User talk:Tedickey

We appear to be at an impasse, how to you propose we solve this? (MartianColony (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC))

There is still considerable debate in the historian community, over the use of the words "under god". Thus it is best to bracket the the words so that both side may be represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartianColony (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC) 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)

2013-07-05 Revert of Brown v. Mississippi in Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

You recently reverted a contribution I made with respect to the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Why did you removed Brown v. Mississippi? What the difference between this case and Malloy v. Hogan? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The linked topic dwells on Due Process and the 14th amendment (your edit was WP:UNDUE in that case) TEDickey (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Revert of Terminfo

You recently reverted my edit to terminfo, describing it as "edit introduces factual error". As my edit did not introduce or change any facts at all, I'm not sure what you mean. Jfmantis (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit made two changes: the "respectively" refers to the fact that the boolean, numeric and string capabilities are stored in the same order as noted in the sentence. The other change introduces some awkward grammar while reducing emphasis. TEDickey (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your behavior is being discussed

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#User:Tedickey. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I had noticed (thanks) TEDickey (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverts on "List of text editors" & "Comparison of text editors"

Can you explain why you reverted my edits adding the Brackets editor to these tables? Your comment simply says "not topical." I find that an inadequate explanation since Brackets is, in fact, a text editor. What exactly are the criteria for being a valid addition to these lists? The pages don't specify any sort of threshold in terms of user base, and virtually all the existing content lacks citations, so...?

You also reverted some unrelated small cleanups I made at the same time, which seems contrary to the "Revert only when necessary" guideline. Ytpete (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, I've also opened discussions on the individual articles' talk pages if you'd prefer to reply there: Talk:List_of_text_editors#Brackets_editor, Talk:Comparison_of_text_editors#Brackets_editor. Ytpete (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have cleanup changes, you might consider making those separately from re-introducing nontopical material TEDickey (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

See my reply at Talk:List_of_text_editors. I'm not sure what you mean by "re-introducing," though, since I only made the edit once and haven't yet touched it since your revert. Ytpete (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandal

There's been persistent vandalism on the Spanish-American War page, and I'm not sure if all the reverts have covered. Could you take a look to ensure nothing remains of the vandalism (which mainly consisted of oh-so-creative The Dictator references)? And perhaps the vandal could be given a block so he doesn't return for thirds.

Arrivederci

173.48.186.188 (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks (I just checked a diff back a month or so, and don't see anything else to fix) TEDickey (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

terminal emulators : screen

If I were looking for a terminal emulator (on Mac OS X) I would hopefully find the screen program as an option.

Although one of the big advantages it provided when originally developed was to provide multiple windows in a plain text environment, it can surely be used in may cases as a terminal emulator.

There exists a wikipedia page for it and it is the reader's responsibility to determine wether it is applicable for their purposes or not.

I fail to understand you reasoning for removing it. I respectfully request you restore the link.

DGerman (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If I was looking for an OSX-specific program, that would be a good section. However, GNU Screen is already linked on the page. Likewise, all of the X windows programs can be run on OSX. How much redundancy are you looking for? (the only reason xterm is listed in the OSX section is because it's the default for XQuartz - ZOC is another special case, since not many programs run in Windows and OSX). TEDickey (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

King Solomon's Mines

See WP:RSN#Is it ok to delete what a source says, keep the source & add material contradicting the source?. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion should be on the topic's page rather than the noticeboard TEDickey (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of SystemVerilog IDE category

Hello Tedickey, Can you clarify what aspect of my recent addition of a category for SystemVerilog integrated development environments is considered promotional? One entry was for an open source tool, the other for a commercial tool. Are both considered promotional?

Msballance (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure: several uses of an external link, a redlink for a missing topic, all pointing to the same source. Start by making a topic (and establishing its notability) before linking to external stuff. See for example WP:Notability, WP:WTAF, WP:RS TEDickey (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Removal of text in article Cờ Rôm+ (browser)

Hi Tedickey, thanks for your contribution. I still would like to include the following information [1]. Could you suggest how should I re-state that information in a more descriptive way so that it is not considered as promotion please? Should I cite the number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaze lato (talk • contribs) 18:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The entire text as written was not neutral, as it singled out one other browser, ignoring the rest of the data. Not much that you can do with that, aside from citing the data for Cờ Rôm+ (browser) by itself. As usual, multiple sources are preferred for statistics, since they differ TEDickey (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert of AWK

You reverted my information about Thompson AWK version 6, calling it an advertisement. It is simple factual information about the new version. I don't understand how it is any different from, say, the gawk entry.

