User talk:Tedickey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Tedickey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 07:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Maryland (IPA: /ˈmɛrɪlənd/)

/ɪ/ roses, business (/ˈbɪznɪs/) Who pronounces it like that? (Not the natives ;-) Tedickey 22:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I do. Is it /ə/ as in Rosa's, then? And do you pronounce roses and Rosa's differently? kwami 00:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I pronounce them differently. The "y" comes off sounding like the "a" in Rosa's, and the "e" in roses is a shorter sound. Tedickey 00:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good afternoon

This T. E. Dickey? Welcome :-) - David Gerard 17:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

yes (google is your friend) Tedickey 17:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vand edits

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to User: Tedickey, you will be blocked from editing. Jayson (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. Then you own this page now, since you're forbidding me to edit it. Tedickey (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I am forbidding you from deleting ones comments on your user page. This is an ongoing problem and therefore it is feasible to keep my comments open for archiving or other purposes. Jayson (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here but (I'm gonna do it anyways).... <soapbox rant> Daven you need to get a grip... you can't "forbid" ANY user from doing what they wish on THEIR userpage. You left a personal attack and he chose to remove it. Its his page, he can do as he wishes, if you don't like it stop dropping by. You also need to stop telling users they will be blocked for doing things you don't like, you don't have the power or ability. The most you could possibly do is bring behaviour to an admins attention and let them handle it. You need to get familiar with Wikipedia policies in more detail before you go handing out instructions or criticisms. </soapbox rant>

I’m sorry you feel that I don’t have a "grip" on Wikipedia’s polices. That wasn’t a personal attack that was a clearly defined statement saying to stop doing a certain thing that really wasn’t out of good faith. Second, you need to look at WP:CALM your demeanor is very appalling if you could please calm down and explain your feelings in a slow intellectual way I will be able to respond better. Although, It may be his user page I find it disrespectful and against ethics for him to delete my request to stop. I also don’t find it very appealing that you decided to come in and escalate this to unneeded levels. How would you feel if you wrote a “heart felt” request for someone to stop doing a certain action but the person totally ignored you and deleted your comments? And I know I can’t block him and that really was trying to get him to stop, but I really felt that was against Wikipedia’s polices. Jayson (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
-ahem- another jump in.. albeit late.. WP:DRC and Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings -- Brando130 (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is the address deleted though it is an author on this homepage? Though it neatly introduces Shift_JIS art http://kozouh.s7.x-beat.com/english.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.84.7.220 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be a valid site on your end, and merely hijacked, but it's a pornography site when I check the link Tedickey (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for the answer.

Because the translation site is used I think that the grammar is wrong of it. I'm sorry. Placing ads become decided by the rule because it borrows a free server though it is a pornography site linking ahead. A lot of advertisements were deleted because it was certain. However, when the advertisement is deleted any further, the account might be canceled from the server. The advertisement has put only only a little necessary the one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.160.46.126 (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NTFS

Thanks for reverting my change to NTFS. I tried searching for "New Technology" in two different browsers on that page and the search failed. An eyeball search found the reference, though. --Yamla (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Inpage search may depend on the browser - particularly since most of Microsoft's pages use frames Tedickey (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Awarded for your reverts on the John Steinbeck article in the battle against vandals who would destroy the wikipedia. LordHarris (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to recreate Atria Software as a valid stub

I'm sorry that your article was deleted so quickly. Actually, when the administrator performed the actual deletion, I was about to remove my own deletion template and let the article stay. What I suggest now is this:

  • Create a user subpage (such as User:Tedickey/whatever). This will allow you to work undisturbed.
  • Enter the basic information to make your page a valid stub.
  • Once this is done, you can move that page to its permanent location, that is, Atria Software.

--Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 20:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Userfied at User:Tedickey/Atria Software. android79 20:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks Tedickey 20:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Edits to "Southern United States

First I would like to thank you for your very mature tone and second I am surprised that you would really think that southern Maryland (which is part of the Washington DC area and is most definitely NOT southern cultured) is southern cultured and western Maryland (a rural, largely undeveloped area which would make sense that it would retain some southern culture) is not. I-95, which splits Maryland down the middle and connects the two metropolitan areas of Baltimore and Washington DC allowed easy migration from people from the north after the expansion of the federal government that occurred after WWII. This left much of northern, central, and southern Maryland quite devoid of much southern culture (this migration hit Maryland especially hard due to its close proximity to the northern states). However, western Maryland is still quite rural and undeveloped, thus some of its formerly predominant southern culture is still present there. Southern Maryland has fallen victim to much of the northern migration that has happened since the end of WWII due to its close proximity to the Washington DC area and as a result, has lost most of its southern culture. In fact, most people don't even consider Maryland as a whole a southern state anymore; it has simply changed too much culturally to even be considered "Southern" anymore. Instead, it better resembles a Northeastern state. I’m sorry if this offends you.--Lucky Mitch 02:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, it was wrong of me to say "extensive" research. I have merely read up on southern culture and historical migration patterns of the people of the United States. Now will you please defend your argument and respond to the above?--Lucky Mitch 03:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the industrial jobs prior to WWII came from the northern states (North Carolina isn't a northern state). Since the cost of living was lower and Maryland was only just below the Mason-Dixon line, northerners (mostly from the northeast) largely traveled down I-95 and settled around the metropolitan areas of Baltimore and Washington DC unfortunately, this includes most of southern Maryland. Urban sprawl has allowed expansion into southern Maryland. However, western Maryland (which is located in the Appalachian Mountains, is still quite rural so it would make sense that it would retain some southern culture. Just look around Wikipedia and you'll see.

Western Maryland, Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area, Washington Metropolitan Area, BosWash, Appalachia

Perhaps you're thinking of the Eastern-Western Shore of Maryland? I suppose the more southerly parts of those areas (specifically the western coastal area) could fall under the "Southern Maryland" category. Though I understand that some parts of those areas are increasingly being populated by northerners as well, but I also understand that the culture there is still predominately Southern.--Lucky Mitch 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, clearly we have some kind of miscommunication here. You can't just generalize like that and say there are no industrial jobs in southern Maryland especially when the DC metro area expands into southern Maryland. Buddy, I'm a serious map/demography geek; you can't fool me. And I'm sorry about this, but your history of I-95 is just wrong. I-95 was one of the first interstates built in the US, it runs up and down the entire eastern sea-board, from Maine to Florida. It, along with the rest of the interstate systems, was created first during the depression by the will of FDR in hopes to get more people jobs and pull us out of the depression. In fact this right here is a picture of the whole sytem just in 1955

Interstate system in just 1955, clearly not the mid-60s
Interstate system in just 1955, clearly not the mid-60s

And also forums are not reliable. They are made by unknown people with no credibility

P.S.

