User talk:Tedickey/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tedickey. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Regarding RJ TextEd

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)}

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

Chesapeake Bay

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Al Zampa page

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)

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)

Recent edits in Flex and Bison pages

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)

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

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)

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

Regarding history entry of a nonnotable removal

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)

Amish deletion

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)

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

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)

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)

Citation Needed for Gray Code Lede

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)

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)

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)

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

Edit summary: awai

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Siege of Yorktown & possessives...

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please don't bite people

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)

sure TEDickey (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Visual Basic

Here is your reference:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa227231(v=VS.60).aspx

Visual Basic was the best selling programming language *by far*, 10x or more than any other

I'll let you restore the text & reference

DesmondW (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC).

Your edits said a lot more than is in that source. If you would like to "restore" the text, you'll need sources for the other 80-90% of the edit. TEDickey (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You have no right to remove text, that is vandalism. I shall restore it, you may add "citation needed"DesmondW (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC).

It's optional. Anyone can remove text which is unsourced. I do that when it's unlikely that the editor will be able (or willing) to provide a reliable source that supports each statement made in the edit. You're welcome to support your edits by finding suitable sources for them TEDickey (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall report you for vandalism, your respones and decoration of my contribution are childishDesmondW (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC).

The topic's discussion page is a suitable place for your comments TEDickey (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Test edits?

I don't know what test edits you are talking about. All I did on those talk pages was to add an ACW importance tag to those US Wikiprojects. If you don't want me to do that kind of stuff, then you are more than welcome to do it yourself. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw split lines, text removed without change comments. TEDickey (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

If you don't know how to use commas and apostrophes then please stay in your seat. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but your edit spliced together two complete (and distinct) sentences with a comma. TEDickey (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidently, your English comprehension skills are lacking. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Clyton

I spent a lot of time adding that information about the Clyton email client, and I don't appreciate you removing it. Clyton is a better email client than most of those others. Please put the information back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grozo (talk • contribs) 19:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the last one to revert it. By the way, you have not addressed any of the concerns by other editors. If you had followed the advice given, there would be a topic page on which to discuss its (non)notability rather than making hostile comments on editor's talkpages TEDickey (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What concerns? Who are you to say that a commercial software program is not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grozo (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines, with which you should be familiar, having edited here for several years. However, in case you overlooked it accidentally, take a close look at WP:Notability, and the other related guidelines TEDickey (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Re your recent rvv at Amish, Twinkle doesn't seem to be automatically warning IP users, so that has to be done manually. --Lexein (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your user name

Sorry for asking that, but your user name suggests me that you might happen to be the current Lynx maintainer. Are you? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes - the topic has come up 2-3 times. As far as I'm aware, my changes (and recommendations) are within the guidelines TEDickey (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I only wanted to thank you for a great piece of software. The compliance of your actions with Wikipedia guidelines seems fairly evident for me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TEDickey (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Comparison_of_text_editors

I am curious about why you have removed EditPad Lite and EditPad Pro from the Comparison_of_text_editors page. Your comment was, "removed advertisement - see also WP:WTAF", however my original submission was neither an advertisement nor a wikilinked article. I see that WP:WTAF refers to wikilinked items, but I don't see any such items in my submission. Must a text editor have its own Wikipedia page before being included in the comparison of text editors? Thank you. tsmith35 (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no topic (see WP:WTAF). By the way, that was not the first addition of the material. If it is notable, you might consider making a topic for it. TEDickey (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So an editor must have its own topic (if it is considered notable) prior to being included in the Comparison_of_text_editors page? Or am I misunderstanding what you meant? tsmith35 (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

yes. The comparison-of topics have ongoing problems with nonnotable and/or unsourced material added TEDickey (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you. I will take the time to provide these editors with a topic over the coming week or two. I have been using EditPad Lite for several years and find it to be a useful alternative for UltraEdit under some circumstances. Would you recommend that I combine both versions of EditPad into a single topic? tsmith35 (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Combining them sounds like the best way to proceed. If you found that there were a lot of (third-party) sources that treated them differently, then at some point it might improve the discussion to split the topic TEDickey (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the two versions are typically reviewed together by third-party sources, so a combined topic should be sufficient. Thank you for your help. tsmith35 (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

