User talk:Tedickey/Archive 4

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

Comment on AfD for Suspended deck bridge

Hi, just before AfD Suspended deck bridge closed, you said that I had not followed up on the source you found. I think I did. Near the top of the discussion I pointed out that the page you found is tourism-related. On such a technical subject as bridges, I commented that this was probably a questionable source. Since there have been peer-reviewed papers and published textbooks on the subject of bridges for more than one hundred years, shouldn't we be looking for a source of that quality? I have been looking and looking and am unable to find one. That is part of my frustration in this matter. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Links

I'll stop adding the links to the software tools, although they were added with the intention of simply being useful tools one might use after researching the tools here. Also note that I didn't add them to the top of the link section - not intended to be spammy at all.

However, I also noted that you removed links to, and while I administer the site it is not by any means personal and has been added as a reference to other articles by others as a credible news source - just check the links and edit histories here and here, although the second was added by me since the Slashdot article announcing the corresponding article was already present in the references.

I appreciate your good-faith edits in removing what could be considered link spam, and I won't add my .info tools to any more pages but thecoffeedesk is widely accepted as a credible news source by other wikipedians, Slashdot, and other news sites Wikipedia references like Zdnet and Ars, so I'd appreciate it if you'd keep those references intact.

I may have pushed the envelope on some of the links I added, but know the difference between possible link spam and a valid reference. Thanks, A҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ N҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ O҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ T҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ H҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ E҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ R҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙- A҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ N҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ O҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ M҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ A҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ L҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ Y҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Leifur Eiríksson


I ask that you strike your comment about me connecting from multiple ip adresses at the Leifur Eiríksson talkpage, your accusation is not true and it's also a personal attack. Thanks.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

None of your comments appear to be verifiable. Tedickey (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"no matter how many IP-addresses you connect from" You are accusing me of sock puppetry and bad faith and such and that's just not right man, I mean wtf why on earth would you think that I am connecting from various ips to support my own argument? I kindly ask that you strike out those comments of yours immediately.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of Iendependece

Why was my thing deleted? I worked hard on that and thought it looked good. if there was something wrong-can you tell me so i can fix it......SchnitzelMannGreek (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's out of place (a digression). I suggested that you make a separate topic, and (the sourcing looks weak), improve it in that place. Tedickey (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


Yeah I'm actually going back and correcting myself at the moment. Thanks though. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks Tedickey (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's more than half of the edits I made. Sigh. Happens I guess. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
They're fairly easy to spot by looking at the what-links-here for Video game console emulator Tedickey (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Good afternoon, Tedickey. I seek guidance on my Hanson edits. I used Who's Who in America and Contemporary Authors as sources for publications. For the source on his idea about drinkers permnits I used his site. For website funding I used the existing source that was already there. What suggestions do you have for avoiding using too much from his site? Appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smab676 (talkcontribs) 20:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Who's-who isn't something that I can check offhand (and in fact, so I'd rather not discuss it as a source - particularly after having received - and discarded - advertisements from Marquis several times, which leads me to believe it's not a reliable source). For the rest - Hanson appears to be the source of the information. I recommend looking for a reliable third-party source (preferably more than one) who discuss Hanson Tedickey (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smab676 (talkcontribs) 20:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

no problem Tedickey (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused

... by the comment (btw, this edit is less factual than the average). I accept it could be non-notable, but I would appreciate an explanation as regards the other bit in the parentheses. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, information re-added and properly referenced. Shouldn't be a problem with it now. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
that's an improvement Tedickey (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Coso artifact

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Coso artifact, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitol Statuary Hall

Reasoning given on the discussion page: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aratuk (talkcontribs) 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion2.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your work in cleaning up vandalism, I award you with this barnstar.Showtime2009 (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thanks Tedickey (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

XCB/Xlib edits

I tried redoing them. Hope they are fine now. Balabiot (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

somewhat (the comment in XCB needs a citation from a reliable third-party source) Tedickey (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Source cited on Odyssey Page

Ok, Tedickey, I cited the source for my references on they Odyssey Page. I was not posting to make claims against the Greek origins of the epic, I was simply presenting another theory about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyroborg1986 (talkcontribs) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


I don't know why you want to put that information in the subject. It is irrelevant - as well as being incorrect. The original article that it was quoted from was incorrect. The author mistakenly took the name of one bridge and gave it to another for his article. The Hull bridge is not on the Merritt Pkwy - it is on route 8 - ten miles away from the Merritt.

