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 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

Hello, Tedickey … FYI, as discussed in this post, this is a repost of an article deleted by an AfD … the author still has not provided any WP:RS, just links to sites for downloading the software. <Sigh!> You might want to bookmark it in case it has to go to WP:AfD again. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{01:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

It's on my watch list (most of the interesting ones that I've tagged are) TEDickey (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced? Did you read GNIS? Publicly available. Backspace (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the map - there are two parts to your statement. Sure, the coordinates are related to the bay. But I'm pointing out that the "centered on" doesn't appear correct. You might point to the part of your source which supports that. TEDickey (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire statement since there didn't seem to be a nice way to just put the coordinates without the (presumably) flawed statement. Looks like the coordinates are given for the most well-known location "close" (about 15% off, based on the maps) to the center, i.e., Annapolis TEDickey (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean that it is literally, geographically centered at that point, only that it is an official point given by GNIS which is more centralized than those two points which are currently given in the article (the source point and the mouth point). What sort of official support was given for those two points anyway, which you seem to accept as more legitimate? Backspace (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

either it is "centered", or it is not. If it is not, the statement is (barring some WP:RS, which should of course be factual), flawed, and needs a source supporting that detail, or it should be amended. Bear in mind that "It is centered about the coordinates of" has a specific meaning, and that "more centralized" is not close to that. TEDickey (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on the Al Zampa page: "needs source for chartered member" of Half Way to Hell Club. I have started a page for the "Half Way to Hell Club" based on the interviews and books of John Robinson. I put a link to the new page on Zampa's article. It keeps reverting to "half-way-to-hell-club" (note the dashes) which redirects to the Golden Gate Bridge page, which in turn has little about the Half Way club.

Can you help edit Zampa's article so it redirects to the new Half Way to Hell Club page?

Thanks, Gav Thorpe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.199.34 (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by which edit was having a problem, since I see only one Half Way to Hell Club page. There's some issue with deleted images TEDickey (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tedickey!
recently I've added external links to Flex and Bison pages and you reverted them.
Could you please rethink your deсision. Consider there is died link on Flex page (#6 "Compiler Construction using Flex and Bison - course by Anthony Aaby"), also the last link "Download Win32 binaries of Flex++ and Bison++" to win32 binaries but versions of binaries are old. My link points to the latest versions. I suggest remove #6 link and change the last link with my link. What do you think?
Lexxmark (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't the place to start when advertising a new project TEDickey (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. At least let's remove expired link I noticed. Wikipedia isn't the place of rubbished and out of the date information I think.Lexxmark (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

trimmed TEDickey (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted it, thanks Tedickey you can delete this. :)

hmm - no, I can't. You'll have to ask an admin TEDickey (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wondering what the reason was for deleting the reference I added to the Amish article, re: Beachy, Leroy. Unser Leit ... The Story of the Amish. Millersburg, OH: Goodly Heritage Books, 2011. 996 pp. 2 volume set, most thorough history of the Amish ever published. Perhaps the last part could be deleted as a subjective comment, but this set (despite being relatively new) definitely deserves a place in the list of further reading. Just wondering if you are aware of the book, maybe you thought this was spam?? Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if the description were toned down (WP:NPOV). TEDickey (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added it back sans description. My point was to guide someone straight toward a source that focused on thorough history, rather than, say, the story of one person's leaving the group, etc. I guess folks can search for reviews to find what the sources are about. Thanks, Mikeatnip (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no problem (the combination of being a very recent publication combined with the most-thorough-treatment statement was was I noticed) TEDickey (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

On September 4, 2011, you added the citation needed template to the lede of the Gray code article. Can you ellaberate on what exactly is lacking citation? Thanks :)

Bender2k14 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "non-weighted" is used in the topic without explaining what it is. There doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia topic with that name, so there's no way to w-link to it to help the reader. TEDickey (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. For the record, in this context, "non-weighted" means that all nonzero entries are 1. I did a few searches for a citation, but didn't find anything authoritative. I personally don't think this fact is very relevant (especially since, as you said, the article never uses "weight" with this meaning again), so I think just removing this sentence is not a bad idea. Bender2k14 (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok - I assumed the term would be in a textbook TEDickey (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You frequently use "awai" as an edit summary, but have never offered any expansion or explanation. Please explain what it means. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your deletion of my request only to remind you that it is impolite to use unexplained jargon in edit summaries, and is also impolite to delete polite questions without answering them. It's your talk page, of course, but I have no other way to communicate with you. I've asked you about your use of "awai" in the past, during contentious article talk page discussions, and you refused to answer then, too. Your talk page seems the most appropriate place, and this request the most appropriate way, to ask you either to state the meaning of "awai", or to ask you not to use it on Wikipedia again. If you wish to escalate this using Dispute resolution procedures, feel free: I look forward to any such process. --Lexein (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, I'm restoring Lexein's comments and asking that you reply to them. It's a good faith request, which is relevant to your discussion - editors will often use edit summaries to clarify or summarize their intentions. Unclear edit summaries like this remove that clarification for others involved in the discussion, and make it difficult for others reviewing your contributions. I can't tell if this is an acronym for something relevant to the discussion or if you're muttering something like "ah, what an idiot" to yourself. RIn any event, removing good faith questions about your conduct is at best rude; please respond. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

