Jump to content

User talk:Tedickey/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Southern United States edit

Dear Tedickey, I made a small edit to the Geography section, with inline references, which was removed by another editor with a totally unreferenced edit. I do not wish this to expand in any way. Would you please look at what I did? I think it was a quite sound and appropriate edit, and I am a little shocked to have it so cavalierly reversed by another editor. Thanks. Dubyavee (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a bit long for the given context - the w-link to Unionist government in Wheeling might by itself be topical. Tedickey (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. The text sentence itself wasn't much longer than the original, the footnote ref was long because I figured people wouldn't have the Proceedings of the WV Constitution Conv. I should have used McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom instead, which said pretty much the same thing as my edit "The voters overwhelmingly endorsed a new state, but the turnout was small." pg. 303. There is basically the only sentence on the Southern United States page that deals with statehood, and what is there now is just stuff, not informative at all. Anyway, I will drop the whole thing. Thanks.Dubyavee (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
no problem Tedickey (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ANSI escape sequences

Thanks for the observation on xterm blue color. I changed (after finding a newer xterm that had the lighter blue colors). It is taking long in making its way to all computers though. I tried brand new version of Cygwin and a version on a cluster we bought one year ago, and both had the old xterm versions. The change was: (0,0,205) --> (0,0,238) for normal blue and (0,0,255) --> (92,92,255) for bright blue. Kristjan.Jonasson, 13 April 2010.

That's better (though I don't see where you found "Dec. 2004" - the source was changed in July and released at that point, though packagers may have deferred it) Tedickey (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Its just a matter of European versus American date order: I read 2004/7/12 as 2004, 7 December (:-). (Kristjan.Jonasson (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
thanks Tedickey (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Paine's DoB

Tedickey
Earlier today you reverted a change to Paine's Date of Birth
(Not that this made any difference, as the anonymous IP had changed it wrongly, so it still showed the same on the actual page)

At Talk:Thomas_Paine#Date_of_Birth I have set out my understanding that "to comply with MoS, Paine was born on 29 January 1737"
This is unchallenged since 20 February, and on 20 March I gave people a last chance to object before I changed it - but no-one has.
Having left this on the talk page for so long, and had no disagreements, I trust there will be no objections when I change it? ( ! ! ! )
Arjayay (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at the change, I reverted something that made the old/new dates the same (which they wouldn't be) back to about 10 days difference (looked right). Looking now, I see that the visual effect of the change made the years differ but not the date - so I do agree with that - will revert (thanks) Tedickey (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please tell me how my external link was link spam? thank you. Margo&Gladys (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like all you're doing is adding links to another encylopedia site. spam according to most people. Tedickey (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of the policy is that the question should be whether the external link adds additional helpful, relevant information. Are you suggesting it doesn't, or are you arguing that links to another encyclopedia site are, by definition, spam "according to most people"? Margo&Gladys (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Your editing history shows that you made dozens of links no more than a minute apart. It's improbable that there waa any attempt to make constructive changes. spam as noted before Tedickey (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization

The words "state" and "city" are not capitalized in U.S. geographic names, unless the word is an intrinsic part of the name itself. For example: Bullhead City, Arizona; Kansas City, Kansas. One does not write: Bullhead City, State of Arizona.

See the Wikipedia styleguide for further clarification.

Do read a reliable source rather than interpreting rules according to your own preference. For instance, any of the state government sites will give the information Tedickey (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tedickey,

I would like to ask you the criteria you have used to delete some external links I've inserted in Reservoir and Hydropower pages.

It is important to notice that those links were related to a freeware software with a important reservoir and hydro plants database. Also, papers and manuals about the mathematical and simulation model were accessible in HydroByte software.

Thank you for your attention.

Marcelo.

The edits are promotional (no argument there), and the site doesn't offer useful content to readers Tedickey (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Southeastern US

I corrected the list of metropolitan areas to be accurate. The current list is a mix of some MSA populations and some CSA populations, which makes it inaccurate. Using the CSA gave, for example, Raleigh, a much higher standing than if the MSA population had been used. I was going for consistency and I think mine made more sense. --Conk 9 (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You removed the given source, replacing it with a page that didn't support your edit. Please try to make a constructive change Tedickey (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I mistakenly messed up the source, but in the process of attempting to fix it, you reverted my changes. I am going to change it back with an accurate source listed. --Conk 9 (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure - if you give a source, we can decide how it fits Tedickey (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I've got the correct link and information, but have forgotten how to get the title in the reference list to show accurately. You can revert it again if you want, I've got to run and can't work on fixing the title right now, sorry. --Conk 9 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Constitution

Did I insult you, anglo-saxon civilization and all The Western World by telling the fact: The legal act based on Corpus Iuris Civilis (Civil part) and Ecumenical Councils (Canonical part) that regulated all spheres of social life was more develpoed than piece of paper whose only purpose was to restrain the tyranny of the king John Lockland?! I made links to the original article which is full of information. I've put the references to the documents made by masters of law. What is dubious?! What is disputable?! Didn't I give enough arguments?! Do you want me to remove the part of the text where I make comparison between Zakonopravilo and Magna Carta? Or you just can't believe that once there was more developed nation in East Europe? Is your behaviour motivated with discrimination to the other nation? Пера ложач (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for a reliable source (your essay and conjectures don't meet that goal). Do consider finding appropriate sources Tedickey (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that the translation from old Serbian to modern Serbian is in progress. The whole document is about 1500 pages. The translator is the only one professor - the enthusiast! He has finished the volume one, after 20 years of work. He published it recently, and announced the volume two soon. Than, his assistants will translate it in english and put it somewhere on the internet. Why nobody did it in the past. Because Serbia was under Turkish domination (Ottoman empire) from 1459 to 1878. Than two World wars, than 50 years of communism, than 3 civil wars on the territory of former Yugoslavia. Sorry, we were just a little bussy. ;) Please, pardon my hard language in the previous message. Try to understand me. We, the Serbs, are rising from the dead. We try to tell the World that we are alive. We had very noble and glorious past, and we still some documents, monuments and giants, such as Novak Djoković and Jelena Janković! ;) Yes, I am a big fan of tennis. Anyway, let's go back to the subject. Direct citation from St. Sava's Nomocanon in English would be the best proof for my statement. Since I cannot provide it, I'll remove my sentence about comparison with Magna Carta. Are we cool now? By the way, if it's not a secret where are you from? Greetings! Пера ложач (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. My point is that specific claims of notability have to be sourced, to distinguish them from purely promotional edits Tedickey (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this fine for the Wikipedia standards? Пера ложач (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine (it will also help if you add more sources to the linked topics where you've been editing) Tedickey (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to improve them. Пера ложач (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tedickey (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Noticing you reverted some edit of this article, I'd like to ask you, what do you think about this edit. That IP keeps adding that link to this article in spite of the fact that it contains few information (two scripts and three book reviews). I've already removed it three times and gave that IP two spam warnings. Regards, --Tomaxer (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd remove it per WP:EL, since there's no useful content which would improve the Bash content there. For a link to be useful, it should be (a) non-derivative, and (b) provide in-depth information which is not available within the topic and the authoritative sources used. This one fails on both counts Tedickey (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain ...