It appears that you haven't done any research on this particular item. If you simply looked at ANY map you would recognize this. Quoting an article, and taking it as fact, is sloppy and irresponsible. Especially given the nature of what it states.

I have seen all the numerous edits you have made. You seem to spend alot of time doing this. I don't know why. Do they give you a medal, or recognition of some sort? I am amazed at all the time that is wasted by people on the internet, just so that they can give themselves a pat on their own back.

Do what you want with the subject. I was trying to make it accurate, and keep a future party that was not knowledgeable on this subject from getting mistaken information (from yet another wrong Wikipedia entry). A few years back, when I first started looking at Wikipedia I noticed many things wrong, and did nothing about them. I don't have the time to waste correcting this stuff.

Enter what you will on the topic, I could care less at this point. I'm done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapalmer99 (talkcontribs) 01:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments reflect on you, don't relate to anyone else Tedickey (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


...For reverting vandalism on the White Flint Mall article!--Jayson (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

no problem Tedickey (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Unix Bible

Dear, could you please update Template talk:Unix commands ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackPotte (talkcontribs) 20:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, I can pick though the list and suggest items which appear to be topical but overlooked Tedickey (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Indians

Hi Tedickey, I realize I did not cite my sources as I went, but I was in the middle of doing so when you sent me the message about not citing them. I should have cited as I went, but I decided to make the changes first is all. Sorry for the confusion and I will make sure to cite the sources as I go next time. Virginia Indians really is the preferred term and not something I am simply making up. --Sarah1607 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

adding sources from the start is a good approach Tedickey (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

MD 227

Open a discussion on that article's talk page, FYI, about the external links bit. Should be easy to get that figured out. Thanks! Kumba42 (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

John V. Robinson

Hey Tedickey, Why are we who edit the Robinson page getting hassled about the "Spanning the Strait" book cover? We got permission (and the jpeg) from Carquinez Press. No publisher or author (except maybe J.D. Salinger) would complain about someone promoting their products in the manner on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gav Thorpe (talkcontribs) 05:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no reliable source given for the permissions. Tedickey (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a reliable source? (You could send an email to and they will allow you use any of their photos in the manner that wikipedia does.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gav Thorpe (talkcontribs) 17:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent Astronomy revert

With this edit: [2]— you inadvertently removed a link to the Macedonian Wiki article about astronomy. Thank you for this good faith edit, and don't be concerned about repair, because it has already been reverted. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you very much!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  08:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I was reading the language names. However, now there are two links to Macedonian (perhaps one of them is incorrect, certainly one is redundant) Tedickey (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Both links appear to be relevant to astronomy. One link looks like a better-developed article and the newer one looks like a developing article on star evolution astronomy.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  06:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

BOLT browser tags

Hello, I made edits to the Bolt browser page in response to your two tags: is based too much on press releases, notability.

I used press releases now only in reference to dates new versions were released, and used company FAQ page for description of features. But 2/3 of references are now from third party sources, and I endeavored to use the largest circulation periodical sources available. However I do cite [|WAP Review] as it is considered a top mobile industry blog, and its reviews are highly detailed and thorough.

I added a "Milestones" section to help assure notability. But note that there are other pages for competitive products that have far fewer users or notable features, are less pioneering in their technology, are produced by less notable companies and which use far fewer third party references: Steel (web browser), Teashark, Skweezer and UCWEB, for example. I am trying to make this page far more encyclopedic in nature than any of these, and certainly this product is far more important in the industry as well.

I appreciate your guidance and assistance.

John Sidline 16:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsidline (talkcontribs)

Can we take the flags off this post now?

John Sidline 18:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsidline (talkcontribs)

Perhaps/perhaps not. Just reading over the references, it's hard to pick out the minority of those which are neither from the vendor's websites, press releases or advertisements disguised as reviews. The topic would be much smaller if you removed that stuff, and eliminated the long lists. Tedickey (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Virginia for FAC

