User talk:Tedickey

Welcome! Hello, Tedickey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --SXT4^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 07:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

why did you undo this edit?

the website regexper.com was no.1 on news.ycombinator.com and provides a very useful tool for visualizing regular expressions. --79.199.214.56 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it is nontopical (does not deal with the general topic of regular expressions (b) number mentions on the website of your choice is irrelevant TEDickey (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the cited website is a community-edited (anonymous editors) - nothing there to discuss. Consider it along the same lines as confusing Wikipedia with a reliable source of information. Have a nice day TEDickey (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed you reverted an IP edit here without explanation. The change from definite to indefinite article actually seemed to me a (slight) improvement, but before restoring it I thought I should inquire as to your rationale.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The change from "a" to "the" modified the meaning, making it appear as if there was only one possible occurrence, which is absurd. TEDickey (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course: somehow I read the situation backward, thinking the IP had changed “the” to “a” instead of the converse. I should have checked the article itself instead of just (mis)reading the diffs. Sorry to bother you.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no problem TEDickey (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you reverted quite a few of my edits with Time magazine references because they were unsourced. How should I provide a source if it comes from a printed copy of the magazine? Thanks! Whitestorm17 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The usual: date, title and author of the article. Magazines also typically have volume numbers, but date/page number and title/author are what is expected. See Template:Citation for some hints TEDickey (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So for the county pages that you reverted would this be an acceptable citation? Time Magazine, November 19, 2012 Issue; "The White House - Obama's Path To Victory", pages 16-17

Something like that? Whitestorm17 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote, it would look something like

<ref>{{citation |title=The White House - Obama's Path To Victory |pp=16-17 |periodical=Time Magazine |date=November 19, 2012}} </ref>

I added a source to the Sandusky County, Ohio page. How does that look? Whitestorm17 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That works TEDickey (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for changing this from a redirect to an article back in 2008. It's tagged as in need of some TLC - orphaned, primary sources and doubtful notability. Would you be able to look it over and see if you can help improve it? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is at all notable, it seems the sources are all written in Polish (I've found nothing useful in English) TEDickey (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

First, I would like to say that I appreciate the standard of unbiased reporting that has been set for Wikipedia. I have used it throughout my educational career and appreciate what it stands for.

Currently, I am a student at the University of Washington, Seattle. I am enrolled in an Asian American Studies Class of the American Ethnic Studies Department titled "Japanese Internment." In class, we are learning of many of the misnomers used to describe the events regarding Japanese Americans during World War II.

My first edit was regarding the use of the phrase, "Japanese-American." The issue that historians have today is that "Japanese-American" has a completely separate definition from "Japanese American." Firstly, "Japanese-American" implies equality of the two words, meaning that "Japanese-American" is equivalent to "American-Japanese," and could be used in discussions such as, "Japanese-American relations." On the other hand, "Japanese American" is not the joining of two equal words, but rather Japanese becomes an adjective which describes or modifies the noun, which is American.

My proceeding edits were probably the edits called into question based on "bias." I definitely did not write the words with a bias myself. We are learning in class about how the government used many methods of propaganda to paint the image of treatment to the Japanese Americans as not only without negatives, but also as a positive opportunity. Many of the videos that were created by the government described this phenomenon as "an opportunity to reclaim the desert and make new lives for themselves."

Thus, "relocation" was a euphemism used to downplay the negative actions of the government. The "exclusion or forced removal" became "evacuation," "incarceration" became "relocation," etc. I would not have made these edits had I not learned about the correct terminology used by modern day historians. My professor wanted it to be clear that these words are actually inaccurate. And it would not be biased, in my opinion, to call this incarceration, defined by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary as "the act of confining or the state of being confined; the state of being held in lawful custody."

Additionally, beyond the arguments from euphemism and propaganda, "internment camp," as mentioned later in the "Japanese American internment" article, is a term reserved for the Department of Justice or Army camp holding alien enemies under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which are separate from incarceration camps.

