User talk:Tedickey/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merging CDK articles

Hi there.

I'm finding it hard to unravel the differences, similarities, and relationships between CDK (Vexus) and CDK (Mike Glover). According to the ncurses See also section, "CDK (Mike Glover)" is maintained by Thomas Dickey (no mention of Mike Glover) and the "CDK (Vexus)" was written by Mike Glover. Not only is that confusing, but it looks like it might be wrong or some info is missing.

It would be much simpler if those two "CDK" packages could share one article - it's not as if they contain too much info for one page. Do you have any more info/links to clarify the history, relationship, and differences between those two software packages? Any thoughts on how a unified article would describe them? Thanks. --Gronky (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

They could of course be merged. We can discuss it, but I haven't done this by myself since it would be a COI Tedickey (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the ncurses link to Cdk - "modified version" makes it sound less than the actual case. More than 60% of the code's been changed. It is a "largely compatible" rewrite. Tedickey (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well, I could merge them over the weekend using the info you have here plus a few web searches, and then we can review (and revert if it hasn't worked for some reason). Using a single person as a source of info can cause problems, but Wikipedia's coverage of this topic is in the earliest stages of development, so a period of uncertain quality isn't a show-stopper, IMO. --Gronky (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine. The changelogs tell most of the story. On my webpage I've a diffstat to illustrate the amount of change. Researching Cdk's history before around the time I started working on it will be hard (I've done some of that of course, can offer some input there). From memory, Glover released an early 4.0 (perhaps 4.5, something like that) in the mid 90s (1994 or so), initially as GPL, then changed it later (around 4.7, 1996) to BSD, copying a copyright file from something dated before he started working on it. Aside from getting those version numbers and dates exact, that's the prehistory. I don't know at what point he started working with/for Vexus, nor whether Cdk was before that. So there are some interesting details for which there are no reliable sources. You may be able to find via google the same info which I've found. (I have copies of the prehistory versions that it found for me ;-). Understandably, there's a fair amount of POV in describing the history; I've not added any of that to the topic since there'd be some disagreement, whether justified or not. So let's just keep the discussion technical and on-topic. Tedickey (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Happened to think of this again, where I can check: the version that I noticed with a GPL was 4.8, with filedates July 9, 1996 (there's no changelog until later versions). I don't see a copy of that online, though there's the perl extension of the same vintage which I find with google on "curses cdk 4.8" Tedickey (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this info. I've gotten delayed, but I will do the work on this soon. --Gronky (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Tedickey (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Prompted by another editor, I did a quick merge (may add some more detail...) Tedickey (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Glad you got time to do it. Sorry I never managed to myself (having said I would). I can at least scratch that task off my todo list now. --Gronky (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem (I could add more details, but it's hard to do without adding POV, since most of that would be from email) Tedickey (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold from V --> VI

Hello Tedickey, This is my first comment so please bear with me. I believe Benedict Arnold is the VI if his name and the proof i have is in the book "The Real Benedict Arnold" By Jim Murphy it tells that the Fifth Benedict died at an early age and then the VI, (his younger brother) is the one we know today. I urge you to take a look at this if you value keeping this article as true as possible, (which you most likely do). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Murphy would of course identify the source of the information. Since he's not the original source, that's what would be useful. Otherwise one has to gauge how reliable Murphy's book is (and noting that it's marketed as juvenile literature, there's that consideration). Tedickey (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Please share the ref again so that we can decide on how reliable it is. Look around the web, there are probably as many reliable sites claiming NTFS to be NT File System (where NT refers to Windows NT, not what NT might stand for) as there are that are claiming it to be New Technology File System. This makes it a very difficult path to tread. Unless the ref is absolutely irrefutable, it will be challenged by someone or the other. And if you come up with this people will be quick to point out that Brien Posey is just an MCSE and not an MS employee; thus cannot be regarded as official voice of Microsoft.