I'd like to put Virginia back up for Featured Article Candidate, and hope that the third time's the charm. I wanted to get in touch with you before I do to make sure you don't have any glaring issue with the article, and that you'd support it when it goes up. I am aiming for the end of next week, so just give me a nod before then if there's anything. Thanks for your help.-- Patrick {oѺ} 19:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks - I'll read over it closely, and if I spot more than typos, will add a discussion topic. Tedickey (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Something I'm having trouble with is the climate section, specifically the Köppen climate classification. I can't find any source that speaks specifically to the state. I overlaid a blank US map on this climate map, and that suggested that Virgina's mostly Cfa, but also Dfa, and then Cfb for a tiny bit, and Aw (or is that Dfb?) in the mountains. Personally, I don't think this system is all that useful, and perhaps its level of specificity isn't needed for a broad understanding of the state's climate. So I might go with a source like this, which just describes it as Cfa. Either that, or drop Köppen classification altogether. Can you help?-- Patrick {oѺ} 20:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I've seen a better map (which shows 1-degree grid resolution). The file was named kottek_et_al_2006_A1.pdf for which I see some urls with google, e.g., this). Tedickey (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I'd prefer a printed source, but if that's all we got I guess we go with it. So does the climate section read right to you? I don't think it notes the one spot of Hemiboreal. Should it?-- Patrick {oѺ} 19:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That looks fine. For the Hemiboreal, I'd be reluctant to mention it unless there were a second source, e.g., pointing out the locality which corresponds (and could note the temperature range, etc). That's because it's different from the surroundings, matching the climate for about 100 miles further north. Tedickey (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been concerned about Virginia Tech for a while, and how, if at all, to work it in. I agree, it sounds odd in that paragraph, so I've removed it, since your concerns will likely be shared by FAC reviewers. "Very well" is the term the census uses, odd though it is.-- Patrick {oѺ} 00:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good - it seems to flow well, except for isolated issues Tedickey (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking it over. I've just put it up for FAC, so if there's any comments there you can respond to, it'd be great! Thanks again for the help this week!-- Patrick {oѺ} 04:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
ok - I'll keep an eye on that, and see what I can do Tedickey (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for correcting my non-correction. I somehow missed the first "and" in that sentence ... my face is red. --Jfruh (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

no problem (your other edits looked okay) Tedickey (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I dispute your recent revision on the Thomas Paine article

I would appreciate your input here: Thanks! - Dave (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Bay Bridge Troll

Regarding the Bay Bridge Troll page:Could you explain to me the wikipedia copyright policy? I gave another person permission to use my photo of the Troll's twin but it was deleted because of copyright issues. So, I put it up myself, it is my original photo, now, once again, it's about to be deleted. why? Also there is a conflict of interest note on the page. Since I have written about the Troll in books and articles, and I am the foremost authority on the Troll, how could my contribution on the article be a conflict?

Thanks, John Robinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by John V. Robinson (talkcontribs) 16:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically you have to provide reliable evidence that you are the copyright holder, and that you're providing the content under sufficiently liberal terms that the content can be reused and adapted without any strings attached. Tedickey (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment in Articles of Confederation

Hi Tedickey,

I am not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, so I appreciate your noting my recent contribution about Slave Nation. I am not sure why you indicated it is dubious, but I gather that you were not sure it is well accepted, and supported, and accessible for free. I think that was more my way of citing - not knowing how to refer to a website to support a book - rather than anything having to do with the credibility and accessibility of the theories in Slave Nation. Slave Nation has been well received. And, the ideas are available without buying the book. A quick look at will show this. There are book reviews from prestigious publications, and even Gordon S. Wood thought highly enough of it to include a reference to it in one of his articles. Also, I am pretty sure that the ideas on are also supported by the reviews and other information available for free on and

The reviews (disregarding things like Amazon comments which are unreliable) appear to not be viewable without a subscription. There might be some reliable source to support the contention that it is a consensus view, but I found none. Tedickey (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. Just go to - click on "reviews" for reviews and "synopsis" for the theories of the book. Nothing there about a subscription. Also, I do not know why all of would be deemed unreliable, as some of the respected reviews are posted there, too - and accessible for free. is what's known as a promotional site (not useful here) Tedickey (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about - who cares whether you call it promotional. Someone as smart as you should be able to see the content and give credit where it is due. Are you really telling the world that you don't care about neutral reliable sources like Booklist?

The site's only purpose is to sell books. It's not uncommon for promotional sites to misquote or completely fabricate reviews. Tedickey (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the purpose of this site is to put in one place a lot of the information about this book. I understand that you doubt the veracity of the reviews - what would you trust?

