User talk:Sensei48

/Archive 1

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for being the model of civility in the middle of chaos. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For improvements to the Death Penalty (NCAA) article Obamafan70 (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim. I've been keeping up and watching your edits on the KT page. Really getting fine-tuned! I've been spending my time on the John Fahey discography, starting with Blind Joe Death (which needs more work) and moving on up - using the new review format. I'll try get to updating and expanding the KT albums in due time. Best regards. Airproofing (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bruce - Sorry for the delayed reply and thanks for noticing! I'm trying to dot the i's etc. and may eventually push for FA status. I note your request for A status has been met with a thunderingly silent indifference. Which brings me to a kind of crochety old guy observation - seems like folks involved in the record-company creation of "roots music" have a blind spot to anything that happened before maybe 1980 - and even then they tend to accept only the Greenwich Village orthodoxy of what the roots are. If it ain't Lead Belly, Woody, Pete, the Weavers and then the big jump to Dylan and the bigger jump to the hybridizers that the aforementioned music companies call roots and Americana - then it just ain't worth knowing about. (I've been doing a lot of reading of No Depression online - a singularly clueless representation of "roots.)

What has excited this from me was the "low importance" categorizing that the roots music group here has given to John Fahey, an excellent article that you've done great work on - Fahey is a hell of a lot more than "low importance." [As was the KT rating until you upgraded it to mid - I could actually live with that low, given the KT's ambivalence to the whole folk thing - but Fahey???] Filk music and Tim Rose are high importance,more than Pete Seeger, Odetta, Tom Paxton, Jean Ritchie, and Cisco Houston, all of whom are mid. Sheesh.

Anyway, I hope that the Fahey article gets to GA when you're ready to have it reviewed. I'd help out but you know more of the KT than I do of Fahey, aside from my loving and appreciating his recordings. As for KT FA - a couple of points need expanding and explanation, and I need to clean up some of the grammar/punctuation inconsistencies that remain after the GA review. regards, ```` Jim

Hi Jim, I've been thinking the KT article should be FA too. I think an article can go past A right to FA though.

I've been reading Rainbow Quest... I'm not sure what to think of it yet... only up to early 1950s now. Fahey was of high importance for certain, esp. now that we have all these solo acoustic guitarists out there who follow his steps. He took the "arty" concept of the symphony, etc. and using the music people were dancing to in juke joints, parlors, etc. based a whole new genre on the combination. A real eccentric, but a true trailblazer. Airproofing (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions about how to improve my contribution. I was wondering if you could elaborate on how to improve my potential contribution. I am TDKFC2.

I recieved your message. It was informitive and helpful. I really appreciate it! I understand all of the flaws you have pointed out except for one. You said that I needed citations at certain places throughout the paragraph. However, my paragraph came from one article. Does that mean that I should put it multiple times or just once? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDKFC2 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message clarifying that. Actually, though, I don't think you need 'first' and 'second' - the second 'on' you added does it nicely! - Rothorpe (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the picture name conflict. With millions of pictures on the wiki, there must be many. When this has happened before, a warning has come up. I think I'm going to have to give future picture better names so less chance of another conflict. (Cyberia3 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for the information regarding the "ancillary material" I posted on the John Denver page. However, I am confused about the reason given, "relevant only if JD himself published or arranged them." It seems then as if a discography would be out of place on any recording artist's page too; after all, the record label publishes the albums, not necessarily the artist himself. I can understand elimination of arrangements of Denver's work, but would the sheet music warrant inclusion if it were limited to direct songbooks and transcriptions of albums? Mikeclm (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikeclm!

The problem with the songbooks as an addition to the JD article is the ancillary aspect. WP articles are supposed to deal with aspects of the topic's "notability." Songbooks and sheet music aren't notable (especially a selective list for which you don't offer a rationale - why these among the thousands of published pieces of JD's music?). The arrangements in the published music are crafted by professionals at the publishing companies - they are not an aspect of JD's work itself. Recordings, on the other hand, are exactly that - works created by the topic of the article and a major part of his notability.

Also, the matter of relevance and weight come into play. If you look at the article's history, you'll see that JD's brushes with the law and the court system for impaired driving were introduced to the article a couple of times and then removed by another editor as "non-notable." I'm not sure that I agree with that, but there hasn't been any movement to re-introduce it - and of course, both times were front page headline type stories. I raise this only because that was a rather high profile episode in JD's later life but not deemed significant enough for WP. While I am sure that the editor who took out the info was some outraged fan and hardly unbiased - I can see the point. If the drunk driving doesn't come in, then aspects of JD less related to him - like music published by others, or as a parallel example, what was in his investment portfolio - shouldn't be here either. Perhaps there is enough material there, though, for a separate and original article. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good find on the cn book cites. --Lexein (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sensei, your request is kindly requested. There was a really egregious case of vandalism whereby the editor claimed USC had received the death penalty. The user should get a warning. Obamafan70 (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Obamafan! I hadn't checked my watch list today and you are entirely correct - grammar and spelling are terrible, and USC's serious probation is in no way the death penalty. Unfortunately, I'm not an administrator and I can't block someone - so let me see if I ca find an appropriate vandalism template for our anonymous user. regards, 05:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be widely accepted to use cite book for Google Books, presumably because it supports fields such as ISBN. I would agree that in this case Cite journal might be better, however the difference between

• Cite web "Billboard Chart, 12/14/59". Retrieved August 17, 2010.
• Cite book Billboard Chart, 12/14/59. Retrieved August 17, 2010.
• Cite journal "Billboard Chart, 12/14/59". Retrieved August 17, 2010. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

is purely one of italicisation.

• Cite journal "The Billboard Top LP's". The Billboard. Littleford and Littleford: page 23. 14 December 1958. Retrieved August 17, 2010. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help)

Might actually by providing the page number and other information enable someone to find a paper copy of The Billboard (as it was then), I am a little puzzled that you say the article does this now.

As to the AMG question I can't see the cite you refer to.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. First, my mistake - the SmackBot revision [1] - identifies Billboard as a "book," not AMG. The page numbers are included in the URL, often inserted there by me to insure proper linkage; I had not thought to include the page number in the citation since it's visible when accessed.

I agree that the difference is minor, and if the bot is standardizing citation form here, I have no problem with it so long as the hyperlinks to GoogleBooks remain.

However, each time the bot went through, the resulting edit would contain a screaming red "citation error" in the reflist note 97 as here [[2]]; that is the one I re-edited manually. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a minor bug in WP:AWB, the particular reference was malformed in a harmless way, and it became malformed in a harmful way. I have fixed it up. Rich Farmbrough, 01:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! I saw that you were working through the article with some copy edits and figured that you'd know how to fix whatever malformation there was in the ref, bot-caused or not. Sensei48 (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued help on the RB/USC articles. It's getting pretty frequent now, unfortunately. Obamafan70 (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are OBF, and thanks back! Keeping a lot of the nonsense out of the CFB articles we both work on is getting to be a two-person job! regardsSensei48 (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Heisman Trust announced today that Reggie Bush's Heisman has been vacated. If you go to the list of winners, there is nothing listed for 2005. In fact, I went to the old Reggie Bush URL and I got a 404 not found. I'll go with your expertise on this one for how best to proceed. Obamafan70 (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right again. Time to let the changes stand. I rv'd the changes on the ND and USC fball sites and will correct them - carefully and objectively. Sensei48 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. What I would say though is that Kimberly Heinrichs view is no less valid than any other critic. The point being made in the article is that there are hugely contrasting views about King of Kings and Bazlen's work. Whereas contemporary critics tend to denigrate them, modern day critics are much more positive. Heinrichs view is an example of the latter. Who is right? Who knows and it is not the intention of the article to take sides. Everybody will have a different view. The article merely states that King of King's and Bazlen's work have been re-evaluated down the years with modern day critics taking a more positive view than contemporary critics. I have a lot more content to add in the coming months to this and will add further critical comment and references when I get around to it. I have no objections to amendments per se. However, it is my view having created this article and having done considerable research that reference to the re-evaluation of King of Kings and Bazlens work and the contrasting views of contemporary and modern day critics should be retained. As stated, it is not the job of the article to take sides and decide who is right. All that is being said is that modern day critics tend to be more positive than Bazlen's contemporaries. I would also point out that blogs are now a recognised modern day forum for film reviews. So long as its a serious and established blog, then just because somebody writes for it, it doesn't make their views any less valid than those of somebody who writes for a large newspaper or television show. I am aware of the need to source on Wikipedia and this article has plenty of them. Nevertheless, I respect your view on the need to add further references (which I already have, but which are buried under a whole load of other paperwork) and as and when I find further time, I shall certainly do so. I would also add that they not from the "Christian Press" which I never read wheresthatpenguin (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2010 (GMT). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheresthatpenguin (talk • contribs)

I thought you'd like to know that content you previously deleted as original research has been recently restored to this article. Oore (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! It's on my watchlist but your note is an immediate attention grabber. regardsSensei48 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance what can be sourced in that section can be restored? I know that at the very least the Kentucky, Alabama and Baylor sections can be sourced--I frequently read the NCAA infraction reports to source related articles. Blueboy96 13:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also discuss this on the talk page of the article. Obamafan70 (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, OBF...I'll reply here and then move the whole section to the death penalty Talk page.

Hi Blue - I think you deserve a commendation for doing this the right way, which is opening a dialogue rather than starting an edit war. Now, let me try to respond without repeating. I raised most of the relevant objections in the "fair warning" section on the death penalty Talk page, but perhaps we can look at those in a different way. Consider first the "lede" for the article:

The death penalty refers to the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) power to ban United States academic institutions from competing in certain sports...It has been implemented only five times...

Those are factual statements that can be sourced, which they are partially in the article.