As for your frustration that removing editors got their way, that is unfortunately the way things work here: it is up to those who want something to be added to provide evidence for its correctness, in addition to justification. Removal just needs a justification. I know its frustrating, it has bitten probably all of us. --soum talk 11:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The change was here, uses this MDSN article written by one of the Microsoft development team in 1995. (When I googled, I recall that there were other useful sources, but this one seemed a good fit). Tedickey (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Linux text editors category

Yes, that's a fair point. I checked out all the editors in the category and moved all the ones that clearly support at least one other Unix-like OS (ie. most) to [Category: Unix text editors]. I may have a look at the Mac OS X category at some point too. Letdorf (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC).

no problem. Offhand, the only interesting Linux-specific features to watch out for in terminal clients would be ioctl's manipulating the virtual console. I'd cite gpm also, but invariably someone presents a vacuous claim that it runs everywhere (no point in arguing that one). The X clients should be about as portable - though Mac OS applications may have a separate I/O driver for the native Carbon interace. Having that would be a justification for being in more than one category if the application is also running on Unix. Tedickey (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello, Tedickey. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ENeville (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referred to dispute resolution, however the important issue to my mind was not an individual edit dispute and I am disinclined to persist in such at this point. I will therefore summarize my outstanding concerns:
  • Help:Reverting: "Reverting should be taken very seriously."
  • Help:Minor edit: "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."
  • My edit comments referred to explanation for changes on the Talk page, but were reverted nonetheless, and without even addressing the explanations.
I can see from your recent contribution history that you have been very busy patrolling for the likes of vandalism, spam, and unsourced fact changes. This important work. It is also unending work, as you must be all too aware. It can tax the sensibilities and the patience. Perhaps it has contributed to being a little too quick on the trigger, and easing up a bit would be better all around.
And, in response to your edit comment, it was a spelling error, and I apologize if it caused agitation. ENeville (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll try to keep that in mind. Tedickey (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


NTFS did not supersede FAT. FAT was targeted for the original Windows brand and NTFS was for the Windows NT line. When Microsoft released Windows XP, they were unofficially merged together. However, you can still use FAT, it's commonly used today; Microsoft is still is giving updates to it making it still current like NTFS. They are two separate file systems. One does not supersede the other. They are not Operating Systems that go obsolete. // A Raider Like Indiana 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Crim Dell

The notability tag you placed on the article is ludicrous. It is most definitely notable. One of the most identifiable and important aspects of William & Mary's campus, which is (as I see you probably already know) the second oldest college in the country. If you think that this article is not notable then I highly suggest you take a look around at other college and/or university templates and look at the kind of garbage they have as articles. I have seen so many more unmentionable articles on this site it's a joke. -Jrcla2 (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at this point is directed only to the topic (not for instance, your personal opinions). Perhaps you can find some evidence of notability that's not directly sourced from W&M websites (I didn't see any when I looked, but certainly you have some motivation). Tedickey (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Found and listed an additional 7 sources in the discussion page to solidify the Crim Dell Bridge's notability. -Jrcla2 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Your counterpoints against the bridge are based on ad hominem arguments. Because I go to the school, my credibility is somehow automatically disregarded. -Jrcla2 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm - you might look up the term in a good dictionary, so you're prepared to discuss it intelligently. Tedickey (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No need to look it up, thanks though. Majoring in philosophy means I actually know it. It was in response to "Along the same lines, there are occasional deaths due to falling down an elevator shaft (perhaps you're planning to write a corresponding topic for occurrences like that at your school)." That comment is overtly sarcastic, and, judging by the comments other people are leaving on your talk page, you really like placing various tags on articles without actually researching (or taking the time to familiarize yourself) with the articles in question. Additionally, your general behavior on Wikipedia is less than desirable. You have been the only user I've ever been genuinely frustrated/angered with, and it has to do with your childish behavior. This is going to be the last message I leave on your talk page, as I do not have the patience or time to care anymore. -Jrcla2 (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
regards - I'd recommend that you study logic, but recall a philosophy course on the topic which was rote memorization. Tedickey (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR on United States Constitution

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States Constitution. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - will see if the other editor is inclined to discuss. Tedickey (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being understanding about this. I know you are an experienced editor, and that you know what an edit war looks like. They may not. It seems like a small issue (the case of a single letter) to edit war over... 21:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem Tedickey (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Twain

