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:

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)[reply]

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

Southern United States edit

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

I thought it was a bit long for the given context - the w-link to Unionist government in Wheeling might by itself be topical. Tedickey (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. The text sentence itself wasn't much longer than the original, the footnote ref was long because I figured people wouldn't have the Proceedings of the WV Constitution Conv. I should have used McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom instead, which said pretty much the same thing as my edit "The voters overwhelmingly endorsed a new state, but the turnout was small." pg. 303. There is basically the only sentence on the Southern United States page that deals with statehood, and what is there now is just stuff, not informative at all. Anyway, I will drop the whole thing. Thanks.Dubyavee (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no problem Tedickey (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANSI escape sequences

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

That's better (though I don't see where you found "Dec. 2004" - the source was changed in July and released at that point, though packagers may have deferred it) Tedickey (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a matter of European versus American date order: I read 2004/7/12 as 2004, 7 December (:-). (Kristjan.Jonasson (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

thanks Tedickey (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Paine's DoB

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

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

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

External link on Shenandoah Valley

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

Looks like all you're doing is adding links to another encylopedia site. spam according to most people. Tedickey (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the policy is that the question should be whether the external link adds additional helpful, relevant information. Are you suggesting it doesn't, or are you arguing that links to another encyclopedia site are, by definition, spam "according to most people"? Margo&Gladys (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing history shows that you made dozens of links no more than a minute apart. It's improbable that there waa any attempt to make constructive changes. spam as noted before Tedickey (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

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

See the Wikipedia styleguide for further clarification.

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

Exclusion of Freeware software in External Links

Hi Tedickey,

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

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

Thank you for your attention.

Marcelo.

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

Southeastern US

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

You removed the given source, replacing it with a page that didn't support your edit. Please try to make a constructive change Tedickey (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly messed up the source, but in the process of attempting to fix it, you reverted my changes. I am going to change it back with an accurate source listed. --Conk 9 (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - if you give a source, we can decide how it fits Tedickey (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've got the correct link and information, but have forgotten how to get the title in the reference list to show accurately. You can revert it again if you want, I've got to run and can't work on fixing the title right now, sorry. --Conk 9 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link in Bash (Unix shell)

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

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

Can you explain ...

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

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

FOSS

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

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

Coolpat222

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

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

Climate Change Science Program

Dear Tedickey

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

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

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

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

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

Reservoir

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

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

Battle of Cedar Mountain

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

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

You are now a Reviewer

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

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

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

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

hmm - thanks (I'll have to keep in mind that some topics require a double-check to pass this threshold) Tedickey (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Salisbury/All-America CityYou reverted my addition of Salisbury receiving the All-America City award for 2010, stating "lets not go there again" Care to tell me why? David (talk)There was a spate of edits linking to that topic a while back. Consensus was that they weren't keeping since the intent was purely promotional Tedickey (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]I see that other cities named such as Goodyear, Arizona have it on their pages. Do you know the location of this Consensus? If it's purely promotional, why does it have a wikipedia page? David (talk)There are lots of promotional pages on Wikipedia. This one doesn't have a lot to recommend it, since it's little more than a list, doesn't delve into criteria, comparable awards or anything else. Not much more than a list... Tedickey (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]I just checked about 10 of the cities who have received the award recently, and most of them have it on their page just as I added it or in similar format. I see no consensus on the Salisbury talk page stating not to include it on the Salisbury page. While any award anyone receives could be seen as promotional, I see this as notable as the Salisbury community worked hard to win this award and at least three of the Salisbury news media have covered the award (I referenced one of them). I believe your removal should be undone unless there is a consensus on the talk page not to include any mention of the All-America City Award ("To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages." Wikipedia:CCC#Consensus-building). David (talk)What drives links to pages like that of course is reasonably apparent. But without a suitable section in the topic that explains how the distinction was earned, it's not very useful to the casual reader. You'll find very few topics that provide that type of coverage (whether NPOV or not). Tedickey (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]I will develop a section stating why Salisbury won including the three topics of their application and add it to the Salisbury page. I respectfully ask that it not be removed on the bases of a previous consensus, that a new one be formed on the talk page if you believe the award should not be included. David (talk)That would be an improvement Tedickey (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Christian Classics Ethereal LibraryTedickey - I'm a bit new to Wikipedia editing, but I did read the external link guidelines and was wondering why you removed some of mine. I'm adding the links to the CCEL because I work here and have been assigned to add links to wiki pages so that more people will know about and use the CCEL. It's a great and credible resource. Please let me know what rules I've broken. Thanks! Abbyzwart (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]your talk page contains several comments addressing these issues Tedickey (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Legitimate editsCould you please stop undoing them? Thank you. 93.182.133.74 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]They're not - they are injecting opinion into a factual topic, providing advice which is neither pertinent nor accurate. Looks like simple vandalism. Tedickey (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]It's a fact BOM characters messes up code, maybe you don't know, but it does.86.137.202.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]Yes they are. Many, for example, PHP developers could use the knowledge that this is messing up their scripts. Please stop preventing people from knowing the truth. 93.182.133.74 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hi - Wikipedia isn't a blog, nor a forum. It's for presenting reliably sourced information. You've not started. Tedickey (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Grapes of Wrath Pop Culture ReferenceHi, could you please stop deleting the pop culture reference I listed for the Grapes of Wrath? The Boy Meets World episode "Me and Mrs. Joad" specifically is about that book, Cory and Shawn do a "strike" inspired by the book, without realizing the price one must pay to do what you think is right. This reflects the book's overall plot and moral perfectly and there's no good reason why it should not be included. If the source I did cite was not acceptable, then what would be one?75.81.204.244 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]To be an acceptable source, the reader should be able to find all of the information that you've added, without your having extended or interpreted the source. TEDickey (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thank you.Thanks for correcting the problem on the Indian Head page. --Phoon (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]The boldface was odd - I wouldn't have expected a self-link to do that. TEDickey (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]SecureCRT articleI made some additional changes to the SecureCRT article, including following your suggestion on the talk page. Could you please review the updated article and remove the tag you added if satisfied? Thanks! Stian (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]yes, I saw that and will followup this morning TEDickey (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]SCM COMPARISONHi, i´d like to know why are you constantly removing all information i put in your scm comparison about Plastic SCM. don´t we have the right to show there our information as the rest of users?Alejandro66 (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 08:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Alejandro66 (talk)[reply]Comparison/list topics aren't the place to start advertising your product, which appears to be lacking notability. WP:WTAF TEDickey (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]why should we be advertising our product, if we just fill the available fields with the same information about our product that the rest of the products in the page? This is called comparison, not advertising; and a comparison to be real, must have all the existing products to compare. so, what´s the problem?