, I'm paying it forward. My apologies if that's presumptive. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:15, March 21, 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. All I was saying is that deleting references (good ones, reliable, relevant to the discussion) can attract attention from administrators, and my intent is to help you navigate away from such waters.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks then. I might've unfairly conflated your comment with ValarianB's. Seeing patterns where none exist, that sort of thing. If I'm not actually being mobbed for something I didn't do, I suppose that's all there is to say. Keep on keeping on! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jaclyn Corin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Jaclyn_Corin check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Jaclyn_Corin?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Jaclyn Corin
Thanks for changing "in locked" to "locked in". Can't believe I did that! I was so busy typing a good edit summary that I forgot to check preview. Sigh....Regards,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  20:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing that the original wording was incorrect to begin with. What happens is that sometimes we fix one part of something, and the other thing futzes up -- what I've learned in my handyman work. The good thing about Wikipedia is there are lots of people to catch our goofs, which is really quite liberating, in that we can go ahead and do our best, without getting mired in perfectionism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Deitsch
Hi Tom. I wanted to get your opinion about possibly creating Ryan Deitsch. He seems to be one of the leaders of the current anti-gun violence movement. As far as I can tell, he would meet WP:BIO. What do you think?- MrX 🖋 17:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I was also thinking about Delaney Tarr, but at the same time I'm getting a sense that it's easy to overdo things. The perceptual mindset can only handle so many Parkland activists, so even if there are, say, 12 of them that meet the notability guidelines, the Wikipedia community may not be so welcoming of having that many separate articles. Further, it's not clear to me whether the group (ie Never Again MSD) is the key variable, or whether it's individuals working on their own. Another thing: I was thinking about a possible section in the N.A.MSD article listing the other activists in separate sections -- separate one for Ryan, one for Delaney etc. I'm wondering what you think about these things.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of profiling them in another article, and then maybe creating independent bios if they continue to be covered in the news. It's also not clear to me if they are part of of Never Again MSD.- MrX 🖋 22:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it's not all that clear. Things are evolving so quickly I bet even the group members don't know what's going on. Maybe things will settle in a week or so? Regarding your suggestion, are you saying having one more article, but listing all the "other" Parkland notables? Or including the other notables in the Never Again MSD article? I'm kind of thinking we should wait a bit at this point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking we could create brief profiles in the Never Again MSD article for now. It would be easy enough to spin them off into articles later if warranted. By the way, I found this: "Matt Deitsch, #NeverAgain outreach director, graduated the year before, and is brother to senior Ryan Deitsch, a core member of the group." - MrX 🖋 12:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'm beset with other stuff for a while so please go ahead with what you think will work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of congresspersons who received campaign money from the NRA for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of congresspersons who received campaign money from the NRA 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 Articles for deletion/List of congresspersons who received campaign money from the NRA 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. Werehilly (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

NRA contribution list
Tom, THANK YOU! Creating a list of US reps who receive NRA funding was a brilliant idea! I will be watching it to make sure no trolls vandalize it. The only thing I would like to see improved (and, maybe I could figure out how to do it) is for the list to be able to be sorted by last name. But, it's terrific as is. We should think about other ways Wikipedia can be used to shame our politicians into better behavior! Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes being able to sort by last name would be helpful. Also their NRA grade would be good.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you know where the rest of the contribution data can be found? Like the lobbying $$$?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The NRA grade wouod be good for sure. Best to discuss improvements to the list on the article talk. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Tom, I'm afraid those pushing for the article to be deleted are right. This article has a biased POV. I was so excited to see it, that I didn't think of that. I am afraid it will be deleted; not sure if there's any way to prevent that, but I added a citation to the OpenSecrets site in the article on Emma Gonzalez. That should not be a problem to keep. Paulmlieberman (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Biased POV? It includes both Democrats and Republicans. The fact that the NRA favored the Republicans is not my doing. I would have floated the list regardless of which parties did what. My bias is against gun violence.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Further, it is just a list -- it doesn't advocate either for or against the NRA. Gun lovers may like to see that the NRA is doing a good job of funding these congressional campaigns, for example; it's neutral.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The key is the topic of the page is discussed on RS. There are tons of RS discussing NRA contributions generally and to specific politicians. Start adding cites person by person from the biggest recipients by searching "Name NRA contributions". There will be stories across the country for the biggest recipients. Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Bold Revert Discuss
Hi Tomwsulcer,