The site is registered by one of the authors. There are several advertisements on it, aimed at selling the book. Looks pretty straightforward. Tedickey (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty straightforward about what? All you say is true - how does that detract from the independent reviews which are also posted on that website? And, how does promoting theories that an author has written about detract from those theories? Finally, do you really want to contest the entire copyright system of the United States, which expects authors to benefit from the work they do - and is therefore designed to encourage the promotion of copyrighted work? Suggestion: Look beneath the surface.

You'll have to stop and reflect that I'm ignoring the specious or irrelevant comments, and sticking to the point. If the reviews are really supportive, you'll find them easily some other place than on the promotional site. Tedickey (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

ALA list of books for adult readers (John Adams)
Gordon S. Wood, Reading the Founders' Minds, NY Review of Books, June 28, 2007
History News Network (
LIBRARY JOURNAL, March 15, 2005
Logan Library: Black History Month Booklist (Jan 26, 2009)

With all of the data you have about Blumrosen, perhaps you should write a nice topic about him. It seems that you're prepared to talk extensively on that topic, whether or not you're prepared to support notability. Have a nice day. By the way, spamming my talk page on topic-related issues is uncivil. Tedickey (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure how to go about doing that. And, if I do that - will it be a good enough reference for you? I notice that the entry still says "dubious."

Also, what does "spamming my talk page on topic-related issues is uncivil" mean? I'm confused by "spamming" and "topic related." I do not think that we are using those terms in the same way. To me, "spam" means something that is both annoying and irrelevant. IF it is on topic, how can it be irrelevant? (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


An article of yours is in AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsbeuter. Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Tedickey (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Incivil/derogatory remarks

It's just the truth, I wasn't trying to be hostile. I'm sorry if you were offended. -GabaG (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I did read the linked topic, and also noticed the other edit by the IP-editor whom you're supporting. So far you haven't made any valid points. Tedickey (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, first of all these "people" that are said to have traveled like Jaredites have never even existed, they were invented in the 19th century, and further everything based on this was invented in the 19th century by religious bias. If someone want to believe because they are religious its fine, but it can't be put into historical articles. -GabaG (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The same applies to about half the content of the subsection Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact#Irish and Welsh legend - later people adding their myths on top Tedickey (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course everything in the article is all the way from highly dubious to plausible/possible. Nevertheless, all the entries have some sort of hold in history (besides the Mormon stuff). -GabaG (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of section on "software plagiarism"

(see Talk:Plagiarism_detection#Bzeidman_edits Tedickey (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Color Tool

Is their some small program that gives real time numbers for color difference and brightness? Isn't is hectic to caluculate again and again?--Hamza [ talk ] 11:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont' know how large the program is, that I referenced - it's not "visible" so that I could inspect it. I suppose it has to parse the HTML and look for colors. The actual calculation on top probably isn't large, but the parsing is a reasonably large program (nothing that you could write in a thousand lines of code - more like a hundred times that). Tedickey (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you kindly check the difference now? Hamza [ talk ] 07:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

done - on the discussion page Tedickey (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

X Window System

This [3] didn't look like vandalism to me. You might want to double check. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than it being a derogatory comment? Blanket comments about "most Microsoft Windows users are not accustomed to something different" fall into that category. Tedickey (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Visual Basic

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Visual Basic, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheTrueSora 07:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your revert.

My edit was not vandalism. A recent light vandalism edit made me realize that a well sourced part of the article had been recently removed with no explanation. So I put it back.

Check out the article's history. This info has been there for ages, (The original article was a hatchet job, but it's been fixed and stable for over a year.) That section was recently removed by User:Bsr photography who seems to have existed only for one day to edit that one article. APL (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I see now that you're familiar with the history of the Pritam article. I'm confused as to why you identified my edit as vandalism. APL (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Checking my fix


I'm an extreme newbie working on my first wikipedia page, entry: Carmen Borgia. I saw that you flagged for inadequate citations, and I believe I have fixed them, is that the case? If I should remove or locate better (if they exist), please let me know.

Thank you.

Shimmyshim (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There's some improvement - however there are still some issues. Just looking at the changes:

Thank you for your response.

  • Regarding the topic of film sound, would it be more appropriate to state "He is a contributing editor to The Digital Filmmaker Web site where he has written articles relating to the craft of film sound." ? I've included the digital filmmaker staff page as a reference as the subject is listed on that page, is this an appropriate source? It seems that is a primary source (yes?), but it is the actual place where his writing is published. I don't wish to quibble, just seeking guidance.
  • Is it best to omit imdb as a reference? I understand that it is not particularly verifiable as many contribute to it in an uncontrolled manner, but it seems to be the only place where this type of information is gathered, particularly regarding contributors to films who are in positions not likely to be reviewed in the press. Could you suggest another source regarded as more reliable?