Now let's look at the texts of the reverted sections, again from the ledes:

Due to the nature of the violations and the previous 1988 sanctions, the NCAA Committee on Infractions nearly imposed the "death penalty" on Kentucky, but decided against it after the school cooperated fully with the investigation.

Baylor was eligible for the "death penalty" since their tennis program had been put under probation in 2000. However, the committee decided not to issue the death penalty

The Alabama and USC sections are similarly inferential - and by its very definition, inference is original research, or WP:OR, which cannot be included in an article on Wikipedia. This extends especially to the USA Today "source" used for the Alabama section. The quotation from Thomas Yeager implies the possibility of the death penalty and includes a further implied threat - but then in violation of good journalistic practice (and USA Today would not be on anyone's list of credible WP:RS), writer Zenor draws his own conclusions and tries to pass them off as fact - "The governing body said it considered giving the Crimson Tide the most severe punishment — the death penalty ..." But that is NOT what the governing body said - the penalties as imposed are what the governing body said. Zenor is drawing a conclusion from what he thinks Yeager is implying - then tries to generalize it as "the governing body." Shoddy, shoddy journalism. Further, and as indicated in the "fair warning" section...Zenor actually perverts his own quotations in the AP article from him. The official spokesperson for the NCAA sanctions committee states in the article that " The university has really done everything we expect an institution to do when they're investigating violations of NCAA rules, said infractions committee chairman David Swank, adding that he couldn't recall a similar case where a school received no sanctions. They reported it, they investigated it, and they took corrective actions." So in this section which purports that Alabama "almost" received the death penalty, the head of the infractions committee declares the opposite - and Alabama received no externally-imposed institutional sanctions at all.

The USC section sources the facts about the Bush case and the sanctions imposed but does not source the allegation that this "almost" resulted in the death penalty - because it cannot do so. The section presents a few supported statements but then uses SC's earlier problems and subsequent staffing changes in an attempt to build a case that this was a "near death" situation. But that - 'building a case' -is WP:OR. Garrett's and Carroll's resignations may be related in part to the Bush/Mayo incidents, but to allege or imply that the former were caused by the latter is to slip into the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" as well as violating Wiki WP:OR policy. (There were FWIW multiple other issues leading to both men's departures).

OK - so these elements of the section cannot be included as presented. So how could they be re-introduced without violating WP:OR and leaving Wikipedia open to a potential libel suit from the universities whose reputations such a section besmirches? There is only one way: You would need a direct, official quotation from the NCAA governing committee on sanctions that the death penalty was considered for each of these institutions in these specific cases. But the deliberations of this committee are (for legal reasons cited) secret and confidential, and the committee's only official statements are those that detail the actual sanctions imposed - which is a big part of the reason that Yeager in the Alabama note quoted above uses oblique references to the death penalty to Zenor but never comes out and states what Zenor and the Wiki editor infer.

Further, and in reference to the "fair warning" section above - even if you can meet this criterion of unambiguous and official statements from the NCAA, you still have the question of establishing that these appended incidents are the only "near death" cases - because an encyclopedia needs to be encyclopedic. Take a look here, for example: [3] - why isn't SE Missouri State in the article? And that's a relatively current situation. What about the 1950s,60s,70s,80s,90s, and the other probations of the 2000s? How many other institutions received serious single-sport and multi-sport penalties? What about the current sanctions imposed on the University of Michigan and the ongoing, multi-sport investigation of the University of North Carolina?

I'm afraid that the attempt to single out these institutions that did NOT receive the death penalty also violates the Wiki policy of "recentism" WP:RECENT. So, in sum, this material can be re-introduced if a) an explicit statement from the NCAA that these institutions almost received the death penalty can be found and sourced, and b) it can be established that these are the only institutions for which that is true. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the USC section was utter crap--someone added it not long after the sanctions were announced, and I reverted it as the infraction report didn't even infer the NCAA considered the death penalty here. Kentucky, Alabama and Baylor, however, are different stories based on my reading of the infractions reports and other sources.

In the Kentucky case, according to the report, the NCAA enforcement staff actually recommended the death penalty, but the infractions committee decided against it after UK forced out Sutton and Hagan. With the Baylor case, the committee said that the violations were as egregious as those found at SMU in '87--a pretty strong implication that Baylor only escaped because it cooperated fully. Same with Alabama, per [4]

I believe the section can be restored if it's noted that since the NCAA adopted the current criteria for the death penalty, these are the closest instances where the NCAA almost imposed it. It's gonna take some time to add the sources, but it can be done, I believe. I have no dog in this fight either--I'm a Carolina fan. Blueboy96 20:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and thanks for the prompt response! But I don't think you've actually answered either of my summary points.

a) you say for Kentucky that "the NCAA enforcement staff actually recommended the death penalty" - if you can source that from the NCAA infractions committee directly, then great! You're halfway home.(see below for other half)

b)For Alabama - linked article includes the same half-statement from the same Yeager I criticize above - he says here'"There is no question that Alabama was staring down the barrel of a gun," said Yeager. "Had there been a different approach, there was a clear legislative opportunity to impose the death penalty."'

"opportunity"? speculative "had there been"? The undisputed fact is that there was not a death penalty, and even Yeager's statement does not say "almost." He says "could have if not" - which is useless as proof.

The overwhelming number of articles on the web about Alabama point out that as serious as its problems were, the Infractions Committe (Except for Yeager) praised UA's compliance and imposed no sanctions on the institution whatsoever. As bad as what UA did was, you just can't stretch an inappropriate comment from Yeager into a "near-death" type thing - again, in this case, the NCAA did not impose any penalty on Alabama.

The problem with your point about Baylor is that as you phrase it, it is WP:OR. You say that the committee asserts that Baylor's vios were as serious as SMU's. I'm sure you can source that, but as editors we can't make the necessary last step of inferring that this means that the infractions committee almost did anything. It did what it did - and that was not to impose the death penalty.

Plus, here is some OR for you. There is widespread speculation in articles related to this topic on the web that the effects on SMU were so devastating decades later that the NCAA is loath to and may never impose the death penalty again - comparisons often made to the dropping of nuclear weapons in WWII. But I cannot and will not add that to the article because it is inference and WP:OR.

Finally, the "other half" noted above - the 800 lb gorilla in the encyclopedia room. Why present only these schools in any context? Why not SE Missouri State or even the potential for your own Tarheels or many others? Are we sure that there are not other cases of schools with comparable multiple violations, since the time frame of the article, or even since SMU? If the list is not comprehensive and is speculative, it does not belong in the article.

And since the death penalty was not imposed in these cases, why would any of these cases belong in this article under any circumstance? The only proper place for sourced, non-speculative info on penalties would be in the individual articles about each institution. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sensei, I was thinking--there's enough out there at the very least to say that the NCAA uses the SMU affair as its standard for whether or not to impose a death penalty. I just had a look at the Baylor infractions report (here) and as I said a few months ago, the NCAA found that Baylor had engaged in violations as egregious as SMU's. I was thinking I could say something like this in the article: "Despite the NCAA's apparent wariness about imposing a death penalty, it has indicated that the SMU case is its standard for imposing such an extreme sanction. In its 2005 investigation of Baylor basketball, the NCAA determined that the Bears had committed violations as serious as those found at SMU 18 years earlier. However, it praised Baylor for taking swift corrective action once the violations came to light, including forcing out head coach Dave Bliss. According to the NCAA, this stood in marked contrast to SMU, where school officials knew violations had occurred and did nothing." Blueboy96 18:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well and carefully written, BB! I think a "for example" might help, but you make the comparison effectively without bringing in the "almost dp" thing. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. By the way, I completely support your move regarding Miami--it's way too premature to suggest the NCAA will drop the hammer on them. Blueboy96 00:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention that - I am in the process of removing it from the Miami football article.Sensei48 (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IS is necessary for one to play a certain instrument on their own recording. Is it not significant that they studied the instruments (Lightfoot - drums and percussion) and this is worth listing as it affected the art to some degree? The drums and percussion arrangments that appear on Lightfoots recordings are notable and it seemed logical to note that he was a student of those instruments. (Sorry I ddnt notice your edit summary before, and thanks for your attention and consideration.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.242.80 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 64 - Glad to hear from you! Generally, the category of "instruments" in the Infobox on musicians is termed "notable instruments," referring as I tried to indicate to the instruments that the musician actually uses in performance and recording. Since GL never performed himself on drums or percussion, it might well be construed that the Infobox is misleading. The proper place for the information is in the article where you can source the info about GL's study of drums etc. and make clear how that study influenced his sound. Currently, section 6 "The Lightfoot Sound" makes no mention of folk-rock or percussion, and that might well be a logical place to amplify the information. But as it is, the Infobox presents an apparent misrepresentation because the explanation that you make above is not available there - or in the article. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have redone the edit that you attempted to make to Wikipedia:WikiProject Roots music. In this case, you removed the |} which closed the table started six lines above the "Good Articles" section heading (ie the {| class="collapsible collapsed" width="100%" style="background:#ecf1f1;"). As for this case, it was the same problem; but your removal of a </div> was probably valid, because it seems to be redundant: I don't see any opening <div> that it would be closing. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Redrose64, both for completing the section and for the clear explanation of my error. I will note it well and I hope be able to avoid such mistakes in subsequent edits. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added several kinda-cool screen shots to our article, and literally within minutes a WikiNazi (no kidding, he's German) was threatening to delete them. I'd like you to see 'em, but you gotta "act now"! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On my way over there now - I hope s/he has some justification... regards, Sensei48 (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please pardon the intrusion; I don't normally comment on other folks' edits.

But, WOW, what you did when you cleaned up the recent edits to Burgess Meredith were superb! (Much better than I could/would have done, I must admit.) Excellent style, research, references, etc. Bravo!

And, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Thanks for the good work! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 04:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UncleBubba - What a pleasant surprise your note here is - thanks! I've admired BM for decades and associated him first with Of Mice and Men and The Twilight Zone and a dozen movies - the Batman and Rocky bits were just pop things he did later in his career, and I felt that in no way should they lead off the article. But I was just getting started - there are still multiple redundancies and misempahses there that need addressing, and I hope that others who respect Meredith as more than the Joker or Rocky's sidekick might be able to pitch in as well. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Twilight Zone. I'd forgotten about that one! Didn't he play the little bookish man that wound up in a bank vault when The Bomb hit and killed everyone else? And he was ecstatic when he found the library--until his glasses broke? I gotta find that one on YouTube. Thanks for reminding me! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 05:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please pardon the intrusion. First I want to add my thanks for the work on Mr Meredith's page. Next I would like to recommend to you both (if you are interested) that you give a listen to the narration that he does on track five of The Chieftans Xmas Album The Bells of Dublin. I find it quite interesting and enjoyable. Cheers to you both and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 03:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any of you BM fans love the oft-disparaged That Uncertain Feeling? I sure do. And yes, Sensei-san, your edits at the article were superb. Thank you for them. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sensei48, and thanks for joining in the discussion at Talk:Landmark Education litigation. First off, I'm sorry I omitted to add the edit summary, which I'd intended to do pointing to the talk page and these points I'd already made there.

Now that we've got the issue of the lack of the edit summary, could we please discuss the merits of my edits themselves? I dispute your characterisation of my revision as "creating a pro-Landmark POV". I genuinely attempted to remove the extensive bias of the article in its previous form, and went to great lengths to leave a mention of almost every point that was made, whilst giving it a more even handed treatment and a more logical overall structure. As you will see, I already opened a discussion on that talk page on the 17th May and suggested the general drift of my proposed changes on 23rd May, and no-one had disputed either submission.

My responses to your specific accusations are as follows:

1. your edits appear to be an attempt to remove anything negative about Landmark. - Not at all; every single fact that was included in the original article remains in my revision, but re-worded to remove the extensive editorialising, spin and weasel-wording.
2. Wholesale reversions of sourced passages - I don't really understand what you mean here; some of the sections had been moved around to form a more logical structure, but the only thing that had been removed wholesale was the so-called "Introduction to the Landmark Litigation Archive" which is neither factual nor reliably sourced - it is an opinion piece written by Rick Ross's lawyers (self-promotional in nature) and published on his website. Did you notice that the majority of the citations in the previous version were to the Rick Ross website, which is clearly not a WP:RS? I removed these references, but left the facts to which they refer, in some cases replacing the citations with more satisfactory ones such as court documents archived on Wikicommons.
3. and the gutting of the descriptions of the intents of the various lawsuits - I make no apology for this; editorialising about the presumed intention in a lawsuit is opinion, not fact, and where it is entirely aimed at one side of the case is a violation of WP:NPOV.
4. The article does point out quite clearly Landmark's agressive use of the courts to silence any published criticism - precisely. This is obvously an opinion that is held by some people, and I indicate that quite clearly in my version, while preserving neutrality by also referring to the countervailing opinion (both by references to statements made in court documents).

I would appreciate it if you would take a closer look at both the original article and my revision, and see whether you might agree that my version is a better starting point for the "collaborative editing process of Wikipedia" which we are both no doubt committed to. Thanks DaveApter (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles has a crush on me, as you can see!

But none of your nonSense, sir.

You have some answering to do on the BLBH talk page. Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking of nonsense, what say you rewrite your critique in more coherent form? Better still, if you have reliable sources that support Finkel's claim, why not bring them forward? My references to Graham were informal because he has, as you seem to know, an extensive number of 1st person accounts, both cavalry and NA. But please, dear MSO, no History Channel. I am assuming that you're serious. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Dear Courcelles – You might take a moment and let Mr. Sensei48 know that you monitor all my postings; needless to say, it’s superfluous for him to forward them to you.

I’m sorry to see you’ve misled this graduate of Notre Dame on the matter of my conduct – or misconduct. I’ve never denied that my record at Wiki is rich with demerits; both Custer and Reno (especially Reno) were masters of the demerit at West Point. No dishonor in that.

My advice to Sensei48 is to form a skirmish line, and hold that position. Do not retreat to the timber. Neither should he order a “charge to the rear”: that way disaster lies.

I include the rousing “Notre Dame Victory March” to help inspire you to defend your remarks of May 5, 2011:

Rally sons of Notre Dame
Sing her glory, and sound her fame
Raise her Gold and Blue,
And cheer with voices true,
Rah! Rah! For Notre Dame.
We will fight in every game
Strong of heart and true to her name.
We will ne'er forget her
And we'll cheer her ever,
Loyal to Notre Dame.
Chorus:
Cheer, cheer for Old Notre Dame
Wake up the echoes cheering her name,
Send the volley cheer on high,
Shake down the thunder from the sky,
What though the odds be great or small
Old Notre Dame will win over all,
While her loyal sons are marching
Onward to Victory.

Bon Courage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysweetoldetc. (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK - now THIS post I can get behind, as we used to say in the 60s - commendations for good humor and cheer. I am at the end of a challenging semester in both my secondary and college teaching jobs and don't have the time at the moment to respond to BLBH, which I will most certainly do. You would be doing me a great service, my dear MSO, if as I suggested and now would request you gave me a solid paragraph to respond to (complete with the requisite rhetorical flourishes) rather than the creative but difficult intra-linear commentary. Rally sons indeed. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Werner Erhard (book). 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.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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 continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fastily - Received your admonition regarding my supposed participation in an edit war on the Werner Erhard (book) article, apparently with User:MLKLewis. Hmmmm. I made 2 edits to the article on May 13, neither of which were reverted and both of which had clear edit summaries justifying them. On July 6, I reverted one edit of five made today by the same editor - my edit summary read "Not neutral. Pls stop removing soucred material from a GA." In addition, I left the following message on MLKLewis's Talk page - right above your edit war warning to MLKLewis:

Hello MLK - I think that many of your recent edits to a number of est related articles have been balanced and appropriate - but not the removal of the sourced section from reputable journals that critiqued the Erhard book. Your edits remove the quotations from the lede that were part of the Good Article approval process, and you give disproportionate weight to the positive reviews, which were in the minority. I have no objection to offering some sourced balance to the lede - but not by subverting another editor's work that won GA status.

Let's see. The standard-issue edit war tag you appended reads in part - "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. My message to MLKLewis and my edit summary here quoted 1) commend the editor for his recent work; 2) disagree with one of five of the user's edits to the article in question today; 3) explain why this is so; 4) invite collaborative editing with sources.

Please note the tone and approach of my comment, placed on that editor's Talk page as an invitation to dialogue.

There are other editors who have fierce, long-term, and ongoing disputes with MLKLewis. I am not of this group.Sensei48 (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, in that case, ignore this warning. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• HI Sensei, this is to let you know that I have mentioned this particular dispute here (I have commended your approach). --JN466 15:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Jayen. I'm not sure that I completely understand what you all are discussing about User:Cirt over there, but I have had cordial communications with Cirt regarding issues concerning Werner Erhard-related articles. However - I have had no contentious exchanges with User:MLKLewis at all, and it seems to me that User:Fastily pulled the trigger somewhat hastily on the edit war notice above. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the latter. Hope you can sort it out peacefully. Cheers, --JN466 16:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated The Kingston Trio article for Featured Article status. I think it is time. The article meets all the criteria and is a well known subject. Airproofing (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that... since we talked about it before, I thought it was time and should have messaged you first. I noted that on the discussion page. I'll be looking through to see where I can help also. I thought when I did the references I had them all down to the correct format, but apparently some are out of line. Airproofing (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. This just spurs me to make some needed changes, some of which are necessitated by changes to the article made during the GA review. I do believe, as you do, that it is closer to being a FA than preliminary reactions seem to indicate. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? "Number" or "No." ? I changed the # to "number". There are other "No." in there now too. Airproofing (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like "number" because it looks better. My memory must be going, since I don't remember using either # or no. I am working on changing the challenged refs (many of which I meant to change anyway) and dead links and will once again try to conform the writing with yet another editor's idea of what constitutes good prose. There are some elements of the WP:MOS that absolutely would not pass muster in the academic world in which I have worked for four decades, esp. in terms of punctuation, but que sera, sera. Sensei48 (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Que sera, sera is right. Jeeze Louise, this stuff can get vague. I have something else to write, even in Latin, but I don't think it would be appreciated by some! Airproofing (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a real knee-slapper that Wikipedia MOS turns up its nose at punctuation rules set forth by the NY Times stylebook and Strunk and White. Can you imagine? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work, gentlemen! I'm sure that we can work everything out if we can get some direction without the vagueness that Air refers to. As you can see below, the other reviewer Efe will give it a shot, time permitting. And thanks, Harrington, for taking the time to assess and comment on the article. Strunk and White are spinning in their graves, as they did during the GA review. But ya gotta dance with who brung ya, as Texas football coach Daryl Royal used to say. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only have a full review of it on Sunday. Maybe I can edit / comment intermittently during weekdays. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Efe. I can be patient if the FA review admins can. We're coming up on 2 weeks since the nomination, and I hope the fact that Airproofing and I are moving promptly on the concerns is an indication of our interest to get this right. It is a bit frustrating, as you can imagine, to see the highly specific reviews that other FACs are getting while we have to guess at what still needs a source or otherwise needs attention. Vague comments and "for examples" are not helpful. Appreciate the note. Sensei48 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Its sad to note that not all FA reviewers have the same standards and way of reviewing FACs, just as you have noted it. --Efe (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sensei. You might have noticed I've been checking on the article against MOS. Compliance to MOS is criterion number two (or no. 2, not #2). Some editors review an article specifically on a particular criterion, so you might be frustrated at getting not what other FACs are. --Efe (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I've been trying to take the changes you've made and apply them across the article. Last night I did en dashes in a couple of sections and see that you've done more. I'll go through the article again to make sure that all inappropriate hyphens are replaced thus. Also - I am clearing out the empty sections in the cite templates used in the article. I still need to apply formatting of source titles completely consistently and will do so today. I have and did consult the MOS when I did the major rewrite on the article in 7/09; some of it I didn't completely understand, esp. formatting of multiple refs to the same source. This presents certain problems here. The Kingston Trio On Record is the single most often-cited source here because it is a comprehensive study and as of now it is the only full-length book on the group, but the sheer number of different pages that are cited makes it difficult to use any other format than the basic footnote form (an option in MOS) that is used. Another editor more conversant than I with ref formats created the multiple ref notes for the Bruce Eder Allmusic note and others. I'll look into that today as well.Sensei48 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dang! Airproofing (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found several en-dashes and switched 'em to em-dashes as in earlier up in the article. Easy undo if I did the wrong thing. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, gents, but the nomination failed, as Bruce/Airproofing seems to have found out. The nomination has been archived - no longer being considered...can't be re-nominated for at least 2 weeks. The reason was because of insufficient interest. In addition to Harrington, only three other people looked at it, and they didn't give solid feedback and didn't follow up on my replies. I'll have to build more of a base of potential reviewers before trying again. No one from Roots Music accepted my invitation to review, just as they didn't when Bruce asked for an A class review. Disappointing....but tomorrow is another chance. Thanks again! Jim Sensei48 (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sensei. I am still wondering why Kingston Trio was archived. Anyway, I see that you're very good in English. Can you possibly visit the PR page, or do some prose tightening on the article directly? Appreciate feedback. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks again for providing some serious consideration to the KT article's FA nomination. The nomination apparently failed due to overall lack of feedback - that was indicated by Karanacs when I posted this [5] to her user page. Both Karanacs and Wehwalt suggested PR, so perhaps I'll try that next. The tightening that I plan to do in the interim (and will seek some more help for) involves further improvements to formatting of sources, which are now closer to the idiosyncratic standards of Wikipedia.