On April 25th I added a link to the Mark Twain Caves. You removed it citing that it was an advertisement. This is technically true, but this is the actual cave that Mark Twain explored as a kid, and later described in "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", so there is historical value here. Dk1965 (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Clemens described a cave; a suitable intro to the link would be to cite a reliable source (not found on that website) that it is the same one. Tedickey (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reported for vandalism

You are reported for vandalism for erasing three times the correct address of the Little Big Horn Associates: Custerwest (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are reported again for vandalism. Custerwest (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a nice day. Tedickey (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are reported to Sensei48 and the Wikipedia community. Enjoy your day. Custerwest (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Bye. Tedickey (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Can't win em all, eh? I've removed you from the WP:AIV noticeboard, as you're clearly not a vandal. But lets see if we can't resolve this in some way. henriktalk 20:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, given the comments in the changelog, it appears that Custerwest also connects as (but I'm not inclined to argue the point) Tedickey (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Viking discovery of North America

I have entered the following topic in the Talk page as per your recommendation Viking discovery Budfin (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Will followup in a few hours Tedickey (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

On lists in reservoirs

In this edit you call the list of list of reservoirs by volume inaccurate and inconsistent. Can you elaborate?Whosasking (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The ranking in the list is supposedly based on the linked topic; however the topic doesn't present that information (and doesn't claim to do that). The topic presents reservoirs as artificial lakes, but the majority of the entries in the list are natural lakes. Tedickey (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi. Good faith edits like this, while they may be highly disputable or even wrong, aren't vandalism. Please try to use more helpful summaries. You also might try discussing these categories on the talk page? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

They're more than "highly disputable"; they're making assertions which do not follow the criteria in the given categories. I'll put it on the talk page - but take a look at JCDenton2052's edit history - more than half of it's disputable. Tedickey (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I know. All I was saying was, pls don't call it vandalism. Ask for verifiable sources to back up the categories? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Tedickey's edit history. His edits of Berkeley Yacc, CDK (Mike Glover), Dialog (software), Lynx (web browser), ncurses, tin (newsreader), vile (editor), Vttest, and xterm may be violations of WP:COI. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
First, could both of you please stop calling good faith edits vandalism? There may or may not be other worries about some of these edits, but they are not vandalism and calling them that will not get either of you very far towards resolving any of this. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I appear to have stopped Tedickey (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


From the article, "Before the close of the war Custer received brevet promotions to brigadier and major general in the Regular Army and major general in the volunteers. As with most wartime promotions, these senior ranks were only temporary." "On February 1, 1866, Custer was mustered out of the volunteer service and returned to his permanent rank of captain in the Regular Army, assigned to the 5th U.S. Cavalry." Hueydoc (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that, and was at the moment looking for a suitable source to give the proper name of "volunteers". Tedickey (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


I haven't seen anything over the edge. What COI is he talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that it was an attempt to exploit a weakness, rather than having identified a specific issue with my edits. Tedickey (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking something like that. Let's wait and see what he says then. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
no problem Tedickey (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Do you have any reference for the statement "Randolph was appointed as the first U.S. Attorney General in September 1789, maintaining precarious neutrality in the feud between Thomas Jefferson (of whom Randolph was a second cousin" for the article Edmund Randolph. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

no - I don't recall seeing that edit. Tedickey (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Andrew Jackson

You reverted my edit on Talk:Andrew Jackson. My edit was in response to a {{editprotected}} request, which can't be fulfilled on semi-protected pages. Therefore, I declined the request, and forced the template to hide itself by using the {{tl}} template. I've undone your reversion; drop me a line if you need further explanation. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