My goal in the use of the word "incarceration camp" is that it is the proper word used in academia today to describe what has traditionally been misnomered as "internment," which in it of itself has it's own definition distinct from incarceration.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to share my reasons for editing. I can assure you that the intention was not to provide a bias, nor do I believe that the words are biased. Rather, I honestly believe that they best describe the actions the government took.

Sincerely, Matt Sekijima University of Washington, Class of 2015, Political Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekijima (talk • contribs) 23:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, the topic uses the terminology of its sources - applying some "proper word used in academia" has the problem that if it is not based on the sources for this topic, it may be misapplied (particularly noting that your choice of terminology has additional connotations which would be seen by "non-academic" readers) TEDickey (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tedickey. I invite to to have a look at Fleksy and see that it is a technology that "the community believes has done the most to empower the vision-impaired" in 2012: [1]

It has also been selected by Apple as one of "Best of AppStore 2012": [2]

An article from the American Foundation for the Blind: [3]

Also you will find thousands of mentions on Google.

I genuinely think this method of text entry would be of interest to most readers (it is not limited to blind people) of the input methods page. I also think you will appreciate the amount of award-winning innovation when you try it (if you have an iOS device).

Hope this helps! :) Nautilus1284 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were promoting the item; rather than looking for suitable sources (third party), they merely said nice things about the product and pointed to the website TEDickey (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your feedback. I pointed to a link directly on the official CES website, a major Consumer Electronics Conference with attendance of 140,000. I can also point to may other third party authoritative links, such as the Huffingotn Post, Wired.com, FastCompany magazine, Engadget, TechCrunch, Y-Combinator and many many others. I only posted the first party link as per some other products mentioned in the same section. I can omit the official first party link, will this be ok? Nautilus1284 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you created a topic for your product, and established notability rather than linking to its website. By the way, you should read WP:RS and note that some of the possible sources which you mentioned are not useful as sources for establishing notability TEDickey (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Only thing is, what do you mean create a topic? Any suggestions for that? Also, I might end up adding Fleksy to the requested articles instead. Just wanted to hear your thoughts on how notable this is (if you have the time and inclination). I have absolutely no intention to spam... Nautilus1284 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long backlog on requested articles. But you could prepare a topic in a subpage of your user-page and submit it for Wikipedia:Articles for creation TEDickey (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created this based on your comments: [4]. All feedback is welcome! Thanks again. Nautilus1284 (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if you could be more explicit about what was wrong with this edit, to the extent that you left a low level vandalism warning on their talk page. From WP:REVIEWING:

The purpose of reviewing is to catch and filter out obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits on articles under pending changes protection, a special kind of protection that permits anonymous and newly registered editors to submit edits to articles that would otherwise be semi- or fully protected under one or more of the criteria listed in the protection policy.

The edit sees to me to be intended to clarify that Arnold's father was also named Benedict. There certainly doesn't seem to be any bad faith involved and it seems bitey that this user made one well-intentioned edit and got a vandalism notice for their trouble. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an example of a nuisance edit (done several times in this topic as I recall) which seeks to change the commonly-accepted name of the topic to put a "junior" on it. Wikipedia should follow the sources, not editor's whim TEDickey (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tedickey,

I'm new to this, but it strikes me that if Wikipedia's own defintion of "Western Hemisphere" includes the UK we ought to stick with that for consistency. West and East of the Prime Meridian is the only neutral definiton available, the use in the "Virginia General Assembly Page" is political, so it should either be re-written or at least pointed out.