Also, my favorite phrase of the week is "web scrapings", thank you for that.

Shimmyshim (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The staff page seems okay for a general discussion. If one were discussing awards, quality, that wouldn't work well. Tedickey (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any good suggestions for sources where IMDb is apparently the only resource (except that if it's that obscure, then the information itself is likely to be nonnotable). Tedickey (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Shimmyshim (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

no problem Tedickey (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be correct

I'll go back and fix Chester and the 1 or 2 others where I made this change. The reason I tried this is that I don't like the 2 big maps, Penna. and US both in the info box - it crowds out other more important things. It probably is the type of template that's lined up with a particular map. In any case it will be corrected. Smallbones (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks Tedickey (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the constant reverts on Constitution


USS Constitution has maintained a high level of accuracy as a featured article. Thanks for your vigilance in keeping it "silliness free" --Brad (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

no problem (I'm reasonably familiar with the content...) Tedickey (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Is there an obvious reason why you removed my edit to this article without any reason. I thought mentioning other plugins for Eclipse than Cola would be fine. Furthermore Saros is actively used and developed... plz explain. (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

other than the fact that you added external links in two topics, to point to a me-too? There's no useful content in adding external links without developing the topic. Tedickey (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
to explain the "me-too" idiom: it refers to a low-value addition to a topic which serves only as a (possibly self) promotional edit. hth Tedickey (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
ok, I understand. So it would be admissable when I fill the gap in this article between Collaborative realtime-editors and Pairprogramming? (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
something like that. External links are useful mainly in a single topic. If something's notable, then it should have a topic, and the related links would be in that topic, rather than in several topics. Tedickey (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What qualifies as a "Promotional Edit"

The information I added to Comparison_of_Usenet_newsreaders was factual and relevant. Why did you deem it as a promotional edit?

dotend (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

hmm - other than to point out that a specific program is different from everything else, and to provide inaccurate information? Both of those factors caught my eye. There are of course additional factors which may come into play. Tedickey (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The information was based on many user requests for a 64 bit newsreader. The requests are documented on many forums all over the place. Newsbin just happens to be the first to actually do it. From my research, only the open source newsreaders that can be compiled by the end user also support 64 bit. I acknowledge I didn't put that in for Pan or the other open source newreaders. If I make those modifications, will you approve the changes? Also, the one time fee comment is factual and pertinent. The other fee-based newsreaders charge some upgrade fee every year or so. Dotend (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The fee seemed an afterthought. For the rest, you should take it to the discussion page for the topic Tedickey (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Delaware Valley

Yes, there are many Israelis in the Delaware Valley (including myself). If any mention is made of Arabs or Europeans there, we should be included too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source, or is it just your personal observation? (If the latter, there's no reason to add it) Tedickey (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have lived in the Delaware Valley much of my life, as have many of us. On top of that, I went to Catholic school here. After all there is a difference between Israelis and Jewish Americans. You want an external source? Could you provide a source for the other groups mentioned then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the items which are unlikely, so that they can be challenged and removed. If you're interested in keeping your edits, you may consider providing reliable sources Tedickey (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RSN posting

FYI, the "no high fives" thing has gone to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fairfax_County_Public_Schools_-_No_Conact_Rule_Controversy. WP:RSN. As they say a little further south, I don't have a dog in this fight. RossPatterson (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see (thanks for the update) Tedickey (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My edit to Herndon, VA

Hey i saw that me edit was removed because it did not agree with the source, what do you think i should put as a more reliable source?Cheddarjack (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your statement was that it was "voted" (there was no vote; the article clearly states that it was simply someone doing a google search, which if it were in the context of Wikipedia would be at best WP:OR). hth Tedickey (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What is your problem?

I recently updated the FDIC troubled bank total and you deleted the update.

