User talk:DEddy

Welcome!

Hello, DEddy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a counter-source, you can certainly present it and cite it as coming from that source. However, you cannot replace one POV entirely with another, stating it as fact, without even citing the source directly. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg - I thought I listed the counter-source (JMKeynes' "The Economic Consequences of the Peace"). One does need to know a tremendous amount of additional history--particularly the cluster of pre-Keynsians (Harry Dexter White & Lauchlin Currie being amongst the most prominent & well known) who went through Harvard's economics program in the 1920s & 1930s.

Plus... I'm confused as to why the reference to the recent Bruce Craig book "Treasonable Doubt" was removed. If the reference to that Ladd/FBI memo is citable, then surely a peer reviewed book (something the Ladd memo was NOT subjected to) is an acceptable reference? Confused... DEddy 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg - While it is on my wish list to eventually plow through the "Morgenthau Diaries" books to see what was said about various issues that White is alleged to have done... but these books are about as boring as they come. 3 pages max & out go the lights (sleep!) DEddy 01:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test of deliberately adding incorrect information worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. - MSTCrow 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DEddy: please justify your (false) claim that White was not indicted by the US Senate. one appropriate place to do that would be the Talk section of the Morgenthau Plan page. Senate records directly contradict you.Bdell555 03:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(is this right, commenting on my own comment page?) Bdell555 when was White indicted by the Senate? Reference please. He died in August 1948, 4 days after TESTIFYING to a Committee. DEddy 12:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post on the talk page not the user page but the talk page and not the user page do you understand? Ironplay 23:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem! Thanks for mentioning it. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DEddy - I was working on Treasury in the 1940s and the early history of the IMF and came across Coe's testimony (it was nominally part of the devaluation of the Schilling in 1949). Never having read testimony from McCarthy hearings, I was amazed. It also amazed me that the Wikipedia article and so much of the literature out there - even 60 years after the fact - are primarily anti-Communist and do not seek to understand the subtlety of the situation or weighing any of the facts. (Indeed, some of the literature paints a picture of Treasury as being led by a witless Morgenthau who is surrounded by Communist sympathizers.) I don't have an opinion on the matter - I just want the facts presented. Best wishes- Hariboa (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to talk directly... my email is

If you want to see something way over the top, read the reviews of M. Stenton Evans's "Blacklisted by History" Just make sure you have a barf bucket handy when you read the reviews. DEddy (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't intersperse your answers into another editors postings. It makes it hard to work out where their postings end and yours being. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't what these ":" indentation symbols are for? I've been using indentation as a threaded discussion style for many years.

How else would you suggest making comments? At the end of someone else's post? DEddy (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly how to do it. You add your comments at the end of another person's post, not in the middle of it. If you want to reply to a specific point in the person's post then please quote what they said and then add your reply.

The indentations do allow a kind-of threaded style, but you should still treat each post as an indivisible item. Thanks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The indentations do allow a kind-of threaded style, but you should still treat each post as an indivisible item. I strongly disagree. Posting at the end is fine for a short post, but when responding to a long post, interspersing responses in the original post is a better way of doing it. DEddy (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue like that if you like. It's not a rule. But I warn you, people will get annoyed. The trouble is that after you've split up a post, and someone has replied to your reply, it can get very difficult to work out who wrote the first post, since their signature is now four or five posts lower down. You may find people rearranging your posts. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I warn you, people will get annoyed. People get annoyed about all sorts of stuff in cyberspace. DEddy (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that I've nominated the Information crisis article for deletion - I noticed you described it as "trash" on the talk page, so if you've got anything to add to the AfD discussion, you can find it here. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allo. :) The discussion over any article are meant to be discussed in the talk page of each particular article and not in the discussion page of individual members. So I will start a discussion in Harry Dexter White talk page. See you there. :) Vapour (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably not "acceptable" per se but then not many people bother with the External Links section so you might get away with it. ;) Vapour (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alger Hiss and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

CJK (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on my talk page to the question you asked me there (or complaint you lodged, however you meant it). Hint: pleases and thank yous make editing more pleasant for everyone. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DEddy, please continue reading through the instructions I took the time to write out for you. Please read them carefully and try to perform each step as described, opening the history on a new page while following my instructions another. Yopienso (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to you on my talk page. Do you know how to create a watchlist? If you click the little star icon at the top of any page (right beside the little heart) it will turn blue, indicating you are "watching" that page. Then, when anybody edits that page, you can see it on your watchlist. Here's a 4-min. video about watchlists. Yopienso (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section I created was not "useless sarcasm." It was a valid and witty addition to the page that should be included as an intelligent addition to the field of naming conventions. Also note that this follows the tradition of: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Phantom_rings&redirect=no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panty_raid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16 Please undo your harmful edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddenker (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass. There's enough silly nonsense rattling around the software field... injecting subtle humor does not clear the fog. DEddy (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are historians. If you note the category tree, they are now in the category Category:20th-century American historians, because the main category is getting too cluttered. That's all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. You removed the book I added (Operation Snow) to Harry Dexter White’s page. The book is published by a Simon & Schuster imprint so I’m curious what you take issue with it? Thanks! Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regnery Press is part of Simon & Schuster? My objection to using Koster's "Operation Snow" as a reference is that it has no footnotes. DEddy (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, my language was imperfect but Simon & Schuster and Regnery are indeed engaged and in a worldwide distribution agreement as of January 2018, as illustrated here. Despite the book having no footnotes, it includes a five page “Note on Sources” and an extensive 14-page bibliography, including interviews, archival material, manuscripts, periodicals, films, and interviews. This seems to be more than adequate to meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion in a “further reading” section, doesn’t it? Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You want more as to the "quality" of Koster's "research?" In the body of the book, he quotes someone I knew, yet there's no bibliographic mention of the person quoted. Is that the sort of reference you want to represent Wikipedia standards? DEddy (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Sorry I got mad at you over Alger Hiss.

CJK (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Year 2000 problem; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DEddy. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Year 2000 problem, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter >> I am suggesting an alternate route. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC) <<

Thank you for pointer to additional avenue. Will see how well it works. DEddy (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter >> Hello, DEddy. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Year 2000 problem, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:<<

What in Heaven's name are you talking about here? What "conflict of interest?" I am a living person & I wish to remove mention of me from this article. DEddy (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the issue. I have chosen to step back as I understand the problem. I suspect that you could be blocked or the article could be locked if you continue on the current path.

We have a few pages you might like to read: WP:AUTOPROB and WP:BLPCOMPLAINT. At the heart of the issue for me is whether the sources are actually reliable or not. These two http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/y2k/a2.html and http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/y2k/notebook.html are possibly reliable. This does not seem to be http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/index.html but http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1999-12-22/news/9912220295_1_y2k-term-masters certainly is, and the content is clear. AUTOPROB seems to be addressed so you cannot rely on them. Now the question is whether you can have yourself removed, so you will have to rely on the BLPCOMPLAINT process. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, this is addressed to me.

The conflict you have is that you are trying to remove information about yourself from an article in which you are mentioned. It would be one thing if the information were either incorrect or if it were from sources that were not reliable, but as I pointed out above, that is not the case. So now you have to determine another way of expunging yourself from the article. I provided you one way above. There may be others. Since other editors are now involved (and apparently other editors are watching the article) trying to remove the paragraph again will likely not end well (block or lock), which is why I am suggesting an alternate route. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter... thank you for pointing me in a different direction. Hopefully Wikipedia is "wise" enough to accomodate personal & family security issues. DEddy (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]