Please read, WP:BRD Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tomwsulcer, please do not re add section to my talk page
Hi Tomwsulcer, Its ok for me to remove threads from talk page since it means I have read them. There is also a history of edits so folks can see what your wrote. I will not remove your thread again, but I am just asking you not to re add it. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have been edit-warring on Arby's, by removing this referenced sentence, without an explanation; when it was restored, you reverted again only listing 'brd' as the supposed explanation which says nothing at all. When I wrote about this on your talk page, you've been removing this post (illegal to do) with the flimsy excuse of "archiving". This kind of stuff lands you in ANI.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Tomwsulcer, maybe we could discuss this on the article talk page? I started a thread there. WP:BRD stands for bold, revert, discuss. I thought you boldly added some material to the Arby's article so I revered it and started a talk page thread. Maybe this wasn't clear or the best use of that, but hopefully that helps. I also see that you asked for others to get involved, which isn't a bad thing as well. Also, it really is ok for me to remove threads from my talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No it isn't okay. My sense is you're a vandal, an edit-warrior, and a whitewasher. My sense is you really don't belong here in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

NRA addition
Tomwsulcer, as I noted earlier the is an active RfC related to the material you added to the NRA article. The material was reverted earlier today with reasons noted on the talk page. Given the contentions nature of the material and topic please self revert and join the current discussion. Thanks Springee (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I responded on the talk page of National Rifle Association. As I said, the sentence is neutral and well-referenced with three reliable sources and I don't see why some RfC that I can't find should prohibit its inclusion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Paterson University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vulgar ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/William_Paterson_University check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/William_Paterson_University?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

May 23: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Kenneth Ouriel
Hi, his references are showing an error for invalid tag because you have used the same citation with 2 different quotes.--FrankTursetta (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

== June 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (and Pratt Women Wikipedia Design this Saturday June 16) ==

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

Invite
75.145.160.153 (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Question
Did you read my edit summary? He changed content that he didn't mention in the edit summary. He changed content that shouldn't have been changed, there was nothing wrong with it. He didn't even try to discuss and now you've enabled that behavior by essentially tag-team edit warring with X. Is that really the hill you want to stand on and behavior you want to hold the flag for? Or do you think that starting a discussion on the talk page is the better choice rather than taking on the appearance of tag-team edit warring? You have a noted history of stating in talk page discussions where X is involved that you agree with him. And then say nothing else. This appears to be the same thing. No discussion, just revert back to X's preferred version of the article. Do you understand where I'm coming from - it's frustrating. And puts real editing at a complete standstill. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 23:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Winkelevi, you shouldn't accuse anyone of tag team edit warring when you yourself wrote "Reverted to revision 847090350 by Mike03car" in an edit summary. We have discussed this before and I've shown that the majority of sources, by far, characterized Ingrahm's remarks as ridicule. We shouldn't have to have this same discussion again. - MrX 🖋 23:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm saying his action has taken on the appearance of it. You reverted content without noting it in the edit summary - that was dishonest.  It also appears that you did it in order to revert everything I changed or added.  And you did it all without discussion or attempt at discussion of any kind.  Those are the facts.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 23:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Be careful of who you accuse of being dishonest. My edit summary said "The word doesn't have to be in the source since we paraphrase. However, numerous sources do use that words and almost eve[r]y source uses an equivalent of that word." I only intended to revert Mike03, so I will restore the rest of your edit momentarily.- MrX 🖋 23:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. If you had reverted him, it would have only reverted his change of the content he added/removed.  It wouldn't have accidentally picked up what I added several edits prior.  Can you explain how that happened?  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 23:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edit immediately preceded the one I intended to revert. It was a mistake. I apologize. Can we move on?- MrX 🖋 23:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true, it did. Even so, if you used "undo" or Twinkle options for rollback, it wouldn't pick up my edits on its own.  Any idea how it picked up my edits? Seems like if there's a technological glitch, someone should be notified about it.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 00:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally you both have done a good job on the article -- it looks better.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Why did you restore material when it was clear there is no consensus for inclusion in the talk page?
Tom, you are an experienced editor? Why would you restore material when it's clear there is no consensus for the newly added material? [] Springee (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I can understand that pro-NRA editors such as yourself would like to keep out of the National Rifle Association wiki-article -- well-referenced and reliable reports about a Russian operative's involvement with the NRA. It's a huge story. An indictment from the federal government. The NRA. While of course you have a right to challenge this addition, you don't have a right to keep the information out of the article during the challenge. To me, it's rather obvious that it belongs in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So is it reasonable to assume you are an "anti-NRA" editor? If you read the new articles such at the one in the NYTs it notes that the NRA was not mentioned in the indictment.  Also, you are wrong about when material can be removed.  At the time of removal we already had 6 editors who weighed in and half said remove.  That means we don't have consensus.  Since you think the material should be added, what policy or guideline supports that POV?  BRD is widely cited.  It says the material shouldn't be restored until consensus is reached.  Do you disagree with BRD or do you think consensus was reached?  Springee (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not anti-NRA but I sure am anti things that it has done, friends it has, and its apparent collusion with a foreign power (Russia) to influence the 2016 election. To state it frankly, there are considerable numbers of pro-NRA editors who are actively seeking to whitewash the article of facts -- like the arrest and indictment of Maria Butina -- charged with infiltrating the NRA on behalf of the Russian government -- and trying to keep this information out of Wikipedia seems borderline sinister.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Your feelings about the NRA matter not when it comes to editing the article. That's why NPOV policy was created. Consensus - especially when it comes to hot-topic, politically charged articles - is essential. That's why DS exists. My suggestion is you self-revert (if it already hasn't been done for you). At any rate, your emotion-based choice was inappropriate. I hope you now choose to do the right thing. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 14:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Feelings and emotions don't matter; facts count. If consensus emerges to remove the material, I'll go with that, until then, the whole NRA-Russia-Maria link is well-referenced, relevant, and belongs in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In that regard we are in agreement. My issue is we also have policies that try to help scope articles and RfCs to do the same.  I would ask, how is this new material about the NRA vs about the Russian-Trump story?  What has changed about what we know of the NRA?  I've suggested a compromise edit.  Would you please offer an opinion on the compromise?  Thanks Springee (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I'd like to ask you a question -- why did you remove reliable well-referenced information?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sunday July 29: Annual Wiki-Picnic @ Prospect Park
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

