User talk:Tedickey

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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)

Comment on AfD for Suspended deck bridge

Hi, just before AfD Suspended deck bridge closed, you said that I had not followed up on the source you found. I think I did. Near the top of the discussion I pointed out that the page you found is tourism-related. On such a technical subject as bridges, I commented that this was probably a questionable source. Since there have been peer-reviewed papers and published textbooks on the subject of bridges for more than one hundred years, shouldn't we be looking for a source of that quality? I have been looking and looking and am unable to find one. That is part of my frustration in this matter. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Links

I'll stop adding the links to the software tools, although they were added with the intention of simply being useful tools one might use after researching the tools here. Also note that I didn't add them to the top of the link section - not intended to be spammy at all.

However, I also noted that you removed links to thecoffeedesk.com, and while I administer the site it is not by any means personal and has been added as a reference to other articles by others as a credible news source - just check the links and edit histories here and here, although the second was added by me since the Slashdot article announcing the corresponding thecoffeedesk.com article was already present in the references.

I appreciate your good-faith edits in removing what could be considered link spam, and I won't add my .info tools to any more pages but thecoffeedesk is widely accepted as a credible news source by other wikipedians, Slashdot, and other news sites Wikipedia references like Zdnet and Ars, so I'd appreciate it if you'd keep those references intact.

I may have pushed the envelope on some of the links I added, but know the difference between possible link spam and a valid reference. Thanks, A҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ N҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ O҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ T҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ H҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ E҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ R҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙- A҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ N҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ O҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ M҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ A҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ L҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ Y҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Leifur Eiríksson

Hi

I ask that you strike your comment about me connecting from multiple ip adresses at the Leifur Eiríksson talkpage, your accusation is not true and it's also a personal attack. Thanks.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

None of your comments appear to be verifiable. Tedickey (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"no matter how many IP-addresses you connect from" You are accusing me of sock puppetry and bad faith and such and that's just not right man, I mean wtf why on earth would you think that I am connecting from various ips to support my own argument? I kindly ask that you strike out those comments of yours immediately.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of Iendependece

Why was my thing deleted? I worked hard on that and thought it looked good. if there was something wrong-can you tell me so i can fix it......SchnitzelMannGreek (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's out of place (a digression). I suggested that you make a separate topic, and (the sourcing looks weak), improve it in that place. Tedickey (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Emulator

Yeah I'm actually going back and correcting myself at the moment. Thanks though. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks Tedickey (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's more than half of the edits I made. Sigh. Happens I guess. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

They're fairly easy to spot by looking at the what-links-here for Video game console emulator Tedickey (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Good afternoon, Tedickey. I seek guidance on my Hanson edits. I used Who's Who in America and Contemporary Authors as sources for publications. For the source on his idea about drinkers permnits I used his site. For website funding I used the existing source that was already there. What suggestions do you have for avoiding using too much from his site? Appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smab676 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Who's-who isn't something that I can check offhand (and in fact, so I'd rather not discuss it as a source - particularly after having received - and discarded - advertisements from Marquis several times, which leads me to believe it's not a reliable source). For the rest - Hanson appears to be the source of the information. I recommend looking for a reliable third-party source (preferably more than one) who discuss Hanson Tedickey (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smab676 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

no problem Tedickey (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused

... by the comment (btw, this edit is less factual than the average). I accept it could be non-notable, but I would appreciate an explanation as regards the other bit in the parentheses. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, information re-added and properly referenced. Shouldn't be a problem with it now. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

that's an improvement Tedickey (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Coso artifact

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Coso artifact, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 88.18.49.199 (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitol Statuary Hall

Reasoning given on the discussion page: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aratuk (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your work in cleaning up vandalism, I award you with this barnstar.Showtime2009 (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks Tedickey (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

XCB/Xlib edits

I tried redoing them. Hope they are fine now. Balabiot (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

somewhat (the comment in XCB needs a citation from a reliable third-party source) Tedickey (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Source cited on Odyssey Page

Ok, Tedickey, I cited the source for my references on they Odyssey Page. I was not posting to make claims against the Greek origins of the epic, I was simply presenting another theory about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyroborg1986 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

edit

I don't know why you want to put that information in the subject. It is irrelevant - as well as being incorrect. The original article that it was quoted from was incorrect. The author mistakenly took the name of one bridge and gave it to another for his article. The Hull bridge is not on the Merritt Pkwy - it is on route 8 - ten miles away from the Merritt.

It appears that you haven't done any research on this particular item. If you simply looked at ANY map you would recognize this. Quoting an article, and taking it as fact, is sloppy and irresponsible. Especially given the nature of what it states.