no problem TEDickey (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations

You've apparently accused me of being a sock puppet, I'm not one, and I don't appreciate the accusation. You apparently have a history (···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)) of being hostile and unreasonable, please don't direct your poor attitude in my direction. Thanks. Thelastgopher (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the investigation is to determine if the evidence supports my observation. Have a nice day TEDickey (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reason for deletion

I added a pertinent piece of information to the Three-Fifths Compromise article and it was deleted by you. I wish to know the correct method of assimilating the information I added into the article. Please explain it simply in your own words to help facilitate a better understanding. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggypowe (talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The statement as presented does not say (a) who held that opinion, (b) who it was reported by, (c) when that opinion was widespread enough to be commented on in the topic. Points a-c need a WP:RS such as a historian (if not current) or a news media article focusing on the opinion if it is current events (to help avoid WP:OR constructing a source from offhand or ill-informed commenters) TEDickey (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Banning an IP adress for advertising

This particular IP Adress is entirely dedicated to to promoting David Hein's books and in a few cases, deleting criticism of Hein's books - going back to 2009! I'm not familiar with the procedure of banning an IP because of advertising, so i was wondering if you could advice me how to go about this. Thanks in advance,--Macarenses (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

David Hein has been active for quite a while (and that is one of the IP's that he's used). So far I've simply reverted those, referring to self-promotional edits. Seems that for anonymous-IP's who are not editing frequently, there's not much to be done (particularly when most of the IP's are from a school, as in this instance). He's also used logged-in users (but as I recall, not recently). If one collated the various edits and found that across different addresses he's more active than I recall, then that could make a good case for a block in the WP:Sockpuppet area TEDickey (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note similarities

Zakim Bridge revert versus Chesapeake BB revert

Are these two accounts sockpuppets? - Denimadept (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. Wait'll he notices the bridges they're building in Dallas. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

They're similar enough for me to assume they're related (could be a class assignment). TEDickey (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I like your idea of a class assignment, and am performing these reverts with that idea in mind. There's a bunch of them: Golden Gate Bridge, Zakim Bridge (twice so far), Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940), and probably more. - Denimadept (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If they were to create a page on "structural art", or maybe more to the point, on architecture, that'd not be an issue. But critique of this sort is opinion at best, IMHO. - Denimadept (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

True, a page on "structural art" might find some useful WP:RS, but without that, it's some type of WP:OR TEDickey (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:Isampso1. I wonder if we want to speak with the teacher/prof. - Denimadept (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Isamso1 expected the change to be reverted. That can be taken in more than one way. How would you contact the instructor ? TEDickey (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ask the student(s) to have them contact you or me on our talk page, p'raps. - Denimadept (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there's already an article on structural art. And the Zakim bridge has been hit again. Hertz1888 reverted it. I've invited him here. - Denimadept (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your diagnosis of a class project rings true. If the problem continues, I would ask the contributor(s) to read WP:FORUM item 3, in particular, and WP:OR. I'll continue keeping an eye on the Zakim article. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Bartram's Covered Bridge is another instance that followed the same pattern. I reverted most of the addition and left the writer a talk page message. Perhaps the remainder should be reverted too, but it is well written and partially sourced, and with some additional sourcing (if available), could be beneficial. A second opinion wouldn't hurt. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I may have stuck my nose into something here that is bigger than I thought. On the other hand, I still think that "Don't Bite the Newbies" is a very good idea. I'm surprised that Bartram's Covered Bridge fits in with this group - there are probably 300 better known bridges in Pennsylvania that might be worked on. As far as structural art - we all might just be getting a bit old, if we think that bridges are just about carrying loads etc., my take is that they are deconstructing construction sites. Smallbones (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. We've been reverting these for the last few days. It's all WP:FORUM item 3, WP:OR, and lack of citations. I'm trying to get one or more of them to get their instructor to come to this thread. - Denimadept (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted a lot of these too. According to the user page of one of the editors it is a class assignment for mechanical engineering students at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.—Jeremy (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You removed OSS hints in Bourne Shell