read - Lexein's comments here and other places have been overly confrontational, sometimes uncivil. So I'm not going to discuss things at length with him. Someone recently asked politely, and I responded that in the context of Wikipedia it was no more than counting to ten (that is, my comments and suggestions had so far been disregarded, but I'll be patient). TEDickey (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain exactly what it means, or stop using it? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're concerned that another editor is being confrontational or otherwise disruptive, effectively muttering to yourself in an edit summary really is not a good way of handling it. You should really seek out some sort of dispute resolution if that's what you find yourself doing. Commenting about other editors in an edit summary - even and perhaps especially if they don't know what you're saying (which, as Jeff notes, you still haven't answered) - will not address the problem and will only serve to further inflame issues. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly welcomed Tedickey to engage in dispute resolution processes involving any interactions I've ever had with him. When I was supported by WP:3O at Talk:Plagiarism detection, Tedickey invoked "awai" twice on the 3O editor, too. All of my interactions with him are open for all to see, as is his outlandish characterization of those interactions as "here and other places ... overly confrontational, sometimes uncivil", as he states above. With Tedickey, I was never once even close to confrontational, nor approaching uncivil. If I were to be squarely, intervention-style confrontational, I'd say: "Stop lying about other editors, stop taking offense at normal discussion processes, stop being petty when you're wrong about policy and guidelines, and stop snidely disrespecting editors in secret jargon, since we now know that's what "awai" really is. Instead, be honest. Disrespect me to my face." --Lexein (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G. asked politely, after I had explained. The remaining option for Jeff G. is to not use abbreviations (by the way, no one's pointed to a list of acceptable abbreviations). Not using abbreviations is okay, though there is no likely improvement on this discussion. For further insight, review the editing history and this, for example. TEDickey (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My request was also polite; though you may have offered an explanation, you have still not answered the questions as asked. That is rude. No one asked you what "awai" was like or what it was no more than, they asked what it specifically is. The guideline on civility states, bluntly, "be polite," not "pretend to be polite" or "hide behind secret coded insults", or "write as if ice cream wouldn't melt in your mouth" or "through sophistry, refuse to answer after at least 4 editors have requested that you spell out an abbreviation." That you deign not to discuss directly with me, is clearly rude, and, in fact, disadvantageous for you: after so many edits, you still have so much to learn about sourcing, policy, and guideline. The insights in, as you say, "the edit history"^{[which?][when?]} reveal more than you intend (2007:"awai"). The insight in the fable you linked reveal you to be disingenuous at best, since your edit summaries and comments in talk pages are as flawed, impolite, and indeed unkind, as the accusations you hurled above.

Finally: "the remaining option for Jeff G. is not to use abbreviations" illustrates an apparent misunderstanding of what's being asked: we're asking you to either explicitly spell out the abbreviation, or not to use it or any other non-explicitly-spelled-out abbreviations. And not in passive voice, either: you agree to spell it out or stop it. --Lexein (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: I'll not use abbreviations. Nice to see that you provide substantiation for my comments TEDickey (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there it is, as always. --Lexein (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second thoughts: Thank you for selecting this course of action. I feel it's a good choice, and will benefit all editors with whom you interact. --Lexein (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: possessive forms of proper names or nouns when the singular form already ends in an s such as "Cornwallis".
It is my understanding that neither form is incorrect, both *Cornwallis's* and *Cornwallis' * are accepted versions, according to (Diana Hacker, A Writer’s Reference) "If pronunciation would be awkward with the added -’s, some writers use only the apostrophe. Either use is acceptable." and (Kirszner & Mandell, The Brief Holt Handbook) "With some singular nouns that end in -s, pronouncing the possessive ending as a separate syllable can sound awkward; in such cases, it is acceptable to use just an apostrophe." So looks like everyone's right. -Shearonink (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But does it say which are awkward? The source I pointed to did not point out examples. TEDickey (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the 's is awkward when used with Cornwallis, because it turns the pronunciation into "Cornwallis-is", but that's exactly my point...according to the sources I consulted, neither version is more correct than the other, it's a matter of personal preference and opinion. Personally, I think saying "Jesus-is" for the possessive of that person sounds awkward to me. --Shearonink (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that most people don't bother to pronounce the "'s" as a syllable, but simply give "s's" emphasis. TEDickey (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as this are not very friendly to new editors, and I encourage you to assume good faith when there is no evidence of any inappropriate action. Bridgears' edits (all three of them) were entirely appropriate and well sourced. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]