... this edit? Paul August ☎ 17:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

either a blunder, or (as does happen occasionally) an instance of Wikipedia presenting incorrect information in the diff. At the moment, I only recall that I compared and saw a chunk that was overlooked, and did the revert based on that. The diff today doesn't show any chunk that I should have reverted on. Tedickey (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

FOSS

Hi. Can you explain this edit, please? I thought citation request applies to existence of confusing and this fact is confirmed there in a first sentence ("Many people believe [..]"). Maybe it will be best just to take off citation request? 985D83E8 (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit added a pointer to someone who was asserting that there's confusion as a preamble to providing a meaning which (notwithstanding the essay's visibility) was not in use before that point. To make it non-POV, it might be better to remove the sentence entirely. Tedickey (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Coolpat222

constructive?? The entry isnt constructive, is false and is slanderous. Does this mean that anyone can write anything about anyone and it stays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolpat222 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source - looks like that's a missing element from all of your edits Tedickey (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change Science Program

Dear Tedickey

I believe you placeed a tag about this article needing some work, and I would not disagree with that general assessment. As the most recent editor of that article I may take some responsibility. Yet having worked on it for awhile, I would like to balance that article's need against my need to move on to other things. That probably means fixing problems I caused this weekend, and then maybe some (but not necessarily all) of the other problems as well.

When I came upon this article it seemed to read like an outline with 2/3 of the planned sections unwritten. And it had been that way for at least months and maybe a year. So I provided text for another 1/3 of the planned sections, and then collapsed the other unwritten sections into small sections so we no longer have repetitive 1-sentence sections.

Could you take a look and compare current version with last week before I started editing, to let me know about which problems I have added that need to be corrected? No need to do this today because there are a few things I was going to fix anyway tonight. Also, if you see some problems that antedate my contribution, could you venture your opinion regarding the relative importance of fixing them? (Footnotes with no text, just a link was the main thing I noticed.)

Also, it had been given a "B" grade previously. With these fixes, how close is this to a B+ or A- or whatever is better than that B.

Warmest regards, Bsansvsage (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Reservoir

I have been working on Reservoir for the past few days and would value your comments and suggestions on the current version as you have also done much work on the article in the past. Regards  Velela  Velela Talk   19:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks - I did notice, will read closer and comment as needed Tedickey (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Cedar Mountain

Hi. I noticed that you reverted some updates from 208.101.175.212 by saying "not a novel." Although I agree that this guy went a little over the top on Battle of Antietam, I'm not sure that that judgment is justified for Cedar Mountain. I have been spending some time reverting or cleaning up this guy's work because he does not pay attention to citations, but since Cedar Mountain is generally citation-free, I did not revert his work on this article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it (still) appears much the same sort of edit: focused on things that look more like extracts from a historical novel than a history text. It would be nice if you can improve it. Tedickey (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

hmm - thanks (I'll have to keep in mind that some topics require a double-check to pass this threshold) Tedickey (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Salisbury/All-America City

You reverted my addition of Salisbury receiving the All-America City award for 2010, stating "lets not go there again" Care to tell me why? David (talk)

There was a spate of edits linking to that topic a while back. Consensus was that they weren't keeping since the intent was purely promotional Tedickey (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that other cities named such as Goodyear, Arizona have it on their pages. Do you know the location of this Consensus? If it's purely promotional, why does it have a wikipedia page? David (talk)
There are lots of promotional pages on Wikipedia. This one doesn't have a lot to recommend it, since it's little more than a list, doesn't delve into criteria, comparable awards or anything else. Not much more than a list... Tedickey (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I just checked about 10 of the cities who have received the award recently, and most of them have it on their page just as I added it or in similar format. I see no consensus on the Salisbury talk page stating not to include it on the Salisbury page. While any award anyone receives could be seen as promotional, I see this as notable as the Salisbury community worked hard to win this award and at least three of the Salisbury news media have covered the award (I referenced one of them). I believe your removal should be undone unless there is a consensus on the talk page not to include any mention of the All-America City Award ("To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages." Wikipedia:CCC#Consensus-building). David (talk)
What drives links to pages like that of course is reasonably apparent. But without a suitable section in the topic that explains how the distinction was earned, it's not very useful to the casual reader. You'll find very few topics that provide that type of coverage (whether NPOV or not). Tedickey (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I will develop a section stating why Salisbury won including the three topics of their application and add it to the Salisbury page. I respectfully ask that it not be removed on the bases of a previous consensus, that a new one be formed on the talk page if you believe the award should not be included. David (talk)
That would be an improvement Tedickey (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Tedickey - I'm a bit new to Wikipedia editing, but I did read the external link guidelines and was wondering why you removed some of mine. I'm adding the links to the CCEL because I work here and have been assigned to add links to wiki pages so that more people will know about and use the CCEL. It's a great and credible resource. Please let me know what rules I've broken. Thanks! Abbyzwart (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

your talk page contains several comments addressing these issues Tedickey (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate edits

Could you please stop undoing them? Thank you. 93.182.133.74 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