WHAT is your problem? (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You made a comment without providing a reliable source. Tedickey (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Now restored with source. (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thanks (I formatted the cite) Tedickey (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson Quote

You cite source for the Jefferson quote about "let them separate." That source indicates it is from a letter to William H. Crawford, not to James Madison —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdUthe (talkcontribs) 14:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

odd, but I misread the correspondence (probably I was searching on a different part of the quote) Tedickey (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Star Spangled Banner

I was just trying to bring the language in parallel with the language on Pledge of Allegiance. Otherwise it is misleading as to enforcibility. Racepacket (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

well yes - without the context in the other topic, it does look odd Tedickey (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


If we read above - on many occasions the subject of reversing edits is no references to third-party publications, where the third-party considered something like an article in a well-known website. I think Wikipedia was reversing for some time back to Nupedia, the only difference the "experts" were replaced with "editors" outsourcing the expertise to a vague and not necessarily reliable acceptable set of reference origins. My opinion is take a bit of the burden of proof on yourself sometimes (thus try to be a bit of an "expert" as long as you participate in a form of censorship). If you don't have the proof of the opposite, then you try to be an expert and if you see the assertions are true - even as there are no references you may consider to leave it as it is. I mean if one shifts from Nupedia home-grown experts to a kind of virtual "must" notion of "outsourced experts", in a sense resurrecting the old model - wikipedia reverts to something which in the past proved to be so unpopular and not growing so well. Sorry for talking a bit vaguely, hopefully my idea is understood. 19 December 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Claims of notable behavior should be sourced, otherwise they're merely personal observations, which may be subjective. Tedickey (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Indigo Cheminformatics Toolkit

Hello Tedickey,

You have added the "Conflict of interest" plate to Indigo Cheminformatics Toolkit. I confirm that I, being one of the authors of the toolkit, may be biased; nevertheless, I believe that I managed to keep completely neutral point of view in the article.

Could you please explain in detail how the article can be improved in the sense of neutrality?

Best regards,

Ringill (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd start by focusing less on what the features are and what papers you've got on your website than on what how independent third-parties (not just users...) see the features, how it fits into other topics. Tedickey (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. First of all, I think that fairly listing the features can not be bad for any article about software product. In case you disagree, how do you see the good feature list for Indigo? Or would you just prefer the feature list being lesser part of the article? As for independent third-parties, there are some mentioned in the 'References' section. The first two ( and are absolutely independent (not connected to our company in any way) blogs that are well-known to cheminformatics communuty. Yet their authors apparently never used any part of our toolkit. The 3-rd and 4-th links are from independent people too, and they actually used our toolkit and wrote some higher-level API wrappers for it. I have moved these two links to the "Third-party code" section. There are some other good opinions of Indigo on the Web showing people's interest: ChemiSQL members, father of ChemSpider,developer of CDK, developer of BKChem; but I decided that these small links are not something that should be in article. So, taking into account what I have said, what you think are the next steps to improve the article? Is it really a good idea to transfer reviewer's opinions (from the links in the 'Reviews' section) to the article? Ringill (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The links you show are hints, but none of them appear to be reliable sources Tedickey (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


I added the info there because its own article has been deleted, and this was the most appropriate article per WP:PRESERVE. Pcap ping 03:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see (my concern was directed toward whether it belonged in the lede, and how to use the material consistently) Tedickey (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no objections to moving it out of the lead. Thanks, Pcap ping 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thanks (I think that the edit I made makes it about right) Tedickey (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


I disagree that my adding external links to the Encyclopedia Discography of Victor Recordings is link spam. I can see that adding several similar-looking links may have appeared suspicious, but these links certainly were not "mainly intended to promote a website." I believe I'm adding links to "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." Discographical information is of great interest to many readers of Wikipedia and cannot be displayed in any other way due to its detail. If the volume alone of my added external links is considered link spamming, I believe this should be overlooked as the EDVR is a relatively new website people may not be aware of (hence the reason I am adding these links). I would very much like to add these links back to their respective pages; they were added with the best of intentions. I look forward to your reply. Eatingmarigolds (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As the message notes, Wikipedia isn't just a collection of links - it's topical content. If your links were topical content, there'd be substantially more than just links added to Wikipedia Tedickey (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see your email for a continuation of this subject. Eatingmarigolds (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Henry

In I had stated that, "in the 1789 election where Henry was an elector, three electors cast their other vote for ...George Clinton. Clinton was a leading Antifederalist." You marked this 'dubious- discuss'. Would be a suitable citation? It states 'In the struggle in New York over the adoption of the Federal Constitution he was one of the leaders of the opposition'

Alekksandr (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's another wiki - like this one. Perhaps the sources that it points to are useful, but wikis aren't reliable sources Tedickey (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is actually the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I feel that that makes it a reliable source.

