User talk:Tedickey/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Reverted Edits

Hello, Tedickey

Reading through your talk, you seem to be pretty quick on reverting edits etc. Please note that my "unconstructive" edits you reverted within minutes were releases from the US Census Bureau dated August 26, 2008. Also, highest median household income does not constitute wealthiest state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudykruger (talk • contribs) 23:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Rudykruger; this user is way too knee-jerk on reverts. At least he posts patronising comments on your userpage to compensate. For your information, Tedickey, those weren't experiments, and that sort of tone with a Wikipedia user is exactly the sort of attitude that leads to people seeing Wikipedia as having become an old-boy's club of snarky editors. If you love reverting grammatical corrections because of your accent, fine. But have the decency to accept that a genuine edit with a proper summary is what it is, and don't suggest sandboxing as if you're speaking to a child. Enjoy making Wikipedia less approachable. 143.239.189.169 (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

hmm - in context, it appears that "rv - original was correct" doesn't appeal to you. I'm curious if you've a polite comment to add. Tedickey (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Roanoke edits

Tedickey, I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia truthful. But Max Brook's book, "The Zombie Survival Guide", is claimed to be factual evidence from his research. Seeing as all information comes from an individual's research, it is impossible to disprove his suggestion, even if most people talk about zombies as fictional. Until proof can be given that makes a zombie lifeform on Earth impossible, I will continue to replace that edit on the page. Please reply if you have a reason to discontinue this theory. Sir Adrian FayanTalk 17:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The book's fairly well-known (even on Wikipedia) as non-factual. Tedickey (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reservoir

Sorry about that bouncing around with conficting edits - I didn't see your revision comment so I thought it was just finger trouble on my side. What I was trying to say was that reservoirs hold gases or liquids (which are both types of fluid), usually liquids, but not solids! - Pointillist (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes - I understood that fluids could be gases, etc. It was the "usually" that was an issue, since (to the average reader), they're synonymous. So I removed one (only one is needed). Tedickey (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is fine - much clearer. Pointillist (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem (sometimes removing words does that) Tedickey (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations

According to WP:CITE, you shouldn't edit an article just to change the citation style. The current style used by the article is allowed by the MoS (it's just missing a references section) so there's no reason to change it.-Jeff ^(talk) 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - which part of WP:CITE says that someone shouldn't add information to a topic. The relevant guidance is in WP:External_links (also of course WP:OWN). Tedickey (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL is not the relevant guideline here because it explicitly states that "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources". The links in question are citations. WP:OWN does not apply either because my revert was in good faith, and was made to enforce an existing guideline. The footnote style, which you tried to apply with your edit, is not the only style of citing sources (although it is the most common). In the intro to WP:CITE, it says this:

These are the most common methods of making articles verifiable. A Wikipedia editor is free to use any of these methods or to develop new methods; no method is preferred. Each article should use the same method throughout—if an article already has some citations, an editor should adopt the method already in use or seek consensus before changing it.

You didn't seek consensus, therefore you were reverted. -Jeff ^(talk) 20:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that you're the only person to be complaining - look around before you claim that you are the consensus. Bye (no point in discussing, until you read WP:OWN, and apply its advice). Tedickey (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read WP:OWN before, and believe me, I've seen people exercise "ownership". What I did is far from it. Like I said, your edit goes against WP:CITE in that you are changing an article's existing citation style. It doesn't matter if I created an article or not, if I see a violation of a policy or guideline, I will fix it. It just happens that this article is on my watchlist so I was able to catch this early and revert quickly. Obviously, as I am currently the only major contributor to the Kent Island, Maryland article, any "consensus" on the talk page will reflect my opinion. If you're seeking broader consensus on this, discuss it with WikiProject Maryland or better yet, at WT:CITE.-Jeff ^(talk) 21:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, you don't. Any other topics that you own? Tedickey (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN I don't own a single article on Wikipedia, that includes Kent Island, Maryland. Making a single revert to enforce an established Wikipedia guideline does not imply that I claim ownership whether or not I'm the only person making major contributions to the article. If I saw a similar violation in any other article I would have fixed it as well.-Jeff ^(talk) 22:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If your problem is with the fact that I removed information that you added to the article through my revert, I'm sorry about that and I've readded the information in a format that is compatible with the article's existing citation style. Again, I'm not claiming ownership, I'm just following the rules.-Jeff ^(talk) 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Delaware Schools