They're not - they are injecting opinion into a factual topic, providing advice which is neither pertinent nor accurate. Looks like simple vandalism. Tedickey (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a fact BOM characters messes up code, maybe you don't know, but it does.86.137.202.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC).
Yes they are. Many, for example, PHP developers could use the knowledge that this is messing up their scripts. Please stop preventing people from knowing the truth. 93.182.133.74 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi - Wikipedia isn't a blog, nor a forum. It's for presenting reliably sourced information. You've not started. Tedickey (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Grapes of Wrath Pop Culture Reference

Hi, could you please stop deleting the pop culture reference I listed for the Grapes of Wrath? The Boy Meets World episode "Me and Mrs. Joad" specifically is about that book, Cory and Shawn do a "strike" inspired by the book, without realizing the price one must pay to do what you think is right. This reflects the book's overall plot and moral perfectly and there's no good reason why it should not be included. If the source I did cite was not acceptable, then what would be one?75.81.204.244 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To be an acceptable source, the reader should be able to find all of the information that you've added, without your having extended or interpreted the source. TEDickey (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for correcting the problem on the Indian Head page. --Phoon (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The boldface was odd - I wouldn't have expected a self-link to do that. TEDickey (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

SecureCRT article

I made some additional changes to the SecureCRT article, including following your suggestion on the talk page. Could you please review the updated article and remove the tag you added if satisfied? Thanks! Stian (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

yes, I saw that and will followup this morning TEDickey (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Followed up on this some more last week. Mind taking another peek?81.166.155.117 (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems I'd forgotten to log in.Stian (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SCM COMPARISON

Hi, i´d like to know why are you constantly removing all information i put in your scm comparison about Plastic SCM. don´t we have the right to show there our information as the rest of users?Alejandro66 (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 08:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Alejandro66 (talk)

Comparison/list topics aren't the place to start advertising your product, which appears to be lacking notability. WP:WTAF TEDickey (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

why should we be advertising our product, if we just fill the available fields with the same information about our product that the rest of the products in the page? This is called comparison, not advertising; and a comparison to be real, must have all the existing products to compare. so, what´s the problem?Alejandro66 (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The other products have topics associated with them, which help to establish their notability, e.g., by providing useful third-party sources discussing the product which you haven't provided in any of your edits. TEDickey (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, i just didn´t know i could do that; You mean external links and references? No problem, i´ll include some of them..Alejandro66 (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I´ve included some external references..If it´s ok for you i´ll include some more in the future. Thanks.Alejandro66 (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for listing in PowerShell Application support table

You recently reversed an edit that I made to this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_PowerShell

I added our product to the Application Support table and you reversed it because "rm advert for product w/o notable topic". I don't understand the reasoning, the table is a list of applications that support PowerShell and our product is clearly an application that supports PowerShell. How is the addition that I made different than any other entry in the list?

If I try to look at this from the perspective of a PowerShell user, I would want that list to be a complete list of products that support PowerShell. What is the criteria for being included in that table?

JVottero (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The last I looked, all of the other items in the table have Wikipedia topics and have established WP:Notability. Notability is unrelated to your desire to advertise a product. TEDickey (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Mason-Dixon Line

Hello, it looks like you put a "remove-section" template on Mason–Dixon Line but didn't explain why on the talk page. If it was you, would you? Thanks. Pfly (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I put a template on Mason–Dixon Line#Systematic errors and Cavendish's expermiment to weigh the earth, after noticing that it was generally off-topic, and too poorly sourced to justify making it a topic by itself. Perhaps the material is found already in some topic, and could be added there. TEDickey (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Plastic SCM

Hi,

I ´ve just noticed you deleted our "Plastic SCM" wikipedia´s definition again. I´ve just edited again, including ( as you advised) some external notes and references. All these external references don´t belong to Plastic, are just independent publications regarding Plastic. Since you complained about our aim of advertising ourselves through wikipedia, i want to point out the previously mentioned aspect. Please, before deleting (what is pretty likely), just tell me WHAT aspects in our page are wrong respect the wikipedia policy. I´ve just seen some other pages from similar products to ours, and they all have, at least, the same or more material likely to be considered as advertisement. Please just let me know if our Plastic SCM wikipedia page it´s properly.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro66 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Alejandro66 (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Executive Airport Edit

Hello Tedickey! I reverted your edit to Chicago_Executive_Airport, the reference to OpenNav that you deleted was not spam, it is a legitimate source of information, albeit from a commercial source that does sell advertising. Thanks! N9jig (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Linux Console

1) Linux doesn't have a console - it is a kernel.

2) If by chance you mean the Terminal Emulators that happen to be compiled as a Linux binary, what about FreeBSD or other unix-like OSes that don't use Linux kernel?

3) There exist Terminal Emulators for Windows and Mac based computers as well.

The Linux console is part of the kernel sources, and is (aside from WP:OR) generally considered an integral part of the kernel. There is no hardware implementation of the Linux console, consequently it is software-only (that's an emulation). The sentence refers to (unnamed) terminal emulators which emulate these, rather than (addressing (3)) arbitrary terminal emulators. In commenting my change, I considered the absence of emulators for Sun console, the various BSD consoles (though it's unclear about the possibility of emulators such as SCO's console which is imitated via the BSD consoles). TEDickey (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I misread the article but I thought "assorted.." meant other consoles like xterm, Eterm, aterm, etc. If it talking about an emulation of a kernel console the text should be changed to "and Linux console emulators" and the e.g. part should be removed, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voomoo (talk • contribs) 12:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
No - the term "console terminal" is generally known to refer to the terminal which is associated with the actual computer (hence "console" - what houses the computer) rather than something which is separate. The term may be confusing to people who are unaware of the origin of the term. See for example System console, which contains some useful information (although reading it now, about a third is nonfactual) TEDickey (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that if its confusing it should be changed - but I'm not going going to continue this conversion. I'll leave it as a Judgment call of a more experienced editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voomoo (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Non notable items? Wheller007 (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking this but who says that a program is non notable simply because it doesn't operate within the windows environment? This is in reference to your undoing my posting of "multi-threaded newswatcher" in the page "List of Usenet newsreaders". I always thought that this was to provide accurate information to the readers but if we exclude some because somebody thinks it's not notable, we're becoming inaccurate. When I need information, one of the first places I go is to wikipedia and I expect it to have accurate information for me to base my decisions on without somebody deciding that something is too small to note.