Do you think it's an advertisement because you assumed we are charging for it, or is there some other reason? I'd like to know how to word the information so you will accept it.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I first took a look, and found that it is not likely to be notable - it's almost unnoticeable, sourced to release notes without doing to provide verifiability for that aside from mentioning the company. Charging has nothing to do with advertising; Wikipedia's guidelines say to look for notability and third-party sources which are both lacking in your edit TEDickey (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know enough to argue about notability, but I'm not sure how I could provide any "third-party sources." It is interesting information for users of tawk, especially given Thompson Automation's inactivity, and for others looking for a compiled AWK. If third-party references are required, then why are the entries for mawk, libmawk, and awka there? Would this information be legitimized if the release notes were available at a website? Thanks. Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It would help if the information were available, for instance, as an independent review. For WP:OTHERSTUFF, that's a digression (some of the other stuff is mentioned in books for example). TEDickey (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert at United States Geological Survey, et. al.

Hello. Regarding your recent revert of the "See also" link to Geologic map of Georgia (which included an explanation of the link). I don't believe that WP:UNDUE applies here. This is not an attempt to influence the perspective of the main text. Rather, as WP:ALSO suggests, it provides relevant [information that] should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic... As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. The link is relevant because of USGS activities in (1) Current geologic mapping (2) Historic geologic mapping (a subject that is covered in greater depth in the Georgia article than in the USGS article) (3) The specific USGS contribution to the Georgia geologic mapping. The Georgia article provides links that would be present in the USGS article, where the USGS article more comprehensive in the area of the history of U.S. geologic mapping. I would hope that you might reconsider your actions. Gulbenk (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly undue focus, to single out a small topic and introduce it several places well above the normal level of categorization - unless you have some as-yet-unpresented sources showing that the Geology of Georgia is of special interest for US geology - and geology in general (I see more of that, but it would be nice if you read WP:NPOV as well). TEDickey (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It was my specific desire to present "some as-yet-unpresented sources" and information. I think you might see that if you look at the Geologic maps that contained the geology of Georgia section of the article, along with the Further Reading section. Together, they present both a detailed history and list of prominent national/international geologists (with extensive reference to their work, and links to their articles) not covered in any of the other articles. For someone interested in the broader subjects of geology, cartography, and the USGS, this is pretty interesting and useful stuff. Which is why we have links and SEE ALSO sections. Yes, I have read WP:NPOV, and I still don't see how you apply that to a minor SEE ALSO link. I really think you should read the article in question. Gulbenk (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A see-also tells the user that there is something of specific interest for the topic which is not covered there. A topic about one of 50 states consisting of more than half cut/paste from some unspecific source and the remainder more/less typical of what could be written for the other 49 states is not of "specific interest". (I read the article, which could be trimmed substantially, thereby improving it) TEDickey (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

LassoLab, etc.

You appear to have a personal vendetta against tens of thousands of developers who use or have used Lasso. Ironically, you haven't actively attacked any of the comparable articles for similar lack of notability - only Lasso-related ones - and you've made a point of doing so. Can you make some recommendations as to what you would like to see? For example, for LassoLab - where comparable articles on Eclipse-based software have no articles or grossly unreliable sources, as they are not things that typically incite people to write about in PHD theses - but you haven't actively gone after any others as lacking "notability", unlike the Lasso articles. Help me understand what you believe would be appropriate references which are currently lacking! I'd love to appease your assertions, so that Wikipedia may be more correct.

For some examples of sites built in Lasso, try this search on Google: (https://www.google.com/search?as_filetype=lasso), you should find ~20,000,000 pages or so. Remembering that 99% of Lasso sites do not have extensions - these are ones built by junior developers who forgot to remove the ".lasso" extension. There are literally millions of sites and systems out there - without breaking Canadian Privacy laws, I can only note that the Lasso language has hundreds of Fortune 500 organizations reliant on Lasso to run their organizations, and most of those systems are on the invisible web. This is not represented accurately in the development world - partially because *cough* Wikipedia ignores it.