You removed a hint on OSS that even was proven by a quote. I urge you to undo your unfrindly edit immediately. --Schily (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tag Moves

I am an infrequent visitor and don't feel I should be bothered by tags. I think they should be moved to talk pages (except for POV tags, which are obviously important for visitors to be notified of) after a certain amount of article inactivity. Could you propose this to the WP community for me? I don't have an account. I'll stop moving tags, and it would be really nice to see this happen someday. Cheers. 67.41.240.159 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Some information on what led me to this idea is on the Simple English wiki. To be honest, I don't know where that proposal ever when. Here is the information. 67.41.240.159 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The link that you pointed to is not reflected in the guidelines, and is a talk-page comment for one of the millions of topics. The common practice is to put templates where they're used TEDickey (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Then I suppose other users will become annoyed and do exactly what I had been doing. Cheers. 67.41.240.159 (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a very rare occurrence. TEDickey (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

One of which I will not continue to be. All the same, it happens (I've seen others doing the same thing.) I guess that's not enough for some people to recognize it as a problem. 67.41.240.159 (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't recall the last occurrence (if there were any). From my point of view, it's rare TEDickey (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of AAU schools as prominent schools in Southeastern United States

The America Association of Universities is regarded by nearly everyone as the most elite group of higher education schools in the nation. Schools that aren't in the AAU try tirelessly to gain acceptance. And there is well-documented evidence of sports conferences fighting over AAU schools because having one in their conference gives lends more credibility. Only America's and Canada's most accomplished and transparent universities are invited to join. I simply mentioned which schools in the Southeast are members of this fraternity. To delete it as "promotional," while ignoring the biased listing of universities in the 1st paragraph and the entire 2nd paragraph of the section that is NOTHING but promotional, smacks of the apparent envy that you did not attend one of these institutions. This isn't only relevant information but the most relevant information of all that is listed and I have added it back on; but took away the reference to the AAU's significance so you will not have any grounds for jealousy. If you are jealous your school isn't on the list, expect more from it; but this is pertinent information. Tonchibear (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's self-selected, not an award or honor as your edits (more than) hinted. That makes it promotional. Other relevant tagging would be "puffery" and "peacock" TEDickey (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

How is it self-selected? Why don't you look up what the AAU is. To be accepted IS a honor. I included a link originally that detailed how schools are fighting to get into it. Any school would love if it could just join, but they can't. It is an invite-only organization. That is pretty much a de facto definition of a honor. Tonchibear (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I take it from your remarks (which have been rather snide) that you're promoting your own interests. Have a nice day. TEDickey (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The section was about "prominent" universities in the Southeast. The AAU is in my opinion, and you will find in most people's opinions, a standard of prominence for American universities. For you to delete this while ignoring other demonstrations of prominence, and pretty obvious promotion of specific universities, is more evidence of your ego rather than any I have. You selectively deleted information that didn't favor your opinions, while leaving in information (that met a lower standard) that must be assumed did favor your opinions. That is biased and wrong. Facts stand alone, regardless of emotion. I offered facts. Tonchibear (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of North Dakota railroads, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No - my edits reverted vandalism; yours restored the vandal's edits. TEDickey (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Maryland and the first days of the Civil War

Dear Tedickey,

I wrote:

"Federal military units marching through Baltimore were attacked by snipers. The infamous local gang, the Plug Uglies were blamed. When Baltimore cut the telegraph lines to Washington and an iron railbridge was destroyed by the citizens of Baltimore, the federal government was isolated in Washington D.C.. President Lincoln's initial promise not to let the northern defenders of the acutely endangered federal capitol march through Maryland forced them to take a slow route by ship^[1]."