environment is irrelevant (was not mentioned). Lack of sources establishing notability (which is normally done in the context of a wikipedia topic rather than a list-of or comparison-of summary) is the point. A quick check with google showed me that it's unlikely that you're going to be able to achieve your goal of establishing notability. TEDickey (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
well, you want notability of MT Newswatcher... how about these two links?[1] shows 42,806 downloads and [2] shows 89,382 downloads. considering how little the usenet is used and the relative scarcity of mac vs windows systems, i'd be willing to bet that it's almost 100% of mac usenet users that use "mt newswatcher" Wheller007 (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:RS and WP:Notability are good places to start reading TEDickey (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

tkWWW

Hi, can you help me and take a short look at tkWWW article? Either I or User:Pmedema is not familiar with the wp rules. THX mabdul 19:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

ok - I'll take a look. TEDickey (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you look over the tkwww article again and evaluate if the article based still on primary source? If not would you remove the tag? mabdul 12:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

the conflict-of-interest noticeboard

Not sure. I've never spent much time there. Toddst1 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks TEDickey (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Reaching out

I think we got off on the wrong foot. I respect you. I want to get along. Does that work for you? Msnicki (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose - will see TEDickey (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Ashburn VA Edits

Greetings, Tedickey. You deleted an addition of a Controversy section on the Ashburn, VA article and validated your actions by stating "Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information". Sources cited are WUSA9 (Channel 9 News in the Washington, D.C. Metro Area) and MSNBC.com so please clarify. Although publicly documented via news articles, it is to be expected that there are some who would have this information censured - hence, the Controversy headline. Zephyriah (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Zephyriah

Sources are one thing, your comments, which go beyond the sources (as well as the ephemeral nature of the edit) are the reason for removing it. TEDickey (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Ephemeral? I haven't cited all their problems - yet. It's pertinent, especially if I had a teenager wanting to volunteer but didn't have this information beforehand to make an informed decision about the problems that exist. Having served five years as a volunteer firefighter at AVFRD and a family member who is a career firefighter, I defer to you then as to what you recommend in order to share this information, that is relevant to the citizens of Ashburn, Virginia and Loudoun County, Virginia? Zephyriah (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Zephyriah
You might start by reading Wikipedia:NOT TEDickey (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I have already read this. Regardless, I appreciate your brusque response and eagerness to help so will post again. Hopefully this will meet both your personal standards as well as Wikipedia's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyriah (talk • contribs) 19:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, since you have already read it, you're aware of the points in which it applies to your edits TEDickey (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please check full edits

... When "restoring sources". The source in question related only to a piece of text removed for inaccuracy. The source did not support the assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.79.107 (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I took the whole edit and its context into consideration, and noted that the point of the source was to demonstrate that GMU's program was ranked in the top 50, and that there were additional sources that might have been given. TEDickey (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Then you dd not look at the source. It is not a top 50 CS program accusing to the source given. Am I correct in assuming you go to George Mason? This appears to be a problem of personal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.79.107 (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I see (63 on that - I was recalling another source which said in the top 50). Do you attend GMU? Seems a more apt explanation, particularly since you're making an accusation of bias. WP:AGF TEDickey (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Bias does not break AGF. It seems The best faith reason for why you might label a legitimate edit as vandalism. I did not attend GMU. I am not even from VA. Just here on vacation aand passed GMU, and looked it up. As someone finishing a graduate degree in CS I was surprised to see the accolades for GMU, as I had never heard anything positive about its program. The cited sources back up this surprise as it is not particularly well ranked. 63rd is at best average. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.79.107 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree - accusing someone of bias (and pretending to provide a reason for it) is a personal attack. Regarding your personal experience, as usual, a reliable source is needed to accept your statements as a fact. TEDickey (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking care of that spam-linkage. I came across it earlier today as well - the difficulty in figuring out the ownership of the referring website was an issue for me. Shearonink (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it yesterday, and it was something to watch - definitely spam. TEDickey (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I found the website online and it provided everything in one spot. I am confused how this is spam by any means? Please do not remove helpful links. - ironmanxsl

Please Be Courteous

If somebody has done the research and found a legitimately helpful resource, do not remove the link. In the future, any links to legitimate resources I post, I would appreciate it if you do not remove. And please review the website first, it is NOT an advertisement, NOT a soapbox, or anything of that nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironmanxsl (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

google shows only about a dozen hits on the site, looks like a series of promotional edits. Discuss on your talk page if there are useful facts TEDickey (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you won't allow me to add a product to the "Comparison of revision control software" page

You sent me a message asking not to add promotional material. I simply added data to table, how can that be advertising? All the other products there have similar entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cascm (talk • contribs) 02:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia topic. See WP:WTAF, WP:EL for a start. TEDickey (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe you are mistaken. There is indeed an article, since 2005, and I had it linked. Besides, that's not the reason you originally cited.Cascm (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure - it's an advertisement. There's so far no encyclopedic content in your edits. TEDickey (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
For additional reading, add in WP:Notability, WP:RS TEDickey (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still confused. What exactly do you see as an advertisement? The CA Software Change Manager article isn't marketing-oriented, certainly no more so than the AccuRev, ClearCase or Perforce articles, which are on this Comparison of revision control software article. Cascm (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Please elaborate why you think my edits aren't encyclopedic. I simply provided the same information provided for other products. Cascm (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You didn't - the other "products" all have Wikipedia topics, where someone's taken the trouble to establish notability. Notability is unrelated to advertising a product. TEDickey (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've edited the CA Software Change Manager to include a number of additional third-party links containing references to the product. I don't feel this was necessary, as the product been in development for 16 years and the article has been around for 6. Satisfied? Cascm (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Better - actually I mistook the entry in the comparison-of topic for one of the ones without a topic. To avoid that, I took out the unnecessary external link from the column which is used in other cases solely to point to the relevant Wikipedia topic. TEDickey (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Why did you remove Carey Campbell's picture from the North Springfield page? Carey Campbell is the elected North Springfield representative to District and County.