I recently added some of the high schools in delaware, but you deleted them saying 'rv - there's already a much larger and more topical list in the corresponding category' i dont know what that meant, but i want to know if youre going to move the list of schools i currently have, and am ready to add to the page. it is a list of elementary, intermediate, middle, and high schools, and is over 200 strong. will you move this one too or am I allowed to add the list i have? SuzukaISichigo100% (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The category is a better way to build up lists like that. Adding lists to an overview topic only makes it less readable. There are a large number of lists - see for example the list of towns in Delaware, which is a little beyond the normal sense of readability - and that "little" only because Delaware is a very small place. The list of schools is much larger, and when topical belongs in the school district topic, e.g., Brandywine School District, or the state school categories Category:High schools in New Castle County, Delaware and Category:High schools in Delaware. Using categories appropriately makes it unnecessary to make large, unannotated lists of relatively non-notable topics. Tedickey (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

so did you want me to make it by county/school district? or did you want me to make a page for it and make a link to the list on the delaware page? SuzukaISichigo100% (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That might work - however, making a list is redundant. A topic should do more than make a list of things; it should discuss common and special features. Tedickey (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hilary Duff response

Ha, you need to take your own advice. "very few people care about your baseball team, but they don't often delete it just to express their POV" This statement of yours violates both civility and "no personal attacks." This statement of yours is a personal attack. You are a hypocrite. JaMikePA (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I can see in your contribution history that your comments are usually inappropriate and often violate WP:Calm and WP:Good faith. You need to rethink your comments before you risk being blocked by an administrator.JaMikePA (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre Feud Edit

Hello. I am wondering why you irrationally deleted the reference to the Greek hero Odysseus and his feud with the suitors from the feud article. This seems to be a prime instance of what the article is talking about. Is there any rational reason besides exterting power over less experienced editors and an ego-high? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit was the editor's personal opinion, as you've probably noticed, rather than reporting what a reliable source says. Tedickey (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The old info and more have now been re-inserted with flawless scholarly citations. Now please do not rip up the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but if it's still original research qua personal opinion, it's not worth keeping Tedickey (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Brooklyn Bridge#Unsourced material

Doh! I didn't read the article very well at all. Thanks for pointing that out. Luckily Jorfer fixed it all up. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I added one of the sources commenting on 1874 (though it's a secondary source) Tedickey (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold's letter To the Inhabitants of America

In response to your recent request for a citation for a fact in the article Benedict Arnold's letter To the Inhabitants of America: The source is his letter itself. You can find a link to the letter in the article. - Shaheenjim (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

ok...but it's not clear whether he was opposed from the outset, or turned against it mid-course, etc. I added a few more words - see how that works Tedickey (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

PDP-11, use of terms "virtual" or "physical" address space

Hi, I (with the aid of a friend) found a definitive answer to your question. It's on the PDP-11 talk page. Thanks for the nudge! Jeh (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Charles F. Mercer

I gave them a 24 hr block. If they are uncommunicative, then there's not much to do. --Tom (talk - email) 00:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I outlined my concerns on the discussion page. There's more than one IP involved, though it's unclear how many "they" are. Tedickey (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

external links

Hi, thanks for your note. I've been careful not to remove any existing links that give the source of legal texts. In some situations, I've condensed multiple links into one using the template. If you can point to where I've removed an existing link, it's a mistake and I'm happy to change it. I'm not here to dictate these existing links, but to provide choice (which means mostly to provide alternatives to findlaw). K8lj (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - early in the morning reads differently from last night - I didn't notice that the older link - Dred Scott v. Sandford for example - is embedded in the result. The description of the link is of course very different. (thanks) Tedickey (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

response to message

you left me the following:"please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Iliad." what are you talking about?Wran (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)).

