User talk:Tedickey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Tedickey)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 07:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


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 (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As to de Sousa:

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 (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 (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 (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 (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)


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[edit]

Hi! I'm the one who added text about Crimea being blocked by I am Crimean. I first saw Crimea blocked on on 1 Feb (here is screenshots 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)

Software enter in WP:COI ?[edit]

Conforming to the Wikipedia COI (, I don't agree with your undo of my change ( ).

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 ( I don't mind about making money with my labor, as these are always Free Software.


{ I was reading your article again and I think a really good reference here would be the word freeium.

[free+premium] is a real business term like brending [branding+friending]  Being ulteristic for software developers is a tricky busibess acumen to master. Your propensity  2 giveaway code for free is cool. Mark gave away napster.  Do you have a motive on the back end to hopefully get you to buy something isn't that how email works? Correction isn't that how free email works like Gmail?COACH ZARLINO (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)}

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)

Subject Matter Experts[edit]


Thank you for reverting my edit 2 The Talk page or whatever page it was I only want to do the proper processes on Jimmy site. I am in a catch-22 using voice recognition to update the status any information that you can provide me that deals directly with Amish social settlements in the area in which you serve geographically would be great please use any of the KML sites available on the internet I choose to use it was developed by John hanke the individual and team leader responsible for Google Earth a popular KML navigation software suite. Once again thank you for your edits and I look forward to your continued mentorship God bless from the great state of Ohio Geauga County Middlefield Village historic settlement on a Wikipedia page I found today call Geauga Roman numeral 2 12:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)COACH ZARLINO (talk)

outstanding points on the above-mentioned information I want to pay you at tribution again for reverting my edit I am looking for subject matter experts like yourself to assist me in a disenfranchised population living on the North American continent please reference my talk page my sandbox and my user page thank you for your continued edits and anything you can do will be greatly appreciated on a ground floor Amish portal in Ohio thank you 


{COACH ZARLINO (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2016 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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)


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)


so why you undid my correction? BCtl (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Try reading through the WP:MOS. Look for capitalization. TEDickey (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop removing paragraphs without a reason[edit]

Why don't you discuss before deleting? --Bianbum (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The place to ask that was on the topic page. bye. TEDickey (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope you can jump in on the Turnitin talk page where Bianbum and I are discussing this issue. Pengortm (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

done TEDickey (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Since Bianbum keeps reverting without engaging in discussing I have opened a request for help on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I hope this is not premature. I'm open to other suggestions of how to handle this situation if you have them.Pengortm (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't have much to add -- some editors are simply uncooperative TEDickey (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold[edit]

I don't understand why you feel a reference for Benedict Arnold showing up in a new television show is promotional material. I watch the show. I went to the wikipedia page to find out more information. I noticed the latest popular culture reference was missing and added it in. It was no different than what was there in the first three bullets.Ssofrigid (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The page which is linked is essentially promotional; a suitable link would be a review of the topic (not something like imdb of course). See reliable sources guidance for suggestions TEDickey (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Besides vs. beside[edit]

I don't understand why you reverted my correction of "besides" in the article about BSD licences. The correct word in this case is "beside", not the commonly but wrongly used "besides". MoogX (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree: "besides" is often used (informally), "beside" in the way you used it (a) is unusual and (b) appears to change the meaning of the sentence. If you would like to improve it, you might rephrase it more clearly without either word. TEDickey (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, even if I still don't agree. I've now rewritten the sentence. MoogX (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If you google on "beside versus besides", the first few hits will include explanations of the grammatical differences TEDickey (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Dimensions CM[edit]

Hello. I have provided references to reliable sources in news and blogs at Dimensions CM page. Is that enough or anything else required?
I understand that article is now small and not complete, but it is at least something to start with, and hopefully will be extended soon. Thanks. Alex.Thunder.UA (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The topic's talk page is the suitable place for discussing improvements to it. TEDickey (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits to United States Constitution Reverted[edit]


I am curious: why did you revert my edits? Thanks. Iamahashtag (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

In the context of your other edits, the spelling error appeared as a pattern of test-edits TEDickey (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Some time ago I asked how to add information about Commander One to [2]