PonchoChet (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.233.238 (talk)

That's the North Springfield page, not the political page for XYZ official. TEDickey (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fairfax County Population Estimates

My colleague and I recently edited the Fairfax County page to reflect the official population estimate of the county. We noticed that you reversed some of our previous edits and wanted to explain that the population estimates we cited are not propaganda for the Weldon Cooper Center, nor are they merely derivatives.

The Weldon Cooper Center has been producing the official population estimates for Virginia since 1968. State Code 15.2-4202 defines population as “annual estimate of population prepared by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia”.

Weldon Cooper Center county and city population estimates are also considered more accurate by the Census Bureau, this in large part due to the Center using a methodology more applicable to Virginia’s unique County and City government structure: http://www.coopercenter.org/demographics/publications/evaluation-housing-unit-based-population-estimates-virginia

Colleenwolfe (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

My edit summary was accurate, and noting that you have an apparent conflict of interest, would be suitable to read WP:COI TEDickey (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


librivox for King_Solomon's_Mines

I think providing a book for blind people might be an advertisement is stretching it , is not the goal of wikipedia to provide information to all peoples not mater their ability ? As librivox is a Free_and_open_source_software like project where be the harm in empowering people to have information in more then one way ? As this could be useful to people that did not know of librivox to have books for their commute, exercise , etc, to experienced the classics .

Wilee (talk)

One link would be considered versus WP:EL, two links makes it appear to be advertising TEDickey (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ch interpreter

This caught my attention when a seeming SPA tried inserting an external link to this as the very first external link on the C shell article. Someone else has already hatted the page, but look at the history: all SPAs. I downloaded and played with the product, it is real, but I could not find any references to it anywhere on web or much indication anyone else knows about them. Maybe I didn't look hard enough. What's your take? You are way more experienced. Msnicki (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted at least one of those edits. SPAs with a less-well-known product are likely using the edits for advertising, so I'd revert any that don't point to an established topic (and of course, some of those). TEDickey (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Aha. They spammed the link to the C shell article on the 6th, I caught and reverted it and then browsed the history for the Ch article on the 7th, then got distracted on other stuff before getting around to asking your opinion. In the meantime, you spotted it, too, and tagged it on the 9th; I missed that. Here's the essence of problem of reverting those SPA edits: If you do, there's nothing left! Msnicki (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I usually take a look at the editor's history. Wasn't much to do on the 6th except keep an eye for further activity. TEDickey (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments. On reflection, I decided the simplest thing was simply to hat it for WP:PROD. If one the SPAs removes the hat, I'll make an Afd nomination. Msnicki (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Good call on your edit today. Msnicki (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Bash (Unix shell)

Would appreciate if you'd care to weigh in on the talk page re: Grandscribe's insertion of some material from the GNU site. I gave citations to WP policy for why I objected but he's not persuaded. The right thing to do is get a consensus. Msnicki (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

reason to remove

based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS, Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Chuser (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are uncivil, bordering on libel. Suggest you amend your comments TEDickey (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

awai

I notice you occasionally use that remark in your edit summaries. I understand simple stuff like r and c. What does awai stand for? Msnicki (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

it's jargon TEDickey (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Uhm, okay. But what does it mean? Where does the term come from? I've never encountered it before. Msnicki (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
In the context of Wikipedia, it's the equivalent of counting to ten TEDickey (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you removing interwiki links from lots of article with no explanation? Please stop! –Henning Makholm (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll undo them, but from here they aren't going anywhere. TEDickey (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have not checked all, but for example the one at Plagiarism leads to an article that looks perfectly genuine (modulo my inability to read Hindi). –Henning Makholm (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
sorry - am reverting TEDickey (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

US EPA page spam

Would you mind weighing in on this topic here? Thanks. Bdc101 (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

done TEDickey (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Odyssey and me

Greetings - Your message was received. However, I am here to assure you that I have nothing to do with Odyssey and do not even know what it means aside from its conventional definiens. This is the 3rd or 4th time this has happened: someone is using something to generate my IP address. Is there no way for you to check this? I may be something of an oaf, but I am no vandal! And I am not doing anything at Oddysey.76.195.81.212 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an edit from 2009 with that IP - perhaps it was reassigned in the intervening two years TEDickey (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is it no doubt. I posted at the talk page: "Jumping back in because I think I see what is occurring. My internet provider fluctuates my IP address - I can check what my IP address presents, but I have no control over it. I see a lot of vandalism has been perpetrated here by a similar IP range to mine, in at least two cases it seems my present IP address caused trouble. My recommendation is you monitor carefully IP addresses starting with 75. and 76. But as I asked before, do you have no way of checking these out any further? I am not causing any trouble here and think the article is doing well from what little I've read today.76.195.81.212 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odyssey"

Thanks and please alert me if you see this sort of IP range messing about there again: I'd like to catch them myself as well.76.195.81.212 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly TEDickey (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Vi

I noticed that you've reverted that attempt by an IP-identified editor to add an external link a couple times. I agree it's not that great a link, so I'm not questioning the reverts, but I think you may have been a little harsh in labeling it vandalism in your edit summary. I looked at the site and it appears to be genuine and intended to offer a helpful summary of vi. Unless there's something I missed, I'd be inclined to assume good faith. Thoughts? Msnicki (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Some people have different opinions - but mine is that all of the variants addressed in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace are addressing vandalism. From here, it appears that the editor concerned is likely the author of the page, and the IP-hopping doesn't look nice either. TEDickey (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with all that. But even if it is his own page, he could be a newbie who doesn't yet understand WP policies re: notability and self-promotion and so on. (If it is his page, he probably does genuinely believe it's the greatest thing ever, so of course WP should list it. :) He could be well-meaning but ignorant. Msnicki (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
According to his page (and other things that google finds for the page's author), it's unlikely that he's merely ignorant. There's been no attempt to discuss the edit. There are a lot of these. TEDickey (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
By now you've probably noticed I requested PP to stop him. Msnicki (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
yes - I was thinking along those lines (but haven't been watching it closely - this is just a background task...) TEDickey (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Ouch! I just realized how dumb I can be. I only just now realized that I had only looked at the last few reverts, not the 4 or 5 before that by you and Mindmatrix and others earlier today. Oh, my. This was one determined individual. Msnicki (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
yes - usually an IP-editor like that sticks to one address (unless they want to add friends), and will generally make change comments. No feedback so far. TEDickey (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
An admin decided to block the IP range. Msnicki (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I see (thanks for the update) TEDickey (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It's back (or at least, wants to be)