Your edits have the appearance of advertising a new book (a google search hinted that the book isn't something that I'd add as an authoritative source, either). Hope that helps. Tedickey (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the ref formats in Mark Twain. Collect (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

no problem (I only noticed the second occurrence when I was searching for the first...) Tedickey (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So You Know

Just so you know the article you found for the Reading Yard is way out dated. it is from 2004, which is way older then the map on the site i gave. This is like the "new" reading outlets, also has a 2 factories. I know this cause i use to go there for railfanning. This location is about 5 miles east of my location. The yard is in use and maintained, for a matter of fact loram was just working there yesterday. I will not try to give incorrect information. Unless i am 100% sure of it i wouldnt even discuss it until i knew. (with the reading northern thing it was a simple case of mis-reading) And i do appreciate your comment to show me the article. As i put on the norfolk southern discussion board, this link shows the Reading Yard aka Spring Street Yard(in reading pa)

http://www.railfanreading.com/oley.htm

and this

http://www.railfanreading.com/Reading1.htm

click railfan

click airel view of reading

in several photos you see reading yard-spring street yard

Thank you and you have a pleasant day

--Kopicz (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks - I did read your reply in the talk-page. I commented on pictures, having found that aerial views tend to lag a few years behind (perhaps to give real-estate agents an advantage ;-). Tedickey (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Some do, but this is only about 8 months behind. The only reason i know this is they built something in the past 8 months and they are just starting it in the map that i provided. --Kopicz (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering...

I was wondering if you could help me with something. I would like to upload an image of a GE Dash 9-40CW and when i try, i keep getting a grey box with a link to my picture, but no picture like the others above it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkopicz3 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you had the wrong image-path (which has to be the path within Wikipedia). Tedickey (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Brand on people mover manufacturer

Hi Tedickey, I'm a Newbie here and i write to ask your help. I saw your correction on the Leitner link deleting the brand name Minimetro. I was adding this the same way Cristal Mover is mentioned beside Mitsubishi line: was that wrong or is it possible to write it the same way? Thank you --MRFANTASTIKO (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The section is titled "Manufacturers". A manufacturer's name doesn't need a trademark symbol next to it (otherwise we'd see those marks so many places that they would lose their effect). A reference to a specific product may (depending on style and context) merit that treatment. The mark is pointing out that there are restrictions on the use of the name. One implication of that is when incorporating the product into something else - a user-content alert. General discussion of the topic, in the context of pointing out that the product and manufacturer are associated shouldn't require preferential treatment. For Mitsubishi, it looks as if someone's singling out the product (partly because Mitsubishi is large). A better way to organize it would be to identify the branch of Mitsubishi, making that a redirect to the topic) Tedickey (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Norms of fair use and the flawed concept of self-plagiarism

Thanks for your suggestions. I've responded to them by correcting the typos I could find, and shortening the footnote on Samuelson. The footnote introducing Samuelson is necessary to establish her credentials to speak with some authority in this area. I trust you don't reject the notion of "relevant expertise?" I don't understand your comment on NPOV. The two widely acknowledged authorities in this area are Samuelson and Hexham, both of whom are cited in the article. If you wish to survey the literature for others, by all means do so. I've already done that. Moreover, the examples given strongly support the overall argument. Please read the section in context, in relation to the sections around it. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually not necessary (and many readers view that as unnecessarily promotional). The topic on Samuelson gives enough background for the reader without the editor pointing out that this or that author is a well-known authority. Will read/comment, etc. Tedickey (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Also removed a couple of extra footnotes to Samuelson article. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks (I haven't forgotten this thread...) Tedickey (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism detection service links

In Plagiarism detection either all links to services should be removed or none. It seems to me very biased to allow some and not others to be listed. --jknabe (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure - remove the others (WP is not an advertising service) Tedickey (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of Washington Dulles International Airport

Tedickey,

I reviewed the automated message you left in regards to my "test on the page Washington Dulles International Airport". I respectfully request that you review your revision. It was not a "test" nor was it vandalism.