I hope you don't mind me asking how old you are exactly?

--Lucky Mitch 17:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

heh - if you had any potential at all for research, you'd know it by now. 18:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is your argument that is falling apart and I anxiously await your reply--Lucky Mitch 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure your not talking about the eastern shore region? It looks like it from what your sources say.--Lucky Mitch 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

According to this map, there are no southern accents even worth notability in Maryland in general.

Southern accents are practically non-exsistant in any part of Maryland.
Southern accents are practically non-exsistant in any part of Maryland.

And again just look at these Wikipedia sites-Western Maryland, Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area, Washington Metropolitan Area, BosWash, Appalachia

--Lucky Mitch 18:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Here we see that southern Maryland is clearly part of the Baltimore-Washington DC Metropolitan Area, a metropolitan area that is most definetly NOT southern in culture.
Here we see that southern Maryland is clearly part of the Baltimore-Washington DC Metropolitan Area, a metropolitan area that is most definetly NOT southern in culture.
Another map showing the same thing as above.
Another map showing the same thing as above.

--Lucky Mitch 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)







That is the TURNPIKE that you're thinking of, it was not the interstate as a whole. These maps are showing that southern Maryland is in the DC metro area (which is NOT southern). I am going to be man enough to stop the edit war we are having, but you still have your position to explain. Still eagerly awaiting your response as always.--Lucky Mitch 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Sigh* Even when the facts are right in front of you, you still ignore them. Please read this Wikipedia article telling the history of the interstate system-Interstate Highway System.--Lucky Mitch 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, so you are more knowlegable than ALL of these people on Wikipedia, says who? You? Face it man southern Maryland is part of the Washington DC metro area. I'm sure there are rural parts of it, but there are rural parts every where.--Lucky Mitch 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)




Man, you must make a lot of money doing those rural jobs you do in southern Maryland [1]

This site seems to inclued southern maryland in DC metro area [2]

And here is some history on the US Highway System [3] --Lucky Mitch 19:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


More things describing southern Maryland as suburban Washington DC and Baltimore- [4] [5] [6] I'm enjoying this discussion aren't you? Hope to hear from you soon.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This map seems to show that southern Maryland is quite densely populated and not quite as rural as you say it is-[7] --Lucky Mitch (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. My original argument was that southern Maryland is predominantly not southern in culture do to the expansion of the Baltimore-Washington DC metropolitan area into the area. While the core urban city area is not in southern Maryland, its suburbs are. The Orlando metropolitan area, where I live back home, is predominantly not southern in culture judging from the other 2 metro areas I lived in before (Atlanta and Birmingham). Seminole County, Florida (the county where my family lives and where I still legally live) is part of the Orlando metropolitan area but it is not in the core urban city area; it is a suburban county. However there are, like in almost every county in America, rural areas in Seminole County as well. This does not make it a rural county though, it simply has rural parts in it and while there are most definitely southern cultured people in the area as well (in both urban and rural areas), the culture has been heavily diluted due to migration from the north and west giving it a mostly typical "Florida" culture. You will rarely find a 100% urban area or an area with 100% of a certain culture these days (don't get me wrong, I know there are). Just because where you live in particular southern Maryland area that is rural and southern in culture does not make the entire southern Maryland region rural and southern in culture as well. Washington DC and Baltimore's suburbs have expanded their way into southern Maryland bringing with them their northern culture and there are more of those suburban yankees than there are of you good old fashion rural southerners even if you live in different areas of the region. This means generally speaking, that the southern Maryland area is predominantly not southern in culture even though you and the people you live around are. In a nutshell, even though where you live in southern Maryland is rural and southern in culture, most of the rest of the rest of the region isn't.

I am sorry that this discussion has gotten so hostile, and I feel that I am partly to blame. I will try to be more civil from now on.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said that "Southern" and "rural" were synonomous. I looked at this site- [8] you recomended and I'm not quite sure what you wanted me to see. I clicked on the Maryland section and it just showed me what I already believe; that southern Maryland is indeed part of the DC metro area. Am I missing something?--Lucky Mitch (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 12-03-07 edits by Tedickey

"The references are not authoritative" (?), references by:

1) Penn State University, documenting the Patuxent extent of John Smith's second 1608 voyage

2) An article on the National Park Service Bay Gateways site by the premier Chesapeake Kent Mountford (see his 100+ academic articles at the www.bayjournal.com site) who says that the Patuxent was first seen by westerner in 1588 by Spaniard Vicente Gonzalez

3) An historic chronology of Mid-Atlantic waterways posted by the US Army Corps of Engineers

Bernie Fowler should be considered as the premier Patuxent River environmentalist over the past four decades: affirmations to that fact by several Md. governors of both parties and by his WP page.