The Ch interpreter article has been listed for deletion review. Msnicki (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As usual, we're looking WP:RS which are not associated with the product. TEDickey (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Roanoke Colony

I notice you reverted my last edit to Roanoke colony, which added an external link. Would you mind explaining why? No doubt you had a good reason. Thanks in advance Asteuartw (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure - I looked at the page, found nothing special about it, and realized that WP:EL was applicable. Have a nice day. TEDickey (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, the licensing on the page detracted from the site - keep in mind that there are better sources TEDickey (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
When you say that WP:EL was applicable, which bit of it did you apply? The page is relevant to the subject, and indeed contains a useful summary of the history of the colony. So I am confused as to which specific part of Wikipedia guidelines it violates. Perhaps you can elaborate? Asteuartw (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Near the beginning, which links to Wikipedia:NOT#LINK. The source doesn't offer anything distinct from the other sources, and has that terms claiming copyright on all of the material (doesn't mention the fact that most of it's in the public domain - including this chunk). TEDickey (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Chuser

Why are you issuing repeated warnings to User:Chuser for editing talk page posts? I cannot find the problem in the user's edit history. Care to provide a few diffs? SpinningSpark 08:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Those were in a topic which was deleted. Deleted edits don't show up in the editor's history TEDickey (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh right, I see them now. I was worried the warnings were for deleting their own talk page, but clearly that is not the case. Sorry to trouble you. SpinningSpark 10:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
no problem TEDickey (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 14, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 14, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Flag of Virginia

Virginia is a U.S. state on the Atlantic Coast of the Southern United States. The state population is over eight million. Its geography and climate are shaped by the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Chesapeake Bay, which are home to much of its flora and fauna. The area's history begins with indigenous settlements and the founding of the Virginia Colony in May 1607 by the London Company as the first permanent New World English colony. Virginia was one of the Thirteen Colonies involved in the American Revolution. During the American Civil War, Virginia joined the Confederate States of America, which named Richmond its capital, and the state of West Virginia separated. The state government is home to the oldest legislature in the Americas, and is unique in how it prohibits its Governors from serving consecutive terms. Virginia's economy has many sectors: agriculture in places like the Shenandoah Valley, federal agencies in Northern Virginia, and military facilities in Hampton Roads. The growth of the media and technology sectors have made computer chips the leading export, with the industry based on the strength of Virginia's public schools and universities. (more...)

A question regarding ncurses

I notice that you put ncurses into the category of Software programmed in Ada. If I understand it right, ncurses is almost entirely written in C, and the only part that is written in Ada is the binding portion. So IMHO characterizing ncurses as an Ada program doesn't look right. But it could be reasonably considered as an Ada library. Thoughts? Thanks! --TheBlueWizard (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

yes - I happened to notice the category recently (and actually don't recall anything in MinGW which is written in Ada). But the Ada binding is a substantial fraction of the ncurses source (a quick look shows it as 1/4 of the total diskspace used by the sources). Between that, and the examples which are written in Ada, I thought that the category was applicable. TEDickey (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering about this myself when I saw that change go by. I just didn't know the package well enough to want to show my ignorance by asking. :) I can understand your rationale, but I personally would interpret the category definition more narrowly based on what the core functionality of the package was written in, not what language bindings might be available as wrappers. Msnicki (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
yes - but the name of the category seemed to fit. It wasn't (for example) something like "Ada programs" or "Ada libraries". Not counting the documentation, that's about 30k lines of source code. On the other hand, the C++ binding is a minor part of the sources TEDickey (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
actually, the category is "Free software programmed in Ada", which probably won't have many topics linked (I'm still curious about MinGW though - it's core implementation would be C++) TEDickey (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
looking at MinGW, I see that the likely explanation is that one or more of the programs which have been ported into that environment is written in Ada, since someone listed several languages in "Written in" in the infobox. Probably that topic needs some work to provide sources. TEDickey (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised by the amount of discussion here. Anyway, it seems from the foregoing discussion that the definition of Software written in Ada (or programming language du jour) is somewhat ill-defined. I guess in the future more examples will appear and then we can refactor the category. I'll let TEDickey decide, since he's apparently the maintainer of ncurses, although I personally am inclined to agree with Msnicki regarding the scope of that category. I agree though that more Ada examples should be included in the category. --TheBlueWizard (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination)

Hi Tedickey. You participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks TEDickey (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Blog removal

Hello Tedickey, There has been a discussion concerning a blog that you removed this morning here (which was subsequently reverted). I made mention of it although I didn't mention you by name but I did link to your removal. As is custom on Wiki, I'm notifying you as a courtesy...my apologies for not remembering to do this sooner.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I see (thanks). I did read through the site, don't agree with Jensen's blanket approval, however he's prone to that type of thing. TEDickey (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Joyce and The Odyssey?

Hello, I noticed you removed my edit. You really think that it is irrelevant to note that James Joyce created a modern day re-telling of this epic? Especially considering it is #1 on the modern libraries list of top 100 novels (as well as appearing on any given top list you can find)

It also seems odd that you think Joyce's achievement and relevance to the Odyssey should be listed BELOW the likes of this:

"Some of the tales of Sinbad the Sailor from The Book of One Thousand and One Nights were taken from the Odyssey"

... seriously?

--24.187.8.149 (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems with your edit: (a) ordering and (b) promotional TEDickey (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough with part b.. as for part a, is it because the "cultural impact" is of less importance (to mainstream culture) due to his work being mostly unrecognized outside academia and scholars?