I intentionally altered two portions of text that had obvious grammatical errors. I am aware of no reason that my edits should have been reverted. If there is something I am missing, please inform me. If not, I will leave it as your responsibility to revert your revision.

Thank you. (68.100.137.223)

It did look like a random test-edit (on the latter part). ok Tedickey (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Thank you for making a report about 24.173.80.58 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

oh.. The previous set of edits appeared to have provided the sufficient-warning (is a week later too long?) Tedickey (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Maryland, my Maryland.

Sorry it came off snide, looking back I did write that rather harshly. That said, the point stands as does the reference to the first stanza. Your comment on my talk page is fine, but that's rather different than saying secession is POV, which is what your edit summary said. Arguably the statement that the song is a call for secession is *wrong*, but that's rather different than POV. POV would be "this song is the best ever" or "everyone agrees this song is racist and horrible."

Anyway. I will grant that the song is "only" a call to arms, what with the "avenge the patriotic gore" comments. However if anything this is even stronger than a call for secession (most favoring secession did NOT want to have to fight a war over it and would cheerfully leave perceived crimes unavenged). I suppose it can be argued that the matter of a formal secession was irrelevant to Randall and he was only interested in the avenging part, but I think that keeping it simple and saying it advocates secession is fair. That said, it's a minor point, so I've changed it to "fight the Union." Is that an acceptable compromise? SnowFire (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have a suitable abbreviation for interpretation in mind that would fit (seems POV is confusing). The "avenge", etc., was (given the context) a reference to the disturbances in Baltimore, and the followup which made secession a moot point (which seems to be missing from this topic). It's an improvement on the wording - thanks Tedickey (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

glob

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:Gig1bLGuZRsJ:www.isc.org/sources/devel/func/glob.txt+glob.txt+guido&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us .froth. (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

sure - he wrote a version of glob ten years after the original one. Tedickey (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick check shows Guido's code in 4.3 BSD - but not accounting for all of the uses of "glob". It's not in 4.2 BSD, and that has glob(). The best you can do with the link is to point out that he wrote a version of glob() which appeared in 4.3 BSD. But stating that he wrote the original glob function is nonfactual. Tedickey (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Department of State

What I added to the selection of links was not spam, it was the official Dept of State YouTube page. You can't get more official than that. Now be a good fellow and change it back before I do.

DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

hmm - since when does the U.S. Department of State create you-tube webpages in U.K.? Tedickey (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Change the Domain Name if you wish i.e. from uk, but folks here in the UK would find that page very useful as it is straight from the Horse's Mouth - the State Department's press office. Select first gear and engage brain. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If it were, it would be on a U.S. ".gov" site. It's not. Tedickey (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

YouTube is not State run so surprisingly enough does not have that domain name suffix. That's why it's entertaining. It can also be seen around the world. We don't all get CNN or FOX News to get the USA bulletins from the State Department. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't FOX or CNN. It's not original research either. Tedickey (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Japanese American internment

At first blush, I thought your revert of Picture Bride was probably elegant; and the primary reason I invested time in a little more research was simply to try to figure out what it was about your edit which struck me as so deft. In point-of-fact you were wrong ... and the more interesting questions have to do with why we both were mistaken in misperceiving that something seemed a bit off-point here? Bluntly, this was an oddly excellent mistake. --Tenmei (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The linked topic gives dates ranging up til about 1924, which is certainly before the internment topic. Where is the overlap? Tedickey (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Eleanor Dare redirects to Virginia Dare

from User talk:66.152.166.101

Your comment is inaccurate - it linked to a specific paragraph, apparently because that was merged into the more-interesting Virginia Dare topic. Tedickey (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