Best

Phlange — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Phlange (talk • contribs) 13:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't make definitions; it uses WP:RS to provide information, and relies on consensus using those sources to present information. So far there are no reliable sources contrary to the presentation in that topic (and if there are, it appears likely that they will be WP:Fringe) TEDickey (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the UK Houses of Parliament are in the Western Hemisphere is a "Fringe Theory"? Have you ever looked at a map? It's not a theory it is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.253.107 (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you if your argument is "it's an American Topic" I guess that makes evolution a fringe theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.253.107 (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No - I pointed right away to WP:RS. You haven't done that yet. TEDickey (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK --86.16.253.107 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the first few hundred hits by google, ignoring copies of the Wikipedia page, I found only one mention of another candidate for the title - and that appeared to refer to another American state. Constructing an argument contrary to the available sources would be an example of WP:OR TEDickey (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Google Map locating the Houses of Parliament in the Western Hemisphere - does this count?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

--86.16.253.107 (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC) And this: http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/ 86.16.253.107 (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing explicit in there which deals with this discussion (inferences are provided by the reader). TEDickey (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot to learn about editing. I'll go away and try again. --Dr.Phlange (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok - look for published sources which say something that is the same as the questionable statement, rather than something in the general area TEDickey (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently upset you caught him or her slowly adding spam-like links, this ip has decided to start deleting a wide range of perfectly acceptable external links, in clear violation of WP:POINT. In addition, he or she is using your username in edit summaries to explain his link blanking. BusterD (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed - any suggestions? TEDickey (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go to war with an ip user. Best to wait until the user get him- or herself blocked (which won't be long at this rate) or calms down, then reinsert the good links (some of the deletions are arguably acceptable). I have a recollection that thomaslegion.net has been a problem before. If I can track down a history of such insertions, blacklisting is a possibility. BusterD (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tedickey, I am not here to hammer or to argue with you or anyone. This is my first and last words to you and BusterD with his multiple IDs!, but since you made the following statement, it is Wikipedia policy that you present the facts. You state (above): "I have a recollection that thomaslegion.net has been a problem before." Who is thomaslegion.net. I am the above user ID and I am reminding you of Wikipedia's terms. Since you recall that thomaslegion has been a problem before, prove it factually - according to Wikipedia policy. One may also say, I have a recollection that the sky is purple with shades of pink. Get it?

I am the above IP. I have added links from National Archives to state archives to varoius websites - including civilwarhome.com. All with relevant, unique content.

Do verify every link that was deleted by me, since you missed them today, and then, as you stated, add them back; you even missed links that were in Chinese (how funny) in the American Civil War section to numerous broken links to expired domains to duplicated content. But, oddly, how did you manage to do a domain deletion across the board in external links for one domain and yet absolutely failed by missing the preceding external links in the exact section such as the one in Chinese and with 7 separate broken links? Really, how on earth could you miss them? Answer, you did a deletion for one domain without even reviewing them OR the external links section; that's a fact. Anyone reading this can incert your name or IP and review for him or herself.

BusterD also made a false statement by stating that the domain name and material added to Wikipedia should relate: that is the domain name and what is on the respective site hosting the domain name should relate to each other. BusterD was informed that he knows very well that is not Wikipedia policy. There are domain names such as johnbsmith.jones.net, etc, with material on Wikipedia external links that doesn't direct the user to the "life of John B. Smith". You are encouraged to remember Wikipedia policy, the facts.

Enjoy your lives and muliple IDs - yes, sighs, good riddance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.46.84 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks (I don't see any need for comments there by me) TEDickey (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my edit on page Windows 7 when I changed Windows 7 Ultimate to Windows 7 Showing Start Menu and Windows Aero? You never know, it might not be Windows 7 Ultimate! >_< Please don't do that again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.20.238 (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the caption on the original image - your commentary provides no useful information and diverges from the intent of the image TEDickey (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To IP 120.etc.: As it says just about the edit window, "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." If you're going to be this unhappy every time somebody reverts your edit you're going to be VERY unhappy here. Jeh (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tedickey,

Regarding your reverting of the "See also" link to Mary Sands under the article Appalachia, the reference was related to the section on Music, and I felt it offered some additional detail for anyone who may be interested in an example of one particular singer who had provided Cecil Sharp with a large number of English and Scottish ballads, as referred to in that section.

