User talk:Tomwsulcer

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

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

(Thanks to Alan Liefting)‎

Archives

• Archive 1

• Archive 2

• Archive 3

• Archive 4

• Archive 5

• Archive 6

Speedy deletion nomination of Jonathan Klein (Dog trainer)

Hello Tomwsulcer,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jonathan Klein (Dog trainer) for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? No doubt in my mind the subject is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Robin Tanner

Thank you for starting this article. I hope you don't mind, but I added the article to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2016/Results, which tracks new and improved LGBT-related content as part of an ongoing Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you create or improve other LGBT articles between now and the end of June, feel free to update this page with your contributions. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I contribute to articles on everybody notable, I have no particular agenda regarding LGBT but good luck with your project.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, was just an FYI in case you happened to create any others. Thanks again for contributing to Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Judging by your user page, it looks like you're an impressive contributor, so maybe I should be thanking you for your contributions to Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

June 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday June 15, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. Featuring special guest presentations on Wikipedia Asian Month and Wikipedia Club at Ohio State University. We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants. We will also follow up on plans for recent (Art+Feminism! AfroCrowd!) and upcoming edit-a-thons, and other outreach activities. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday June 15 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 137 West 14th Street 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) 01:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC) P.S. Stay tuned / sign up early for our AfroCrowd June calendar, June 29 Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA, and July 15 Wiknic @ Central Park, among other upcoming events.

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

Clicker Training And Punishment

Regarding your inability to see that punishment is used in clicker training. Actually punishment is in use in every method of dog training that exists. Your inability to see this is not unusual.

Let's review the basics of OC, Operant conditioning. (Here paraphrased from Skinner).

• If something is added to the situation, it said to be POSITIVE, abbreviated with a (+)
• If something is removed from the situation, it is said to be NEGATIVE, abbreviated with a (-).
• REINFORCEMENT is something that will tend to make a behavior repeat.
• PUNISHMENT is something that will tend to make a behavior NOT repeat.

And so we get four quadrants of OC.

• +R where something is added to the situation that will tend to make a behavior repeat.
• -R where something is removed from the situation that will tend to make a behavior repeat.
• +P where something is added to the situation that will tend to make a behavior not repeat.
• -P where something is removed from the situation that will tend to make a behavior not repeat

Extinction is part of OC and I'll discuss it towards the end of this.

Some trainers, Karen Pryor among them, have perverted the use of these terms. That perversion is responsible for a great deal of confusion in the dog training world, particularly among those who practice clicker training and/or claim that they are "purely positive."

Ms. Pryor discusses this in her "Don't Shoot The Dog!" She writes, "I must apologize to any professional behaviorists who are annoyed at my cavalier use of the vocabulary of reinforcement theory. ... I have sacrificed technical precision in favor of a vocabulary I think people can understand."

I guess Ms. Pryor thought that people who read her book were too stupid to learn the terms of OC. I don't agree.

What she did was to change the term "positive" to mean something that the dog would like. She changed the term "negative" to mean something that the dog would not like. Neither of these terms, used like this, have anything to do with OC but it has caused much confusion among lay people who think that it does. They hear "negative" training and think it has something to do with something that the dog doesn't like. They don't understand that it has to do with removing something from the situation. They'll bounce back and forth between trying to sound scientific and talking gibberish.

To compound this, trainers who claim to be "Pure Positive" have successfully demonized the word "punishment" to mean , as you wrote in one of your messages on the Talk:Dog Training Page, "most readers will think of punishment in terms of hitting or scolding or a loud negative sound, not simply withholding a treat. "

Those things MAY or may not be punishment. It depends on the dog, how he perceives those things and most importantly their effect on the behavior. If it tends to make the behavior not repeat, they are punishment. If it tends to make the behavior repeat, and it's rare but it's the case with some dogs, with some of these things, it's reinforcement.

But the true meaning of "punishment" in the scientific sense of OC has not changed one bit. I find it hilarious that these trainers tell their clients, as a selling point, that their training is based on science, as if other training methods were not. But then they try to pass off, as you did, improper definitions of the terms used in OC.

If (for example − we're talking about training a dog to sit) and he does not obey the command, withholding the treat will have the effect of tending to make the behavior of NOT sitting on command, not happen again. It's –P, negative punishment, the removal of the treat from the situation. Please note that the word "PUNISHMENT" is right there in front of you.