At the very least I feel the an entire re-telling should be more relevant (listed above) than the borrowing of a few characters though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ulysses isn't an "entire re-telling", but a kind of paraphrase, where the mapping between the parts of the story is at times arguable, and which as you note, is rather obscure (not widely read). TEDickey (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Ulysses is derived from Ulixes, the Latin name for Odysseus" .. the hero of Odyssey. Can we at least include something like that? --24.187.8.149 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That's mentioned in Odysseus. I suppose that an aside to the effect that the title is the Latinized form or Odysseus would be helpful in context. TEDickey (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Amish

Hey, I noticed you removed my edit in the article on the Amish. I had included, in the section on population, a mention (a sentence, in fact) of the substantial Amish population in west central Wisconsin. Why did you undo it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleWatt (talk • contribs) 03:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As my change comment said, the source wasn't WP:RS. If you'd like to provide a reliable source, then that's a different story. TEDickey (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Will the New York Times do? If not, change it back. Thanks for letting me know; I've been a wikipedia user for years, but never a member till now. - DaleWatt — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleWatt (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That's an improvement TEDickey (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011

As one of the editors who has made improvements to the United States Bill of Rights article recently this notice has been left to inform you that it has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011. The goal this month is to get this article to Good Article standards or better by July 4th, 2011. You can also vote for next months article of the Month or submit a candidate for article of the month here. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Please follow wikipedia rules and do not introduce claims that re unproven

You introduced a claim related to RCS that is completely unproven and in addition was published by the author of RCS. Please do not start edit wars but rather follow the WP rules and use the article discussions where we did already pointed out that RCS is not faster than SCCS. --Schily (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I already pointed out that your "benchmark" was deliberately chosen to be biased and misleading. Furthermore, it doesn't address the statement that you find "void". Finally of course, your recent edits have the appearance of self-promotion, usually lacking a reliable source. TEDickey (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Your claim lacks a reliable source. Your claim is based on a missinterpreted toy-benchmark from 1982 with 10 deltas - really impressive.... --Schily (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a further claim than you made on the talk page, and probably needs a reliable source in place of your self-promotional edits (keep the discussion there) TEDickey (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on List of revision control software. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I made one revert today, after several days. I've made several edits on the talk page, but have not gotten a credible response. TEDickey (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me just add that User:Schily has a history of edit wars. Re-adding his own opinion is the most common type of edit he does, apparently. --87.174.37.97 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed (since about 1996) TEDickey (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Be careful IP 87.174.37.97 most likely belongs to user Chire who has a long history of edit wars and who tries to stay anonymous since a while when being involved in edit wars. You Mr. Dickey are of course also know for a repeated insisting in claims that have been proven incorrect. It also looks strange that you try to move a discussion to user pages. The discussion belongs to the discussion page of the related article. Wouldn't it be more apropriate to have a fact based discussion where it belongs. You have the chance to give us facts if you have facts please give facts. --Schily (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Your comments are uncivil - not the first warning. Have you anything to contribute to the conversation than attacking other people? TEDickey (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

PDP-1 price, inflation adjusted

FYI, I moved the text about the PDP-1 price from the DEC article to the PDP-1 article, along with some other details on the production history. Maybe the price should be in both places, but let's agree on what it is first. When I did the look up of $120,000 in 1961 dollars converted to 2011 dollars, I got $906,878.93. What am I missing? --agr (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

my error - for some reason I was thinking of PDP-11 and misread 1961 as 1971 TEDickey (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I changed it back. --agr (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed (assumed you would make the correction where it was needed) TEDickey (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


Tundradraw: Write the article first or non-notable?

Hello, I tried to improve Wikipedia by adding my knowledge to the article concerning ANSI art text editors: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_text_editors#ASCII_and_ANSI_art

I added a small open-source editor (open-source like wikipedia is), called tundradraw.

I was really surprised to discover my entry was deleted. The reasons were not directly explicit: WP:EL/WP:WTAF After following the links, I learnt "external links" were not cool in the body of the encyclopedie, and that it was better to "write the article first".

I removed the link and made the entry poorer, so it wouldn't be an horrid red or external link. It was deleted again, and you told me: "However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages".

How could I "promote" something I'm not even a part or a member of? I needed an ANSI editor, and discovered the links on wikipedia to ACiDDraw (an obsolete DOS editor, the program isn't even available on the editor's website), to PabloDraw (a windows only program, and quite old), and to TheDraw (an old DOS program). They didn't suit my needs. I found Tundradraw which looked better for me (usable on Linux), so I thought it could be interesting to share it on wikipedia as well.

I remembered Wikipedia deletes Articles about "non-notable" programs, for example Schism Tracker, a good program used by hundreds of people: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Schism_Tracker

Strange enough, this program is visible on this page, in an external link: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_audio_trackers

But it can't be marked as WP:WTAF because it's not allowed to create the article first!

Do I really want to spend 1/2 hour writing an entry for tundradraw, and see it immediately deleted by someone who isn't aware of what ANSI art is for example? Therefore I thought quickly adding a link to the wikipedia page was enough. I was wrong.

Wikipedia rules are too complicated for normal people. Even for geeks like me, I find this way too hardcore to understand or endorse. It's not really surprising that less and less people are interested in contributing to wikipedia.

You may wonder why I spent 1/4 to write this, instead of creating my article for tundradraw, and then link to it afterwards: the reason is I hate working for nothing (i.e. make a decent and honest work on something, which will be deleted for arbitrary reasons). So I prefer to clarify the situation, and it helps me to remember why I will probably never get the motivation to contribute again to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.252.56.221 (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither edit was referring to a Wikpedia topic. The first made an external link to SourceForge; the second added the content back without the external link. The usual practice is to (see WP:WTAF) create a topic, establishing WP:Notability and then refer to it. TEDickey (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by you

Reintroducing a dead link (no longer available content) on Dulles Technology Corridor is seen as vandalism and spamming. The first time you introduced this URL could be seen as accident because you did not validate the link. The second time cannot be seen as an accident anymore. --Schily (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Do read the link. It's interesting, and non-promotional. It might give you some insight on editing style. TEDickey (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Kod