I agree that the source is not the best refference but the facts are confirmed by other sources and the novel is well documented. I am currently reading several books about Lincoln and his period (Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln by Vidal, Sherman etc.) The problems that Maryland and Baltimore caused the beleaguered government of Abraham Lincoln in those early days of the Civil War seemed noteworthy to me. Don't you agree?

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC) (Netherlands)

The linked topic for plug-uglies doesn't have a WP:RS for this; and Vidal's books are not well-known for their historical accuracy so much as for their contemporary (20th century) political commentary. The plug-uglies page is under-sourced, as well (the Baltimore Riot page is better, though it too needs work) - TEDickey (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

[1] mentions the bridge, [2] gives details of the fighting between civilians and the 6th Mass. regiment. No Plug Uglies mentioned though, so it was "just a mob" of seccessionists. Robert Prummel (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That's consistent with Baltimore riot of 1861 TEDickey (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Three-Fifths Compromise

You recently reverted a link I added that directly corroborated content in the article, Three Fifths Compromise. The article's first section I added the link to is devoid of inline citations. I added one. The content in the article section is sound, and I simply added a link to a reliable source that substantiates the content in the article section. Why was it reverted? Ziggypowe (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggypowe (talk • contribs) 01:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For the reason stated: the link does not point to content that satisfies any attribute of WP:RS. The content is an overview to various topics, rather than to the specific topic. By its nature, the overview will be volatile. TEDickey (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Attempts to make the Potomac River navigable

Hello, Tedickey. You have new messages at Edspies's talk page.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied on that page TEDickey (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Suspension bridges

Hi, I can understand why you reverted my change to the Suspension bridge, but it seems to me that a complete reversion is not needed. The reason I say this is that I think the information I posted is accurate, and I don't think you reverted it because you think it is not accurate, but rather because you think it is unsourced. If this is the case, you can just tag it as unsourced, and I would not mind. The source that remains backs up the assertion that it once was the longest steel high-level bridge in the world. The length that I changed was the combination of all the high spans added together. The assertion in the cited source did not mean to say that it was the longest main-span. It never was. Rather, they were talking about the entire length of all the spans in the double suspension bridge. I suspect that the San Francisco museum site was unaware that anything longer had ever been built. It is also seems self-evident that the Great Seto Bridge is longer, as it has two connected suspension bridges that were modeled after the SF Bay Bridge and is just a little bit longer if you add it up. So yes, it may be unsourced, and the result of some basic math "original research", but I don't think it is inaccurate. So if you don't mind, I'd like to put it back the way I had it with an "unsourced" tag if you'd like, and leave it that way until a third party source can be found. Now, if my assumption of your intent is not correct, and you think that it statement is in fact incorrect, I'd love to hear why you think so. Thanks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The usual way for comparing bridges is the longest main-span. Introducing a series of spans and totaling them is not the usual way. Preferably the no-longer-longest comment would be sourced to a comparison that relates the successive lengths, rather than to a single example which may or may not be the one which did exceed the length. Given the construction made on the sources, your edit veers into WP:OR TEDickey (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ericom Software

Tedickey,

Ericom Software was privatized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitvipper (talk • contribs) 23:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The history section in the topic isn't much use. Perhaps rather than making solely promotional edits, you might consider improving it. TEDickey (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Watergate scandal - See also

Hi Teickey. I saw your contributions to the Watergate scandal article[3] and would like your review of a post I made there. I expanded the See also section with other Watergate articles.[4] Some of these might be POV forks or not meeting WP:GNG and ready for AfD. Would you mind looking over that See also list and either list the ones ready for AfD at AfD or let me know which ones you think should be at AfD (I'll AfD list them). Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Offhand:

Worse than Watergate is incidental (there must be hundreds in this area)
Watergate timeline needs more sources. A single-source topic needing work.
Watergate Seven, same problem - only one source
Watergate complex this is already linked in the lede
Watergate burglaries as noted, it contains WP:OR
Watergate Babies, single-source
United States Senate Watergate Committee linked more than once in the topic.