COI spam

Hi Tedickey, I noticed you've been reverting a lot of edits that add books, citing conflict-of-interest spam. This morning you're citing COI against an IP address with few edits and those are widely varied as to what they edited, making a COI too much of a stretch. Besides, COI is discouraged, not prohibited. The reason that it's not prohibited is to allow us to consider whether or not an edit is in the best interest of the article, regardless of who made it or why. I think you've been removing some recent book additions that are very appropriate for their articles, and book listings are very valuable time-savers for researchers. JD Lambert(T|C) 11:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah - "History Press". Those are simple advertising. Whether a book is actually useful should be left to editors who choose the material, rather than based on a publisher's current advertising campaign. Tedickey (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, your History Press reverts were a lesser concern of mine. Their edits on the Rome, Georgia page were unquestionably a conflict-of-interest. Although I strongly disagree that an edit should be removed solely due to a COI (the overriding consideration should be the net effect on the quality of the article), I'm more concerned about reverts cited as COI where I see no basis for it, like this. How was the listing of these books a COI? The IP address had 4 edits yesterday that were clearly not a publisher pushing their books. JD Lambert(T|C) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Uh - links to for selling a book are "clearly not"(?). Read through the edit history, check the who-is, correlate with the other edits on the same topic - and find the other accounts used by this editor, etc. It's pretty clear to me - only a small fraction of the edits contribute anything other than pointing to David Hein's books/articles - spend a little time on it. Since the intent isn't to improve the articles, but to promote Hein's own interests, it's COI. Perhaps you have another category for this. Tedickey (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The edit I cited above did not include a link, just book/page citations, and the editor was anonmyous, meaning there is only an IP address, and it is not possible to who-is an IP address. I distrust a process that involves one editor judging another editor's intent, and even if an editor were to state that their only motive is to promote their own interests, that should cause extra scrutiny, but the controlling issue should always be: is the article better or worse after an edit.
Since a critical purpose of an encyclopedia is to facilitate research, references to relevant books are very valuable contributions to any article. In fact, because Wiki has a notability standard, merely the fact that a relevant book exists, or used to exist, provides valuable evidence regarding the article's notability. Removing relevant book references does more harm than good. JD Lambert(T|C) 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
WhoIs works very nicely (depending on how you're connected). The IP address is at Hood College. Take your time and do it right. From your responses so far, you haven't started investigating. Tedickey (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected regarding who-is'ing an IP address, but I searched the last 1000 edits and does not appear among them. I'm not sure which edit you're referring to, but I don't think it's related to the one I cited, which I repeat here. Your remarks don't even appear to be about the same article. Your edit summary for the edit I cited states "(rv COI spam)" but in fact your edit was not a reversion. You removed two book references from the article's references section. Those references had been there for over a year, back when the section was labeled "Bibliography", implying that those books were used when writing the article's content. They did not have any links, to Amazon or otherwise. JD Lambert(T|C) 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I worked from the IP-editor's history, found that he has used also this IP:, as well as user names Davidhein and Improved, by comparing edits to the book references. In the small fraction of changes not related to those changes, he's injected POV about half the time without providing a source. Some of the edits are useful. Tedickey (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. So, I'm going to restore the refs in the "Lakota people" article, as they seem appropriate. What is this "IP-editor's history" thing? Can any wikipedian use it? JD Lambert(T|C) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually the ref's for Lakota are tacked on - there's no discussion in the topic related to them. But as I noted, that's David Hein's style of editing - much like "History Press", which you appear to approve of. Tedickey (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi, There are many biographies of real-life people that list their appearances in popular culture and I do not see why Benedict Arnold should be the exception to the rule. It seems that he has appeared in a number of films but his appearance in VTTBOTS is the only one that I have seen and this is my attempt to get the ball rolling. Your argument appears to be that his appearance in an old TV series is not appropriate for this page, but would that not apply to the Literature section as well?--Marktreut (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well (excluding spam adverts which appear to comprise about 20% of the "literature"), it would be nice to assume that the literature ref's have something to comment on regarding the topic. The VTTBOTS item isn't likely making any analysis, or criticism - and this is why Trivia aka "Popular Culture" notes are discouraged: the reader generally gains no insight beyond the Trivia's acknowlegement that the topic it's placed into is notable. Tedickey (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael A. Jackson (sheriff)

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael A. Jackson (sheriff), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael A. Jackson (sheriff). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? LaraLove|Talk 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested - thanks Tedickey (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