I have replaced the references. ...... DLinth (user link above) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.18 (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just got the note from Fred below. He will add a statement to the website to state what those involved with the Patuxent River know as common knowledge...that he was the first Riverkeeper. How 'bout you move on to other topics where you can do more good rather than this one, where you have several of us who are very familiar with the topic......You can do a lot more good elsewhere, I know, because I've noticed how many, many very useful edits you make on other topics where you correct goofs, real intentional vandalism, etc.....Sound good?
By the way, the closing to all use of Queen Anne Bridge is relevant to many river users, and is easily confirmed by driving out there and looking at the big, new 12-foot high fences blocking the bridge and the signs...That part should stay. I don't much care about the format of that bridge section (I didn't author that part, unlike much of the rest of the article), I was simply trying to add the towns and make it more concise than the original....)
Finally, look again at the Hoyer quote about Fowler. He says "there are no greater..." so the adjective "greatest" is accurate....But reword that if you like; was Hoyer, not me, who used the word "great"
-----Original Message-----
From: paxriverkeeper [9]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:07 AM
To: (DLinth)
One more thought. Waterkeeper Alliance in New York owns the Trademark "Riverkeeper" and several other related marks (I.e creekkeeper, baykeeper etc).
I can draft a simple statement for Wikipedia that clarifies that while there have been many and continue to be various stewards and devotees on the river that our program was the first and only to be legally licensed and entitled to use the name and title.
-----Original Message-----
From: paxriverkeeper [10]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:00 AM
To: (DLinth)
I can have Rogard add a line on our web site. .....
Our program did not officially exist until June 2004 when it was voted into existence at the Waterkeeper Annual meeting. We were granted at that time, a temporary license to use the name. That license became permanent in 2005 which was unusually fast for a newly created program. The license is renewed automatically each year unless there is reason to believe we have violated or ceased to comply with the terms of the license. This stuff is easily documented.
Whoever has raised this issue has not done the homework. They probably assume the term "Riverkeeper" is self appointed which is a common misunderstanding.--(end of note)
DLinth (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
hmm - bottom line, several abusive and hostile comments, followed by a suggestion to go away. I'll keep it in mind. Tedickey 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
hey, but I'm getting much better, yes?.... also three complements from me, one above ("many, many useful edits....") that I noticed you've made (including, I might add, on this article), and not only that but a complement from me in the last edit and not only that, I was writing here, now, to say "nice catch/suggestion" on adding a reference (I added two) for the unattributed sediment-nutrient numbers /"superlative" ("Patuxent is the only major tributary....") I must be getting "soft"....Didn't mean to be abusive or hostile to a fellow Marylander!.....So glass half-full at least?....DLinth
Perhaps - bear in mind that I'm not trying to prevent you from making edits, but to ensure that they're referenced to reliable sources. Sometimes it's apparent that sources do not agree - in that case, some mention should be made to ensure that the topics are neutral (no point in citing just one side of an argument). Tedickey 12:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, do you know why whenever I sign in to WP on my Mac at home it signs me in, then kicks me out when I go to an article, but on PC's it's just fine....any suggestions or workarounds? Thanks....DLinth
No - I haven't had to solve that particular problem. I suspect that Wikipedia's making a check to see if it can get some basic information on the originating IP-address (to reduce the number of fake addresses). Occasionally I see one that's fallen through the cracks - an IP-address that was faked. Perhaps your internet provider isn't helping, e.g., if you're a DSL subscriber and their network identification isn't complete. Tedickey 12:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks....I hadn't thought of that; the provider I have uses some "rotating" IP addresses (changes most ever time you go on line) and some or all of those may be causing problems. Thanks for the help......DLinth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.4.21 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
no problem Tedickey 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Sheriff's in the United States (Maryland), "a quick check on google shows much of the Maryland paragraph is nonfactual..."

What google check did you search for your ignorant statement? Let me remind you, sir, just because you have been on wikipedia since the abacus was created, does not give you free reign to walk around wikipedia as your own private idaho. you need to police yourself and your comments. VERY credible people come on here and write factual articles. forget not, that every ignorant comment YOU put IS SEEN by everyone else and deminishes your own credibility. I would suggest that you not tarnish your good name on wikipedia and limit YOUR comments to ones based on fact. If you disagree with me, I would MORE than happy to debate this. I apologize for the tone of this comment, but just as you are a watchdog of non-sensical articles thrown on this site in haste, I am a watchdog of you. Checks and Balances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallicio (talk • contribs) 08:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why?

I will simply ask politely, please leave the page alone unless there are factual or slanderous errors. You add nothing by removing information. At the very least, respect the officers the gave their lives and let them be honored on this page. The families appreciate their honor. Don't disgrace them with your wiki-arrogance. Go spend your time with your family. Take up a hobby. Volunteer some time at an old-folks home. When one gets to the point where you are at, perhaps it is time to pass the torch of editing to people who remain impartial from their own opinions. Don't be a bad-faith editor. R/S Sallicio (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Sallicio


You stated that you "cited plagiarized text added by Sallicio". What did I "plagiarize?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallicio (talk • contribs) 21:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your name does not appear to be Lt. Lou Oertly. Tedickey (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, how do you know that I am not Lou? Secondly, it wouldn't matter if I am or am not, because of self-plagiarism (that I just found out about). So you are right... but "cited plagiarized text added by Sallicio" could imply that I did it with the intention of plagiarizing. Perhaps, "added reference" could have been more accurate. Either way, now I know more about plagiarism. Good looking out. Sallicio (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Sallicio
The article states that it was created in 1996. You would have been too young at that point to be a Lieutenant, even had you been in the County Police. Tedickey (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benedict

Give me a second please. I was about to add an additoinal citation to the first paragraph. Toddst1 (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm finished. Sorry for the confusion. I followed a link that was to a historical marker for camp stanton that I thought was the first citation. That's what I get for editing without enough coffee this morning. Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
ok - by the way, the historical markers do contain some interesting bits that could be worked into a more extended article. But my edits were intended to get it past the not-referenced stage. Tedickey (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] La Plata HS

Thanks for the help in improving the HS page. It was a mess earlier today and that tornado link is very good. David D. (Talk) 01:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I happened to have googled it for the La Plata topic. (If I find other useful ref's, I'll fill them in). Tedickey (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USGS

Of course it needs sources; it was unsourced when I added to it. The added information was intended to clarify (improve) what was already there (for instance, "recently" is ambiguous; referencing the particular political administration responsible for the policy changes is not). It has nothing to do with the coming election.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I see - you added new unsourced information to an unsourced topic, making it more specific. And you consider it an improvement. Bye. Tedickey (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do. Very little in Wikipedia happens overnight; clarifying ambiguous statements is a step up; adding references to an easily referenceable subject is another step. Maybe someone else will take it there. Of course, you could just blank out the entire section and the other unsourced parts of the article if you think that would be an improvement. Bye.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand: if several people each supply a halftruth, eventually someone will be motivated to supply some facts. Tedickey (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point entirely. I surrender; you can keep your marbles. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been acting in good faith, trying to improve the article. There is no specific "quote" in the article at all; the article mentions policy changes which now correspond to the Wash. Post source. If you disagree with the validity of that source, please, let us take this to the table for public forum. No sense getting into a protracted series of reversals. You obviously have a lot to contribute, and so do it. Let's work constructively together to improve the article, and put our disagreements out there for others to comment on and respond to. How about it?--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph contains a sentence containing those marks that you'll see on the right side of your keyboard, called a double-quote. Used in an article such as this, the reader is led to believe that it is citing a factual, verifiable statement made by a specific person. The article gives no source for this, provides only secondhand comments about the issue, gives equal weight to opinion. If you can provide factual sources for the information, it would be possible to prune out some of the comments. Tedickey (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, let's take this to the talk page for the board & close down this personal dispute. I disagree; the Washgington Post is a reliable source, not a reckless blog.. It isn't necessary to actually quote primary sources in this case. You may disagree; iff you are right, others will support you and I'll be glad to let it go. The article is bigger than you or I. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matoaka Elementary School