As a rule, I'd not use see-also to point to weak topics TEDickey (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I revised some of the above articles. I didn't see any that qualified for AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

However, they are weak (one source gives one opinion). See WP:SEEALSO for guidance. "Comprehensive" doesn't mean linking every trivial or tangential topic in that section. Most are not relevant, particularly when their coverage is (as in the cited examples) poor. TEDickey (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!

	Thank You!
	Thanks for your help....you make Wikipedia a better place!

RDN1F TALK 20:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

oprofile cn in Profiling_(computer_programming)

Which kind of cn is needed here: diff? I have several at the moment, google books search and

A. Zanella, R. Arnold. Evaluate performance for Linux on POWER. Analyze performance using Linux tools, 12 Jun 2012 // IBM DeveloperWorks Technical library. Quotation: "The two most commonly-used tools for PCM profiling on Linux are OProfile and perf" `a5b (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The Book of Xen (ISBN 978-1-59327-186-2), page 151: "OProfile is probably the most popular profiling package for Linux" `a5b (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And possible cn for full list:

[5] "Commonly used performance tools that use event-based sampling include OProfile, PAPI, Apple Shark, Intel VTune, and AMD CodeAnalyst." `a5b (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

so finish the job by writing a topic establishing notability. A non-notable (no-topic) item has no reason to be in the list TEDickey (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding ColonialAmerica.com

Hi Tedickey. A quick question regarding the removal of the colonialamerica.com link in the article on Colonial American history. I believe you noted it as spam. If the site were all about selling ginsu knives or something else completely irrelevant to colonial American history I'd totally understand the spam label but, in fact, the site has lots of content relating to Colonial America (articles, historic markers, historic sites, historic ads, etc.) And yes, there is advertising, just as there is on another website that is listed: Archiving Early America.

What is the rationale by which Archiving Early America is not spam but ColonialAmerica.com is?

see WP:OTHERSTUFF TEDickey (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just noting the definition of spam on wikipedia:

"Spam is the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited BULK messages, especially advertising, INDISCRIMINATELY."

1) ColonialAmerica.com is not sent/posted, etc in BULK.
2) ColonialAmerica.com was not posted INDISCRIMINATELY. A site with historical content relating to Colonial America, I would argue, is relevant to Colonial America.

Could you clarify in what way ColonialAmerica.com is "spam" that Archiving Early America isn't? A brief sentence to this specific situation would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.244.90 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Colonial America was added indiscriminately to several topics. Attacking other sources is non-constructive, and a digression TEDickey (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Every topic ColonialAmerica.com was added to had relevance. For example, it was added to the American Revolution. Currently, among other things, we have on the site George Washington's account of the Battle of Monmouth.

It's not my intention to attack other sources at all. I just want to understand the rationale for why Archiving Early America is listed but ColonialAmerica.com is not. Both have historical content and both have ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.244.90 (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:EL TEDickey (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In any case, it's no more "spam" than Archiving Early America. No bulk posting. No indiscriminate posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.244.90 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that you've agreed your edits are unconstructive TEDickey (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I've just resigned myself to the fact that nothing will change. It would helpful if you provided a link to an article on Wikipedia that explains how something that isn't bulk and isn't indiscriminate is still spam. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.244.90 (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I pointed to guidelines, repeatedly (WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:EL are starting points - WP:SPAM also is useful, noting that each of these has links to related guidelines such as Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING) TEDickey (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate your patience as I get into the Wiki mindset. A last question: as mentioned earlier on our website we have George Washington's account of the Battle of Monmouth as reported from the Royal American Gazette, July 14, 1778. Would that be regarded as useful or not to the wiki article on the Battle of Monmouth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.244.90 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Amethyst and Ruby In Steel IDEs

Edits adding sapphiresteel, etc

Why did you remove the information on IDEs? I entered all the correct information on both IDEs which are quite long established but currently are not listed among the ActionScript and Ruby IDEs. The information added was simply factual and contained no promotional copy so I am unsure why you deleted it.

