User talk:Tedickey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

Rollbacker[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 02:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)

The Act of Toleration in Maryland[edit]

Only mentions Trinitarians, not even all Christians, much less "all faiths." The text as it was had no source to back up the previous claim you erroneously restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.118.16 (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As to de Sousa:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/portam/chronology.html http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20051009/News/310099989?template=printart

Rollback abuse of good faith edits already! Good for you!

First point: you didn't mention a source - here or in the topic which you edited. Use the topic's discussion page for this type of issue. Third point: did not use rollback (perhaps your other comments are equally factual) TEDickey (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Second point: there's no WP:RS for the "Cape Verdean" (the stray comment isn't usable for this purpose). TEDickey (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should have questioned the good faith edits on the talk page, rather than outright reverted. Because this is a characteristic of deletionist, revertist Wikipedians, like yourself, I took it to your talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.118.16 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


Maryland Toleration Act clearly states freedom for all Trinitarians, but death sentence for deniers of Christ's divinity. Trigger happy revert warrior. You are not an asset to Wikipedia, by a quick peruse of your edits. What percentage of your edits are comprised of composition, rather than attacking the edits of others? This is what is wrong with Wikipedia. You know nothing, not even what has already been vetted on this website, and still judge out of your own ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.118.16 (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The act doesn't use that term. Wikipedia is not a reliable source TEDickey (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The article you reverted falsely claimed freedom for all faiths. You reverted back to a clear lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.118.16 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious if you have anything constructive to add. TEDickey (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I already did, but you were not satisfied, like with all the other editors you have attacked in your edit history. You obviously don't have anything to add to this website from your own efforts as a student and scholar. Instead of making constructive edits, you revert everything you see that you are ignorant about. You abuse other people in doing so. Take the heat. You earned it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.118.16 (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert on vi editor[edit]

Thank you for reviewing the edit/update made to vi on 24 January 2015. The page already discusses the difference in interface between vi commands and GUI editor but lacked specific examples. I think it is very helpful for someone trying to read about vi for the first time to see some examples comparing it with a GUI editor. So my intent was to enhance that aspect of it. The added content is extracted from the external link and wanted to give its due credit/reference. In my opinion, the content itself is not promotional. It's more detailed information and is appropriate. However, if you were concerned about the link, you could have only removed the link and retained the content. --Ash zz (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

To the extent that your suggested edits do not duplicate material already in the given topics, they are (WP:NOTMANUAL) outside the scope of Wikipedia, not encyclopedic TEDickey (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond but I don't fully understand. I had added a few examples and nothing like in a manual. Are you suggesting that those examples are not encyclopedic? --Ash zz (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:BD8C:1E99:DE0A:7A04 (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, discussion was closed faster than a liquor store in Saudi Arabia. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thanks TEDickey (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
And re-opened and closed again. --QEDKTC 05:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


On Crimea and SourceForge.net[edit]

Hi! I'm the one who added text about Crimea being blocked by SF.net. I am Crimean. I first saw Crimea blocked on SF.net on 1 Feb (here is screenshots https://vk.com/wall-18411185_1173). You saying there is need a more reliable sources, but Crimea is not so geeky and press didn't put a lite on this subject nearly at all, so I can't find a better links than some minor posts on this from separate individuals. I'm not a Wikipedia editor, but I think this SF Crimea block should be mirrored in Wikipedia. So please tell me what should I do to make a notice stay on page about SF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimusPEXUS (talkcontribs) 11:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

We're looking for reliable sources, as noted. That means: no blogs, no comments by anonymous people (particularly on a community-edited website). Sources in foreign languages are useful only as supplementary sources (if there are none in English, this is probably the wrong place to put it). Traditional news media is a place to start. And by the way, singling out one instance and putting it into a section with general information is promotional editing. TEDickey (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I can't find reliablier sources. Remove it if You think it should be removed - I will not edit it again. AnimusPEXUS (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thanks - will examine TEDickey (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Virginia and Ambassador to Court of St. James Articles[edit]

The comments I added were intended to put the matter in perspective. While it is true that Virginia is the "Mother of Presidents," the last Virginia native to become President (Woodrow Wilson) was born in 1856. The former Ambassador to serve was Buchanan, who left office in 1861. The way the articles are currently written, one would think it is a frequent recent occurrence, when it definitely is not. It would be like saying that the office of Secretary of State is a stepping stone to the Presidency, but it has not been since the time of Andrew Jackson.John Paul Parks (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's unnecessary emphasis -- like talking about a sports team that did well in championships ten years ago, without making a contextual remark (such as the coaches who may have been responsible), and without further introduction saying they haven't won a championship in ten years. Definitively not an improvement. TEDickey (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Does Free Software enter in WP:COI ?[edit]

Conforming to the Wikipedia COI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest), I don't agree with your undo of my change ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lynx_(web_browser)&oldid=653590764&diff=prev ).