August 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Nomination of April Wilkerson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article April Wilkerson 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 Articles for deletion/April Wilkerson& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.  DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

September 26: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

== Sun October 14: Open House New York Weekend Upload Party @ NYU ITP and Indigenous People's Justice Edit-a-thon @ Interference Archive ==

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

History of Citizenship
Never done this, hope it's not against wiki protocol - I read and enjoyed the History of Citizenship and wanted to acknowledge your good work. Well done. A good read.Roy Scherer (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

October 24: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday Oct 28: Wikidata Birthday Party
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Corporatocracy page
Hi Tom, I've never written anybody before on Wiki. I gather from your posts that you might be a former Corporatocracy author and should know that I hope to clean up (remove) most of the complaints there in a few days, which to me seem to be a POV nit-picking tag bomber, as I explain on its Talk page. (I'm fascinated by the apparent relationship between Corporatocracy and regulatory capture, but haven't found a solid link yet.) I expect to get body slammed because the latest attacker seems to be a super editor. If you wrote any of the attacked text I'm sure you could fix it better than me, I mostly just intend to remove the blue whining and prevent the threatened "brimstone" attack/deletion/whatever. Do you know of another original author I should notify, and is this format OK? (I have no personal page.) Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:24E9:66C0:58AC:4E1 (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * Hi I worked on the article substantially, years ago, and it has changed substantially since then. It is one of those subjects that will attract controversy with little agreement so I am not inclined to work on it further at this point, but my advice would be to not get attached to any particular version, since it is like trying to build a sandcastle on a stormy beach.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Italics for publications at John Carlini
Are you under the impression that web sites are always italicized? Vmavanti (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried searching the style guide and it's not clear how websites are treated so I de-italicized it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Try this: Italics.