Best wishes Huw Collingbourne —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia topic for any of that content; notability is not established. See for example WP:WTAF, WP:Notability, WP:EL TEDickey (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Undo on Comparison of file managers

Hi Tedickey, I recently added 2 file managers to Comparison of file managers. You reverted to the prior revision, due to WP:EL. You must be right, but I do not know who I could have made my edit properly. Instead of adding ext. links I could have created new articles for those file managers and probably insert ext. links there. But that seems polluting Wikipedia to me. Why to create an entire new article about an n+1 Norton Commander clone, even if it is a pretty nice piece of work. What is the proper method in such case? Gerbolya (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Undo on List of multiple Olympic medalists

Hi Tedickey, I had recently added a portion to the aforementioned page regarding Michael Phelps achievement. I would like to ingeminate here what I had written: "Phelps’ unique physical structure and mathematical probabilities indicate that he may most likely remain the most decorated Olympian of all time. ^[2]". You have undone the change stating that it is "certainly not from knowledgeable source". Allow me to inform you that being a journalist, I am very well aware of what "source" is and where it should be used. The article only intends to express a possibility why Phelps "may" remain the Greatest Olympian Ever which is in every way a journalistic piece. It has no need of any "knowledgeable source" being based on logical grounds in itself.

The same goes for the pages Fareed Zakaria and Plagiarism. Both of them contain a viewpoint which cannot be anyway denied from publication or distribution. Plagiarism is a very common thing in the media world and if you are not aware of that, then you are definitely not a media person. The reason stated in the article has a logical ground which is undeniable.

The articles appeared to have been (and based on your comments) were probably written by you. If you were a journalist, you might know something about providing WP:RS. Bloggists aren't qualified. Have a nice day. TEDickey (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Undo on Voltaire

I noticed that you undid my edit on Voltaire, without an explanation. I added my undid your revert. Please add an explanation next time.Slushy9 (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I recall that one - it did more than one thing (changing capitalization without regard for source, introduced unsourced material, etc). Seems that you are doing a lot of that - please read the guidelines TEDickey (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Undo on AWK

Please see on Talk:AWK. 128.226.130.73 (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Branson, Missouri

Thanks for adding the source for a similar nickname. I was looking for one on the one I had but had an appointment to make so I couldn't finish it. Quidam65 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

no problem TEDickey (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted edit

You reverted my edit here for the reason that it was "not an improvement". I have remade the edit because as it stood the use of asterisks was ambiguous: once they were used to indicate which delegates did not sign the final draft of the Constitution and an asterisk was also used to emphasise that Rhode Island sent no delegates. I suspect this was originally a markup error and was intended to be a bullet point. 128.250.94.230 (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Linkback to Zentyal on similar solutions

Hi Tedickey, I am involved with the Zentyal Community and I added some links to pages that describe similar solutions like Zentyal. For instance on the SME Server page. Here you reverted the backlink to Zentyal. There are several other page where I added the Zentyal link (in the 'See also' section) where I think Zentyal should be mentioned as an alternative or implementation of the software described. As you can see on the zentyal page, there are also links to those projects. Please reconsider your moderation. I will be more than glad to give advice and explanation on technical issues regarding the software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.236.212.67 (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I realize I posted before logging in. Above post was mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.bosch (talk • contribs) 12:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tedickey, I didn't receive back any feedback from you. Anyway, I will revert back the moderations you made on the wikipages similar Operating systems and distributions as Zentyal. I hope you can agree with me that those links are no spam and should point from Zentyal wikipage to the other Operating systems and vice versa. I certainly don't want to start a yes/no debate, but in these cases, I think your moderation was too fast executed. Please comment back so we can solve the matter. For now, I will revert the obvious moderations on pages like SME_Server etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.bosch (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