What about this? Is that a good compromise? (may need copyedit) HeadCaptain (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps - will have to see how the other editor goes Tedickey (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Amish‎ GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Amish‎ and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and several related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin

I tried adding under the Deborah Read section that his wife wrote him in 1769 blaming her stroke and illness on their separation, but my edits were removed by you. Even though I provided a link to the History Channel program where this is said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That was a link to an advertisement (on There are reliable sources that may deal with the topic. Your edit did not use one. Tedickey (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the original letter! I will add a link to reference it. (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ok - but keep in mind the reliability of the source... Tedickey (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1925

I'm not sure which of those links you're referring to, but [1], a pretty good history of the U.S. Highway system, doesn't mention the act of 1925. --NE2 20:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

More than one - this for instance. The topic's something that I noticed in another context (someone referring to it in another topic), and looked for accessible info related to it. Tedickey (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
All of the comments (including the one you point out) are rather vague, since there's no details about when the various acts were passed, nor their wording. But they seem to be in general agreement that the 1925 act introduced the numbering scheme. Tedickey (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Caltrans is incorrect. Unfortunately there are a number of references to it, so we need a source such as the text of the bill. Do you know where I'd find that, preferably online? --NE2 22:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where to find the bill online - but there are many references to it (I collected several more to sift through). If you don't think it's correct, what's the alternate story? Tedickey (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I found the text, and am transcribing it. The "alternate story" is at [2]. Since there was no funding involved, there was no reason to legislate the creation of a system. --NE2 22:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
yes, I've read the comments regarding AASHO in different articles, but seeing the scattered references to a Federal-Aid/1925, have been thinking there's more to the story. (Even a no-construction program costs money to administer, so Congress would have some contact with it). Tedickey (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
AASHO paid (and still pays) any money to administer the program. [3] is the law (I found a full view scan of it, so no need to transcribe), and it has nothing about signage. [4] also talks about the act, and that it merely continued existing funding. "America's Highways: 1776-1976" confirms that this is the 1925 law, 43 Stat 889. It calls it the "Federal-Aid Highway Amendment of 1925", while [5] calls it "Amendment and Authorization of February 12, 1925". --NE2 23:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The AASHO activities were late in 1925 - October and November, so I skipped the funding comments and was looking for a followup as a bill for November/December. What you're saying is that there wasn't a bill, but that the various sources (including other Federal ones such as this) are confused. Tedickey (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes - those sources are confused. The federal one cites "Holmes and Lynch, 1957", which may be the source of the error. --NE2 23:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It might be helpful to put some of this info on the talk-page for Federal-Aid Highway Act Tedickey (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pps9/Pasadena paranormal

You stated that this was a conflict of interest because I was advertising a website. I don't believe this to be the case, many other groups have done exactly what we are trying to do. TAPS(the atlantic paranormal society), maine ghosts, and others have their site featured on wikipedia and as links on other articles. What we were trying to post was relevant to those articles our address was on. What is the point of a user page if you can't describe yourself? are you telling me that other articles on here don't have links to their web site? I've also added other information to the pasadena, md page about some of the other organizations and sports teams in the area. Why were they removed?

Pps9 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. What's the point of putting up a website, unless you can add it as a quasi-topical "reference" to a half-dozen Wikipedia topics? (If you have a useful answer, I'm curious). Tedickey (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget about my site, I'll keep it off but why are other groups allowed to do what I tried to do? You also ignored my question about the useful information on the Pasadena, MD page(sports organizations) I added several that were taken down by you(I have affiliation with some, but I added other groups in the area as well as not to show bias towards my own) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pps9 (talkcontribs) 23:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(a) Lots of editors discourage spamming topics. It's a constant chore to be done. (b) Adding "groups in the area" without adding a reference to a reliable source is not that helpful, since it requires some checking to see that they exist (and are on-topic, notable, etc). Wikipedia isn't a place to store facts, but to digest other sources' facts. Tedickey (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Chesapeake Bay Magazine & Northeast Boating Magazine entries