A NRM (No Reward Marker) used by many clicker trainers (I don't know if Mr. Klein uses them, but it's immaterial) is intended to let the dog know that he's not going to get a reinforcement, a reward. A trainer says "sit" but the dog does not sit. The trainer says, "wrong," makes a noise or otherwise lets the dog know that he's not getting the reinforcement. That will tend to make the behavior of not sitting, not repeat. That is +P, positive punishment. Something is added to the situation that will tend to make a behavior not repeat. A NRM is punishment. I don't give a damn if someone claims that it's not, it EXACTLY fits the definition of punishment and so it is punishment. Calling it something else, as some trainers do, to avoid using the word 'punishment,' does not change what just happened − punishment.

Earlier you referred me to Klein's website. There he simply does not address what he does if a trained dog that knows how to sit, refuses to do so. More than likely, he'll either give a NRM, which I just showed you is punishment, or he'll withhold the treat, which I've also just showed you is punishment.

The fact that the so−called pure positive trainers don't agree that they use punishment, means nothing. The definitions of OC are pretty much set in stone. If something tends to make a behavior not repeat, it's punishment. You can claim that "most readers will think of punishment in terms of hitting or scolding or a loud negative sound, not simply withholding a treat." all you want, but it doesn’t change the definitions of OC. If something is done that makes a behavior tend not to repeat, it's punishment.

But don't believe me, read what Karen Pryor has to say about this, "I have a video clip of a trainer ... working with a big yellow shelter dog that jumps up a lot. Twice, the dog offers a sit, and she clicks and treats. The third time, the dog sits, but the trainer waits a bit longer, and the dog jumps up on her. She folds her arms and turns her back. As she does that, the dog cringes backward to the floor, as if it had been struck.

"Was that "punishment"? To the trainer, no; she just briefly removed her attention and what's so bad about that? To the cowering dog, yes: that really hurt.

Punishers, like reinforcers, are defined by the receiver, not the giver." Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm. First, this discussion referring to your changes on Dog training such as here belongs at the Dog training talk page so I'll copy your essay there. Second, this thinking strikes me as original research, shifting around the common understanding of the word punishment to mean, essentially, withdrawal of a treat or inattention (or folding arms). My understanding of the term 'punishment' is infliction of pain, like hitting or striking, or depriving of freedom (eg the convicts were locked in solitary confinement as a form of punishment), and extending the sense of punishment to mean "not giving a treat" is thoroughly dubious. Tell you what -- let's ask people who follow the article Clicker training and see what they think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Summit Transfer Station Book Shed - Exterior Picture?

Hi Tom, I saw your great picture of the interior of the Summit Transfer station book shed - do you have a picture of the exterior? I am asking because I found some interesting books in the shed and want to post a picture to Facebook that includes an exterior shot of the shed. If you don't have one, I'll use the excellent interior shot you already uploaded to Wiki Commons - Thanks - a Summit Resident.JumpyGoat (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you can't take the photo yourself?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your provision of sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowena Sánchez Arrieta (2nd nomination), upon which I have based my withdrawal of the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks too. I admire people who can change their minds. My first sweep had the middle name, and nothing came up; by accident, I removed her middle name and the sources emerged. Just luck I guess. Filipinos often have extra long names with many middle names.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I consider myself to be a pretty decent source searcher, but I did not find those sources. I'll keep in mind including searches omitting the middle name. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If you like, feel free to use my sweeps -- (they may not all be up to date) but what I do, as you probably can guess, is type the search term in the google browser bar, then cut-and-paste one or more of these media filters. If it's a common name like say 'Patty Smith', I may add a few more terms to try to catch the right one. Lately I've just been using Google's 'News' filter with just the name.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I have added it to WP:ADVANCED (diff), an essay I composed in July regarding source searching. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

And thanks also for the link to WP:ADVANCED which I'll put on my user page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sharon Christian page

Hey! Thanks for your super-constructive feedback. I tried to take it to heart: check out the page and tell me what you think. I don't think there are any references there that are not "real"; I've removed any reference for which we don't have electronic copies to facilitate vetting. I'll keep hacking if you think it would help! Icareaboutart (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic? It might be too late to rescue your article. Once these AfDs get going, they have a logic of their own, like tumbling downhill fast. If the article gets deleted, write on my talk page in 6 months and we can see whether we might refloat it. Here are your good references: this one, this one (it's a newspaper), this one is only a mention (not sure whether to keep). Can you find any more? What I'd do -- include only those good references, and using the reference, write one innocuous sentence (no adjectives) summarizing what the reference says, followed by the reference. Then hunt for more references. And cross your fingers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