I'm genuinely interested in your advice and help! The Lasso community has avoided Wikipedia as it is "filled with haters", and left articles empty or wrong (which, as a Wikipedia lover, seems completely incorrect to me). Yet ironically, the circular argument that theses are not written about Lasso as most journalists go to Wikipedia for their preliminary research is not beyond the spark of my irony gland. I'd like to correct the issue, and clearly you know Wikipedia better than myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanstephens (talk • contribs) 15:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep your comments on topic: WP:AGF, WP:NPA apply to the comments which you have made TEDickey (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Just genuinely needing some help, looking for some guidance for improving and correcting information on Wikipedia [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanstephens (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

ANSI escape sequences

Do you mind explaining why did you revert my change?

Original: you can reset colors to their default values by ESC[0m

My correction: you can reset colors to their default values by ESC[29;39m

Explanation: ESC[0m reset other things (underline, bold, blink, etc) too, not only the colors. NevemTeve (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the terminal emulator (some do, some do not). The standard is not specific on this point. Your change was missing specific information regarding the generality of the statement, implying that it is universally true. So I removed it. TEDickey (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The original, by the way was incorrect as well (regarding generality). ESC[29m is incorrect for different reasons - including the fact that the standard does not use that code. TEDickey (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Very true, actually it is ESC[39;49m If you are in doubt about sources, I suggest this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code (based on ECMA-48):

0  Reset / Normal 	all attributes off
39 Default text color (foreground) implementation defined
49 Default background color 	implementation defined

Note: 'implementation defined' doesn't mean 'it might or might work', it means that the actual colour is not defined by the standard (usually, it can be set by the user). NevemTeve (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

no. The standard is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and there have been cases where SGR 0 has no effect on colors. The video attributes referred to by the standard are basically SGR 1-27. If you want to introduce incorrect information into Wikipedia, I can add this as an example in my faq's TEDickey (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"there have been cases where SGR 0 has no effect on colors" -- and how does this prove your point? (the original question was: using ESC[0m or ESC[39;49m to reset colors to default) NevemTeve (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not all terminals implement all control sequences. SGR 39/49 are fairly recent; older terminals did not implement it. So, with neither part strictly true, the statement as a whole is non-factual (a case of overgeneralization). TEDickey (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Unicode characters

The editor who attempted to add this site as an EL to List of Unicode characters had it reverted by you.

I see you left an explanation at User_talk:86.173.165.245.

However, the editor does not quite understand the message, as the link has no ads. While I might have simply directed the editor to ask you at your talk page, I decided to ask you myself, as the editor is not a regular editor. I'm not seeing the problem myself, and frankly, it looks like a useful site. Am I missing something? I do appreciate that you see hundreds of inappropriate links everyday, but I'm wondering if this one might be OK.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of possible links, this one (aside from being in color) is not special. The pun-like relationship of the term "blocks" (essentially confusing Unicode blocks of related characters to line-drawing characters aka "block-drawing" is not an improvement to the topic). History shows the edits by two IP-addresses and a WP:SPA making the change. "whois" on unicodeblocks.com shows it was created just last week (not possible for this to be a well-known, frequently used reference source). So... WP:EL applies. 08:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Waldensian page

Hi, I have noticed that you have reverted a numbered of unsourced edits on the Amish and other pages. Mind taking a peep at Waldensians where a persisent IP user keeps changing the page with an unsourced change? I have reverted it several times so feel that another editor should have input. Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist, to get involved TEDickey (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin Gugino

Thanks for your message, but I don't know to what you were referring. What was it?? (Spanish American War) ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC))

Portraying Cuba as a more active participant in the proceedings than the sources portray it. Reading those, the Cuban war of independence became a secondary issue. TEDickey (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Secondary to what or to whom? And do you mean "more active in the proceedings" of

• the treaty of Paris, or
• the war that took place in Cuba, or
• the battle at Guantanamo Bay

The War? ...Are you saying that the fight the Cubans were making for their own independence was not all that important, or didn't stack up as much of a war? BUT, The Cubans had begun the process of writing their own constitution before the Maine incident.

The Battle? If so, I think you might mean possibly the paragraph
Spanish-American War
Main article: Spanish-American War
During the Spanish-American War, the U.S. fleet attacking Santiago retreated to Guantánamo's excellent harbor to ride out the summer hurricane season of 1898. The Marines landed at Guantanamo Bay, with naval support, and took the bay from the Spanish. The Marines moved inland, with Cuban scouts going ahead to push back the increasing Spanish resistance.

I was only trying to clear up the text that was there before, which was:
Spanish-American War
Main article: Battle of Guantánamo Bay
During the Spanish-American War, the U.S. fleet attacking Santiago retreated to Guantánamo's excellent harbor to ride out the summer hurricane season of 1898. The Marines landed with naval support, requiring Cuban scouts to push off Spanish resistance that increased as they moved inland.