Alekksandr (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The wiki says it's based on the 1911 edition, but its editing history makes it plain that it's been modified. Tedickey (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


You deleted my entry on Chicamuxen saying that it is a community rather than a geographic place. It seems to me to be both, but more of the latter, existing on Chicamuxen Road, and having a history. My intent is(was?) to develop an article describing some of this. I have just begun this by creating a subpage on my user page. Am I going about this wrong, other than including the place in the list before the article was written, or should I just not bother with the article in the first place. Being a wiki newbie, just looking for some advice here.

Rmilstead (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I noted the reverse - if you can provide reliable sources (such as you suggest for a topic devoted to Chicamuxen, then that's something to discuss). You're more likely to be able to source something like Chicamuxen Creek, for instance Tedickey (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


Earlier today I added the following link to the Environmental Protection Agency article in the external links section. NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS in Washington D.C.

I am confused why the link was removed. I think that a link to the National Headquarters for the Environmental Protection Agency Union in Washington D.C. has a rightful home in the external links section of the Environmental Protection Agency's article for many obvious reasons. Please explain why the link was removed.Hereherer (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's nontopical (just another external link, in this case one whose main purpose is unrelated to the topic). See WP:EL Tedickey (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it non topical? What is your reasoning behind that? Please use the discussion page on the EPA article to rationalize your argument.Hereherer (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's nontopical because it isn't neutral - it promotes the union's interests. Perhaps some of it is factual, but promotional sites tend to be rather low on that Tedickey (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please use the discussion page at the EPA article to debate this. I opened one for the topic. Another user put a message on my talk page and it would simplify this to have the debate on one page instead of multiple sites.Hereherer (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fairfax County Public Schools

I have protected the Fairfax County Public Schools article from editing due to the current content dispute. Please discuss the issues on the talk page and attempt to reach a resolution there. Requests for specific edits to the article can be made by and adding a {{editprotected}} template to the talk page after demonstrating consensus for the change. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Rural People Movers

Dear Tedickey, I noticed, that you have undone the latest change on the People Mover page, written by me (before registration). Could you tell me the reason? Do you mean it is not appropriate at all, or should I put it into another section of the page than the history of people movers? Harald1978 (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The point of the link (which was added to another topic) was to advertise a little-known project. In particular, the context into which this was inserted was inappropriate (even disregarding its promotional aspect) because it didn't natually follow the flow of the discussion. If there's more breadth to discuss, that might fit in a subsection. Tedickey (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not change the map!

I am a Norman, and I know the history of my country. Why change my card, that's right for the wrong card Administrator Bogdan? Check at least the history of Normandy, and you will see that Upper Normandy is that of Rollo in 911, and only became the Cotentin in Normandy 933.

Map of Viking Expansion (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC) aka Gwyonbach.

The second image is blurry. Can you summarize the difference between the two which you are trying to add? Tedickey (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Normandy Rollo date of 911, it corresponds to the half-region of Haute-Normandie, is to tell the department of Seine Maritime and Eure. Normandy is larger in 924 with corresponding departments of Calvados, Orne and Sarthe, and the Cotentin peninsula in 933, corresponding to the department of La Mancha, was in turn part of Normandy. That is, is it enough simply explained? You will find the same card on the French site L'Anse aux Meadows, and I am surprised that yours is fuzzy on the English site. Sincerely. (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC) aka Gwyonbach.

It is definitely fuzzy (also, most of the map's annotations are missing). Is there a better version of this? Tedickey (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Scott A. Jones

Just wanted to let you know I could not retrieve any articles from the paper, I was told he dropped off the face of the earth. Which makes me think he might be working on another invention. Do I remove what I wrote and referenced?Thisandthem (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need to remove things if they're sourced properly Tedickey (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside Plant

I've been working on outside plant and wanted to ask you to take a look--your comment in the talk page is unclear to me, and I've added some references and done some copy editing. tia, Nuujinn (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The two topics outside plant and Outside Plant covered the same material, and the latter (see its history) was converted into a redirect in March 2008. Tedickey (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ie7 / acid3

Hi, I know that wp is not a reliable source, but: in this article are pictures (in the table) of IE7 at the release date from acid3. doesn't this picture count? maybe we should add this picture also in the ie article. mabdul 04:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)#

ie7 / acid3

Hi, I know that wp is not a reliable source, but: in this article are pictures (in the table) of IE7 at the release date from acid3. doesn't this picture count? maybe we should add this picture also in the ie article. mabdul 04:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)#