I notice in WP:SEEALSO it states,

The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

I agree it may be a "minor representative from a category," but I feel it is still a valid tangentially related topic. I would like to reinstate the reference, unless you still have strong feelings against it, in which case I'll leave it alone.

Thanks. K828 (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But including equivalently-relevant see-also's would run to several pages. Categories and specialized lists-of pages are suited to that. Appalachian music would be topical; it appears you have added Mary Sands there also rather than fitting the link into its appropriate context there TEDickey (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. Thanks for the explanation. K828 (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no problem TEDickey (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I've noticed your interest in articles relating to C/C++ and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject C/C++, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to C and C++. If you're interested, please consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. --—Sowlos

This is a note to let the main editors of Anne Hutchinson know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 22, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 22, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Anne Hutchinson (1591–1643) was a Puritan woman, spiritual adviser, and participant in the Antinomian Controversy that shook the fledgling Massachusetts Bay Colony from 1636 to 1638. Born in England, she was the daughter of Francis Marbury, an Anglican minister and school teacher. As an adult, she became attracted to the preaching of the dynamic minister John Cotton, and followed him to New England after he was forced to emigrate in 1633. There she shared her religious understandings with women she helped as a midwife, and held meetings at her home to review recent sermons and criticise ministers who did not adhere to Cotton's "covenant of grace" theology. Her religious convictions and outspoken demeanour riled many magistrates and Puritan clergy in the Boston area, and her popularity and charisma helped create a theological schism that threatened to destroy the Puritans' religious experiment. She was tried, convicted and banished from the colony in 1637. After moving to what is now The Bronx, then controlled by the Dutch, she was killed in an attack by native Siwanoy in 1643. She has been called the most famous, or infamous, English woman in colonial American history. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, T., In you edit comment you said that the statement "For at least 10 years before the NEPA was enacted Congress debated" was not supported by the reference. But the reference states, on page 11 "Many of the concepts and ideas incorporated in S. 1075 were drawn from ambitious measures introduced in previous Congresses. Of particular relevance were S. 2549, the Resources and Conservation Act, introduced by Senator Murray in 1959" It seems to me this statement clearly shows that the concepts of the NEPA were debated by Congress for at least 10 years before enacted. Also, the statement about this report of the US senate being a "advert" seems a bit POV. Perhaps I should not have referred to the senator by his nickname "Scoop", but that was what he was called every night on the evening news when I was a kid. I'd like you to revert your post, and take away the "better source" tag. The reference is to a report about the 1959 S.2549. written 10 years later, most likely written by a Senate committee staff person. (I see I didn't include the exact page number in the reference. I will go back and do that tonight.) WVhybrid (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source gives one datapoint, omitting the intervening ten years, in particular providing no evidence of debat. You might consider finding a source which actually supports the given statement rather than contort the current content to match the statement. Have a nice day. TEDickey (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you had read the proceeding paragraph (on the same page 11), you would have learned of several other so-called data points, including 1) "S. 2282 introduced by Senator Nelson in the 89th Congress" (1965), 2) S.2805, introduced in Dec., 1967, and 3) "similar legislation introduced in the 90th Congress" (1968). And then, the same report, on the same page, goes on to talk about the joint Senate-House meeting, that was described later in the same paragraph of the EPA article. So, in total, this reference talks about at least 5 instances in the proceeding 10 years when Congress introduced (i.e., debated) legislation or held meetings dealing with national environmental policy before the passage of S1075, the National Environmental Policy Act. As an aside, the more I look at this report, the more I think this whole article paragraph is a rewrite of the Senate report 91-296. So, having shown that the reference supports the statement, and the reference describes 4 acts of legislation and one joint committee meeting during the 10 years proceeding the enactment of NEPA, I conclude that the reference to page 11 of Senate report 91-296 is very appropriate. Please remove the citation. Thank you, and good night. WVhybrid (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]