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Matoaka Elementary School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Paine

Thanks for removing the Q&A so promptly. I have been watching this page for some time and have long suspected that students were being directed to this page by teachers, from the continuous, petty (pathetic?) vandalism from unidentified users.Arjayay (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

no problem Tedickey (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spare me the patrician sensibilities please

Re: [Waterkeeper Alliance], simply checking the Waterkeeper website would have led you to conclude that changes by user Waterkeeper1 are indeed accurate. Simply dismissing a change as "unsourced" is just lazy. Do you expect Google to be a lead indicator, or lag-less indicator, of the state of an organization? I don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenBlack (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] ANSI Art

Could you please explain to me how describing a website is "hype"? Simply putting the name of a website does not explain Lordscarlet (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - "comprehensive" isn't an objective term. If there were a WP topic for it, the wikilink would not suitably use verbiage like that. (Improve things a little: write a WP topic rather making lots of external links). bye. Tedickey (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize, I did not realize "comprehensive" would be seen as subjective. I'm not sure what other word you'd like me to use to inform people reading it that the site contains almost every artpack ever released. As to the last comment, I'm not sure if you're saying I should write a wikipedia entry in general, or write one about the site. Writing one about the site certainly seems like something that is not relevant to Wikipedia. However, linking to the site on articles about ANSI art, ASCII art and the computer art scene seems incredibly relevant considering the number of people that still don't understand the mediums after reading the wikipedia entries. Lordscarlet (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, "comprehensive" falls into that category of claims/comparisons. Removing that made the link descriptions relatively neutral (though I see that some other people have concerns about the links). To support claims/comparisons, you need (in WP ;-) some neutral reviews that are arguably unbiased/uninfluenced by the external content. As for writing articles - making the descriptions in the WP articles clearer is something to consider. Tedickey (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PGSO History

  • Hello! What was wrong with the PG County Sheriff history? It was from the PG Historical Society. You stated that it wasn't reliable because it had only one source? What is the minimum number of citations needed to make a statement reliable? Thanks! Sallicio (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio
In a few words: the other website gives a story from one viewpoint (which differs slightly from more well-known sources), does not provide a source for its information, and none of the information provided appears anywhere else that I can find. So it's perhaps interesting, but doesn't merit pasting the whole story in more than one WP topic. Most of the WP topics summarize information available from many sources, choosing the ones that appear most reliable (where "reliable" depends on several factors). Tedickey (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Out of Courtesy

Out of Courtesy I am informing you that topic about you has been made at the noticeboard. The topic can be located here. Rgoodermote  23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a helpful tip here from someone who gets complaints at least twice a year. It's best not to comment in your own discussion. The admin (if the other responder is an admin) is on your side anyway, and it just gives the other person a reason to be more mad at you. Look three discussions up from yours, and you'll see mine. Notice how I haven't said anything, and still I'm winning. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint (I had responded before I saw this note) Tedickey (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi, I noticed you deleted the comments from myself and another user regarding your bizarre pursuit and removal of links to Cloverfield. Removing content from Wikipedia without good reason is Vandalism. You have been reported to an administrator. Mikesc86 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Brooklyn Bridge, you will be blocked from editing.

heh - another person who owns my user page. Did you read the change that you reverted? (apparently not, since you're being rude) Tedickey (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delaware

The fact is (a) internally consistent with the wikipedia entries for the two documents in question and (b) fairly common knowledge. The note in the citation merely provides support for the claim that Delaware's "first state" status is not jeopardized by the fact that states pre-date the constitution. However, I fail to understand why you needed to start the discussion snarkily? Also you've been asked nicely before to explain an edit rationale of "awai", and I see no reason why you should refuse to answer courteously. In fact, I see that many of your comments fail the WP:CIVIL test. HokieRNB (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

See Articles of Confederation, 1777-1781, which does not agree with the first statement I marked. The second needs something to support it (WP is not a source of knowledge). The third should be simple to cite. Tedickey (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for pointing that inconsistency out. At any rate, you still have not addressed my questions about why you took such a tone with me at the outset of this. Your use of the word "bogus" and the comment about "we've been here before" seemed a bit unwarranted. And you still fail to answer a very simple question. What are you trying to communicate by using "awai" in your edit summaries? HokieRNB (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish-American War

Hi, Tedickey. Please note you are putting a cn, on something with two sources supporting exactly same thing that article says. It has no sense. What do you ask for, a hundred sources?. In what do you base your opinio that i confuse facts with opinions? Where?. What the article says is "Spanish and Cuban opinions included a theory that would point that the USA goverment would have caused intentionally the detonation". It is not saying that USA caused detonation. It is saying that Spanish and Cuban had opinions wich included that theory. I cant sincerely understand why you put cn over and over, if thats what exactly the two sources says. If you thing source dont document what text in article says, please pint what part or particular expression is not documented. Translating from one of the sources; "Opinion was clear; "Strange Maine's blow, night of february 15th 1898 in La Habana's port, was probably prepared by the United Stats in his desesperate proposit of enter the war, in order to his several interest on the iland, that woul justify it" -German press, and enven some english, never taken in the same consideration, would consider that way". So, i can understand that if you are american, that would disappoint you in some way, but, that's history. Not to say that Usa made it as a scientific theory for today, but to say that was most of spanish, cuban, and more people around the world, and his mass media, thought at the time. Its not really a unknown part of history, that opinion clime is famous, and has to be mentioned, as in other wikis. I am trying to improve text and references to make it more accord to sources provided, so please let me work without rv constantly. And please forgive the posible lacks of my english. --Barfly2001 (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If you supply facts rather than parrot editorial-page opinions, you won't have any reason to ask me questions. Tedickey (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review St. Barnabas Church, Upper Marlboro, Maryland

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the St. Barnabas Church, Upper Marlboro, Maryland and give us an honest peer review. The page has evolved quite a bit in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor on subjects in the area like yourself, could head over and give us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maryland some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. Several of us have worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. If you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/St. Barnabas Church, Upper Marlboro, Maryland/archive1 Toddst1 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. First glance, it looks well laid out (I see a couple of redlinks in the access dates). Will have to read deeper and see how well it portrays the accessible sources Tedickey (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Southern United States

