# User talk:Tedickey

(Redirected from User: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${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$ 07:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

## Rollbacker

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

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 184.43.118.16 (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 184.43.118.16 (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 184.43.118.16 (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 184.43.118.16 (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 184.43.118.16 (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

## Revert on vi editor

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)

## ANI

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 SourceForge.net

Hi! I'm the one who added text about Crimea being blocked by SF.net. I am Crimean. I first saw Crimea blocked on SF.net on 1 Feb (here is screenshots https://vk.com/wall-18411185_1173). 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

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 ?

Conforming to the Wikipedia COI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest), I don't agree with your undo of my change ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lynx_(web_browser)&oldid=653590764&diff=prev ).

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 (http://www.propublica.org/article/the-worlds-email-encryption-software-relies-on-one-guy-who-is-going-broke) I don't mind about making money with my labor, as these are always Free Software.

### freeium

{ 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

#### [1]

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 www.ingress.com 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
```

#### Amish:Portal

{COACH ZARLINO (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)}

## Comparison of regular expression engines

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

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)

## Xeditor

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)

## revisions

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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)

Hi!

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

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)

## CudaText

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

## Merger discussion for Neovim

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)

## Hampton

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

Tedickey,

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

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 http://www.historyandheadlines.com/may-25-1738-conojocular-war-pennsylvania-maryland-ended/ 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)
• ^ ~~~~