User talk:Tedickey/Archive 2
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Merging CDK articles
Hi there.
I'm finding it hard to unravel the differences, similarities, and relationships between
It would be much simpler if those two "CDK" packages could share one article - it's not as if they contain too much info for one page. Do you have any more info/links to clarify the history, relationship, and differences between those two software packages? Any thoughts on how a unified article would describe them? Thanks. --Gronky (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- They could of course be merged. We can discuss it, but I haven't done this by myself since it would be a COI Tedickey (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the ncurses link to Cdk - "modified version" makes it sound less than the actual case. More than 60% of the code's been changed. It is a "largely compatible" rewrite. Tedickey (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, well, I could merge them over the weekend using the info you have here plus a few web searches, and then we can review (and revert if it hasn't worked for some reason). Using a single person as a source of info can cause problems, but Wikipedia's coverage of this topic is in the earliest stages of development, so a period of uncertain quality isn't a show-stopper, IMO. --Gronky (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. The changelogs tell most of the story. On my webpage I've a diffstat to illustrate the amount of change. Researching Cdk's history before around the time I started working on it will be hard (I've done some of that of course, can offer some input there). From memory, Glover released an early 4.0 (perhaps 4.5, something like that) in the mid 90s (1994 or so), initially as GPL, then changed it later (around 4.7, 1996) to BSD, copying a copyright file from something dated before he started working on it. Aside from getting those version numbers and dates exact, that's the prehistory. I don't know at what point he started working with/for Vexus, nor whether Cdk was before that. So there are some interesting details for which there are no reliable sources. You may be able to find via google the same info which I've found. (I have copies of the prehistory versions that it found for me ;-). Understandably, there's a fair amount of POV in describing the history; I've not added any of that to the topic since there'd be some disagreement, whether justified or not. So let's just keep the discussion technical and on-topic. Tedickey (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. The changelogs tell most of the story. On my webpage I've a diffstat to illustrate the amount of change. Researching Cdk's history before around the time I started working on it will be hard (I've done some of that of course, can offer some input there). From memory, Glover released an early 4.0 (perhaps 4.5, something like that) in the mid 90s (1994 or so), initially as GPL, then changed it later (around 4.7, 1996) to BSD, copying a copyright file from something dated before he started working on it. Aside from getting those version numbers and dates exact, that's the prehistory. I don't know at what point he started working with/for Vexus, nor whether Cdk was before that. So there are some interesting details for which there are no reliable sources. You may be able to find via google the same info which I've found. (I have copies of the prehistory versions that it found for me ;-). Understandably, there's a fair amount of POV in describing the history; I've not added any of that to the topic since there'd be some disagreement, whether justified or not. So let's just keep the discussion technical and on-topic.
- Happened to think of this again, where I can check: the version that I noticed with a GPL was 4.8, with filedates July 9, 1996 (there's no changelog until later versions). I don't see a copy of that online, though there's the perl extension of the same vintage which I find with google on "curses cdk 4.8" Tedickey (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Happened to think of this again, where I can check: the version that I noticed with a GPL was 4.8, with filedates July 9, 1996 (there's no changelog until later versions). I don't see a copy of that online, though there's the perl extension of the same vintage which I find with google on "curses cdk 4.8"
- No problem. Tedickey (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem.
- Prompted by another editor, I did a quick merge (may add some more detail...) Tedickey (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Prompted by another editor, I did a quick merge (may add some more detail...)
- No problem (I could add more details, but it's hard to do without adding POV, since most of that would be from email) Tedickey (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- No problem (I could add more details, but it's hard to do without adding POV, since most of that would be from email)
Benedict Arnold from V --> VI
Hello Tedickey, This is my first comment so please bear with me. I believe Benedict Arnold is the VI if his name and the proof i have is in the book "The Real Benedict Arnold" By Jim Murphy it tells that the Fifth Benedict died at an early age and then the VI, (his younger brother) is the one we know today. I urge you to take a look at this if you value keeping this article as true as possible, (which you most likely do). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.239.215 (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Murphy would of course identify the source of the information. Since he's not the original source, that's what would be useful. Otherwise one has to gauge how reliable Murphy's book is (and noting that it's marketed as juvenile literature, there's that consideration). Tedickey (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: NTFS
Please share the ref again so that we can decide on how reliable it is. Look around the web, there are probably as many reliable sites claiming NTFS to be NT File System (where NT refers to Windows NT, not what NT might stand for) as there are that are claiming it to be New Technology File System. This makes it a very difficult path to tread. Unless the ref is absolutely irrefutable, it will be challenged by someone or the other. And if you come up with this people will be quick to point out that Brien Posey is just an MCSE and not an MS employee; thus cannot be regarded as official voice of Microsoft.