Let's discuss Mid South on the talk page --AW (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP issue

Per WP:BLP "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons..." I removed such information your recently added. Please be more careful. Thanks, --22:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't in the article, but in the discussion page. By the way, there are several minor errata with your edits to the topic itself. Perhaps you'll find some time to remedy those. Tedickey (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential "Jr.s"

Hey, I guess you were sure right that a revert here at Jackson is encyclopedic--thanks. (Thx also for making me do the legwork re Madison/Buchanan.) Justmeherenow (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps still incomplete. The sources don't make it clear if those people (themselves) would have recognized their name with a "Jr." tacked on, or whether it's reflecting later fashions in naming. Tedickey (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Scott Key

I agree with the change on the $ figure for the Key sculpture in Golden Gate Park. As far as the condition of the monument, it is most definitely 'sadly deteriorating.' I live in San Francisco, have seen it several times recently, and I can assure you that the marble is crumbling and the city has put up temporary (rickety) wooden struts to keep it from falling apart. Would be happy to send a photo. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos could be useful Tedickey (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The current 2007-2008 San Francisco municipal government budget includes an allocation of over $140,000 to renovate the Key monument, which this sfgov document notes is so deteriorated that it is about to be lost:

"$140,250 is budgeted for the restoration and renovation project for the Francis Scott Key monument located on the Music Concourse of Golden Gate Park. The Department reports that the monument is in dire need of conservation in order to not permanently lose the monument to environmental degradation. Furthermore, the Department advises that there is an urgency for restoration and renovation since the monument is located between the de Young museum and the California Academy of Sciences." http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/leganalyst/budget/ART%20final.pdf MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Do you have any suggestions for new people experiencing problems with other users who troll, and place un-needed and innappropriate messages on other user's pages and then insist on patrolling those pages as if THEY owned them?

Probably not. Tedickey (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Win32 console

Hi, did you actually read the topic that I linked to that article before reverting my edit? The csrss.exe process is much more "related" to the Win32 console than just "sharing a common platform". The Client/Server Runtime Subsystem is probably more relevant in this context than some of the other links such as MS-DOS (being just one of hundred OS that "look similar" to the Win32 console) and cmd.exe (being just one of thousands of console applications that use the Win32 console).

“ This is the user-mode portion of the Win32 subsystem (with Win32.sys being the kernel-mode portion). Csrss stands for client/server run-time subsystem and is an essential subsystem that must be running at all times. Csrss is responsible for console windows, creating and/or deleting threads, and some parts of the 16-bit virtual MS-DOS environment.Client/Server Runtime Subsystem ”

Thanks.

I did read it, but didn't pick out the almost incidental mention of console windows. The average reader won't see it at first either (too many words in the sentences). Tedickey (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Then if it is ok with you I'm going to put this link back in, because I still think it is relevant what component of the OS is responsible for this API. However, I can't help the average reader with reading sentences. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.109.31 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Queen Anne's County Public Schools

Thank you for the quick clean-up on Queen Anne's County Public Schools. I was probably a little too tired to be creating the page, but I wanted to get it done. I'm sure you can relate! Wallstreethotrod (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

no problem. I've been thinking how to display those lists for the Charles County page, and had used the Talbot page as a test to see how it looked, so I noticed the Queen Anne's page. (The Charles County page is longer, and most of the schools are named for someone reasonably notable, which complicates the presentation when the schools themselves aren't). Tedickey (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Hanson

Please provide a factual basis if you make an edit as large as this. Thanks.
Falcofire (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I did. Tedickey (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reported

You have been reported to an admin for your disruptive edits and personal attacks. Cheers m8 --Jayson (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

indeed. Perhaps he'll investigate, and do something about you. Tedickey (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I just don’t get it, why do you habitual bully and cause troubles to other people? It has become a bad case of monotony that’s starting to become immature and a “revert war”…. So yea, maybe if I were older you would respect me more.
That's a silly comment, given your editing history. Particularly when you're not able to change it. Tedickey (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with my editing history. But if you do will you please tell?
While it's possible that you do not, most people do. Unsurprisingly enough, you pretend that they're vandalizing topics, usually not even responding to their questions regarding the supposed offense other than to repeat the accusation. Tedickey (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I know which incident you speak of, if you wouldn’t mind telling me if this is a particular incident between me and you or just your general feeling toward me. The more we talk the more I feel we just have some miscommunication between us, I would surely like to befriend or just have a cordial relationship between us.
There are multiple incidents (your memory, possibly poor, would be helped by reviewing your contrib's) Tedickey (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
My memory as you so correctly inferred is poor, but, I tend to stray away from pass incidents since the past is always behind us, If I made a mistake please post it on my talk page were I will tediously get to work on investigating and contesting my actions. Again, if your holding grudges against me I urge you to nullify them for they have nor importance nor improvement for the both of us.--Jayson (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny, checking his "user contributions" finds no record of a report being made... yet another one of his empty threats with no weight behind them. Also checking his contributions shows no real wikipedia contributions, just a bunch of useless warnings to anonymous IP's, obviously the mad ravings of a power-hungry-wannabe-adminlike person. He won't take criticism, he won't stop when told to stop, he won't listen to people who try to help him, in short he is acting like a Troll and should no longer be fed. -- User:Yet another wikipedian fed up with children behaving badly. 17:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.1.96.202 (talk)
Of course contribs wouldn't show a private email. But even if that were done, I've have seen some evidence by now. For the rest - I could digress. Tedickey (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sad, another attack by an anonymous ip who’s so scared that he hides behind his false barrier of protection and it flimsy anonymity, so please Get a life.--Jayson (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

I was just trying to fix the vandalism on the "articles of confederation" page and could not work out how to get it to let me. Thanks for getting it done. May I ask how you managed it? Basically, tells me that edits can't be undone due to "conflicting intermediate edits". Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll get the conflict-message if someone's already changed that chunk. (It might have been just my revert). Usually WP will show just the edited text (no diff) if the other edit's already replaced the text - when I see that I recheck the history. Tedickey (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your latest edit to Amish