I was not attempting to introduce any new or different ideas. I was trying to 1) make clear that Spain held the port, and 2) that the US took the port, and 3) whatever the sentence meant about the Cubans, I tried to put that down there is less enigmatic fashion.
I can look and see what it should have been, but if you know, or feel you can make it more accurate, or what was there was not too good, or what is there now is not too good, by all means fix it up. Thanks, or be more specific and blunt if I don't get your point yet.( Martin | talk • contribs 02:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC))

What I had in mind was noticing this fragment "to assist the Cubans in their War of Independence" and observing that the point of view expressed is likely to be read as a minority viewpoint, considering that nominal independence for Cuba was achieved 4 years later - but subject to the United States in several respects. So "assist" replacing "intervention" was not an improvement. Likewise, "yellow journalism" is a familiar term to readers; replacing it with a longer, less frequently used term (even though it is arguably more descriptive), was not an improvement. Further "with the understanding" would require a reliable source to demonstrate that the intentions were clearly stated. TEDickey (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverting redundancy

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hi.

In edit #584780757, you have reverted a redundancy.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

so I see TEDickey (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Promotional edits

Mr. T. I just reverted an edit regarding browsers, which you had chosen to revert. The entry had not one but two references. Why is a differing standard being applied to newer entries? Atacamagiant (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:WTAF, as well as WP:AGF, and in view of your accusation WP:COI TEDickey (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Explain revert please

Could do you explain why you reverted this? Command free is common in unix world and there are similar commands included. --Milan Kerslager (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"free" is Linux-specific. The topic is not about Linux, but Unix and does not appear in the X/Open documentation. Stay on topic. TEDickey (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You Might Want To Comment

The conversation you started here has heated up Talk:Roanoke_Colony#Beechland. 71.52.211.241 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I had noticed (not much to say on the current thread) TEDickey (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you reverting useful edits.

Please don't revert edits with invalid explanations.

They aren't useful. Start with reading the guidance in WP:EL. If you want to pursue this, I could start by pointing out some inaccuracies and the like in the "source". There's no point in adding stuff like that. By the way, your comment about COI apparently refers to some prior discussion on this which does not appear in your edit history. TEDickey (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, your comment was unsigned, and normally would go on the talkpage of the appropriate topic. I've done that TEDickey (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia is strewn with lies and misinformation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.83.33 (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

well, that is an answer, and corresponds with your edits. But to improve, start by reading the relevant guidelines TEDickey (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Bonnie++

Back in October you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks - it's unlikely to ever become notable TEDickey (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Turkey1090

That edit that i did on the New Haven Colony was neccecary, not invalid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkey1090 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

not really - it changed the meaning of the text without good reason TEDickey (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert to Widener University

Hello. Recently you have reverted the updates made from an IP address user on the Widener University Wikipedia page. That IP address user was me prior to my making an account. I am not entirely sure how you are affiliated with the university, but I would appreciate it if you did not revert the edits made to that page. I am a worker at Widener, and I have been dedicating my time to updating that page for our school. The page needs some serious looking over, and I noticed that in your reverts, you deleted one of our academic schools, the School of Human Service Professions. This would be inaccurate information that you are promoting by not carefully looking over the edits you are reverting. Please do not do this again. Thank you Aheisler (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edits introduced information which was incorrect - along with some purely promotional edits, there may have been some useful information TEDickey (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Visual Basic page

The problem is that the Visual Basic page contains wrong information on Visual Basic 6.0. Everything I've written on Visual Basic page has very serious and credible citations. While I offered credible information with serious citations, such as Microsoft statements, NEWSMAX articles and a CodeProject Prize winner in Competition (text which has been deleted by you without explanation), the current text lacks citations. How can this be better than the information provided by me previously ?! I thought that everyone can make their contribution on Wikipedia !

How can a text on About.com (citation 3) be more reliable than Microsoft, CodeProject and Newsmax ?! Is not this a little absurd ?!

Please reconsider my text.

Thank you,

Best regards,

Megan

CodeProject is a collection of postings from amateurs - some are useful, but overall it's equivalent to a comment on https://freecode.com/ TEDickey (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Tedickey,

Absolutely untrue, CodeProject is an IT Journal (https://freecode.com/ is far from that). In a scientific journal there are (commonly) three reviewers and CodeProject has (for this article) 54 reviewers. Then, how can CodeProject be a collection of posts ?! When in reality it is one of the most respected and popular IT journals.