As for your frustration that removing editors got their way, that is unfortunately the way things work here: it is up to those who want something to be added to provide evidence for its correctness, in addition to justification. Removal just needs a justification. I know its frustrating, it has bitten probably all of us. --soum talk 11:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- The change was here, uses this MDSN article written by one of the Microsoft development team in 1995. (When I googled, I recall that there were other useful sources, but this one seemed a good fit). Tedickey (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Linux text editors category
Yes, that's a fair point. I checked out all the editors in the category and moved all the ones that clearly support at least one other Unix-like OS (ie. most) to [Category: Unix text editors]. I may have a look at the Mac OS X category at some point too. Letdorf (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC).
- no problem. Offhand, the only interesting Linux-specific features to watch out for in terminal clients would be ioctl's manipulating the virtual console. I'd cite Tedickey (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard
Hello, Tedickey. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ENeville (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was referred to dispute resolution, however the important issue to my mind was not an individual edit dispute and I am disinclined to persist in such at this point. I will therefore summarize my outstanding concerns:
- Help:Reverting: "Reverting should be taken very seriously."
- Help:Minor edit: "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."
- My edit comments referred to explanation for changes on the Talk page, but were reverted nonetheless, and without even addressing the explanations.
- I can see from your recent contribution history that you have been very busy patrolling for the likes of vandalism, spam, and unsourced fact changes. This important work. It is also unending work, as you must be all too aware. It can tax the sensibilities and the patience. Perhaps it has contributed to being a little too quick on the trigger, and easing up a bit would be better all around.
- And, in response to your edit comment, it was a spelling error, and I apologize if it caused agitation. ENeville (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks - I'll try to keep that in mind. Tedickey (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
FAT/NTFS
NTFS did not supersede FAT. FAT was targeted for the original Windows brand and NTFS was for the Windows NT line. When Microsoft released Windows XP, they were unofficially merged together. However, you can still use FAT, it's commonly used today; Microsoft is still is giving updates to it making it still current like NTFS. They are two separate file systems. One does not supersede the other. They are not Operating Systems that go obsolete. // A Raider Like Indiana 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Crim Dell
The notability tag you placed on the article is ludicrous. It is most definitely notable. One of the most identifiable and important aspects of William & Mary's campus, which is (as I see you probably already know) the second oldest college in the country. If you think that this article is not notable then I highly suggest you take a look around at other college and/or university templates and look at the kind of garbage they have as articles. I have seen so many more unmentionable articles on this site it's a joke. -Jrcla2 (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion at this point is directed only to the topic (not for instance, your personal opinions). Perhaps you can find some evidence of notability that's not directly sourced from W&M websites (I didn't see any when I looked, but certainly you have some motivation). Tedickey (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Found and listed an additional 7 sources in the discussion page to solidify the Crim Dell Bridge's notability. -Jrcla2 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Found and listed an additional 7 sources in the
- Your counterpoints against the bridge are based on ad hominem arguments. Because I go to the school, my credibility is somehow automatically disregarded. -Jrcla2 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm - you might look up the term in a good dictionary, so you're prepared to discuss it intelligently. Tedickey (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm - you might look up the term in a good dictionary, so you're prepared to discuss it intelligently.
- No need to look it up, thanks though. Majoring in philosophy means I actually know it. It was in response to "Along the same lines, there are occasional deaths due to falling down an elevator shaft (perhaps you're planning to write a corresponding topic for occurrences like that at your school)." That comment is overtly sarcastic, and, judging by the comments other people are leaving on your talk page, you really like placing various tags on articles without actually researching (or taking the time to familiarize yourself) with the articles in question. Additionally, your general behavior on Wikipedia is less than desirable. You have been the only user I've ever been genuinely frustrated/angered with, and it has to do with your childish behavior. This is going to be the last message I leave on your talk page, as I do not have the patience or time to care anymore. -Jrcla2 (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- regards - I'd recommend that you study logic, but recall a philosophy course on the topic which was rote memorization. Tedickey (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- regards - I'd recommend that you study logic, but recall a philosophy course on the topic which was rote memorization.