You told me that I should start with creating topic about program. I did, here it is [3]

Can you or somebody else ad information about it to this article?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DashaG11 (talkcontribs) 14:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed it, will probably follow up over the next few days... TEDickey (talk)


Dear Tedickey,

Could you please inform me why you reverted my edit in the list of Text Editors? Thanks to this information I will know how to add new positions to lists. I noticed that in the same list there are text editors with links but without articles and they haven't been removed. Because of this, I’m curious as to why my edit has been reverted. Thank you! Geek01010 (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Geek01010

You should read the change comments: WP:WTAF TEDickey (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism checker list[edit]

Hello Tedickey I wanted to ask your opinion regarding the improvement of the plagiarism checkers list. I just want to know the difference between the line that I wrote and the other checkers in the list. Thanks Interactive tree (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Interactive_tree

The list really should be pruned, as it is merely a spam magnet. TEDickey (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Tasos Georgiou Vatikiotis[edit]

Hello Tedickey, We added Herndon High School graduate to list of athletes in the Herndon area and we might also be adding a few more names in the near future that played both for DC United and the US Mens National Team - thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfellabear (talkcontribs) 15:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks (I do read edits to check if they are sourced) TEDickey (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Francis Scott Key Page Reverts[edit]

Dear Tedickey,

Could you please inform me why you reverted the edits on the Francis Scott Key Wikipedia Page? While it states that you reverted the changes due to the fact that it was Original Research I'd like to contest that and inform you that O Say Can You See: Early Washington D.C, Law and Family is a digital archive of primary sources. The web site is a collection of petition for freedom cases tried in the District of Columbia Circuit Courts many of which Francis Scott Key acted as legal counsel for including some cases that went all the way to the Supreme Court. The collection is in no way a form of original research as the sites intent is to present these, once lost, primary sources to the public so that they can create their own analysis of the relationships between slaves, their legal counsel, and the extended families. Based on the published Wikipedia policies on primary sources the OSCYS site follows the rules. If you'd like to check for yourself please take a moment to search through Francis Scott Key's person page and some of the primary sources written in his own hand!

  • "O Say Can You See: Early Washington, DC Law & Family Project". Center for Digital Research in the Humanities.

Best Oscyswiki (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The statement you made is not derived from statements in the source. The source is a list, without any discussion. The editor in this case provided the content—here. Read WP:OR for guidance. By the way, the topic's talk page is the appropriate place to discuss this. TEDickey (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sully Historic Site citations[edit]

Wrote a bunch of code to change the citations on the Sully Historic Site article from the current version to the proposed formatting. Cannot implement this without consensus. Would very much appreciate your opinion at the talk page. Abel (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for your hardwork and efforts! MarkYabloko 09:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Neovim[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Neovim —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


Excuse me but Hampton University is a prominent private institution in Virginia. What are your grounds for deleting it?Broadmoor (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

There are 129 institutions. Without exception, proponents of each will say a given school is "prominent" (or something equivalent). Lacking a reliable source on the topic, adding me-toos to pad out the inline list is merely promotional editing. TEDickey (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help[edit]


Perhaps you can help suggest relevant incoming links for Moveable Feast (organization) ?

Thanks very much for your ideas and input,

Cirt (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean, other than making promotional edits? TEDickey (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Mason–Dixon line[edit]

You reverted an edit I made on Mason–Dixon line calling it "advertising". How is this advertising? Cresap's War was also called the the Conojocular War. I cited a reliable source, History & Headlines. If you'd like to take a second look the url is If you still call this advertising I'd really appreciate if you could explain. Thanks in advance User:Rus793|Talk? 15:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC) 01:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't a reliable source, but rather a short advertising come-on, lacking any of the attributes of a scholarly article. There's no reference to sources, and the whole point is to guide the reader into buying a book. Have a nice day. TEDickey (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Edit to Antifederalism[edit]


Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning for reverting my edit to the Antifederalism. I can understand why it appeared to be vandalism, and I apologize for not including in the summary why I made the change that I did. My change was designed to correct the wrong information that was on the page previously. I've since corrected my edit to make it clearer that the edit was not vandalism. If you're interested in reading more about the authorship of these essays, I found my information in The Anti-Federalist Writings of the Melancton Smith Circle (p. 418-419) by Michael Zuckert and Derek Webb. I've included this citation on the article page as well. I originally didn't include the citation after Smith's name because Centinel's name also didn't have a citation and I thought it would look out of place in the list, but I see now that new changes ought to have a citation to be verified.