...I see - you did that. But at the same time, you eliminated most of the text related to Eleanor Dare which was not already in Virginia Dare - perhaps you might want to reread your edits and repair things. Tedickey (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please can you give me an example of the text (related to Eleanor Dare which was not already in Virginia Dare) that you think I eliminated? 66.152.166.101 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph (unless it's reworded - I searched for a few of the keywords). The w-link for Ananias Dare in the first paragraph is missing. Merging the two topics doesn't seem to make much sense, since there's enough material to use for two distinct topics. Tedickey (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The 2nd para isn't about Eleanor Dare, it's about the Roanoke colonists. I redirected Ananias Dare to Virginia Dare as it contained even less unduplicated content than the Eleanor Dare page. Disagree about there being enough article-specific material (ie content that's not already duplicated in other articles) for two distinct topics. 66.152.166.101 (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Kentland

Yes, the section of the artical that I edited was referenced. However the section goes off on a long tangent that detracts from the purpose of the article, which to provide information about the town of Kentland. I am personally aware of the events listed in the fire department section, and they are of no importance to anyone exept the volunteer members who keep adding it to the article. There is much more to Kentland than one small fire station and the constant squabbles they contiually have with other fire departments, and the county fire department. I have seen dozens of articles edited because of added information that is self serving (even if it is referenced)and of no importance to the article. I leave it to your judgment. I will not edit it anymore. 68.48.57.3 (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Andy

College of William and Mary

I recently made some major changes to the College of William and Mary and made some suggestions for further improvement. Please stop by and take a look. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I did notice the activity over the weekend, was waiting for it to cool off before reviewing (thanks) Tedickey (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold

I am posting here because I am a relatively new to WP. I have added this article to my watchlist because i had found some vandalism the first time i read the article. I, in no way, feel any ownership for the article. However, I do feel some obligation to keep a watch over blatant vandalism. Please let me know if you notice any anti-NPOV or ownership probs in my edits on this article. I know that you have been responsible for keeping the article encyclopedic and I respect your opinion on these matters. Thanks. Tide rolls (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks (will do) Tedickey (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Chesapeake Bay

Why did you delete my comments about the near-collapse of the fisheries? The information was well-cited. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What I saw was a cut/paste of a repeat-editorial about existing material, which doesn't have a well-formed cite (look at the footnote). Tedickey (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Spam in Comparison of parser generators

Could you briefly explain in how far I added spam to the article Comparison of parser generators? I doesn't make any sense to me.--Hyperyl (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clearify: I'm not the author of Waxeye, as you claimed when you reverted the changes.--Hyperyl (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But you haven't answered the point: Waxeye is nonnotable. Why are you promoting it? Tedickey (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

followup in the comparison topic, since that's where the problem exists. Tedickey (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Because

Acceptance testing should be there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Because" is what mommies and daddies tell their little kid. Not much reasoning involved. Please do better than that. Tedickey (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

East of Eden

What is the matter with you requesting a reference for something that was seen, at this point, by maybe 90 million people? What would satisfy you at this point so that the point stands? Pls advise.

It is my humble opinion that there is such thing as "common knowledge". If I were to write in some article that Watergate was a discussion topic in the year 1974, would you also ask for a learned reference? elpincha (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure (and there are reliable sources - for Watergate - not sure about plot summaries for your favorite TV program) Tedickey (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll expand on this when I have the time, for the point seems worthy. Meanwhile, let me state that the "sure" bit, as regars knowledge widely accessible elsewhere, has complex implications. In the meantime, could you please point me to the Wikipedia policy that applies? (This is not laziness but rather a confession — I tend to get lost quickly in the "meta" zone. Thanks.) elpincha (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

start here Wikipedia:Reliable sources Tedickey (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Le me state the problem I have. If you go to any article on a Family Guy episode (e.g. Da Boom, PTV) you will see that the articles are in good standing (as in: nobody is putting "fact tags" on them) while the amount and quality of the references would clearly fail your standard (which I agree is good where applicable). There are simply no "learned sources" to look up if you want a reference for, say, "Brian berates Stewie for reading what Oprah has recommended", or 95% of the stuff that is mentioned there. And I still think that the episodes being "public knowledge" should count towards something. What say you? elpincha (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no issue - the other topics need work (I'm not interested in those - you may want to improve them). Tedickey (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill Manlove

Thanks for your checking the facts. I'm not quite what you are disputing on Manlove. The source says:

In 1969, Manlove started his coaching career at Widener and endured a 2-7 season. For the next 21 years, Widener never had a losing season which included 10 Middle Atlantic Conference championships and two NCAA D-II National Championships.