The idea was for you to look carefully at my contributions, not to drive me away by progressive deletion. Zastrowm user, that does not even have his page for comments, reverted some cites (and text) of mine without clear explanations (in fact even wrong explanations). What I mean is that you should not driven users who want to bring true and accurate contributions to WikiPedia.

PS: and how come this page (Visual Basic page) had wrong information (even malicious) and wrong citations for years and no one did anything about it ?

Best regards,

Megan

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.1.46 (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Rather than argue about a non-reliable/non-authoritative source, you might try looking for a source which meets the guidelines. TEDickey (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Tedickey,

Attention, CodeProject awarded this article with first prize for January 2014 and globally CodeProject is just a little behind compared to WikiPedia ranking (see Alexa).So, I think it's really reliable. Do you have evidence to justify otherwise?

Best regards,

Megan --109.99.1.46 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment is irrelevant. We're not talking about a popularity contest, but identifying (a) what facts are stated, (b) who provided the facts, and (c) an reliable indication that they've been providing reliable information on the given topic for an extended period of time, so that questionable information can be more (or less) relied upon. Your source starts off poorly in (a) by contradicting itself, and fails entirely for (b) and (c). TEDickey (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Tedickey,

If you treat me badly and my comments are irrelevant then what is the role of the discussion on WikiPedia ?! I brought very reliable citations on topics that you told me to and Zastrowm user has deted them (and you did not reverse his mistakes). :(

Best regards,

Megan --109.99.1.46 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The place for discussing these is on the talk page of the relevant topic. Presenting a batch of Google hits is pointless, and anyone is likely to remove them. Arguing on my talk page is nonproductive TEDickey (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Alexa and Google hits are not the same thing ... and you have two words in your track record that are not constructive, namely "pointless" and "irrelevant"!

Well, there was a citation from About.com, which for some users was more reliable than Microsoft statement or CodeProject, so, success in editing the page :) --109.99.1.46 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see - as long as you've found no reliable source of information, you'll continue making random comments on my talk page. TEDickey (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I will stop with this comment. I'm just upset that I struggled one night to bring my contribution to the Visual Basic page and Zastrowm user has partially removed my work (and you did nothing to reverse this). I have also brought reliable sources on the page but they were partially removed by Zastrowm (except for two citations, the rest were ok). If I will remember the page in the future maybe I'll return to make other contributions too. Thank you for the conversation. :)

--109.99.1.46 (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

Dear Tedickey

If you make assertions on my talk page that I have made contributions without citing verifiable references than have the courtesy to make plain which page your are referring to. I always cite the sources for my edits.

None for [3] (linked topic has a different statement; yours said more than that) TEDickey (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

College of William and Mary change

Just wondering why you reverted back to the coat of arms which we rarely use at the college. The cypher is a much stronger brand symbol for the college in 2014, thus why I updated it. Thanks!

http://visualidentity.blogs.wm.edu/2011/01/03/here-are-the-ones-we-know-about/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryewalters11 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The link cited in the upload wasn't a reliable source, and didn't appear to mention one TEDickey (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert on Maryland Article

Hi. I was wondering if you could help me by explaining why you reverted the edit that I made, stating that it was "not an improvement." The original text, "There is 1.83 miles...," is grammatically incorrect (as the word miles is plural), hence why I made the edit. I can't seem to find anything in WP:MOS that suggests otherwise. Could you provide some insight, please? Thanks!

Vmanjr (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be too obvious for the MOS: in English, when using distances, we don't treat the units of measure as multiple distinct items. A plural, as you used it, implies that the miles are just that - multiple items. You might have rephrased it to avoid the plural, but you did not - so it was not an improvement. TEDickey (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That's true if the sentence were something like "1.83 miles is a short journey," where you start with the measurement (it's akin to implicitly saying "a distance of 1.83 miles is a short journey"). However, if you start the sentence with the word there, you do treat those distances (and all units of measure) as multiple distinct items. Unfortunately, this seems to be very difficult to corroborate online for some reason, with the only (and unreliable) source being StackExchange. Vmanjr (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to rephrase it as (something like) "near Hancock, the gap between West Virginia and Pennsylvania is only 1.83 miles". Also, see how it is phrased in Hancock, Maryland. By the way, neither topic provides a reliable source for the number TEDickey (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)