I will be happy to take a look at the prose in this article, either this evening or tomorrow morning. I enjoyed reading through it when it came up as a nomination, and if I have specific suggestions I will makes them here. regards,Sensei48 (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My formulation of the Territorial changes resulting from Red Cloud’s War was “Lakota and Cheyenne ownership of a large territory confimed by peace treaty.” You made the addition “other claimed lands ceded to Federal government.” And you commented “Let’s not rewrite history.”

Looking at the Treaty of Laramie I don’t believe your formulation is accurate. I don’t see anything in the treaty about the Indians ceding any land to the Federal government. What I see in article 11 is the following: "ARTICLE 11. In consideration of the advantages and benefits conferred by this treaty, and the many pledges of friendship by the United States, the tribes who are parties to this agreement hereby stipulate that they will relinquish all right to occupy permanently the territory outside their reservation as herein defined, but yet reserve the right to hunt on any lands north of North Platte, and on the Republican Fork of the Smoky Hill River, so long as the buffalo may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase...."

Nomadic hunters giving up the right to “occupy permanently” but retaining hunting rights doesn’t seem the same to me as ceding land -- especially in the minds of the Lakota/Cheyenne who probably saw this clause as affirming, rather than limiting, their hunting rights.

Would you consider an alternate formulation? “Lakota and Cheyenne ownership of a large territory and hunting rights on other lands confirmed by treaty.”

I fully agree that we shouldn’t “rewrite history.” Smallchief (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smallchief - Thanks for the lucid explanation. We are looking at the same passage in the treaty but seeing something different. I took literally "they will relinquish all right to occupy permanently the territory outside their reservation" as ceding land, and that was the point of the treaty for the govt - to confine the previously free-roaming bands to a specific set of boundaries, on land that at the time the govt deemed worthless. Recall that the treaty was flagrantly abrogated immediately after gold was discovered in the Black Hills in 1874, after a "peace commission" attempted to buy off headmen deemed malleable by the Interior people, thereby accomplishing the cession of even more land.

I see some problems here. The infobox should indeed indicate that this war was a victory for the Lakota, especially since it was the only protracted conflict between the whites and the native peoples that could be termed so. But at the same time, and it has been argued that differing perceptions of land ownership were at the root of a colossal misunderstanding, the native peoples are for the first time in the eyes of the whites agreeing to a kind of confinement that they had never agreed to before. For the whites, that fact was the operative outcome of the war and the whole point of the Laramie treaty. Further, I'm not sure that we can base what is supposed to be a factual notation on what we think might have been in the minds of the nomadic people - or the government commissioners, for that matter. That would by more of the same WP:OR that currently afflicts the article. Note, though, that the article identifies the Powder River country as "unceded territory," which means that other lands were indeed ceded.

So - if there remains a "territorial changes" line in the infobox (and there is no requirement that there be) - I can't see it as asserting an unqualified triumph for the native peoples because it was not. Ditto the article itself - that "as long as the grass shall grow" line in the Laramie document has long and universally been cited by historians as a bitter irony given the abrogation of the treaty and the loss of all those lands within a decade.

How about just dropping the territorial changes? regards, Sensei48 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Notre Dame Fighting Irish Football confused dates with doi's. I fixed that.AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks! Sensei48 (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although YouTube in itself isn't a reliable source all the time, there are videos of the orginial broadcasts; Joe Montana's sack, Roger Craig's fumble, Steve Young's troubles. Almost everything I wrote was essentially rewritten from the San Francisco 49ers article and the Steve Young article, not WP:OR. Take a look at those. The only thing I can do next is try to find a news article from the era, but neither article really has much of a source. Even so if you want them reverted, those two sections don't nearly have as much detail as they should. The 1990 NFC Championship Game was a not only a turning point in Montana's career, it was a turning point in 49er history, and a couple sentences wouldn't do that justice. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{15:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

How about [6] and [7]? Still can't find the Montana quote, but it's on the 49ers article. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{15:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi 67: I agree that those two sections could use expansion, but you've nailed my objection about the sourcing. I'm a huge JM/49ers fan, which is why I want everything in the article to be accurate and sourced properly. So: 1) We can't use one Wiki article to source another, but maybe the Young and 49ers articles have RS that we could use. 2) I cut off that last paragraph because it was about the game, not JM's part in it. You listed the relevant facts: JM got hurt,left the game,the 49ers lost, and JM made only 1 more appearance as a Niner. I think that those things can be sourced from something other than YouTube. That #6 of yours is an outstanding source! I actually think that the quotations there are better than the one from the JM article. In any event, THAT article is your best source for the Montana/Young controversy. I'll do some poking around myself and see if I can find some extra sources, including for that quotation. For now, why don't you rewrite the Montana/Young controversey section using your source? regards, Sensei48 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the new sources, and more importantly, I found another source from the day after the game that pretty much retold the story. If the videos get taken down, then the article will still be there. I left the video links there, but I'm not sure about the policies for that. I took down everything I couldn't find a source for, so hopefully that will be good enough for now. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{19:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

I'm afraid you misunderstood my points in my edit summary, which is why I rv'd it again. The sourcing is only the first of the problems I mentioned. Further - writing style like "three-peat," coughed up," "stuck" and more is definitely not appropriate to an encyclopedia article. My content edit normalized the language. Additionally, the Craig stuff and the effect on the Niners is OT in an article about JM, as noted above. I accidentally deleted then re-added the sourced controversy stuff - but an encyclopedia can't be written with the dramatics of a sports page article. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the friendly discussion on the talk page. I hope we get a few more participants, because it looks like you and I disagree on the principle involved - but we'd have to find some acceptable solution as far as the wording of the article goes. StAnselm (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sensei48, thanks for friendly comment. I find these arguments about authenticity of folk and blues performers fascinating. Perhaps it was only in 2004 that Dylan could express admiration for the Kingston Trio, he couldn't have done it in 1964. Similar issues rage around the contributions of John & Alan Lomax to the history of the blues. There is good discussion of success of KT's "Tom Dooley" in Robert Cantwell's book on The Folk Revival, When We Were Good. Best, Mick gold (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, Sensei. Looks like those videos you mentioned got uploaded after I made my last edits yesterday. I tightened up your wording some, since a lot of refs ended up getting duplicated. Looks like between us, we might make the death penalty article featured yet. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 14:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) (the artist formerly known as Blueboy96)[reply]

OK (and I seem to remember running across Blueboy86 before!) - but it's an ongoing process, and I'm going to re-edit a couple of points for some important reasons. There are primary sources available here in the actual words of Emmert and Ray, and using those directly is preferable to the summaries or digests of them that appear in sportswriters' articles. There is a bluntness to Ray's denial that no summary of it can quite capture, as well as the very significant aspect of the "overwhelming" phrasing, and there is nuance in Emmert's interview that the Forde article misses. In my opinion, it would be better to leave Forde's article out altogether as a source - it is a news feature, almost a blog post, and not hard news at all. It is Forde shaping a point he wants to make about Emmert, not a report on what Emmert actually said - which in any case is available to us to use. So I've lengthened the direct quotation by Ray by a few words in each article and substituted Emmert's actual words for Forde's interpretation of them. It's still considerably shorter than my previous edit but retains the textual advantage of letting the major players speak for themselves without the sportswriter middleman.Sensei48 (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this and do not appreciate the condescending and authoritarian tone taken to edits/suggestions that I have made. Perhaps I am not doing this correctly...I may even be posting this in the wrong area. A kind correction or response would be welcome. As stated earlier, the current page regarding the Jerry Sandusky/Second Mile Child Abuse scandal is incorrectly named for sensationalism. If we cannot have a dialogue about this, is there an arbitrator who will work with us to resolve? Many thanks in advance for civility. --PHD77 (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you misunderstood my message. I placed a strongly-worded template on your page and added an explanatory comment at the end. That is a Level 2 template, which means that it emphasizes the seriousness of the point under discussion. It is not authoritarian (and again, the wording is that of the template) except in one regard: it is never but never but never appropriate to remove a good-faith comment from another editor on a Talk page, which your last edit did. Doing so defeats the very point that you are making here, which is to suggest conversation and collaboration.