hmm - not a good move. You've acknowledged a conflict of interest, and have been spamming your way across topics some of which are unrelated to the topic you're promoting without attempting to address more than one editor's concerns about your actions. By the way, there are lots of guidelines which you might get around to reading sometime. Start with WP:Civil TEDickey (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please elaborate why you think the topics I have added backlinks to the Zentyal wikipediapage are not related to the Zentyal page or project? IMO they are related and are similar solutions. That is why, again IMO, they should be linked back and forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.bosch (talk • contribs) 22:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that you ignored my advice. Continue then with your role in this discussion TEDickey (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see what you are trying to do except hindering additional info on Zentyal project related wikipedia pages. I reverted your edit on List_of_router_or_firewall_distributions : see the website zentyal website for correct naming.

Please point me to what I am doing wrong when editing. A bit of help in here is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.bosch (talk • contribs) 10:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edits so far have consisted solely of promoting (advertising) Zentyal. There's no need for that, and many people will revert those as they notice them. TEDickey (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nikolai Bezroukov removed tags

Hi, You recently reverted my deletion of tags from the article "Nikolai Bezroukov". The reason I did this is that I added two references to textbooks discussing his articles-- the lack of such references was the reason for the tags, I thought. In any case, I probably should have described that better in the summary box.

,Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.169.211 (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Extended ASCII

Hello, I do not understand the rational of your revert on Extended ASCII.

12:52, 28 October 2012‎ Tedickey (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (8,074 bytes) (-3,231)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 86.75.160.141 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by 84.100.0.8. (TW)) (undo)

In what is it a potential vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.75.160.141 (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The result (here at least) looked like a set of random deletes/inserts - an incomplete edit perhaps TEDickey (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing on Internet Explorer

Hi Tedickey, as a new user, I just want to thank you for reverting (undoing) the change on the English Internet Explorer page. Nice to know that there are (a lot of) good people out there taking care of the project. /PatrikN (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

no problem TEDickey (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits on C preprocessor

I wonder why you reverted this edit on C preprocessor? It seems a valid addition in my opinion, and definitely not spam. --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See [6] for context. That's someone advertising a book which hasn't been reviewed, etc. TEDickey (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As a rule, there's no need to advertise new books which merely restate well-known features supported in the existing WP:RS TEDickey (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so not the best reference but material is useful? As you state it is well-known and may be found in the pre-existing references. Why not just simply remove the reference and leave the content? Your deletionist attitude is making wikipedia quite annoying for newcomers. --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

More than one point here: (a) contentwise, recall that Wikipedia is not a repository of knowledge; there is no need to make it a cut/paste of everything from everywhere (b) snide comment about "deletionist" is uncivil. If you have a different opinion about something, labeling isn't a polite way to proceed, and discredits your remarks. Rather, focus on the existing guidelines. TEDickey (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits on ADM3a

You reverted the addition of a link to historical memory prices; I'd added this because the article has a citation-needed for "RAM was expensive". 11::, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.232.238 (talk)

That was an external link without connection to the topic, did not mention ADM3a anywhere.. TEDickey (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits on United States

Have referenced, as requested. The information is hard to come by but it IS factual, I can assure you, which is why I am persisting to include the edit. Lactical (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2012 (GMT)

That's not a constructive comment. If you have no WP:RS, and the information is not WP:NPOV, then the alternative is to regard your edits as vandalism TEDickey (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How is it vandalism? How is it not neutral?! It is a constructive comment which states that some states, though included in the 'still have the death penalty' have, in fact, not used it since Furman or even since Gregg. The reference demonstrates this and there is no reason for you to remove it. There is clearly no vandalism and the point is backed up and fairly made? Come on? Lactical (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2012 (GMT)