Re This edit, which you summarised as "rm advertisement". What advertisement? How was this link inappropriate? It seems unexceptionable to me, though I'm not restoring it because it also seems rather uninteresting, and adds little information that's not already in the article (indeed the photos in the book are sourced to Wikipedia!). But if we didn't already have tons of links, or if the book was more focused on this subject, I see no reason why this link wouldn't be good for the article. -- Zsero (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The same link was in two pages, did not point to readily-accessible text. If it had been constructed as a single bibliographic-style entry, with some comment indicating how it contributes, it wouldn't look like an ad. (There are a lot of books, and aside from the retitling in the link, the relationship to the topic is unclear) Tedickey (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Still, it's wrong to claim that it's an ad, essentially accusing the editor who added it of spamming, without actually looking at it. As it happens it's a book about ethnic Germans in Asia, which has a chapter about ethnic Germans in North America, including a few pages about the Amish. Nothing very interesting, and given how many links we already have I'd have had no objection if you'd reverted it for that reason alone; as I said, I'm not going to restore it. But advertising it's not (well, the first page pointed to does in fact read like an ad for the tour the author took and a restaurant he ate at, but I assume it's an unpaid endorsement). -- Zsero (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Authoritative-ity

I notice you've made several edits with the theme - can you enlighten me as to the consensus definition that "authoritative" is abused, and how it is being abused in the specific contexts where you have edited? The Canadian Encyclopedia could be considered an authoritative source when it comes to Canadian topics, I'd be interested to learn why it is not considered so. Thanks. Franamax (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Any encyclopedia is a collection of statements made in other places - it's not the original source of the information, will lack some detail. The Canadian Encylopedia is no exception: it's informative, but is not the original source, is a a rule not written by the people who created or provided that information. In any dispute over content, one has to go back to the original authoritative source to resolve it. Tedickey (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I won't argue that, but using "abused" in an edit summary seems a little POV. I'll let stand my reversion on Montreal, it appears you also introduced some kind of math tag at the top. I'm not going to check back over all your edits. Were you using a script and something crept in? I don't see anything in the edit summaries. Franamax (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't using a script, but was making the edits while other programs were using a lot of CPU - perhaps an inadvertant paste crept in. Back to the original issue: in what sense is this encyclopedia the original source of information on Montreal? Noting that the content is copyright Historica Foundation of Canada, and that they state that they're not the original source, I don't see why authoritative is applicable. Tedickey (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just want to pipe in to add that I strongly agree with Tedickey on the removal of "authoritative" from each mention of the Canadian Encyclopedia. I believe it denigrates other sources cited, who by definition are not to be considered "authoritative," since they are not named as such. I believe it could encourage a trend in editorializing in the External link descriptions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some editorializing in the link-descriptions already. Usually that's someone advertising a site (and it seems, a majority of those are COI-edits), though not apparently the case for this series. But the link descriptions should be neutral and descriptive. If the description is too complicated for a title, I've been using the cite-web template, which handles the quoting, etc. Tedickey (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to List of Performance Analysis Tools page

Hi Tedickey,

I've tried to add some text to the "List of Peformance Analysis tools" page, which initially, was removed due to the external links. I have revised the text, so that it is similar to other listings on the page e.g.

  • RapiTime a commercial, performance profiler and worst-case execution time analysis tool.

However, I see that you have removed it as spam. Please can I assure you that it is not spam. (RapiTime is a real performance profiling tool - see www.rapitasystems.com).

It appears to me that my latest edit is no different from many of the other listings on this page and so should be allowed. Or all the others removed?

Please let me know why you think this addition is inappropriate, as I'd like to put it back.

Best regards

Rob (85.118.3.38 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

(a) there's no WP topic, (b) no review's been done on the topic to see if it's notable, (c) relationship of the link to the topic hasn't been established. Other editors appear to see it the same way. Bye. Tedickey (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging CDK articles

Hi there.

I'm finding it hard to unravel the differences, similarities, and relationships between CDK (Vexus) and CDK (Mike Glover). According to the ncurses See also section, "CDK (Mike Glover)" is maintained by Thomas Dickey (no mention of Mike Glover) and the "CDK (Vexus)" was written by Mike Glover. Not only is that confusing, but it looks like it might be wrong or some info is missing.

It would be much simpler if those two "CDK" packages could share one article - it's not as if they contain too much info for one page. Do you have any more info/links to clarify the history, relationship, and differences between those two software packages? Any thoughts on how a unified article would describe them? Thanks. --Gronky (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

They could of course be merged. We can discuss it, but I haven't done this by myself since it would be a COI Tedickey (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the ncurses link to Cdk - "modified version" makes it sound less than the actual case. More than 60% of the code's been changed. It is a "largely compatible" rewrite. Tedickey (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well, I could merge them over the weekend using the info you have here plus a few web searches, and then we can review (and revert if it hasn't worked for some reason). Using a single person as a source of info can cause problems, but Wikipedia's coverage of this topic is in the earliest stages of development, so a period of uncertain quality isn't a show-stopper, IMO. --Gronky (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine. The changelogs tell most of the story. On my webpage I've a diffstat to illustrate the amount of change. Researching Cdk's history before around the time I started working on it will be hard (I've done some of that of course, can offer some input there). From memory, Glover released an early 4.0 (perhaps 4.5, something like that) in the mid 90s (1994 or so), initially as GPL, then changed it later (around 4.7, 1996) to BSD, copying a copyright file from something dated before he started working on it. Aside from getting those version numbers and dates exact, that's the prehistory. I don't know at what point he started working with/for Vexus, nor whether Cdk was before that. So there are some interesting details for which there are no reliable sources. You may be able to find via google the same info which I've found. (I have copies of the prehistory versions that it found for me ;-). Understandably, there's a fair amount of POV in describing the history; I've not added any of that to the topic since there'd be some disagreement, whether justified or not. So let's just keep the discussion technical and on-topic. Tedickey (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Happened to think of this again, where I can check: the version that I noticed with a GPL was 4.8, with filedates July 9, 1996 (there's no changelog until later versions). I don't see a copy of that online, though there's the perl extension of the same vintage which I find with google on "curses cdk 4.8" Tedickey (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this info. I've gotten delayed, but I will do the work on this soon. --Gronky (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Tedickey (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benedict Arnold from V --> VI

Hello Tedickey, This is my first comment so please bear with me. I believe Benedict Arnold is the VI if his name and the proof i have is in the book "The Real Benedict Arnold" By Jim Murphy it tells that the Fifth Benedict died at an early age and then the VI, (his younger brother) is the one we know today. I urge you to take a look at this if you value keeping this article as true as possible, (which you most likely do). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.239.215 (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Murphy would of course identify the source of the information. Since he's not the original source, that's what would be useful. Otherwise one has to gauge how reliable Murphy's book is (and noting that it's marketed as juvenile literature, there's that consideration). Tedickey (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: NTFS

Please share the ref again so that we can decide on how reliable it is. Look around the web, there are probably as many reliable sites claiming NTFS to be NT File System (where NT refers to Windows NT, not what NT might stand for) as there are that are claiming it to be New Technology File System. This makes it a very difficult path to tread. Unless the ref is absolutely irrefutable, it will be challenged by someone or the other. And if you come up with this people will be quick to point out that Brien Posey is just an MCSE and not an MS employee; thus cannot be regarded as official voice of Microsoft.