I have noted from your comments and edits your strong objection to the titling of the article, and while I do not agree for a variety of reasons, I would suggest that you start a new section as something like "Article Title Revisited."Sensei48 (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I see that you removed the following information regarding the Accreditation restorationn: On November 15th, Penn State's accreditation was reaffirmed, as "Penn State is in full compliance with all accreditation requirements, according to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), which has lifted its 'warning' and Thursday (Nov. 15) reaffirmed the University's accreditation." --- This information was more specific than the information that was there (provided the date and organization restoring accreditation) - was fully referenced and added value. I left the other information there as it provided another source. Sounds like you are guarding the gates and don't want anyone else to contribute to this article. Please let me know what your rational was without being curt or rude. --PHD77 (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will say as gently as possible that your lack of familiarity with processes on Wikipedia is leading you to infer rudeness where none exists. Further - I am merely a minor and occasional editor of this article. I suspect you will encounter some interesting responses from the significant number of editors who have invested a considerable amount of time and effort on it.

To the point: I tried to preserve your edit and move it below, but your multiple edits prevented me from doing so as I replaced the comment from 101010 that you deleted. As above, this material could be integrated into the aforementioned new section and interpolated appropriately into the article.Sensei48 (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sensei, what is the rationale for deleting my edit this morning, on the penn state scandal page. What I added was a note that Dowd's column about the "open joke" has no basis in the trial transcript. How is that a personal POV? And since I in fact read the entire trial transcript, and referenced it, what's the rationale for the no original research marking? I could understand you removing the hyberbole statement. But the whole edit? Is the factuality of this wikipedia page somehow damaged by including references that draw into question to media coverage?DiffuseGoose (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DG: The problem is that the note you added is your analysis or interpretation of the transcript, and that's what Wikipedia forbids as WP:OR. You read the transcript and drew a conclusion from it, and none of us can do that under Wikipedia rules. What you would need to do would be to find and cite a credible secondary source to make that same point. As editors at Wikipedia, our job is to find, order, quote, and source information about an article's topic - but policies here prevent us from interpreting or synthesizing material ourselves. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, though as a conclusion it's not exactly a giant leap (or any leap at all). The transcript is completely absent of anything supporting Dowd's claim. No reference to any jokes, no reference to dropping the soap, and so on. It's not an opinion or interpretation of the transcript so much as it is a fact of what the transcript does not contain.

It kinda seems like the secondary source rule allows for bias by selection. Someone writes a biased opinion article and supporters of that view can reference it. But refutation is impossible, even in cases as clear cut as Dowd's claim, unless someone counters by publishing a refutation. And there would be little motivation for traditional media to publish a refutation for a specific article. The paper that published it wouldn't do it, and other publishers would have no incentive to draw attention to their competitor.

I am a newbie and don't know Wikipedia's rules. Can you point me to that rule? This was my first post, but I will be posting on many unrelated topics, starting today. My approach is to find interesting items in newspapers (microfilmed but available for free online access), locate a related wikipedia article, and add a reference to the newspaper article.DiffuseGoose (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read more of the rules, I understand better what your objection was. I mistakenly thought you were saying the was no original research in my post, that it was simply opinion. I understand, now, that you meant that my post *was* original research, and as such is inappropriate. Sorry for the confusion of a newbie.

Some of the rules seem counterintuitive to me. If I'm reading the rules correctly, the current presentation of that paragraph could be considered inappropriate (note: I am not suggesting it be removed). Any statement along the lines of "Dowd wrote blah blah blah" is not attributable even though it's a factual statement. What would be attributable would be to just use any statement she wrote, regardless of whether the statement is supportable by facts. To someone like myself with a scientific background that seems counter to the goal of a factual presentation (if indeed that is a goal).

Am I understanding the rules correctly?DiffuseGoose (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response, DG. It seems to me you have this rather (initially at least) confusing set of WP guidelines for editing correct. It is IMO counterproductive in many ways, especially if like me (and I think you) one has an academic background. Now, I think above you express the essence of WP rules for the use of primary sources. You would need a secondary commentary pointing out the lack of justification from the transcript for Dowd's sentence, and that might be hard (but I think not impossible) to come by.

Alternatively, though - as an editor you could simply remove all reference to Dowd's column in the article. It is her POV, and as a columnist she is hardly a legal expert. Should you decide to do so, please look at WP:BB - "be bold" - and follow the general custom here of going to the page's Talk page and starting a new section in which you explain with logic and the reasons you note above about why you removed it. You can simply present your reasons on Talk and do not need any sources or the like. FWIW, I believe the Dowd remark is a bit of completely unnecessary cheap humor that adds nothing to the article, and I suspect that other editors would feel the same way. regardsSensei48 (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though likely to prove true, in no way does the cited source directly support this assertion.[8]

Not this again. This was discussed on the talk page.[9] Apparently, the correct source[10] was replaced with the wrong one. The correct source was accidentally removed here. Here's some more:

• "The Colorado shooting has reignited the debate over gun control in the US after it emerged that James Holmes was able to obtain four weapons and more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition legally in the weeks leading up to the massacre." Mayor challenges Obama on gun control. 2012. Sunday Telegraph. (July 22): 4.
• "Nationally, the shootings have triggered a fierce debate over gun control and whether government has a role in reining in the ownership of firearms." Baker, Mike. 2012. After Colorado massacre, fear prompts people to buy guns and puts moviegoers on edge. Associated Press. (July 25).
• "The Colorado shootings already have reignited the fight over gun control in the United States." Blitzer, Wolf. 2012. Movie Theater Massacre; Police Searched Suspect's Home;Politics On Hold After Colorado Shooting; Romney: "Our Hearts Break";Colorado Shootings And Gun Control Debate; Colorado Horror: 71 Shot,12 Dead. The Situation Room. CNN. (July 20).
• "Two days after the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., took the lives of 12 people, the debate over gun control returned from dormancy Sunday." Caldwell, Leigh Ann. 2012. Gun control debate back in spotlight after Colorado shooting. Political Hotsheet. CBS News. (July 22).
• "So renewing the debate over gun control after what happened in Aurora. Advocates say the rampage points to the need for more regulation, but critics, you know, they don't think so...In the wake of the last tragedy in Colorado, gun control is once again a hot issue for politicians and for public debate. A Pew Research Center Poll shows Americans are almost evenly split on whether it's more important to control guns versus protect gun ownership." Sambolin, Zoraida. 2012. Politics of gun control. CNN Newsroom. (July 23).

Please note, these are all news sources, not op/ed's. Please restore the subheading and the material. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and thank you for taking the time to demonstrate this. You can, of course, understand why I rv'd - what was left there as a source had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the debate over gun laws. I was sure that the statement was true, but I had not realized that so much sourcing was already in the article..Sensei48 (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if these sources are already in the article, but I think the statement is supported by sources in the article, but I don't know which ones so I've offered these above. The USA Today source[11] was in the article at one time, but again, another editor removed it. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working on the wording as we speak. I will use the USA today source, rag though it is. Even the fascisti cannot object to it as a source. I would like to wikilink back to one of the gun control articles here, but neutrality is disputed in each and could well be cited as a reason to rv a logical re-addition to the Aurora article. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had put the material in the wrong article talk page with the links elsewhere on the page. That section was huge with many links and I didn't know which to use. I moved it to the correct article expecting them to add sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry and thanks for the notification here as well as on the Aurora Talk page. Clearly this is a hot-button issue. The See Alsos to the gun control articles are entirely appropriate, though I wish that each were much better written and NPOV. The simple sentence I added to the Aurora article (now broken into two) is minimal, IMO, but necessary. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with an idea to possibly fix it in the future but it seems to be meeting resistance: Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've read through that rather messy discussion and I really don't see any basis for trying to keep a reference to the gun control debate out of it. I like the addition that you made and it seems appropriate NPOV to me. Though I tend to agree with the ideas of Viriditas, s/he does seem to be pushing a POV that may not be appropriate to this particular article. BTW, I think I'll re-add my original edit with yours. The editor who changed what I wrote works mostly on wrestling articles and apparently doesn't understand participial phrases. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think s/he and another are definitely POV. If you read through the link above to the policy I am trying to create you will see that two of them are POV straight to me and any edit I make with it. I brought the same policy up at Pump/policy and they hounded me over there as well. I don't know why they don't come out and say what their issues are, unless they have a fear of something?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone give me an example of this POV I'm supposed to have? I've never edited on any gun issues or gun control before, to the best of my knowledge. I've made dozens of edits to the article in the last week. Surely if I'm pushing a POV, you should be able to show one diff to support this claim? You can't, because there isn't one. BTW Canoe, you're not creating a policy, you're writing a personal essay. There's no way in a million years you will ever be able to write a "policy" about restricting content, and continuing to say that you can tells me you don't understand how the policies work. Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave you an example on my talk page. Since you asked for and answer here, I will paste it here as well:

• "I feel I have answered this at least 10 times already, here, here, my talk page, the article talk page, etc, etc.. Why do you keep asking over and over. Drop the stick, walk away from the horse, take the article and my talk page off your watch list, and ignore them all if you don't like them. You and User:Arcandam seem to be focused on other editors judging by your recent contribs. If you have a problem with an editor it will not help by stalking them all over WMF and hampering their efforts in the project. I have spent more time defending my work from your improper deletion request than actually improving it. You both repeat the same questions, I keep giving the same answers. Much of the time within seconds you repeat another question and never allowing others to have any input. I have said the same to User:Arcandam: Drop the stick, walk away from the horse, take the article and my talk page off your watch list, and ignore them all if you don't like them. The article consists of policy therefore it is policy that can be followed. There is no POV on how to follow it so it is not truly an essay. It is a work in flux that others are free to edit, add examples, and offer ways to follow the said policies. If you keep bothering my talk page with more entries like this I feel I may have to formally ask you both to stay off my talk page and never come back--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)"--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Canoe, but there appears to be a significant communication problem between yourself and multiple editors. Please consider the possibility that the problem is found on your end and does not rest with other editors. It sometimes helps to ask questions when you find yourself confused or otherwise upset with the answers you receive. I understand that you do not like the answers that you have been given to various questions, and this tells me that you feel you are not being "heard" or understand. Therefore, I understand your anger. However, you need to concede that you may not be communicating in an ideal manner and that blaming others for this problem is not going to help. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, and I wish that an extensive discussion of the effect of lax gun laws on horrors such as Aurora were appropriate to this article - as well as full color pictures of the carnage. But neither is. The Aurora article's job is to recount what happened and refer to consequences, fallout, and the like. This article is not the place for an extended discussion of gun control - beyond the fact that there are RS available that indicate that the Aurora shootings have brought the question to the fore once more. My allusion to a possible POV was focusing on this [12] and contributions to the discussion here [13]. I'm not sure how else you would establish consensus other than looking at the number of editors who agree or disagree with your points. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in any debate about gun control, gun laws, or gun violence. However, the reliable sources do, and that's what we base our articles on when we write for Wikipedia. An article like Virginia Tech massacre devotes more than 1,372 words, or more than 8607 characters to a discussion about gun issues. That's about half the size of the current article on the 2012 Aurora shooting. We need to accurately represent the reliable sources based on the significance given to the topic. Whenever an editor on the talk page says "I prefer that the article only states a single sentence about gun laws/control/violence", they are really saying "my POV takes precedence over the sources". Well, that's simply not how Wikipedia works. Local consensus on talk pages never overrides policy. Otherwise, a group of like-minded editors could choose to limit or censor out information they don't like about their pet topic. WP:NPOV and WP:V are pretty clear on this, and they will always supersede any attempts to remove reliably sourced content based on a biased local consensus. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above. If you say you have no interest then drop the stick, walk away from the article, take it off your watch list, etc, etc. There are probably far more articles you could be working on and this one will do fine without you. I mean you are not to only editor in en:wp and this is not the only article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we have a communication problem, Canoe. There is a huge, gaping difference between having no interest in a debate about gun control, gun laws, and gun violence and being interested in seeing that the sources are represented fairly and with due weight. Can you acknowledge that you understand this difference? In other words, on Wikipedia, I generally don't discuss or debate gun issues. What I do, however, is keep a very keen eye out for topics where the sources are not being represented fairly, and this is one of them. Things have improved in the last few days, but there are still outstanding issues that have not yet been addressed. Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please WP:STICK on this one, work on the ones at my NPOV gun article and feel free to add more if you wish. I was thinking of sorting them into good, bad, and in between. If you are as good as you think you are then that should not be a difficult task for you. If you continue with this article it will just hamper the efforts of editors trying to improve it. They find that very difficult, as I do, when you keep bothering us on other pages such as this one. I would ask you to WP:STICK here as well but I doubt that will do any good. I am still trying to figure out how you ended up in this section about a different lame article that I was actually trying to help you improve.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying the same things again, Canoe. I'm not working on your POV fork gun article, and to be perfectly honest, the so-called "policy" page you've created is the epitome of POINT and STICK combined. As the reliable sources indicate, there is a lot to add to the 2012 Aurora shooting topic. When you speak of "us" it really sounds like you are speaking of a team of editors who are working to keep any discussion of gun issues out of the article. I hope that isn't true, Canoe. See you on the noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Sensei48: Thanks for your honesty. Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the acknowledgments! Now, to the issue...

It seems to me that you all are disputing both content and methodology, and that suggests that some sort of compromise or accommodation in both regards might be a good idea. I have to admit to being a bit confused about the exact nature of these because I have to skip back and forth from the Aurora article to here, but let me take a stab at proposal.

First - seems to me that a) Viriditas feels that there should be more in the article regarding the gun control issues and Canoe thinks that such material is tangential to the thrust of the article, and b) Canoe wants to establish or recognize a consensus of editors to limit gun control discussion in the article, which Viriditas maintains does not currently exist. If I have misstated, please feel free to correct, amend, excoriate (insert smiley) me on these points.

My own sense is that the material I added looks pretty lame and limp - I agree with Viriditas that a slightly expanded version similar to what appears in the Columbine article would not be ragingly off-topic at all. There are plenty of RS news articles that deal with the topic. I think there are three related issues covered in the sources in addition to the Pew material already added. 1) Legality of weapons purchases by the shooter; 2) enhanced capability of magazines and weapons; 3) the rise in background checks as an unusual/atypical response to a mass shooting (someone tried to add a section regarding that but it was OR and there are several news analysis stories that suggest this). Two or three additional sourced sentences - sourced directly to this incident and as a consequence of it - could be added and would improve the article. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you have your view of me wrong. I am neutral on gun control and believe it should be a democratic decision. We don't have a 'right to bear arms' in Canada. If all guns are banned like Japan, then so be it. I doubt we will every have mandatory ownership as some areas in the US do which is the other extreme. As to the article it should be the same. Material should not be totally banned from the article nor a forced coatrack of every sourced quote we can find. It is early yet for any laws to change, politicians to speak in elections, security to step up/down, etc. Other gun articles have had time to include this material. I have only heard of the one lawsuit filed and it was entered. The one that merely hired a lawyer was quickly reverted. I mentioned that as if/when they increase past X number then we may just say X number of suits have been filed and Foo, Foo, and Foo are named in them for tying shoelaces incorrectly, not turning on the fan, and leaving the fridge door open as well as other minor claims. This will prevent huge sections full of similar material. Does this make sense at all?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sensei48 invited me to participate here. My thoughts fall under two categories:

• The noted problems with the term "assault weapon", a term which has no real definition and so is commonly used to mislead people.
• As per an analysis I'm developing at Wp:Strategic issues with core policies#WP:NPOV after immense observation, analysis and thought about the numerous POV disaster articles, when there is a conflict about inclusion of material, a criteria for inclusion should be that it is directly about the subject of the article, NOT just related to the subject of the article, but directly about the subject of the article. Some policies indirectly cover this (e.g. wp:undue & wp:synth....synthesis by juxtaposition) which we can use, but, as a sidebar, I think that it should be said more directly. 20:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you folks! I will respond but would like to wait a bit to see if Viriditas would like to add some thoughts here. I also need to digest Canoe's thoughts a bit more - and really, where in the U.S. is gun ownership mandatory? That's new to me if true.regards, Sensei48 (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked at ref desk humanities. One response so far is Gun politics in Switzerland where the militia is obligated to keep their weapons at home. I am still going through state laws. I am sure it was a county law or similar so it may not be in state laws. I think the break-in rate went to zero, so I may try crime rate next. I heard of it over 10 years ago and can't remember where.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law Found it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you might be thinking of Switzerland, which is famous across the U.S., especially because it is in keeping with the original intent of our Second Amendment regarding the maintenance of a militia instead of a standing army. Of course in Switzerland, households are required to have a military weapon but cannot have bullets - very stiff penalties for violating this. I would be willing to wager that Kennesaw is absolutely unique in the U.S., and I wonder if that has been or will be challenged on constitutional grounds. Good find in any event and interesting.Sensei48 (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its about time someone recognized this. Countless books have been written and copied rehashing all that is known. Perhaps a more suitable subject would be the lives and times of the thirteen victims. The lives and times of the officers who did the job would be interesting as well. Busceda (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B - I moved your edit to its proper place here as a new section. The victims and officers might well make an outstanding article, and there are plenty of examples on Wiki of articles arising out of related information to an existing article. I myself don't know much more about B&C than is in the article; my work on editing it has been to try to preserve as much as possible the really massive amount of work done on it by a Wiki friend of mine. If you, on the other hand, know something about and have access to sources about the victims and officers, perhaps you could start a new article. I'd be happy to help out where I could. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sensei48, Following our discussions last March, I've finally got round to putting up a suggested re-write of the contents section of the above article on its Talk page. I'd welcome any comments or suggestions you may have. Thanks DaveApter (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello back, David. Thanks for this notice here. Since I watch the article, I had already seen your proposal and have read it thoroughly. The best place for me to respond, I think, is on the Talk page for the article. I do appreciate you posting the proposed changes before incorporating them into the article. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support your reverts of the LBH page, regarding the sourced material of Elizabeth Custer. There seems to be a lot of movement on that page recently, and I am not sure I agree with all of it, including the pruning of the illustration captions that mention the incorrect portrayals. Standing by for now 'till the dust settles. Thanks as always for your work. Jusdafax 05:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JDF - Just trying to preserve the integrity of what was already there. I think the Libbie Custer passage was correctly removed from where it was - but that editor should have looked to see where it belonged. I'm very glad that you're still watching this controversial page as well. Still lots of room for both pruning and improvement, time permitting. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see that now, and agree with the placement. I am troubled by the editor's style and edit summaries, like "distracting and irrelevant" without going to the talk page first. Hm. Standing by. Jusdafax 05:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.  :) Sensei48 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
I notice you re-edited a change I made here; I’ve raised the matter on the talk page (here) if you wish to comment.
Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted my change for the sub-section Sexual Assault Scandal for citing an op-ed piece. While the piece is under the blogs section of the Washington Post, the facts cited from the source are not opinions and the piece cites its sources under links. As such, this piece is a secondary source. You claim this is a shallow, pejorative edit that includes innuendo, but there is nothing here that is not presented in the article and its sources as something that actually happened. I challenge you to name what is pejorative in my edits. I have not used any terms or phrases that are outrageous or in common use to describe the subject matter at hand. I also note that you are an alumni of this university and hence may be biased. While this subject matter paints your alma mater in a bad light, there is nothing here that is subjective. All the edits are events that have happened and are from the citation. You also claim that this citation is of a tabloid nature. I don't think many editors will agree with you that the Washington Post is a tabloid.