Your prod seems to question the 1969 date which is clearly stated. By adding 21 more seasons that would take the date to 1991. Now there could be wriggle room beyond that since he could have had some losing seasons since his next coaching gig is listed as 1995. So if anything the prod should be on the 1991 date. Thanks again for being a stickler. Americasroof (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly - I'm reasonably sure that Manlove was a football coach at PMC in 1969, but am not sure that he was head coach at the beginning of the season. The source has a lot of leeway in it Tedickey (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to reword it so that it is consistent with the source. Thanks for your insights. BTW what does PMC stand for?

I went back and saw the Philadelphia Military College reference. Clearly you know something about the school. I was just filling in some red links on the AFCA President page. Thanks again.Americasroof (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

PMC until 1967 was "only" Pennsylvania Military College; at that point it was reorganized as PMC Colleges - Penn Morton and Pennsylvania Military College. There were more students in Penn Morton than the other (something like 3 times - I don't know the exact figure - I recall being told that there were about 1200 students total, of those about 900 - both branches - were boarding students). Clarence Moll was the college president during this time. Here's a link mentioning that. Tedickey (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Masons -vs- Mason's Springs

Thanks very much for the correction on National Register of Historic Places listings in Charles County, Maryland of Masons, Maryland to Mason's Springs. I saw the NRHP description and thought the two places were one and the same, sespecially since GNIS did not have Mason's Springs entry.--Pubdog (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

no problem (it was a little startling). Mason's Springs is (approximately) the intersection of MD 224 and 225. There's a wetlands in that area (both sides of 225) which is what I've understood the place name to refer to. However, Google maps shows Masons Spring Road going south from that (going up a hill), so there may have been a village at some point. But "Spring" or "Springs" is definitely part of the name. Tedickey (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Philippine-American War

Why did you remove the info I wrote about the Philippine-American War in the USA history subsection? Over a million Filipino civilian lives were lost in that bloody orgy of massacre and genocide committed by murder crazed American soldiers. This conflict lasted for over a decade which is longer than the entire breadth of Spanish-American War and set the stage for American interests and role in World War 2 and the Cold War in the Asia-Pacific region.

You are deliberately erasing and undermining the sheer scope and importance of this event by refusing to give credence to it's existence in this wikipedia article.

You are a very good example of the hypocrisy, sin, evil and lying character of your ancestors. Who sowed terror and murder across several peoples for four hundred years. Their penchant for it is now manifest in your denial of the righteous documentation of your people's role in the injustice of the Philippine-American war and the gravity of that occurrence to your history.

I think your trying to hide the fact that documentation of this dark chapter of deliberate American genocide, greed and rampant exploitation of Asia's 1st multiracial democracy is an inconvenient truth that will haunt America's psyche and serve as a nagging defiance to America's historical white-washing.

I swear to the one and only God of all the religions that you will never ever succeed in your evil.

The Philippine-American war will be documented in the main USA article come hell or high water and neither you nor any other American minion will ever ever succeed in suppressing the righteous and shining truth of it.

Never Again.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

hmm - your edit summary in this personal attack on me marks it as "minor". Tedickey (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything we do may seem minor in the grand scheme of things but only time will be the test of that.

Please stop your reverting of my just and righteous edition of that subsection. It's bland and uncool. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Then start by providing reliable sources, stop making personal attacks on other editors, and discuss changes. That's three items that your edit history shows as an issue. Tedickey (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have provided reliable sources for my edition. Five of them in fact. You just wont care to read them or consider them. You hypocrite.