As for your frustration that removing editors got their way, that is unfortunately the way things work here: it is up to those who want something to be added to provide evidence for its correctness, in addition to justification. Removal just needs a justification. I know its frustrating, it has bitten probably all of us. --soum talk 11:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The change was here, uses this MDSN article written by one of the Microsoft development team in 1995. (When I googled, I recall that there were other useful sources, but this one seemed a good fit). Tedickey (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linux text editors category

Yes, that's a fair point. I checked out all the editors in the category and moved all the ones that clearly support at least one other Unix-like OS (ie. most) to [Category: Unix text editors]. I may have a look at the Mac OS X category at some point too. Letdorf (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC).

no problem. Offhand, the only interesting Linux-specific features to watch out for in terminal clients would be ioctl's manipulating the virtual console. I'd cite gpm also, but invariably someone presents a vacuous claim that it runs everywhere (no point in arguing that one). The X clients should be about as portable - though Mac OS applications may have a separate I/O driver for the native Carbon interace. Having that would be a justification for being in more than one category if the application is also running on Unix. Tedickey (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators' noticeboard

Hello, Tedickey. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ENeville (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referred to dispute resolution, however the important issue to my mind was not an individual edit dispute and I am disinclined to persist in such at this point. I will therefore summarize my outstanding concerns:
  • Help:Reverting: "Reverting should be taken very seriously."
  • Help:Minor edit: "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."
  • My edit comments referred to explanation for changes on the Talk page, but were reverted nonetheless, and without even addressing the explanations.
I can see from your recent contribution history that you have been very busy patrolling for the likes of vandalism, spam, and unsourced fact changes. This important work. It is also unending work, as you must be all too aware. It can tax the sensibilities and the patience. Perhaps it has contributed to being a little too quick on the trigger, and easing up a bit would be better all around.
And, in response to your edit comment, it was a spelling error, and I apologize if it caused agitation. ENeville (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll try to keep that in mind. Tedickey (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAT/NTFS

NTFS did not supersede FAT. FAT was targeted for the original Windows brand and NTFS was for the Windows NT line. When Microsoft released Windows XP, they were unofficially merged together. However, you can still use FAT, it's commonly used today; Microsoft is still is giving updates to it making it still current like NTFS. They are two separate file systems. One does not supersede the other. They are not Operating Systems that go obsolete. // A Raider Like Indiana 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crim Dell

The notability tag you placed on the article is ludicrous. It is most definitely notable. One of the most identifiable and important aspects of William & Mary's campus, which is (as I see you probably already know) the second oldest college in the country. If you think that this article is not notable then I highly suggest you take a look around at other college and/or university templates and look at the kind of garbage they have as articles. I have seen so many more unmentionable articles on this site it's a joke. -Jrcla2 (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at this point is directed only to the topic (not for instance, your personal opinions). Perhaps you can find some evidence of notability that's not directly sourced from W&M websites (I didn't see any when I looked, but certainly you have some motivation). Tedickey (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Found and listed an additional 7 sources in the discussion page to solidify the Crim Dell Bridge's notability. -Jrcla2 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Your counterpoints against the bridge are based on ad hominem arguments. Because I go to the school, my credibility is somehow automatically disregarded. -Jrcla2 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm - you might look up the term in a good dictionary, so you're prepared to discuss it intelligently. Tedickey (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No need to look it up, thanks though. Majoring in philosophy means I actually know it. It was in response to "Along the same lines, there are occasional deaths due to falling down an elevator shaft (perhaps you're planning to write a corresponding topic for occurrences like that at your school)." That comment is overtly sarcastic, and, judging by the comments other people are leaving on your talk page, you really like placing various tags on articles without actually researching (or taking the time to familiarize yourself) with the articles in question. Additionally, your general behavior on Wikipedia is less than desirable. You have been the only user I've ever been genuinely frustrated/angered with, and it has to do with your childish behavior. This is going to be the last message I leave on your talk page, as I do not have the patience or time to care anymore. -Jrcla2 (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
regards - I'd recommend that you study logic, but recall a philosophy course on the topic which was rote memorization. Tedickey (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on United States Constitution

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States Constitution. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - will see if the other editor is inclined to discuss. Tedickey (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being understanding about this. I know you are an experienced editor, and that you know what an edit war looks like. They may not. It seems like a small issue (the case of a single letter) to edit war over... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem Tedickey (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Twain

On April 25th I added a link to the Mark Twain Caves. You removed it citing that it was an advertisement. This is technically true, but this is the actual cave that Mark Twain explored as a kid, and later described in "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", so there is historical value here. Dk1965 (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Clemens described a cave; a suitable intro to the link would be to cite a reliable source (not found on that website) that it is the same one. Tedickey (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reported for vandalism

You are reported for vandalism for erasing three times the correct address of the Little Big Horn Associates: thelbha.org Custerwest (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are reported again for vandalism. Custerwest (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a nice day. Tedickey (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are reported to Sensei48 and the Wikipedia community. Enjoy your day. Custerwest (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Bye. Tedickey (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Can't win em all, eh? I've removed you from the WP:AIV noticeboard, as you're clearly not a vandal. But lets see if we can't resolve this in some way. henrik•talk 20:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, given the comments in the changelog, it appears that Custerwest also connects as 134.21.9.181 (but I'm not inclined to argue the point) Tedickey (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viking discovery of North America

I have entered the following topic in the Talk page as per your recommendation Viking discovery Budfin (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Will followup in a few hours Tedickey (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On lists in reservoirs

In this edit you call the list of list of reservoirs by volume inaccurate and inconsistent. Can you elaborate?Whosasking (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The ranking in the list is supposedly based on the linked topic; however the topic doesn't present that information (and doesn't claim to do that). The topic presents reservoirs as artificial lakes, but the majority of the entries in the list are natural lakes. Tedickey (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hi. Good faith edits like this, while they may be highly disputable or even wrong, aren't vandalism. Please try to use more helpful summaries. You also might try discussing these categories on the talk page? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