Yes, I am a poor lonesome old coder which use to contribute to, or create, free softwares, and I am the only LynxBot's developer. Like Jef Poskanzer or Werner Koch (http://www.propublica.org/article/the-worlds-email-encryption-software-relies-on-one-guy-who-is-going-broke) I don't mind about making money with my labor, as these are always Free Software.

Like Wikipedia and your own labor, my labor is a kind of gift for the humanity. Like Jef Poskanzer or Werner Koch, I code firstly for scratching some personal itch (cf. The Cathedral and the Bazaar), and advertising about the fun useful programs I wrote is also not my priority. The minimum I can do, for my free softwares to be know and reach some humans and other lonesome coders with similar itches, is to reveal their existence on concerned Wikipedia's pages. (Wikipedia which was also, at the very beginning, made by guys like me... but that's probably an other story.)

I see no future for Free Software if Wikipedia is no more a friendly ally. Sincerely yours, Jbar (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Free-software is actually not relevant in deciding what is encyclopedic. A place to start is notability -- looking for material that others have discussed, and tying it together. TEDickey (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There are no policies concerning what is encyclopedic, but only a policy of was is not encyclopedic for Wikipedia. Exposing the ties between different (free) softwares is not forbidden by this policy. I also note that LynxBot fit the notability policy (it have been discussed on the "French slashdot" here). So there was, conforming to the Wikipedia policies, definitely no reason to remove such information. Jbar (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The only effect of your edit was to draw attention to (promote, advertise) a program which has drawn no attention so far. If you want to make constructive edits, start by looking for independent reliable sources of information which are relevant TEDickey (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of regular expression engines[edit]

I thought it was common knowledge that .Net Framework is Open-source_software, so I just fixed the wrong license in the table when I noticed it. Although some parts of .Net Framework were released under the Apache_License, the source code of the core parts is licensed under MIT_License. Not sure what prompted your rollback. One can easily check the software license on the software's wiki page: .NET_Framework#Licensing_details. https://github.com/Microsoft/referencesource/blob/master/LICENSE.txt http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2014/11/12/announcing-net-2015-preview-a-new-era-for-net.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.164.136.43 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Two points: (a) no source was given, and (b) the github source you point to is not apparently Microsoft's. The place to point to would be on one of the official Microsoft sites. On that, for instance, [1] does not agree with your statement. TEDickey (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


David A. Wheeler dubious tag[edit]

Hey there! Could I ask you to have a quick look at Talk:David_A._Wheeler#mis-categorization? I checked the source Wheeler provided, and added it to the article, removing the dubious tag in the process. James.DenholmTalk to me... 15:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Wheeler's comment essentially said that training is the sole feature needed to make a computer scientist. That did not address my comment that computer scientists are so-called because they are known for their use of the training by writing scholarly papers which are cited. Aside from his non-scholarly blogs, Wheeler is essentially an obscure academic, rather than a well-known "computer scientist" in the sense which I commented on. TEDickey (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, well, I don't mean to debate his notability, but the training and research (which, by its nature, is what a PhD thesis is), combined with his career focus, does afford him the title. I'm confused by your statement, though, as computer scientists are generally academics. A software engineer, of course, is not, but that isn't what Wheeler refers to himself as being. James.DenholmTalk to me... 22:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to debate it. If I find a reason to expand my observation, I will note it in another venue TEDickey (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Xeditor[edit]

Dear Tedickey,

thanks for reviewing the Xeditor page. I have removed the inappropriate external link, that you've marked:

"cannot use a primary source for notability claims"

Could you please have a look, if the page is corresponding the guidelines now?

Thank you very much! Hoffma28 new (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if (a) it were not a product advertisement and (b) the people providing content did not have an apparent conflict of interest. TEDickey (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)