These are not advertisements! They are encyclopedic entries giving information about the magazines in a neutral manner. Rljkerns (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you've said that as more than one editor. Let's let some actually distinct people provide opinions. Tedickey (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So if no new information is added by other people right away, the articles are viewed as invalid? Rljkerns (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that - it's easily seen to be advertising by the fact that there's only one viewpoint expressed in the topics - no introduction of additional sources to establish notability, etc. (Testimonials and such on your webpage wouldn't count, of course). Tedickey (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
i am largely in agreement with tedickey. but why do you find these mags unacceptable and insideannapolis not so?Toyokuni3 (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(a) I don't see a topic for insideannapolis, (b) the publisher of "insideannapolis" isn't writing a topic and adding a dozen wikilinks to it, (c) I suppose I could add to the list, but (b) is what caught my attention. Tedickey (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to "Historica Heritage Minute" deleted from "External Links" section of "Louis-Joseph Papineau" article

Hello, Tedickey

I am sending a message to you in regard to your removal of many links to the "Historica Heritage Minutes" website that were added to a number of articles about Canadian history in Wikipedia. One example is the link to the "Hart & Papineau" Heritage Minute in the "External Links" section for the Wikipedia article "Louis-Joseph Papineau."

Please note that the Historica website is a totally non-commercial educational Canadian website. The "Heritage Minutes" are an important educational component of the Historica website. They are very informative mini-documentaries about interesting people and events in Canadian history. I wish to once again link these Historica Minutes to related articles in Wikipedia. I would be most pleased if they remained on the Wikipedia website so that other readers could access them if they wish.

Also, just for your information, the following reply was added to my comment about this matter in the "Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board"

It looks like User:Tedickey reverted them all, thinking they were spam. He probably thought this as you had added the links to several articles all at one time. My suggestion is to leave him a message on his talk page explaining the links - that they are documentary links from a non-commercial website, and that you feel they are a useful addition to the article. Their removal is likely only a misunderstanding resulting from several links to one website being added at once. Regards, Resolute 15:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again,

Thanks for referring me to Wikipedia's External Links article. I have revised the format for the external link I have added to Wikipedia articles on various topics. The following is an example of the revised link format. Please do let me know if you have comments about this revised link.

• Historica’s Heritage Minute video docudrama about political reformers Baldwin and LaFontaine. (Adobe Flash Player.)

I look forward to your reply.

Elmridge (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an improvement - did you see the Heritage Minute topic? (It needs some editing work, particular since there aren't any sources given other than a pointer to Historica's website). Tedickey (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

free and open

You reverted our valuable work. Please don't do it. We will have to do it again now. What is more you missed our project's first page: OOXML, please keep our project consistent and either remove all references (if you REALLY have to) or let them ALL stay. (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Which edit was that? Tedickey (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

What you did in your addition to RfC was simply list the username and the complaint. What you have to go is click the "create user conduct rfc" button under the general user conduct section and add in what needs to be added in. This way everything is neatly organized in the subpage. Wizardman 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Recently you left a message in my talk page requesting that I comment on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Exidor, the thing is, as much as I've read it, I'm not actually sure what you want me to do. I've never been involved in an RFC. Also, I just want to make clear (in case it wasn't) that I'm not an admin or anything here, my "warning" to Exidor was simply friendly advice. Anyway, it's probably best to try catch me via email or IM rather than on Wikipedia, here are my contact details if you want them, though ignore the ICQ number there :) Xmoogle (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Towers on bridges

Yes, suspension bridges have towers so I thought that these should be included into a tower category. Also, some bascule bridges have towers for the operator of the bridge. Xnatedawgx (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, they have towers, but are not towers themselves - removing the bridges category is likely to cause confusion Tedickey (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking again at the change to Brooklyn Bridge - the edit summary was confusing me, since it did not state that the removed bridge-category was a repeat, but redundant (in combination with the tower addition). Tedickey (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


Someone else explained the issue, you ignored him. Please concentrate on improving the topics (and take my advice to do some reading rather than the 15-second google you used for supplying cut/paste instead).

I heard his arguments and said that tmpfile's interface is reasonable; any possible security flaw resides in a particular implementation. I asked

  1. which OS had the flawed implementation?
  2. Most importantly: is the implementation still flawed?

