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

removal of link to regexper.com on regular expression

why did you undo this edit?

the website regexper.com was no.1 on news.ycombinator.com and provides a very useful tool for visualizing regular expressions. --79.199.214.56 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it is nontopical (does not deal with the general topic of regular expressions (b) number mentions on the website of your choice is irrelevant TEDickey (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the cited website is a community-edited (anonymous editors) - nothing there to discuss. Consider it along the same lines as confusing Wikipedia with a reliable source of information. Have a nice day TEDickey (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion at Odyssey

Hello! I noticed you reverted an IP edit here without explanation. The change from definite to indefinite article actually seemed to me a (slight) improvement, but before restoring it I thought I should inquire as to your rationale.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The change from "a" to "the" modified the meaning, making it appear as if there was only one possible occurrence, which is absurd. TEDickey (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course: somehow I read the situation backward, thinking the IP had changed “the” to “a” instead of the converse. I should have checked the article itself instead of just (mis)reading the diffs. Sorry to bother you.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no problem TEDickey (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

Hello, I noticed that you reverted quite a few of my edits with Time magazine references because they were unsourced. How should I provide a source if it comes from a printed copy of the magazine? Thanks! Whitestorm17 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The usual: date, title and author of the article. Magazines also typically have volume numbers, but date/page number and title/author are what is expected. See Template:Citation for some hints TEDickey (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So for the county pages that you reverted would this be an acceptable citation? Time Magazine, November 19, 2012 Issue; "The White House - Obama's Path To Victory", pages 16-17

Something like that? Whitestorm17 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote, it would look something like

<ref>{{citation |title=The White House - Obama's Path To Victory |pp=16-17 |periodical=Time Magazine |date=November 19, 2012}} </ref>

I added a source to the Sandusky County, Ohio page. How does that look? Whitestorm17 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That works TEDickey (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ekg2

Hello, and thanks for changing this from a redirect to an article back in 2008. It's tagged as in need of some TLC - orphaned, primary sources and doubtful notability. Would you be able to look it over and see if you can help improve it? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is at all notable, it seems the sources are all written in Polish (I've found nothing useful in English) TEDickey (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese internment article edits

Hello,

First, I would like to say that I appreciate the standard of unbiased reporting that has been set for Wikipedia. I have used it throughout my educational career and appreciate what it stands for.

Currently, I am a student at the University of Washington, Seattle. I am enrolled in an Asian American Studies Class of the American Ethnic Studies Department titled "Japanese Internment." In class, we are learning of many of the misnomers used to describe the events regarding Japanese Americans during World War II.

My first edit was regarding the use of the phrase, "Japanese-American." The issue that historians have today is that "Japanese-American" has a completely separate definition from "Japanese American." Firstly, "Japanese-American" implies equality of the two words, meaning that "Japanese-American" is equivalent to "American-Japanese," and could be used in discussions such as, "Japanese-American relations." On the other hand, "Japanese American" is not the joining of two equal words, but rather Japanese becomes an adjective which describes or modifies the noun, which is American.

My proceeding edits were probably the edits called into question based on "bias." I definitely did not write the words with a bias myself. We are learning in class about how the government used many methods of propaganda to paint the image of treatment to the Japanese Americans as not only without negatives, but also as a positive opportunity. Many of the videos that were created by the government described this phenomenon as "an opportunity to reclaim the desert and make new lives for themselves."

Thus, "relocation" was a euphemism used to downplay the negative actions of the government. The "exclusion or forced removal" became "evacuation," "incarceration" became "relocation," etc. I would not have made these edits had I not learned about the correct terminology used by modern day historians. My professor wanted it to be clear that these words are actually inaccurate. And it would not be biased, in my opinion, to call this incarceration, defined by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary as "the act of confining or the state of being confined; the state of being held in lawful custody."

Additionally, beyond the arguments from euphemism and propaganda, "internment camp," as mentioned later in the "Japanese American internment" article, is a term reserved for the Department of Justice or Army camp holding alien enemies under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which are separate from incarceration camps.