Your comment is repeated - when I added the tags, I looked through the given sources, found none that were a reliable source for the rating (I did look through the anonymous comments on the blog - which would not be a reliable source - and found no clues there either). The picture itself might be interesting, but it's not the rating (there are several parts). Tedickey (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Why does it not count? mabdul 12:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Acid3 ie7.png
It doesn't have something that shows where and how the display was obtained - only shows a defective display. For a reliable source, you do need the context in which the picture was created. Tedickey (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi, just saw you reverted your edit at Southern United States, I was just starting to respond on the talk page. There may be a Census definition, but to me it's clear that there's the other one as well. I think it's worth having both. --AW (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Then the distinction between casual and formal definitions should be made in the topic Tedickey (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Do you have a ref for the Census one? --AW (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
hmm - long day - I was reading the West South Central States topic at the time Tedickey (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Well I see that West South Central is a Census term and South Central is an unofficial name, but I don't see anything saying Mid-South is the same as either of those. Do you have a Census ref for it? --AW (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
No Tedickey (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Where did you hear it called that? --AW (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
hmm - read my comment above (long day, and I misread the edit, thinking it was a preceding paragraph) Tedickey (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for all the work & edits... Would you consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut? Markvs88 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User interface

The second version of "user interface" is sourced to a paper that is cited reasonably often (it was a handout in two courses I took). It accurately reports the that the correct measure of a user interface is user perception. It accurately reports user perceptions of various products. If you disagree with something, please fix it.

No. It's largely personal opinion. I suppose I'll have to tag each part which is unsourced, to get the point across Tedickey (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto on "Office 2007." I've modified it, to state only facts apparent on the face of the software. Please look at it before a a quick-shoot revert. We all do better by cooperating and fixing; your revert-first-don't-read-til-later is, in your words, "not constructive." (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Will see. Tedickey (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Kilmer Middle School

Tedickey, The person who deleted the 'No Contact' section on the Kilmer Middle School page has stated he should not have deleted the section. You undid my edit without any change except to state that page at FCPS did not say the section should be there. As I am sure you are aware some editors have stated it should be there - if not please read the talk section again. I feel it should be in both places. That does not change the fact that there was a consensus that it should at the least be on the Kilmer page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

ttyl, a/f Tedickey (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


The hatnote at the top of Odyssey is not there arbitrarily. Homer's Odyssey, as you can see, is a redirect to the page, and is the direct title of this episode. Your claim that "no one will come here looking for a cartoon episode" is a bad assumption: I got here looking for the episode of The Simpsons, and previously there was no way to find it. I had to go to List of The Simpsons episodes and look up the episode manually. The fact that it is a cartoon makes no difference to whether or not the hatnote belongs; the title is a redirect, so unless Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons) is moved to Homer's Odyssey, the hatnote needs to be there for those who came here looking for the episode. -- 07:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I also read the discussion about the proposed move, which is generally opposed. If you find new information to contribute, that might be of interest. Tedickey (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If the move is opposed, that's all the more reason for the hatnote to be here. I'm not going to argue the page move to the death because in the first place it was only a suggestion on my part and I was never married to the idea, but there needs to be some way for people to find the episode by searching its title. Currently there is none. As I said on Talk:Odyssey, as far as I can tell, the consensus hatnotes is that if the exact name of Topic A is a redirect to Topic B, then the page on Topic B must have a hatnote to the page on Topic A, unless there are many things with the same exact name, in which case it goes on a dab page. In this case, the dab page is for things with the exact name Odyssey. Nothing has the exact name Homer's Odyssey except for the episode and this page, so no dab page should be used, and it should not be on the Odyssey dab page, which is counter-intuitive. -- 03:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
And by the way, what do you mean you "found no such redirect"? If you click on Homer's Odyssey, it takes you to Odyssey. That is very easy to verify. Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons) is not, and has never been, referred to as "Odyssey" or "The Odyssey" or "An Odyssey" or anything else that the dab page would cover. -- 03:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Your first comment is self-contradictor. Looks like you're arguing that simply because it's relatively non-notable, it (the cartoon) needs promotional edits to guide the viewer. For the second - a view of "what links here" didn't show the redirect. Tedickey (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)