3RR on United States Constitution
20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder - will see if the other editor is inclined to discuss. Tedickey (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem Tedickey (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem
On April 25th I added a link to the Mark Twain Caves. You removed it citing that it was an advertisement. This is technically true, but this is the actual cave that Mark Twain explored as a kid, and later described in "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", so there is historical value here. Dk1965 (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Clemens described a cave; a suitable intro to the link would be to cite a reliable source (not found on that website) that it is the same one. Tedickey (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Reported for vandalism
You are reported for vandalism for erasing three times the correct address of the Little Big Horn Associates: thelbha.org Custerwest (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You are reported again for vandalism. Custerwest (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Have a nice day. Tedickey (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You are reported to Sensei48 and the Wikipedia community. Enjoy your day. Custerwest (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Bye. Tedickey (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Can't win em all, eh? I've removed you from the 20:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. By the way, given the comments in the changelog, it appears that Custerwest also connects as 134.21.9.181 (but I'm not inclined to argue the point) Tedickey (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. By the way, given the comments in the changelog, it appears that Custerwest also connects as 134.21.9.181 (but I'm not inclined to argue the point)
Viking discovery of North America
I have entered the following topic in the Talk page as per your recommendation Viking discovery Budfin (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Will followup in a few hours Tedickey (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
On lists in reservoirs
In this edit you call the list of list of reservoirs by volume inaccurate and inconsistent. Can you elaborate?Whosasking (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The ranking in the list is supposedly based on the linked topic; however the topic doesn't present that information (and doesn't claim to do that). The topic presents reservoirs as artificial lakes, but the majority of the entries in the list are natural lakes. Tedickey (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Hi. Good faith edits like this, while they may be highly disputable or even wrong, aren't
- They're more than "highly disputable"; they're making assertions which do not follow the criteria in the given categories. I'll put it on the talk page - but take a look at JCDenton2052's edit history - more than half of it's disputable. Tedickey (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at Tedickey's edit history. His edits of WP:COI. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- First, could both of you please stop calling good faith edits vandalism? There may or may not be other worries about some of these edits, but they are not vandalism and calling them that will not get either of you very far towards resolving any of this. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at Tedickey's edit history. His edits of
Custer
From the article, "Before the close of the war Custer received brevet promotions to brigadier and major general in the Regular Army and major general in the volunteers. As with most wartime promotions, these senior ranks were only temporary." "On February 1, 1866, Custer was mustered out of the volunteer service and returned to his permanent rank of captain in the Regular Army, assigned to the 5th U.S. Cavalry." Hueydoc (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see that, and was at the moment looking for a suitable source to give the proper name of "volunteers". Tedickey (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
COI
I haven't seen anything over the edge. What COI is he talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that it was an attempt to exploit a weakness, rather than having identified a specific issue with my edits. Tedickey (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was thinking something like that. Let's wait and see what he says then. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- no problem Tedickey (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:V
Do you have any reference for the statement "Randolph was appointed as the first U.S. Attorney General in September 1789, maintaining precarious neutrality in the feud between Thomas Jefferson (of whom Randolph was a second cousin" for the article Edmund Randolph. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- no - I don't recall seeing that edit. Tedickey (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Andrew Jackson
You reverted my edit on
COI spam
Hi Tedickey, I noticed you've been reverting a lot of edits that add books, citing conflict-of-interest spam. This morning you're citing COI against an IP address with few edits and those are widely varied as to what they edited, making a COI too much of a stretch. Besides, COI is discouraged, not prohibited. The reason that it's not prohibited is to allow us to consider whether or not an edit is in the best interest of the article, regardless of who made it or why. I think you've been removing some recent book additions that are very appropriate for their articles, and book listings are very valuable time-savers for researchers. JD Lambert(T|C) 11:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ah - "History Press". Those are simple advertising. Whether a book is actually useful should be left to editors who choose the material, rather than based on a publisher's current advertising campaign. Tedickey (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, your History Press reverts were a lesser concern of mine. Their edits on the Rome, Georgia page were unquestionably a conflict-of-interest. Although I strongly disagree that an edit should be removed solely due to a COI (the overriding consideration should be the net effect on the quality of the article), I'm more concerned about reverts cited as COI where I see no basis for it, like this. How was the listing of these books a COI? The IP address had 4 edits yesterday that were clearly not a publisher pushing their books. JD Lambert(T|C) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Uh - links to Amazon.com for selling a book are "clearly not"(?). Read through the edit history, check the who-is, correlate with the other edits on the same topic - and find the other accounts used by this editor, etc. It's pretty clear to me - only a small fraction of the edits contribute anything other than pointing to David Hein's books/articles - spend a little time on it. Since the intent isn't to improve the articles, but to promote Hein's own interests, it's COI. Perhaps you have another category for this. Tedickey (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Uh - links to Amazon.com for selling a book are "clearly not"(?). Read through the edit history, check the who-is, correlate with the other edits on the same topic - and find the other accounts used by this editor, etc. It's pretty clear to me - only a small fraction of the edits contribute anything other than pointing to David Hein's books/articles - spend a little time on it. Since the intent isn't to improve the articles, but to promote Hein's own interests, it's COI. Perhaps you have another category for this.