I added citations which point to the facts about both features, which are quite uncontroversial claims. Don't add {{cn}} tags just because you want to win an argument. Steven Walling • talk 08:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, you might respond to the points rather than dismissing them. "Unique" and "notable" in context are promotional, and you're not noting that TEDickey (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Unique and notable are not inherently promotional terms. That's nonsense. Besides, what is there to promote? A free, open source app that no one makes money from and I don't use? It's just one of the many little text editors we have articles on, and it's important to distinguish what's different about them. Steven Walling • talk 08:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Um. Your response in the change history is WP:OR. Unless of course you happen to be an authority on the topic. Also your response here is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Do consider making improvements rather than just making an attractive topic TEDickey (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way - if you have something useful to discuss for improving a topic, it's polite to carry on the discussion in the topic's discussion page. TEDickey (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the link adding to the Huron page. User:A Wikia Contributer 12:03 PM Saturday 8/6/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.246.235 (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new here to wiki and a little unfamiliar with the rules. I wrote the original "web based usenet" which has been modified some and definitely acceptable but, it is my understanding that if the external links provide substance to the article they are justified and acceptable. Of course I added my link and other web based sites followed. I definitely included google groups - the largest web based site. The history shows that someone - not logged in - deleted the external links and you came back and "undo" them, then another person, not logged in came back and removed them again. Of course I would like my link there but, now it says I must edit them by hand. I have no problem doing this and I have no problem replacing the links of the other sites that added their link later. I just don't want to do something that will get me banned or in trouble. Could you please advise me that it is OK to put the external links back in. I will leave them off it is incorrect or a violation of the rules.

thanks Grggfks (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Items in a "See also" should point to existing Wikipedia topics (they're not external links). Generally (there's guidelines...), external links (see WP:EL) would be used to support specific statements in a topic (see WP:RS), or to show a limited number of particularly relevant sources of information, e.g., that go into the topic in much more depth than a Wikipedia topic is capable of doing (none of the Wikipedia topics that touch on my interests does more than a superficial treatment of the topic, for instance). TEDickey (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Mid-Atlantic-States

Hi Tedickey. Someone recently edited Mid-Atlantic States to remove Virginia from the category. I was going to restore it to the last "Revision as of 22:30, 7 July 2011 (edit)Rivertorch (talk | contribs)" but I have no idea how to do it with multiple edits in between. If this is something you agree with, would you do it, I haven't a clue as to how it's done. Thanks, Dubyavee (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It won't do much good (keep in mind you're disputing with someone who doesn't provide WP:RS), but done for the moment TEDickey (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Aviateur (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi:

A recent external link, which I added was removed. After reading the rules and guidelines associated with 'External Links', I suspect it was due to the advertisements which appear at the www.docstoc.com site where the subject PDF document, which I wish to make available, is located. Would the following link be more acceptable?

http://members.cox.net/lab1215/~Tools/Lewis%20Carrolls%201887%20Weekday%20Rule.pdf

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Cheers, Lawrence Baker (username Aviateur)

I'm not sure - one consideration might be in WP:SELFPUB TEDickey (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

70.162.132.75 (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a white paper that I authored which provides comprehensive insight into the 'weekday solving' method developed by Lewis Carroll in 1887, pure and simple. There is nothing self-serving about it other than my academic desire to share the information and interact with others on the topic. So, may I put this link in 'External Links'? http://members.cox.net/lab1215/~Tools/Lewis%20Carrolls%201887%20Weekday%20Rule.pdf

Lawrence

Still, it's self-published TEDickey (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism detection

Thanks for the heads up. See Talk:Plagiarism detection. --Lexein (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

new book deleted

I added a new book on Patrick Henry which you deleted because you said it qualified as advertising. Is this because the book has not yet been published? (It has an ISBN number, a pub. date, etc.) Kiddts (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Context of your edits gives the impression that it's a self-promotional edit. Adding a book to a topic as a "reference" is questionable in any case because it wasn't used to provide information for the topic (notwithstanding the fact that there are some editors who use a variant definition for "reference" which extends to "further reading", and the like. For the latter of course, a book which has gotten wide coverage of reviews showing it presents useful information on the topic would fall into that category. TEDickey (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Changes in Dynamic memory allocation page

hi i'm prashantgonarkar (talk · contribs). i have added a block called Dynamic memory allocation on page Dynamic memory allocation with correct information. But u removed it totally. i think that block edit was correct. then what is the reason of removing it can you explain me? I have been working on Wikipedia India Education Program (Wikipedia:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Data Structures and Algorithms) and editing a page Dynamic memory allocation.so plz let me know why you removed my edit.

It was a fairly common (and not very insightful) discussion of malloc/free, which can be found in a multitude of places (google gives 6 million hits on "malloc"). That example was more than 10% of the topic. Rather than that, a short discussion of the various languages (with appropriate wiki-links to existing topics) which do not have the feature built-in would be more useful than the change which I reverted. TEDickey (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

SharpDevelop

Tried to establish notability and added some external refs. Is it fine now? -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 19:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, if you don't tell me how to improve it there's nothing I can do. You don't expect New York Times to start talking about SharpDevelop do you? Or maybe an article in MSDN from chief competitor Microsoft? What else do you need? -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 08:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Start by reading the relevant guidelines, such as WP:RS, WP:Notability. Take article disputes to the topic's discussion page. TEDickey (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Will continue the discussion there. See you -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 10:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Plagiarism detection

Would you mind commenting there about the embedded list of tools, now that sourcing has been completed, and unsourced items deleted? --Lexein (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

reason

hello sir, can you please tell me the reason why you have deleted my article? i have read all that you have given to me but don't you think that "Types of Shell" should be included in this topic ?Also i have provided two reference links but you still have deleted my article? please give me some concrete reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by NNKarnani (talk • contribs) 05:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It was redundant, lacking sources, did not add anything useful to the topic, and appeared to have been pasted from some blog TEDickey (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

REPLY: yes it was written from some blog but that blog was of an authors blog.you think that it was redundant but why?? is it not necessary to know the types of shell scripting??i don't think that it was of no use under the heading of shell scripting.NIKUNJ KARNANI 11:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NNKarnani (talk • contribs)

Among other reasons (you would find it helpful to be familiar with WP:RS), there's a section (WP:USERG) relevant to your reply. TEDickey (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tedickey/Archive_5&oldid=1146358682"