Before you go reverting me again, please consider whether or not your biases are affecting your decision here. Transcendence (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I did in fact consider biases here, but my objection to your edit is as I stated in the edit summary I provided. The case is complex and involved, far more so than the widely derided, self-important, and entirely blog-like article by Henneberger, which needs to be removed as a source if the section is to have any credibility.. Your edit follows Henneberger rather more than the far more detailed Tribune source you added. Even that article, however, does not delve into psychological issues alleged to have afflicted Seeburg for a long time before the incident. Further, no direct connection has ever been established between Seeburg's suicide and the assault incident - a presumption is made of the connection, but such a presumption becomes innuendo without further support. The second incident is phrased so generally and is so unsourced an unsubstantiated as to be meritless - unless any allegation of misconduct by anyone anywhere automatically deserves mention. It is as presented here a rumor. Where is the evidence? Was a rape kit performed? What was the result? Where is the evidence for a blizzard of texts? According to whom? That's the irredeemable flaw in using an op-ed piece as a source. Henneberger can (and does) say, infer, and imply anything she wants to, without being called to account for doing so. (Where exactly does she cite ANY source directly within in the article or at the end?) An encyclopedia, however, must do a better job of establishing both fact and nuance than a blog does - which is precisely why blogs are not acceptable as RS in most any Wiki articles. The speciousness here is yours - you're trying to justify a sourceless POV blog as RS.

My association with Notre Dame as a student ended more than four decades ago, FWIW. I do not contribute to the university, and I have ranged between dismayed and appalled at what it has become in the intervening decades. It is a far more right-wing elitist institution now than it was when I was othere, and its handling of a variety of controversies in recent years has been shameful - again, IMO. The death of Declan Sullivan while filming a football practice is a far clearer example of the university's spin and cover-up even than the Seeburg incident, which as noted is far from a cut-and-dried examoke of the same.

I relate this to indicate that I have no problem with adding info about Seeburg and Sullivan in the article - but added accurately, completely, and with more than one genuine source and not the tabloid-type summary that the current edit is. I won't revert it at the moment, and if I get some time will try to re-edit it in a sourced and factual manner. Sensei48 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources Henneberger uses are in the first paragraph as links, specifically this one: http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/reported-sexual-assault-notre-dame-campus-leaves-more-questions-answers. Your argument about the connection between Seeburg's suicide and the sexual assault has no bearing on my edits. There is nothing in there that says she committed suicide because she was sexually assaulted. I wrote that she committed suicide 10 days after being sexually assaulted. Considering the incident as a whole and as to why the police never pressed charges (which was because she committed suicide, rendering her testimony inadmissible), that detail belongs in there.

As for the second incident, the source is in that first link. As (NCR is) an established news source since 1964, and considering that the author is a reputable journalist that worked at the New York Times and now the Washington Post, I would say that the article is a reliable source. However this point is debatable and I welcome any scrutiny you and any other editors may wish to bring upon this source.Transcendence (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I believe there is more to be discussed here regarding sources and content. For the moment, I appreciate and agree with the change you made to the first paragraph. However - given what we are both saying above, and being perhaps not as far apart as may have at first seemed - I would object to the section title, which is part of my sense that it sounds tabloid-ish. In keeping with the content of the section as it now exists, and working within the spirit (because the letter does not apply) of WP:BLP, I am changing the title to "allegations," which without final court proceedings is what these two incidents are. Much has been alleged; nothing has been proven. The word "scandal" is inflammatory POV. Finally, I have only limited objection to the Henneger piece in NCR, for which I used to write on occasion - it's a news feature, and if not a hard source at least approaches journalism and not mere blogging. However - once again, Henneger raises an issue for which she offers no evidence other than hearsay - hearsay of hearsay. If this incident happened, as I query above, what was the outcome? I submit that the filing of rape charges is not solely at the discretion of the victim; if a rape kit is positive, the state has the right to file charges anyway. Further - Henneger is the writer of ALL of these sources, and none of them qualifies as researched, hard journalism. She makes herself and her involvement the center of each piece at some point or another, which is why the Tribune piece is an infinitely better one. More to be said on this, but time limits me at the moment. "Allegations" is NPOV and much preferable.Sensei48 (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further - the Dept.of Education reports related to sexual harassment at Notre Dame would be excellent NPOV sources, but insofar as I can see none of the documents addresses either of these incidents. To allege that they do or imply that there is any direct connection unless so stated violates WP:Synthesis, not to mention skirting the edges of the post hoc ergo hoc fallacy. Sensei48 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your objections about Henneberger's research. I tried reaching out to her on Twitter to see if she has any other sources, but she never got back to me so I'll remove the citation of hers and the second incident. With regards to the DOE's investigation, I thought one of the sources I read linked it to the Seeburg incident, but I'll check again. Transcendence (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle of Higher Education source (http://chronicle.com/article/U-of-Notre-Dame-to-Clarify/128128/) says "'Shot Across the Bow' The Office for Civil Rights said its investigation of whether Notre Dame was in violation of Title IX, a 1972 law that prohibits sex discrimination at colleges receiving federal funds, followed an internal review of cases previously filed against Notre Dame. The office's announcement noted that one case involved allegations by a female student that she had been sexually assaulted by a Notre Dame student. The complainant, who attended Saint Mary's College, the university's sister school, later committed suicide." Transcendence (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good moves, IMO, and I think the section is shaping up - the Chronicle and DOE are unimpeachable sources. Now, in the edit you rv'd (appropriately), there was one feature that I did like. That was that editor rjensen led the section with the DOE and the broad investigation, and I think that is the appropriate emphasis. The Seeburg case and any others are better used, I think, as examples of what has been alleged to be systemic problems at ND, especially in athletics. In the article about the university and not narrowly on the football program, I think that would work better. I would reverse the order of your two paragraphs, changing the phrasing on the Seeburg paragraph appropriately (and perhaps revising out the repeated "happened" in the last sentence). I won't make those edits unilaterally, though, and I think it would be good if we both agreed on this. Let me know what you think when you get a chance. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I haven't gotten back to you. Please feel free to make any edits you think would make it better, it's not like I own the article. I can always suggest edits later on if I think there's some way to make it better.Transcendence (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the horse has left the barn on this one. I see all the activity on the page today and the opposition against any mention at all. I think that an appropriate edit is still possible, but I won't have time to get to it for a while. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You undid a revision on the Notre Dame page on the basis that "The NCAA only recognizes Alabama with 13 titles". This is a complete falsehood. In fact, Alabama is credited by the NCAA with more titles than they actually claim, as many schools do.

Officially, last season's title is their 19th per NCAA recognition standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.31.100 (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Did you check the cited source? It is clear and unequivocal - check it here [14]. Please note that this is the one and only OFFICIAL count by the NCAA - and ND and Alabama are both credited by the NCAA with 13, this year included. The NCAA does not recognize several of Alabama's claims, as this page indicates. Notre Dame's 13 are explained in the [[15]] in the "National Championships" section here Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_football#National_championships. You are clearly confusing the NCAA recognized championships in the link above with a different category, which is "Total championship selections from major selectors by school" - and that gives Alabama 19 including this year - three behind Notre Dame's 22. That list is here [16]. Many Alabama fans do not recognize the differences among NCs claimed (Alabama claims 15, Notre Dame 11), NCs recognized by NCAA (13 each), and overall NCs named from a major selector (ND22, Alabama 19). The evidence is in the links posted here. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendence (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tom Dooley (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You claim History Channel is not an acceptable source. I'd like to see you back0-up that claim with a list of what sources are acceptable. (Or explain why History is forbidden from wikipedia.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4D4:82A0:AC62:50A1:B226:E1D (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually reverted or removed by editors because it is entertainment, not scholarship or journalism. This is a case in point. There is no absolute, undisputed agreement for the origin of the holiday - yet HC affirms it to be Logan. Here are two suggestions. First - look here - WP:RS. This is Wikipedia's official policy on sources. It is not a list, but it does place a strong emphasis on academic and journalistic sourcing. Second, read the Memorial Day article in full and follow the sources provided. It is an impressive list of published books, academic articles, and reports from reputable news organizations, as the WP:RS requires. Nowhere in it is there anything like HC, whose shows include Swamp People, Ax Men, American Pickers, and other such diversions. Entertainment is not the same as scholarship, and the other editors of the Memorial Day article have taken the trouble to find actual sources.Sensei48 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Washita River may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Reporting to Sherman on November 22, Hazen said, "{T]o have made peace with them would have brought to my camp most of those now on the war path south
• The Indian Bureau[[who?}} described the event as a "massacre of innocent Indians", and humanitarian groups{{who?}} denounced

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have no idea what "consensual edit" is supposed to mean. All edits are made by individuals; consensus is a hypothetical construct, or a pragmatic state of editing quiescence.