Source 1: http://www.msc.edu.ph/centennial/republic.html

Source 2: A Philippine Newslink Interview with Bob Couttie, Author of:Hang the Dogs, The True and Tragic History of the Balangiga Massacre, page 2 publisher: Philippine Newslink date = 2004-12-15 | url =http://www.philnews.com/2005/da2.html | accessdate = 2008-03-24

Source 3: "The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up," quoted in A People's History of the United States (1980), Howard Zinn, Harper & Row. ISBN 0-06-014803-"

Source 4 : http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/2274/1/134/ |title=We Charge Genocide: A Brief History of US in the Philippines|author=E. San Juan, Jr. |year=2005 |accessdate=2008-07-26}}

Source 5: * Boston Globe June 27, 1900;

• Literary Digest Volume 20 (1900), p. 25;
• San Francisco Call December 8, 1899, February 16, 1900{{Harvnb|Boot|2003|p=125}

My sources shine brazenly and defiantly with the light of the truth.

So shut it you flaming and lying hypocrite.

The Philippine-American war is obviously a highly documented event (As proven by the diversity of sources to account for it) The event was crucial to the formation and growth of the United States as a world imperial power yet strangely enough it isn't given it's due credence.

So Stop perpetuating an injustice and let the truth speak out by letting this be included in the US history subsection.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Another personal attack. Tedickey (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Katie Martin

If you're going to insist on tagging the article as a possible advert, please explain why. All of your concerns have been addressed.--Z Everson (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Each time I come back to it, I point out something that I reported in the previous time, which is not addressed. Tedickey (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Each time you comment I address all of your concerns or explain why they are not valid (for example, calling a magazine cover a press release). The last time you marked it, you provided no feedback.. --Z Everson (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In our last episode, you're left with asserting that the bulk of proof of notability resides on Martin's website, and aside from that is not generally available. Tedickey (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I never made such an assertion. Just two of the many instances of her mainstream media appearances were on her website (one was a magazine available online just to subscribers; the other was a radio broadcast). In fact, I added a reference to video from a TV appearance to the article too. --Z Everson (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of text editors

You changed all of the EmEditor titles to the topic name, however, a distinction must be made since in the past there were a Professional version and a Standard version. Why did you make this change? And what about all of the other editors on this page, some other ones may have this issue as well. Red Summer Rain (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any insights? I am waiting for your response. Red Summer Rain (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dana L. French

I have rewritten the "Dana L. French" page using the "Bill Gates" page for the structure, format, and style. Why do you keep reverting to the old page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfrench (talk • contribs) 13:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I could ask the same question to you, but it appears I won't get a useful answer. Your edits appear to be a rehash of the self-promotional, unsourced (except by your self-published webpages), and generally non-notable comments. We could go on at length discussing the defects of your edits, but to save time, I'll trim out the parts that don't follow Wikipedia guidelines. Tedickey (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said previously, I used the "Bill Gates" page for the structure, format, and style, so I assume you have the same opinion of that page as well. With regard to sources, I really don't know what you are looking for. I have provided sources from the International Standards Organization (ISO), IBM, various other web sites referencing my work, and various web sites where my work is published. What do you want? Dfrench (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - "Bill Gates" has better things to do than write Wikipedia topics about himself (so that part of your comment can be disregarded). For the rest - using sources that you've written about yourself doesn't count either. Tedickey (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to take great effort to avoid the essence of the argument, which is the same structure, format and style of the "Bill Gates" article was used to write the "Dana L. French" article. This negates your argument regarding the article being written like an advertisement, unless you want to make the same argument about the "Bill Gates" article. You also completely ignored the fact that reliable third party references such as the ISO and IBM were provided. I will revert the article back to the current version, do not revert again or I will lodge a complaint against you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfrench (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm following the Wikipedia guidelines, and will continue to do so. Tedickey (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not following the Wikipedia guidelines because you are ignoring any improvements made to the articles. Why would you revert to a previous version when the current version includes improvements? This make no sense whatsoever. Even if you think the current version is not perfect, why would you revert to an even less perfect version? Your actions violate Wikipedia policies. according to your own requests. The reasons why you are doing this are unknown and violate Wikipedia policies with regard to editing and improving content. I will be lodging a complaint against you to have you blocked from editing this article again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfrench (talk • contribs) 15:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