My goal in the use of the word "incarceration camp" is that it is the proper word used in academia today to describe what has traditionally been misnomered as "internment," which in it of itself has it's own definition distinct from incarceration.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to share my reasons for editing. I can assure you that the intention was not to provide a bias, nor do I believe that the words are biased. Rather, I honestly believe that they best describe the actions the government took.

Sincerely, Matt Sekijima University of Washington, Class of 2015, Political Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekijima (talk • contribs) 23:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, the topic uses the terminology of its sources - applying some "proper word used in academia" has the problem that if it is not based on the sources for this topic, it may be misapplied (particularly noting that your choice of terminology has additional connotations which would be seen by "non-academic" readers) TEDickey (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fleksy keyboard

Hello Tedickey. I invite to to have a look at Fleksy and see that it is a technology that "the community believes has done the most to empower the vision-impaired" in 2012: [1]

It has also been selected by Apple as one of "Best of AppStore 2012": [2]

An article from the American Foundation for the Blind: [3]

Also you will find thousands of mentions on Google.

I genuinely think this method of text entry would be of interest to most readers (it is not limited to blind people) of the input methods page. I also think you will appreciate the amount of award-winning innovation when you try it (if you have an iOS device).

Hope this helps! :) Nautilus1284 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were promoting the item; rather than looking for suitable sources (third party), they merely said nice things about the product and pointed to the website TEDickey (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your feedback. I pointed to a link directly on the official CES website, a major Consumer Electronics Conference with attendance of 140,000. I can also point to may other third party authoritative links, such as the Huffingotn Post, Wired.com, FastCompany magazine, Engadget, TechCrunch, Y-Combinator and many many others. I only posted the first party link as per some other products mentioned in the same section. I can omit the official first party link, will this be ok? Nautilus1284 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you created a topic for your product, and established notability rather than linking to its website. By the way, you should read WP:RS and note that some of the possible sources which you mentioned are not useful as sources for establishing notability TEDickey (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Only thing is, what do you mean create a topic? Any suggestions for that? Also, I might end up adding Fleksy to the requested articles instead. Just wanted to hear your thoughts on how notable this is (if you have the time and inclination). I have absolutely no intention to spam... Nautilus1284 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long backlog on requested articles. But you could prepare a topic in a subpage of your user-page and submit it for Wikipedia:Articles for creation TEDickey (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created this based on your comments: [4]. All feedback is welcome! Thanks again. Nautilus1284 (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Eeshai

I am wondering if you could be more explicit about what was wrong with this edit, to the extent that you left a low level vandalism warning on their talk page. From WP:REVIEWING:

The purpose of reviewing is to catch and filter out obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits on articles under pending changes protection, a special kind of protection that permits anonymous and newly registered editors to submit edits to articles that would otherwise be semi- or fully protected under one or more of the criteria listed in the protection policy.

The edit sees to me to be intended to clarify that Arnold's father was also named Benedict. There certainly doesn't seem to be any bad faith involved and it seems bitey that this user made one well-intentioned edit and got a vandalism notice for their trouble. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an example of a nuisance edit (done several times in this topic as I recall) which seeks to change the commonly-accepted name of the topic to put a "junior" on it. Wikipedia should follow the sources, not editor's whim TEDickey (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Western Hemisphere and the Virginia General Assembly

Hi Tedickey,

I'm new to this, but it strikes me that if Wikipedia's own defintion of "Western Hemisphere" includes the UK we ought to stick with that for consistency. West and East of the Prime Meridian is the only neutral definiton available, the use in the "Virginia General Assembly Page" is political, so it should either be re-written or at least pointed out.

Best

Phlange — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Phlange (talk • contribs) 13:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't make definitions; it uses WP:RS to provide information, and relies on consensus using those sources to present information. So far there are no reliable sources contrary to the presentation in that topic (and if there are, it appears likely that they will be WP:Fringe) TEDickey (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the UK Houses of Parliament are in the Western Hemisphere is a "Fringe Theory"? Have you ever looked at a map? It's not a theory it is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.253.107 (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you if your argument is "it's an American Topic" I guess that makes evolution a fringe theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.253.107 (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No - I pointed right away to WP:RS. You haven't done that yet. TEDickey (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK --86.16.253.107 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]