They're more than "highly disputable"; they're making assertions which do not follow the criteria in the given categories. I'll put it on the talk page - but take a look at JCDenton2052's edit history - more than half of it's disputable. Tedickey (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I know. All I was saying was, pls don't call it vandalism. Ask for verifiable sources to back up the categories? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Tedickey's edit history. His edits of Berkeley Yacc, CDK (Mike Glover), Dialog (software), Lynx (web browser), ncurses, tin (newsreader), vile (editor), Vttest, and xterm may be violations of WP:COI. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
First, could both of you please stop calling good faith edits vandalism? There may or may not be other worries about some of these edits, but they are not vandalism and calling them that will not get either of you very far towards resolving any of this. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I appear to have stopped Tedickey (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Custer

From the article, "Before the close of the war Custer received brevet promotions to brigadier and major general in the Regular Army and major general in the volunteers. As with most wartime promotions, these senior ranks were only temporary." "On February 1, 1866, Custer was mustered out of the volunteer service and returned to his permanent rank of captain in the Regular Army, assigned to the 5th U.S. Cavalry." Hueydoc (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that, and was at the moment looking for a suitable source to give the proper name of "volunteers". Tedickey (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI

I haven't seen anything over the edge. What COI is he talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that it was an attempt to exploit a weakness, rather than having identified a specific issue with my edits. Tedickey (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking something like that. Let's wait and see what he says then. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
no problem Tedickey (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V

Do you have any reference for the statement "Randolph was appointed as the first U.S. Attorney General in September 1789, maintaining precarious neutrality in the feud between Thomas Jefferson (of whom Randolph was a second cousin" for the article Edmund Randolph. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

no - I don't recall seeing that edit. Tedickey (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Andrew Jackson

You reverted my edit on Talk:Andrew Jackson. My edit was in response to a {{editprotected}} request, which can't be fulfilled on semi-protected pages. Therefore, I declined the request, and forced the template to hide itself by using the {{tl}} template. I've undone your reversion; drop me a line if you need further explanation. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI spam

Hi Tedickey, I noticed you've been reverting a lot of edits that add books, citing conflict-of-interest spam. This morning you're citing COI against an IP address with few edits and those are widely varied as to what they edited, making a COI too much of a stretch. Besides, COI is discouraged, not prohibited. The reason that it's not prohibited is to allow us to consider whether or not an edit is in the best interest of the article, regardless of who made it or why. I think you've been removing some recent book additions that are very appropriate for their articles, and book listings are very valuable time-savers for researchers. JD Lambert(T|C) 11:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah - "History Press". Those are simple advertising. Whether a book is actually useful should be left to editors who choose the material, rather than based on a publisher's current advertising campaign. Tedickey (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, your History Press reverts were a lesser concern of mine. Their edits on the Rome, Georgia page were unquestionably a conflict-of-interest. Although I strongly disagree that an edit should be removed solely due to a COI (the overriding consideration should be the net effect on the quality of the article), I'm more concerned about reverts cited as COI where I see no basis for it, like this. How was the listing of these books a COI? The IP address had 4 edits yesterday that were clearly not a publisher pushing their books. JD Lambert(T|C) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Uh - links to Amazon.com for selling a book are "clearly not"(?). Read through the edit history, check the who-is, correlate with the other edits on the same topic - and find the other accounts used by this editor, etc. It's pretty clear to me - only a small fraction of the edits contribute anything other than pointing to David Hein's books/articles - spend a little time on it. Since the intent isn't to improve the articles, but to promote Hein's own interests, it's COI. Perhaps you have another category for this. Tedickey (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The edit I cited above did not include a link, just book/page citations, and the editor was anonmyous, meaning there is only an IP address, and it is not possible to who-is an IP address. I distrust a process that involves one editor judging another editor's intent, and even if an editor were to state that their only motive is to promote their own interests, that should cause extra scrutiny, but the controlling issue should always be: is the article better or worse after an edit.
Since a critical purpose of an encyclopedia is to facilitate research, references to relevant books are very valuable contributions to any article. In fact, because Wiki has a notability standard, merely the fact that a relevant book exists, or used to exist, provides valuable evidence regarding the article's notability. Removing relevant book references does more harm than good. JD Lambert(T|C) 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
WhoIs works very nicely (depending on how you're connected). The IP address 144.175.2.187 is at Hood College. Take your time and do it right. From your responses so far, you haven't started investigating. Tedickey (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected regarding who-is'ing an IP address, but I searched the last 1000 edits and 144.175.2.187 does not appear among them. I'm not sure which edit you're referring to, but I don't think it's related to the one I cited, which I repeat here. Your remarks don't even appear to be about the same article. Your edit summary for the edit I cited states "(rv COI spam)" but in fact your edit was not a reversion. You removed two book references from the article's references section. Those references had been there for over a year, back when the section was labeled "Bibliography", implying that those books were used when writing the article's content. They did not have any links, to Amazon or otherwise. JD Lambert(T|C) 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I worked from the IP-editor's history, found that he has used also this IP: 71.176.142.213, as well as user names Davidhein and Improved, by comparing edits to the book references. In the small fraction of changes not related to those changes, he's injected POV about half the time without providing a source. Some of the edits are useful. Tedickey (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. So, I'm going to restore the refs in the "Lakota people" article, as they seem appropriate. What is this "IP-editor's history" thing? Can any wikipedian use it? JD Lambert(T|C) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually the ref's for Lakota are tacked on - there's no discussion in the topic related to them. But as I noted, that's David Hein's style of editing - much like "History Press", which you appear to approve of. Tedickey (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Hi, There are many biographies of real-life people that list their appearances in popular culture and I do not see why Benedict Arnold should be the exception to the rule. It seems that he has appeared in a number of films but his appearance in VTTBOTS is the only one that I have seen and this is my attempt to get the ball rolling. Your argument appears to be that his appearance in an old TV series is not appropriate for this page, but would that not apply to the Literature section as well?--Marktreut (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well (excluding spam adverts which appear to comprise about 20% of the "literature"), it would be nice to assume that the literature ref's have something to comment on regarding the topic. The VTTBOTS item isn't likely making any analysis, or criticism - and this is why Trivia aka "Popular Culture" notes are discouraged: the reader generally gains no insight beyond the Trivia's acknowlegement that the topic it's placed into is notable. Tedickey (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)