Edit summaries are not the proper forum for discussing an edit. Undoing an edit is not the proper procedure for responding to good-faith editing of WP articles (please see WP:BRD). Please do not revert my edit again without proper discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance. Eaglizard (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - as one of the aforementioned article's main contributors, I just wanted to send a heads-up that I've made a variety of (I hope) improvements and added refs. Give it a look if you have a few minutes; I'm considering submitting it as a GA, but I suspect there are places where I've slipped up or crucial things that are still missing. I've got a few books I can mine sourcing from, if need be. --Batard0 (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Batardo - Sorry for the delayed response. Real world stuff has been intruding of late. I think you've done a fabulous job with the upgrades to Ara Parseghian, and it truly merits GA consideration now. I'd like to add a bit to it when I have some more time - minor amplifications, really, rather than anything substantive. I do think the sourcing could be broadened - not in the sense that you haven't added enough, but rather that Dent's book has, let us say, some issues of accuracy. It's a great book that I scarfed up days after it was published, but I'd like to see a slightly broader base for the sourcing. Francis Wallace's Notre Dame From Rockne Through Parseghian came out in '66 and was closer in time to some of the events than Dent. I haven't seen it in a while, but it might be a good alternative to compare with some of Dent's points about Ara's early career and 1964. There are other books as well - Krause's, Garner's, and others. However - I reiterate - you've done a marvelous job, IMO. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added citations regarding change to traditions should have found sources the team walk changed in 2011 and they changed mass this year --Jamesbondfan (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joe Gannon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[http://www.kingstontrioplace.com/kingquar.jpg The Calypsonians (Gannon second from right]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Ara Parseghian, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your ranking for total "national championships recognized by the NCAA" is second, according to your own reference. You've just chosen to use a date prior to Alabama winning their latest NC in January 2013. Scrodz (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Please check the source. The error was in failing to update the access date (which I have now done), not in the stats. Here is a summary, based on the most recent NCAA page as cited, which includes the Florida State championship for 2013 and thus is up-to-date.

Alabama NCs as listed: 1925, 1926, 1930, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011, 2012. Total: 13

Notre Dame NCs as listed: 1919, 1924, 1929, 1930, 1943, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1964, 1966, 1973, 1977, 1988. Total: 13

But the song Mezei Mária sang first hungarian and better known as sung by Gerendás Péter versions (numbers of the Facebook-versions are influenced). I have not written explanation because, I should have written it probably bad English.

De a dalt Mezei Mária énekelte először magyarul és jóval ismertebb, mint a Gerendás Péteré (a Facebook-verziók száma befolyásolható). Azért nem írtam magyarázatot, mivel valószínűleg rossz angolsággal írtam meg volna ezeket.

Ám nem változtatok rajta, megértettem, hogy ezen a részen momentán nem szabad. Hadd higyék a nyugati országokban, hogy Magyarországon Gerendás Péter énekelte először a "Hol vannak katonák" című dalt és nem Mezei Mária (mivel az se derül ki a szövegkörnyezetből, nem a laptörtenetből, hogy miért Gerendás Péter verziója szerepel rajta és miért nem Mezei Máriáé vagy Kovács Erzsié, márpedig az ember elsődlegesen a történetiségből indul ki és nem egy-egy Facebook-verzió látogatottságából, amikor énekesneveket lát felsorolva a különböző országok nyelvi változatai mellett). Apród (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Köszönöm a magyarázatot. Hogy a változás, ha azt szeretné, hogy erre, de kérjük, írjon egy rövid mondattal, hogy miért. Magyar nyelv az elfogadható; tudjuk használni a szoftver online fordítói. Sensei48 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am new to the "wiki" style of editing an encyclopedia. I was curious as to why my change to "Joe Montana" (article) disappeared. I happen to have insider info (I grew up with his son). I'm just here to learn, and I want to help others learn, with the knowledge.

Do I need to source this to an almanac?

Thanks, 71.178.48.17 (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC) (signed)[reply]

Hello 71, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for the question. One of the most basic rules here is that information in articles must be "sourced" to a "reliable source," which is explained here: WP:RS. In the case of the Montana edit that you made, all the published sources list Joe's birthplace as New Eagle, Pennsylvania. If you have a published source that says Butte, Montana, you would have to insert it after the edit that you make. One way to do this is to click on the open book icon above the editing window to the left of "Advanced." A dialogue box will appear in which you can paste the URL for your source, or you can list the publication. The preferred method for sourcing, though, is listed here: WP:CT.

Unfortunately, insider information like knowing JM's son cannot be used as a source. Sources must be reliable and published, as above. I have some firsthand experience with this. One of my younger brothers is Terry Moran, and for several years the Wikipedia article had the wrong birth year for him. This was because the ABC News website had the wrong year - but I could not change the year and say "he's my brother and I know when he was born." I had to find a published source that confirmed the correct date. That's how things work here. I hope you'll enjoy editing article here at Wikipedia! Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American folk music revival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cohen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On page 74 of the annual record book I showed you, there IS a list of selectors that the NCAA recognizes. A couple pages down from that, it has a list of every year, along with teams that were chosen by these selectors. I go by this when editing pages on Wikipedia, though obviously, many people don't. It includes all the national titles on Oklahoma Sooners football. I'm not sure how you could go wrong using the NCAA's official record book, so I suggest this be used all throughout Wikipedia, including for Notre Dame Fighting Irish football. Kobra98 (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jerry Orbach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Law and Order. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to There Will Be Blood may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• film on that list which had been released since the year 2000), and 202 in the poll of Critics (making it the seventh film on that list which had been released since the year 2000. <ref>[http://
• |title=There Will Be Blood |accessdate=March 5, 2008 |work=Metacritic |publisher=CBS Interactive}}</ref

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See revisions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the courteous heads-up. Fine improvements to the article with excellent clarifications. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In editing Death Hunt, I noted that two other films based on a similar topic were out there, but had some errors that seem to have creeped into almost all the reference sources. The biggest mistake is the confusion over the titles, Mad Trapper, an alternate title for Challenge to Be Free (1975 US production) and The Mad Trapper (1972 British made-for-television docudrama). Take a look. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that you have done a good job of solidifying the differentiation between the two. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect, the NY Times obit isn't the end-all, be all for what the lead should be. Penguin and Mickey are the 2 roles most associated with Meredith, as they are the roles he portrayed most often. Here's his TCM biography, which places emphasis on his turns as Penguin and Mickey, thus showing that those are his 2 most notable roles.

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. While NYT may not be the end-all and be-all, it is widely regarded as having the best obits in U.S. journalism. However, your link does not say that those roles are his most notable. It says that they were "latter-day recognition" and not "most notable," which is your term. TCM places at least equal emphasis on five other movies, all from earlier in his career. TCM follows this up with "Memorable in everything from Shakespeare to the silliest of horror potboilers, Meredith was a consummate professional..." - that's its judgment on Meredith and more in keeping with the prior lede. Be that as it may and in the spirit of collaboration (and since we are already at 3RR), I will leave it as it is, though I will correct some misformatting and mis-punctuation. I will also add some sourced content that glosses on those two roles.regards,Sensei48 (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't looking to be confrontational about this, and your most recent edits are good. My only contention was that the public at large knows Meredith the best as Penguin and Mickey, thus I felt those roles should be mentioned, as he 'did play those roles the most often in his career, and are what most fans today know him for. Not trying to discredit his other work, but those roles are what your average John Q Public would know him best as. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the note. I do understand your point, and I believe we now have a logical compromise. My point is that even if we mention the two John Q Public roles in the lede, the responsibility of an encyclopedia is at least in part to put that in the larger context of the total notability of the topic. I'd say we've done so. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed... Happy Holidays. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Sensei48, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, Vjmlhds 16:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you so much for your edits in Beeton School but I have a question about it. You write "the Japanese puppetry pastiche of Sherlock Holmes" in it, but the series is based on the Canon of Sherlock Holmes. Though being adapted to the drama set in school, the elements of original stories can be seen in each episode. I don't think it's pastiche. And the title of the puppetry is "error: {{nihongo}}: Japanese or romaji text required (help)" (Sherlock Holmes) so I used it in the article. Official website--Ishinoak (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I revised the article a bit and hope you will check it. Anyway I really thank you for correcting my grammatical errors. By the way, you write the uniform for male pupil is a jacket and kilt. For reference, I put a picture of Sherlock Holmes who wears the uniform of Baker House.

https://twitter.com/momo_sakisaka/status/546655665351962624 Are such clothes categorized into kilt?

It's regrettable that there are verw few English information on the show. --Ishinoak (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for visiting you so often. I added a few more words to the description about the uniform.--Ishinoak (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sensei48, can you take a look at the changes I made to College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS related to the new playoff system and the final 2014 results. Also there a few issues that need to be address on the bottom of the talk page, as well. Thanks, Dolenath (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Dolenath: I have the page on my watchlist and pay close attention to all the changes. I think you've done an excellent job sorting through what has become a bewildering array of selectors and named champions. That Grantland Rice Trophy retirement took my by surprise - I had seen no notice of it whatsoever. This is as nettlesome a subject as nearly any other on Wikipedia. The NCAA itself is playing coy on the topic and has no rationale provided for why it lists some selectors in some years (Colley Matrix comes to mind) and not in others. It's a big fat mess, and I salute your attempts to make a coherent and fair-minded article out of it. I'll do what I can where I can to help, but my access to printed sources is pretty limited. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in our GA review, the reviewer mentioned that there are a lot of unsourced statements in the article's History section. I plan on going through as many of them as I can, but would you also mind taking a look? Thanks, Dolenath (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected one source: Joel Whitburn. You might know how to group a source into one when two different citations are on two separate pages (just like here: reference 8: page 556, and reference 9: page: 560) Radosław Wiśniewski (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Radosław Wiśniewski[reply]

Hello RW - It is my understanding that we can use this: [17] with a page number.

I agree with your point about McKuen's voice and you have a good source. I re-phrased it slightly and put it where the article discusses his performing. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sensei, if you have time, I would appreciate your comments and suggestions LBH TALK here.Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so over there. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch on the premature archive. It looks like an IPv6 editor changed the archiving settings recently. I have changed them back. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[