December 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Happy Holidays

 * Hey thanks, and happy holidays to you too!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. '''Please do not place links to your speeches on Youtube, or to any other content you produce and/or control, in any Wikipedia article. You are in effect spamming when you do so, since you are promoting viewing of something you have produced, and hence may benefit from your link. This is prohibited on Wikipedia.'  General Ization'' Talk  00:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is neither money nor promotion involved -- it was a free speech, talking about a free topic -- Wikipedia -- which might be helpful to people interested in the subject of Wikipedia, how it works, how to contribute, why it works, how it turns neophytes into quality contributors, and all you've accomplished by deleting the link is to make the world a slightly less informed place for everybody, and by writing your comment above, how to be condescending and uncivil to your fellow Wikipedians.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My comments were neither uncivil nor condescending, and called your attention to a documented Wikipedia policy. I don't know whether or how you might benefit financially from increased exposure to your speech published on Youtube, but I think you're sophisticated enough (and familiar enough with the principles and policies of Wikipedia) to see how you have at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest in posting a link to it here.  If someone else was to post the link, it might be a different story.  General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 03:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you had watched my speech on the genius of Wikipedia, you'd have gathered that I'm an old hand here (9+ years), well versed in the rules, and one who doesn't use Wikipedia to make a buck. So accusing me of a COI, and ramming home rules in boldface above, well sure it's condescending and presumptious and arrogant to say the least. It is not how to treat fellow Wikipedians; if you had thought that the speech was irrelevant or unworthy, you could simply have reverted it with such an explanation, but instead you fingerwagged me like I'm some kind of spammer. There's nothing to sell here; it's about Wikipedia -- a free encyclopedia, its merits, etc etc. I don't make money from these free YouTube videos. Why not watch the speech and perhaps you'll agree that it will be helpful to people seeking to learn how Wikipedia works, and how about adding the link back in?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I already watched the speech. It's very nice. That's really not the point. We have authors of good books, and academics who write good papers, posting links to their own works throughout Wikipedia; all of them can point out how their products entertain the masses, benefit society, etc. They are still precluded from promoting their works on Wikipedia, and their edits are regularly reverted. The fact that your product pertains to Wikipedia itself does not make it different. My suggestion is that you describe the video at Talk:Wikipedia and see if someone else is willing to post it, the same suggestion we make to others who have an apparent or actual COI.  Alternately, if you think I'm genuinely mistaken or mistreating you, we can take it to one of the noticeboards for a community decision. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 04:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I didn't revert your edit with an edit summary that said I thought it was irrelevant or unworthy because that's not why I reverted it. I reverted it because it violates Wikipedia policy, and having done so it was incumbent on me to call your attention to that policy. An edit summary really isn't the appropriate venue to do so; a warning on your Talk page that links to the policies involved is. Our warning templates don't always match the experience level or preferred communications style of the recipient, and for that you have my apology. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 04:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you re-read your first post in this thread, you might notice a change of tone from the neutral official rule (...Wikipedia... should not be used for advertising or promotion...) to your boldfaced warning (...You are in effect spamming when you do so...) Can you see the change in tone? From neutral to nasty? My speech is neither spam nor advertising nor promotion, although it does urge people to become Wikipedians -- a difficult proposition if our community gets a reputation as a hangout for gruff finger-wagging types.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll need to assume good faith, specifically that you had no intention to profit from the linking of the video of your speech here, despite the fact that there are multiple ways to monetize both Youtube videos and speaking engagements. Likewise, you'll need to assume good faith, specifically that my intent was not to be nasty but to call your attention to a Wikipedia policy I believed you violated, I assumed unknowingly, and the appearance of a conflict of interest. (My "boldfaced" addition – in bold purely to distinguish it from the generic warning template – was intended to explain how exactly I thought you had done so, since you apparently didn't – and still don't – think that the specific policies linked in the template applied to your actions.) Clearly all of this assumption may be a challenge for both of us, but we are called to try. In the mean time, I see you've taken my suggestion and brought up the matter on the article's Talk page, and I'm content to leave the matter there for now. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 18:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll assume good faith in that you meant well. If you knew me better, you'd know that what motivates me is readers, not money, in that I like it when stuff I write, or donate as images or diagrams, or speeches, is read or seen or watched. So I choose articles to revamp which have high readership; I declare most of my contributed images as 'public domain' since they are more likely to be copied and seen around the web, even though there are sites on the web where I could sell the images. The coolest thing about knowledge and information is that it can be given away, freely, and everybody benefits, which is why I'm a big advocate of Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

January 13: Wikimedia NYC invites you to Wikipedia Day 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thanks
I appreciate your comments on the Hogg talk page. It's rare that anyone actually acts supportive on here. My experience in writing as a law enforcement officer has been mostly policy, ordinances, and cases I prosecute, so I have to be able to vigorously defend anything I write. That seems to run afoul here sometimes, so I will try to remember that. Thanks. --BobiusPrime (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it can get pretty rough and tumble here, as if the community was a gallery of grumpy grouchy old men, perhaps since there are few incentives to say 'thanks' or even to be polite and civil. Wikipedia is assaulted daily by all kinds of vandals and spammers and a knee-jerk response is to treat everybody (including well-meaning contributors) in a rather harsh manner. As you get more experience here I think you'll find that people can become more collegial; until then, please don't take it personally. We've all been through the ringer, here, on the receiving end of wagging fingers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Feb 27 WikiWednesday Salon + Mar 2 MoMA Art+Feminism and beyond
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)