Please let me know if you have any questions! Charlemagne920 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Concurrent Versions System[edit]


I made this edit on the page Concurrent Versions System and you revert me with the comment: “revert - not an improvement”.

Could you explain me why this is not?

GPLv2 is more precise than GNU General Public License (a group of licenses including both GPLv1, GPLv2 and GPLv3: 3 different licenses); so IMO it is an improvement. — Metamorforme42 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No: stating GPLv2 has the connotation of not permitting later versions to be used. The license on the CVS page uses "or later". TEDickey (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but what if I replace it with GPLv2+ or GPLv2 or later? Metamorforme42 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It might help if someone made a redirect for one of those terms (to the paragraphs in GPL discussing the issue, and wrote a suitable summary of the issue), and used that. TEDickey (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how to write the summary exactly (my English is not so good) so for the moment I will only stop changing gplv* from gpl if the real license is gplv*+. Thanks for your usefull explanations Face-smile.svg. Metamorforme42 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem TEDickey (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Tedickey. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Mason - Dixon line unsourced material to reference cartoons section[edit]

This is a still of the cartoon "Southern fired rabbit" referenced in the article. Bugs Bunny and Sam are clearly standing in front of a sign saying the "Mason Dixon". Is this sufficient sourcing for you to put back a genuine reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchkick (talkcontribs) 23:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

With that, your statement provides more information than the illustration. A reliable source always has more information than the corresponding information in Wikipedia TEDickey (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits on West Virginia article[edit]

Fellow editor, my edits on the West Virginia article, the one properly fixed a red link, it even got a "thank you" and the other fixed an obvious error of a missing apostrophe. Please reconsider your reversion, thank you. Freddiem (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I see you made the adjustments with the metro area page, thank you. I will go ahead and restore my edit on the error of a missing apostrophe. Have a good day. Freddiem (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ ~~~~

[:ascii:] character class[edit]

Hello. With regards to this revert. I will look for a more substantial source next week. If not, the [:ascii:] character class can go in the "Non-standard" column. It does deserve a mention. Any comments? With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The authoritative source for POSIX is here. They don't do "ascii", it's well-known over the past twenty-odd years. TEDickey (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I just dropped by to follow up. Okay. Clearly [:ascii:] is not POSIX. How do you view an entry in the "Non-standard" column with a reference back to Emacs documentation. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like it would work TEDickey (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. See Regular expression#Character classes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
looks good TEDickey (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


What is "promotional material" for you?. --AntonovJ (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Advertising your personal project/website, for example. TEDickey (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do you suppose that I promote my website?.--AntonovJ (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to guess. Have a nice day. TEDickey (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You too!. --AntonovJ (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

S-Lang – stack-based language[edit]

Regarding your revert: Why is it "not applicable"? According to "S-Lang was originally a stack language that supported a postscript-like syntax. For that reason, I named it S-Lang, where the S was supposed to emphasize its stack-based nature." At least for parameter passing to/from functions this is still true in the current version (S-Lang 2.3), and message(strcat("Hello ", "World!")); is actually just something like syntactic sugar for "Hello "; "World!"; strcat; message; (try this, e.g in slsh!). As a programmer, one needs to be aware of this, because if a function does not consume all its arguments from the stack, it might have unwanted effects (described to some detail in

The language documentation doesn't show that it is stack-based. It shows a language that looks more like C. In particular, function parameter lists are passed in a list. If you want to make changes, start by citing a reliable source TEDickey (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

vi alias to vim[edit]