Exaggeration, for instance is found in WP:Soapbox edits. Your source doesn't match the statement; a better source is needed (or else change the statement to match the given source). TEDickey (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The content is not for advocacy, opinion, scandal mongering, self-promotion or advertising. It was not exaggeration by intention, I will try to find a better source. EDIT: I have found a specific list of all executions since 1976 and you can feel free to skim through it to check my statement, which is now fully verified. If you wish to challenge the legitimacy of the source that is another matter. As it is a governmental website, much more reputable than most sources on wiki, I beg to differ. Hope that's ok - just trying to contribute knowledge! Lactical (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2012 (GMT)

Categories Wild West, Wild west shows

Please see my proposal to upmerge or rename the categories Category:Wild West and Category:Wild west shows. Hugo999 (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

They're distinct. Category:Wild west shows should be a subcategory of Category:Wild West TEDickey (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Diff Edits

I added a small piece to the Diff entry mentioning a free text compare utility on the website diff-text.com. The software is free and I disagree the entry was promotional. The entry was only factual. The facts can easily determined by anyone within a few minutes, by comparing diff-text.com to other text compare utilities. Simply get a large body of text. Then cut out a paragraph and move it up or down. If you like re-order the sentences in it or change a few words. See what diff-text.com does and what another free compare utility does. I believe diff-text.com uses a new type of algorithm that handles moves in a better and systematic way. I believe in its own small way diff-text.com is a original contribution to computer science diff algorithms.

- Please justify why my entry is not entirely factual. If you cannot justify why the entry is not TRUE AND FACTUAL

then please stop removing my small change. **

If what you are doing is good, then you must be able to defend your actions in writing. If an entry is purely factual then it is not promotional. No hype was mentioned. Simply the facts and the facts were brief at that.

I have compared diff-text.com with the compare functionality in Microsoft Word and other free tools.

Typically web-based free compare tools can't compare very large amounts of text. They quit with errors. diff-text.com works.

diff-text.com works in m log n time if detecting moves are not turned on. Many compare utilities work in quadratic time. When the text gets long, diff-text.com becomes much faster.

Microsoft Word is faster but in some cases fails to spot moves that diff-text.com does.

I am new to Wikipedia and would like a written justification for your actions.

Please try to understand that most compare utilities flag text movements incorrectly. They say a simple text movement is an addition or deletion. This is incorrect. diff-text.com fixes this old problem. Did you look at the diff-text screenshot? No other compare utility flags sentence re-ordering within a paragraph. diff-text marks movements with blue and gray colors.

Suppose a book author is writing a large book. His or her editor wants to know what has been changed. It is important for the editor to know what has really been added versus what has simply been re-ordered.

diff-text.com is a better compare tool with regards to flagging movements evenhandedly and systematically. How can I add this to the diff page that would satisfy you? As I said above anyone can verify what diff-text.com does directly for themselves within a few minutes.

Marisa rain (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The "small" piece was placed and worded to advertise a product (which you have spent a few days highlighting its features without providing WP:NPOV connections to other topics). As a "new to Wikipedia" editor, you might start by reading WP:RS, WP:Notability, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, etc. TEDickey (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you should add new comments sequentially. As for persuading me (or others) of the merits of Diff-text, you need a radically different set of sources. The existing ones are (a) the developers/producers of the program, or (b) advertisements, or (c) comments by people whose knowledge of the topic can be easily challenged. TEDickey (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Marisa: what you are advocating is original research, something which we do not accept as a source for a Wikipedia article. Acceptable sources are impartial third parties who have an earned reputation as reliable sources of information. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

C++ exception handling

My response to your removing my edit was matching in tone to your comment declaring the paragraph a comment on coding style. This is like declaring the stl a coding style. Gehabt Dich wohl! Peter Foelsche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.176 (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

so if I claim somewhere that 1+1=2 I need to have sources? There was no opinion in my edit. It is all very basic and if you would have any clue about the subject you would agree. Peter Foelsche

It had no WP:RS and was mostly (hmm - 80%) opinion. Lacking a WP:RS, there was no point in keeping it. TEDickey (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You have no WP:RS. Start there. TEDickey (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)