While you're doing that, you might spend the time to look for reliable sources Tedickey (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaints have been filed. Dfrench (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Impartial opinion: Dfrench does seem to be trying to improve, but Dfrench also needs to be careful of systemic bias and possible WP:COI. Tedicky needs to be careful of rv'ing improvements, and to read the material and discuss changes that were a legit attempt at improvement. In a nutshell, if you two honestly disagree, then you both need to step back and let neutral people settle it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I did read the material (he restored some of the previous link-spam, and added some more unsourced self-promotional text). Not an improvement... Tedickey (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This changes the story: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana French, recreation of already deleted material is a whole new ball game, Dfrench, you need to establish notability first. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a lie. The entire article was rewritten, reformatted, and restyled. Many new sources were added (some of the old sources remained). This was not recreation of deleted material. An article was created, requests for improvements were made, the improvements were made, and then reverted by Tedickey for unknown reasons. Dfrench (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that comment in the same light as your other personal attacks. Tedickey (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bridges on Commons

Hi. Thanks for helping with the DYK nom. I think part of the problem may have come from Commons, where the category for simple suspension bridges includes a lot of suspension bridges. My brain is fried. Would you care to take a pass at sorting it out? --Una Smith (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do - to iron out the "Himalayan bridge", since it doesn't seem to fit. Tedickey (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have done some sorting. --Una Smith (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I see (thanks) Tedickey (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles on these bridges need an overhaul, and a better classification. "Simple suspension bridge" is used by several sources as an alternative to "stiffened suspension bridge". --Una Smith (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks (during the week I'm mostly fixing vandalism, but am keeping this in mind for the weekend when I have time to think...) Tedickey (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dana L. French. 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. Tikiwont (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Above is a standard warning as I am not sure whether or not you are aware of that rule. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of proposing the topic for deletion, but didn't have time (as Dana French appears to) during the day to lay out the various issues (which of course include notability). By the way - does 3RR apply when Dana uses 3 different accounts to reverse the tag I added?

The rule applies to editors and not accounts or IPS, which means of course that one needs to be sure about identity. Systematically using IPs to avoid that rule might even be aggravating. But I've just warned her as well about this rule in the first place and actually added a note about IPs. --Tikiwont (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This "Dana" is (according to the topic, as well as the photo on one of the IBM developer articles) a "he". Google does find dozens of "Dana French" people, some are "she" Tedickey (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

List of revision control software

Since you replaced all those external links with links to non-existant articles, I have to ask - do you intend to start writing them? I completely agree that articles trump external links every time, per WP:EL and good common sense, but I think external links are better than no links at all, at least in a "List of ..." article. RossPatterson (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

They could have been made into "references", but (like other lists, such as List of text editors and List of news clients, List of web browsers), it seems an unnecessary deviation from WP:MOS. Perhaps I'll work on some of the topics, but it would be nice if the people who added the links would write topics for their programs. Tedickey (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Along the same lines, it would be nice if someone would cleanup the various "Comparison of" topics, which are generally a mixture of self-promotion and original research. But I think it would take a focused project of several people to get that done. Tedickey (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Louisa History

Do you have some reason to doubt the official history as authoritative? --Zeamays (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a separate issue from editors injecting and modifying the statements. Tedickey (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify that. I have no idea what you mean. Also, note that the Louisa article is full of links to main articles that have references, for example the Twin Oaks Community article has 14 citations. There is no need to duplicate that, since the Twin Oaks material in this article is just a summary. --Zeamays (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My comments are directed to the history section (there's probably a tag for missing inline-citations-section, but I don't see it offhand). Tedickey (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't clarified, "That's a separate issue from editors injecting and modifying the statements." I already understood that you were referring to the history section. The official history covers all or nearly the items and is there as reference. --Zeamays (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"secular" commune is either an injection by the editor, or referring to a second source. I've asked more than once for a reliable source, and gotten no result. (That's an example, not the only one from the section - do read and compare the topic and the source). Tedickey (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)