I have seen all the numerous edits you have made. You seem to spend alot of time doing this. I don't know why. Do they give you a medal, or recognition of some sort? I am amazed at all the time that is wasted by people on the internet, just so that they can give themselves a pat on their own back.

Do what you want with the subject. I was trying to make it accurate, and keep a future party that was not knowledgeable on this subject from getting mistaken information (from yet another wrong Wikipedia entry). A few years back, when I first started looking at Wikipedia I noticed many things wrong, and did nothing about them. I don't have the time to waste correcting this stuff.

Enter what you will on the topic, I could care less at this point. I'm done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapalmer99 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments reflect on you, don't relate to anyone else Tedickey (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...For reverting vandalism on the White Flint Mall article!--Jayson (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

no problem Tedickey (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Unix Bible

Dear, could you please update Template talk:Unix commands ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackPotte (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, I can pick though the list and suggest items which appear to be topical but overlooked Tedickey (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Indians

Hi Tedickey, I realize I did not cite my sources as I went, but I was in the middle of doing so when you sent me the message about not citing them. I should have cited as I went, but I decided to make the changes first is all. Sorry for the confusion and I will make sure to cite the sources as I go next time. Virginia Indians really is the preferred term and not something I am simply making up. --Sarah1607 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

adding sources from the start is a good approach Tedickey (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

MD 227

Open a discussion on that article's talk page, FYI, about the external links bit. Should be easy to get that figured out. Thanks! Kumba42 (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

John V. Robinson

Hey Tedickey, Why are we who edit the Robinson page getting hassled about the "Spanning the Strait" book cover? We got permission (and the jpeg) from Carquinez Press. No publisher or author (except maybe J.D. Salinger) would complain about someone promoting their products in the manner on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gav Thorpe (talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no reliable source given for the permissions. Tedickey (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a reliable source? (You could send an email to carquinezpress.com and they will allow you use any of their photos in the manner that wikipedia does.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gav Thorpe (talk • contribs) 17:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent Astronomy revert

With this edit: [2]— you inadvertently removed a link to the Macedonian Wiki article about astronomy. Thank you for this good faith edit, and don't be concerned about repair, because it has already been reverted. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you very much!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  08:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I was reading the language names. However, now there are two links to Macedonian (perhaps one of them is incorrect, certainly one is redundant) Tedickey (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Both links appear to be relevant to astronomy. One link looks like a better-developed article and the newer one looks like a developing article on star evolution astronomy.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

BOLT browser tags

Hello, I made edits to the Bolt browser page in response to your two tags: is based too much on press releases, notability.

I used press releases now only in reference to dates new versions were released, and used company FAQ page for description of features. But 2/3 of references are now from third party sources, and I endeavored to use the largest circulation periodical sources available. However I do cite [|WAP Review] as it is considered a top mobile industry blog, and its reviews are highly detailed and thorough.

I added a "Milestones" section to help assure notability. But note that there are other pages for competitive products that have far fewer users or notable features, are less pioneering in their technology, are produced by less notable companies and which use far fewer third party references: Steel (web browser), Teashark, Skweezer and UCWEB, for example. I am trying to make this page far more encyclopedic in nature than any of these, and certainly this product is far more important in the industry as well.

I appreciate your guidance and assistance.

John Sidline 16:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsidline (talk • contribs)

Can we take the flags off this post now?

John Sidline 18:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsidline (talk • contribs)

Perhaps/perhaps not. Just reading over the references, it's hard to pick out the minority of those which are neither from the vendor's websites, press releases or advertisements disguised as reviews. The topic would be much smaller if you removed that stuff, and eliminated the long lists. Tedickey (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Virginia for FAC

I'd like to put Virginia back up for Featured Article Candidate, and hope that the third time's the charm. I wanted to get in touch with you before I do to make sure you don't have any glaring issue with the article, and that you'd support it when it goes up. I am aiming for the end of next week, so just give me a nod before then if there's anything. Thanks for your help.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 19:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks - I'll read over it closely, and if I spot more than typos, will add a discussion topic. Tedickey (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Something I'm having trouble with is the climate section, specifically the Köppen climate classification. I can't find any source that speaks specifically to the state. I overlaid a blank US map on this climate map, and that suggested that Virgina's mostly Cfa, but also Dfa, and then Cfb for a tiny bit, and Aw (or is that Dfb?) in the mountains. Personally, I don't think this system is all that useful, and perhaps its level of specificity isn't needed for a broad understanding of the state's climate. So I might go with a source like this, which just describes it as Cfa. Either that, or drop Köppen classification altogether. Can you help?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a better map (which shows 1-degree grid resolution). The file was named kottek_et_al_2006_A1.pdf for which I see some urls with google, e.g., this). Tedickey (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'd prefer a printed source, but if that's all we got I guess we go with it. So does the climate section read right to you? I don't think it notes the one spot of Hemiboreal. Should it?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 19:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine. For the Hemiboreal, I'd be reluctant to mention it unless there were a second source, e.g., pointing out the locality which corresponds (and could note the temperature range, etc). That's because it's different from the surroundings, matching the climate for about 100 miles further north. Tedickey (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been concerned about Virginia Tech for a while, and how, if at all, to work it in. I agree, it sounds odd in that paragraph, so I've removed it, since your concerns will likely be shared by FAC reviewers. "Very well" is the term the census uses, odd though it is.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 00:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - it seems to flow well, except for isolated issues Tedickey (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over. I've just put it up for FAC, so if there's any comments there you can respond to, it'd be great! Thanks again for the help this week!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 04:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ok - I'll keep an eye on that, and see what I can do Tedickey (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooops

Thanks for correcting my non-correction. I somehow missed the first "and" in that sentence ... my face is red. --Jfruh (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

no problem (your other edits looked okay) Tedickey (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I dispute your recent revision on the Thomas Paine article

I would appreciate your input here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Paine#.27Thomas_Paine_is_a_Founding_Father_of_the_United_States.27 Thanks! - Dave 86.142.153.152 (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Bay Bridge Troll

Regarding the Bay Bridge Troll page:Could you explain to me the wikipedia copyright policy? I gave another person permission to use my photo of the Troll's twin but it was deleted because of copyright issues. So, I put it up myself, it is my original photo, now, once again, it's about to be deleted. why? Also there is a conflict of interest note on the page. Since I have written about the Troll in books and articles, and I am the foremost authority on the Troll, how could my contribution on the article be a conflict?

Thanks, John Robinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by John V. Robinson (talk • contribs) 16:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically you have to provide reliable evidence that you are the copyright holder, and that you're providing the content under sufficiently liberal terms that the content can be reused and adapted without any strings attached. Tedickey (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment in Articles of Confederation

Hi Tedickey,

I am not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, so I appreciate your noting my recent contribution about Slave Nation. I am not sure why you indicated it is dubious, but I gather that you were not sure it is well accepted, and supported, and accessible for free. I think that was more my way of citing - not knowing how to refer to a website to support a book - rather than anything having to do with the credibility and accessibility of the theories in Slave Nation. Slave Nation has been well received. And, the ideas are available without buying the book. A quick look at slavenation.us will show this. There are book reviews from prestigious publications, and even Gordon S. Wood thought highly enough of it to include a reference to it in one of his articles. Also, I am pretty sure that the ideas on slavenation.us are also supported by the reviews and other information available for free on Amazon.com and BN.com.

The reviews (disregarding things like Amazon comments which are unreliable) appear to not be viewable without a subscription. There might be some reliable source to support the contention that it is a consensus view, but I found none. Tedickey (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. Just go to www.slavenation.us - click on "reviews" for reviews and "synopsis" for the theories of the book. Nothing there about a subscription. Also, I do not know why all of Amazon.com would be deemed unreliable, as some of the respected reviews are posted there, too - and accessible for free.

www.slavenation.us is what's known as a promotional site (not useful here) Tedickey (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about - who cares whether you call it promotional. Someone as smart as you should be able to see the content and give credit where it is due. Are you really telling the world that you don't care about neutral reliable sources like Booklist?

The site's only purpose is to sell books. It's not uncommon for promotional sites to misquote or completely fabricate reviews. Tedickey (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the purpose of this site is to put in one place a lot of the information about this book. I understand that you doubt the veracity of the reviews - what would you trust?

The site is registered by one of the authors. There are several advertisements on it, aimed at selling the book. Looks pretty straightforward. Tedickey (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty straightforward about what? All you say is true - how does that detract from the independent reviews which are also posted on that website? And, how does promoting theories that an author has written about detract from those theories? Finally, do you really want to contest the entire copyright system of the United States, which expects authors to benefit from the work they do - and is therefore designed to encourage the promotion of copyrighted work? Suggestion: Look beneath the surface.

You'll have to stop and reflect that I'm ignoring the specious or irrelevant comments, and sticking to the point. If the reviews are really supportive, you'll find them easily some other place than on the promotional site. Tedickey (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, is that the point? You don't want to look at what I've suggested - you want me to spend more time, repeating the information on www.slavenation.us? What is enhanced by such repetition? By the way, I have already directed you to both Booklist and Gordon S. Wood. Are they not good enough for you? Why would I bother to waste my time pointing out that LIBRARY JOURNAL, March 15, 2005, reviewed Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies and Sparked the American Revolution?