You ignored all the discussion and descended into fighting. Me and Michael (who disagreed with me, but appears to understand the subject and behaves with civility) presented valid technical arguments. You were more interested in fighting and making false assumptions about my research. Read that whole talk page and see the attitudes of me, Michael and you. And specifically

"Do a little reading (you'd be surprised who you're making disparaging comments about ;-) Tedickey (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)"

"Tell me."

"Do your own reading"

Honestly. Do you think your attitude above was civil or constructive? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, your comments are (a) uncivil (b) inaccurate, and (c) frankly rude - even beyond the limited sense meant in the context of Wikipedia. Tedickey (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

NPS Edits

I disagree that the edits to the National Park Service are vandalism. The corruption listed is proven in federal court and by the Department of the Interior Inspector General. These are facts, not bad words written in spray paint like a vandal would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks more like spray paint (mixed with less pleasant things). Tedickey (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Exidor

I've closed the RfC on Exidor. Since you were one of the certifiers, I am pointing you to this to explain the outcome. Wizardman 17:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


I have no source that says ClearCase was not derived from DSEE but that's not the point. I think you need a source that says it was if you want to say that. It seems pretty unlikely to me. Why would HP license the source to a competitor? Even if they did, what good would it do? DSEE was written in Pascal for Domain/OS, and little if any of the code would have been useful. As far as I know, it was a re-write by the original authors. Rees11 (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As I recall the story, HP didn't want that part of Apollo, and (oversimplifying) the people who had been working on it "left" to form Atria. Whether they took source code (unlikely) or people (we seem to agree there), if the design and (re)implementation are based on DSEE, that fit the original sense of the remark. Tedickey (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Templates

You recently warned User_talk: about vandalism without using a Wikipedia template. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for a list of templates to use. rrcatto (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the reminder Tedickey (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Do not worry Tedickey. I I know what I am writing down. This is my master thesis:

Regards, Diego Torquemada (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That didn't stop you from injecting your opinion. (And given the quality of most master's theses, that's not a guarantee of anything). Tedickey (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Norse colonization ... (verbose reply)

Yes, I was too lazy to fix the refs to follow the templates. Should do. I was just doing some searching to find out more about those books (Wernick's and Oxenstierna's). Found at least publication year and no. of pages for them, no more. Obviously knowing the page nos. would be more valuable, but I've never seen those books. Oxenstierna published a book in 1957 called something like Iron Age: Golden Age?. Wernick appears to have been involved in many books by Time-Life Editors. I don't know how careful or reliable either of them is.

I was considering attempting an essay in answer to the last sentence in InternetHero's edit summary : (Minor edit: took off tags and added some info. I don't understand how POV could be created from reading 2 books and using them as a reference.). But people have been trying on all sorts of articles to convince him about those sorts of things, and I don't expect I'd fare any better. (I won't get involved in the adding and removing of tags, tho doing so again in a so-called minor edit is almost beyond belief.)

IH's comment here gave hope, but he hasn't stopped commenting on Talk pages...

Norse Colonization is worse than most topics wrt NPOV. Dramatic stuff, written down from oral tradition through generations. It's not much easier than trying to interpret the Bible to everyone's satisfaction.

I'm rambling. Regards, --Hordaland (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about Oxenstierna (to compare against IH's edits). Long ago, I thought Time-Life was "good", but it's been quite a while since I've seen one that I would care to use as a reference (the pictures are fine ;-). I happened to have read the Vinland Sagas quite a while ago, so I cited it - rather more terse than I'd prefer, and (for Wikipedia) I'd prefer something which is online, so there's no doubt what parts are quoted, and which are paraphrased or elaborated. Tedickey (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice site. Purpose is selling his paintings, but his version of the sagas ain't bad, either. --Hordaland (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I see (rather abbreviated, but clear. In The Vinland Sagas, Erik's Saga is only about 30 pages, which I've been puzzled that it's so short Tedickey (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism for (NCotA)

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Norse colonization of the Americas. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and may have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- - InternetHero (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:DTTR Tedickey (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)