You moved information about vi being aliased to vim with the comment "move promotional edit to more appropriate place". This misses the point of the information. It's not promotional. It's in the lead because users of Linux run the command vi to edit files but they are in fact running vim. This is not trivial and casts light on many other statements about vi in the article such as its popularity. --Cornellier (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it was blantantly promotional, inserted into the lede out of order. vim has appropriate coverage already in the topic. By the way, the appropriate place to discuss topic improvements is on the corresponding page. Attacking editors is done in the manner which you're doing now. Have a nice day. TEDickey (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • To your first point "blantantly promotional". How, under WP:PROMO, is what you removed in any way promotional? WP:PROMO talks about advocacy, propaganda, scandal mongering, etc.
  • You do not address the point made above about the reason for the text being "in the lead because users of Linux run the command vi to edit files but they are in fact running vim."
  • As for the "appropriate place to discuss topic improvements", I would refer you to WP:OWNTALK which states: "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." My initial lines above related specifically to "the edits of a user".
  • Lastly, with regards to the statement "attacking editors is done in the manner which you're doing now", please see the above three points. While any preceived "attack" is to be regretted, it is certainly not the intention. --Cornellier (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to make constructive remarks, do that on the discussion page for vi. If not, continue as you are doing now. TEDickey (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


How do we get rid of the link to Microsoft's Russian site? Le Lapin Vert (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no applicable link. I used "N/A", but if it comes out as "", then there's some time-delayed junk propagating from the Russian page. `TEDickey (talk)
I think this will do. Le Lapin Vert (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

William & Mary[edit]

Hi, I added a section describing an event in which a university made national news. My section described events that occurred without any given opinion on their occurrence. Is any occurrence that makes a university nationally relevant soapboxing? Mornerouge (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Mornerouge

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, nor a bulletin board for the trivial. Your edit was blatantly promotional, and if you chose to read the guideline on WP:SOAPBOX, you would not have commented in this page TEDickey (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear Tedickey,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evrik (talkcontribs) 12:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


I'm not addressing anyone in particular because I don't know who's responsible for such a glaring error. Tidewater Virginia encompasses the coastal plain, everything east of the Piedmont, rather than just the built-up region in the far southeast. It's a basic fact of the geography: it's something I learnt as a child, despite growing up in a place that hasn't been part of Virginia since 1784. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As noted, there was originally a proper-context reliable source. TEDickey (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Stale draft[edit]

Greetings! I've been combing through stale userspace drafts and came upon one of yours: User:Tedickey/Margaret Mercer. As there is not currently an article about her in the mainspace and your draft is not ready to be moved there, the conventional next step is to nominate it for deletion at XfD. However, seeing that you are still active, it would be rather rude of me to do that without first consulting you. If you have an interest in improving and eventually promoting this article, you may keep it for that purpose. However, Wikipedia is not a web host and should not be used to store unsuitable content indefinitely. If you have no intention of further improving that draft, attaching {{db-u1}} to the top would spare me the trouble of a deletion discussion. Thanks! Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Margaret Mercer (author) (April 25)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Tedickey! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


...that you need a source to understand that "216 colors of 0, 3, 6, 9, C and F" and "216 colors of 0, 3, 6, 9, C and F" are the same thing. --Redeemer (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The 216 in your suggested change is only coincidentally related to that topic. If you want to make that change, discuss it on the topic's talk page. TEDickey (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Revert at Annapolis Convention (1786)[edit]

You reverted at [4] but didn't explain why. Why? Sparkie82 (tc) 02:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Read the diff. Without the typo, there was no improvement. The typo made it worse. TEDickey (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Fairfax County Revert[edit]

May I ask why you reverted a factual edit? My edit is true and you know it. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It did not follow the guidance given in (you know that, as well) TEDickey (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Well excuse me? There's other pages that have "Largest community"!.....--ACase0000 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
You're referring to WP:OTHERSTUFF, of course. Do you have some constructive remarks? TEDickey (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I've seen several county pages that have "Largest community". Also I read the template:Infobox_U.S._county page and I did not see where it said that "Largest community" was prohibited. --ACase0000 (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
CDPs aren't the same sort of thing as a city. Perhaps you'd rather change the MOS-page to match your opinion?
Take a look at McCreary County, Kentucky for reference in what I am referring to since you don't seem to understand. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Certainly I understand: you're replacing an incorporated, persistent entity with something which has a transitory definition. It's a great opportunity for WP:OR TEDickey (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Tedickey. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)