JohnPackLambert

Given your comments on a recent afd you may be interested in this ANI discussion. Apologies if you've already seen it. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I have mixed views on this. I think many of the beauty pageant articles do need to be deleted, since they only say that person X won such-and-such a pageant, but there are some notables in there, and I'd like JPL to be more open-minded, listening to others here, and doing some minimal source-checking beforehand.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you, most are good to be deleted. We just need time to work through the backlog and a promise to be more careful in future. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

hello

Hi Tom I really like the way you are doing well. You are so ... I don't know what to say coz you inspired me!great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmaine Loy (talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Unitarian Universalist Church of Kent Ohio for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Unitarian Universalist Church of Kent Ohio 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/Unitarian Universalist Church of Kent Ohio 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. JonRidinger (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tomwsulcer, I am glad you are contributing to Wikipedia. I !voted "Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitarian Universalist Church of Kent Ohio and I think you and I would tend to have similar views, broadly.

This is just meant as a friendly note: some number of other AFD regular editors have noticed the pattern and quality of deletion voting by the editor you criticize in that AFD. Reputation does matter. In this AFD I voted before they arrived, but I think in the past I have been concerned about that editor's AFD votes enough to check their contributions and follow them to other AFDs, where I voted opposite. Possibly other regular AFD editors are doing that occasionally, or at least are certainly discounting the editor's comments strongly in AFDs. So, you are sort of right about what you observe I think, without going into detail. However, when I saw your comments I felt concern for you, along the lines of what another editor has now written there. If you make outright statements like you did, negative about another editor and kind of unnecessary IMO, you will turn off many experienced editors. You received a mild, polite comment this time (the comment that you end up proposing to agree to disagree about). But as a word of advice, you need to read up on Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and essays on personal attacks, and moderate how you react with that editor at least. The worst outcome would be for you to double down and insist on a right to dress down other editors a few times too many, in which case you could get dragged down yourself in ANI proceedings and arbitration or other processes. I speak from some experience, as in the past others viewed me as being prone to make personal attacks (while a host of other shit was going on and IMO i was reasonably speaking up against worse matters, but nonetheless), and it hurt me that these others spoke against me or didn't speak for me, in the other matters, and I got treated badly, unfairly or fairly depending upon your point of view.

Again, you are right, reputation does matter, and from the outside it can seem obviously relevant to point out another editor's biases or past history etc. so that their view can properly be discounted in a discussion. But that ain't so, in the evolving culture of Wikipedia editing, or at least not the way you did it this time. I do recommend you read the policies and guidelines, but this culture is not written down, cannot be kept updated in writing. I just advise: try to fit in on this, try not to be extreme. You might reasonably point out that others, me included, do make negative statements that would seem to violate the explicit policies, here and there. But probably others can succeed in saying things because their wording is somewhat milder or more veiled or is located elsewhere (like at a user Talk page commenting about the AFD, not in the AFD itself) or is otherwise more indirect. There are certainly gray areas, and the explicitly stated rules are not sufficient and are not strictly followed. But you can get in trouble if you're out of sync. And here you are out of sync, IMO. I don't suggest you do anything now, just let it go, but be more careful next time. Feel free to disregard everything I wrote here, besides the fact that I like your positive contributions. :) --doncram 17:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, maybe you're right, maybe I'm too focused on winning the debate rather than contributing impartially. Thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually

... agree that Jytdog has an excessive medical bent. Its not only on the coregasm article. If you go back a few months on hi edits you notice this is a pattern repeating itself. I tried to get through to him but he seems dismissive of our concerns. His dismissiveness has made me consider whether he would be more willing to listen to a more senior editor than ourselves. Consequently I noticed someone opened a thread at AN/I on him for something unrelated, and thought maybe that was a venue where senior editors might be able to address this issue. Pwolit iets (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I agree, and thanks for your edits before, I suppose it happens that contributors wearing blinders get attracted to this place. But I'm thinking that the coregasm article will probably get merged into orgasm and then be watched over by even more editors with biomedical biases, so my thinking is simply wait and see. And that it's important to apportion our time and not get wrapped up in fruitless battling.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think waiting and seeing is an option. What if you create another article that is only slightly medical yet Jytdog decides to restart his purging spree to once again give that a medical slant. I assume you might reach that point where you'd get sick and tired of it. The more frustrating part is that Jytdog is a somewhat lazy editor and as such will not do the relevant citing himself. Sometimes content he deletes is easily verifiable with good sources. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps. When I get to that point, I'll take it to ANI. If you take it to ANI let me know. In the meantime, there are better things for me to do than fuss with this contributor.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your improvements to Unitarian Universalist Church of Kent Ohio, an article you found and rescued at ADF, where the arguments being made for deletion would have tried the patience of a saint. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!!!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)