- The edit I cited above did not include a link, just book/page citations, and the editor was anonmyous, meaning there is only an IP address, and it is not possible to who-is an IP address. I distrust a process that involves one editor judging another editor's intent, and even if an editor were to state that their only motive is to promote their own interests, that should cause extra scrutiny, but the controlling issue should always be: is the article better or worse after an edit.
- Since a critical purpose of an encyclopedia is to facilitate research, references to relevant books are very valuable contributions to any article. In fact, because Wiki has a notability standard, merely the fact that a relevant book exists, or used to exist, provides valuable evidence regarding the article's notability. Removing relevant book references does more harm than good. JD Lambert(T|C) 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- WhoIs works very nicely (depending on how you're connected). The IP address 144.175.2.187 is at Hood College. Take your time and do it right. From your responses so far, you haven't started investigating. Tedickey (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- WhoIs works very nicely (depending on how you're connected). The IP address 144.175.2.187 is at Hood College. Take your time and do it right. From your responses so far, you haven't started investigating.
- I stand corrected regarding who-is'ing an IP address, but I searched the last 1000 edits and 144.175.2.187 does not appear among them. I'm not sure which edit you're referring to, but I don't think it's related to the one I cited, which I repeat here. Your remarks don't even appear to be about the same article. Your edit summary for the edit I cited states "(rv COI spam)" but in fact your edit was not a reversion. You removed two book references from the article's references section. Those references had been there for over a year, back when the section was labeled "Bibliography", implying that those books were used when writing the article's content. They did not have any links, to Amazon or otherwise. JD Lambert(T|C) 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I worked from the IP-editor's history, found that he has used also this IP: 71.176.142.213, as well as user names Davidhein and Improved, by comparing edits to the book references. In the small fraction of changes not related to those changes, he's injected POV about half the time without providing a source. Some of the edits are useful. Tedickey (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I worked from the IP-editor's history, found that he has used also this IP: 71.176.142.213, as well as user names Davidhein and Improved, by comparing edits to the book references. In the small fraction of changes not related to those changes, he's injected POV about half the time without providing a source. Some of the edits are useful.
- Okay. So, I'm going to restore the refs in the "Lakota people" article, as they seem appropriate. What is this "IP-editor's history" thing? Can any wikipedian use it? JD Lambert(T|C) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the ref's for Lakota are tacked on - there's no discussion in the topic related to them. But as I noted, that's David Hein's style of editing - much like "History Press", which you appear to approve of. Tedickey (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the ref's for Lakota are tacked on - there's no discussion in the topic related to them. But as I noted, that's David Hein's style of editing - much like "History Press", which you appear to approve of.
Trivia
Hi, There are many biographies of real-life people that list their appearances in popular culture and I do not see why Benedict Arnold should be the exception to the rule. It seems that he has appeared in a number of films but his appearance in VTTBOTS is the only one that I have seen and this is my attempt to get the ball rolling. Your argument appears to be that his appearance in an old TV series is not appropriate for this page, but would that not apply to the Literature section as well?--Marktreut (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well (excluding spam adverts which appear to comprise about 20% of the "literature"), it would be nice to assume that the literature ref's have something to comment on regarding the topic. The VTTBOTS item isn't likely making any analysis, or criticism - and this is why Trivia aka "Popular Culture" notes are discouraged: the reader generally gains no insight beyond the Trivia's acknowlegement that the topic it's placed into is notable. Tedickey (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)