|
User talk:Sensei48/Archive 1
Dave GuardI may have overdone my "Talking Points" discussion on Dave Guard and should probably attempt to integrate the corrections and more important supported points into the main article. Sensei48 06:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Sensei48 Interest Emblems?
How can I add those nifty interest emblems to this talk page. I've searched high and low but can find no instructions. Sensei48 10:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Sensei48
Yes, that's it exactly, and thanks for the prompt response! Sensei48 14:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Sensei48
Twinkle & edit summariesRe: conversation at Talk:George Armstrong Custer: it's also possible to set your user preferences ("my preferences" - select "Editing" tab) so that you'll be prompted to enter an edit summary on saving a page if you didn't already enter one. I don't think the prompt comes if there's already an edit summary -- as when editing an article section that's already been made -- though I wish it would. I've gotten into the habit of entering edit summaries no matter what -- besides helping other editors looking at an article history to know what I did, it also helps me to keep track of my own edits. Very glad you've come in on the Custer-related articles. I came into it by way of the Battle of Washita River, & only came there because of a major content dispute there back in June/July -- & I'm not well-acquainted with the detail of the Little Bighorn battle; but Custer is at the center of a lot of contentious POV-pushing (which is some of what drove the conflicts at the Washita article, too), so it's always good to find another editor who's dedicated to sticking to NPOV, NOR, good sourcing, and just overall good encyclopedic writing. Best wishes. --Yksin 19:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Thank you again on all counts. You've helped to make the somewhat bewildering maze of editing and contributing protocols around here far more comprehensible. I've also studied the progress of what you've tried to do with the Washita article and realize that you've got exactly the same challenges there for exactly the same reasons that we do here at GAC and LBH. All of them seem to be shaping up, though I'd really like to take a major whack at the well-intended but badly done battle section on LBH. I've kind of made a start over on Miskwito's revision discussion page. More soon I'm sure - still waiting for Speisr to check in. Sensei48 04:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Welcome To Wiki?Just wondering why I never got one of those "Welcome To Wikipedia" pages with guidelines and so on. Sensei48 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome! Hello, Sensei48, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place
Hello from DonDesignJrHello BusterD, Sensei48, TabascoMan77, Golbez BusterD you do make me feel welcome. However we have unintentionally stepped on a few toes (I should say fingers, typing fingers). We have suspended our Wikipedia activities. We will corporate even without the threat of banishment. We believe the other editors are as supportive to tenderFoots (tenderFingers) as you and Sensei48 are, even though they did pounce pretty hard, and rightly so.
Why use the word spam? I don’t see a sufficient connection to share the word. I declare a misnomer. I can think of several more relevant, descriptive names.
And since it would be beneficial to your readers, Wikipedia editors, and aid in accomplishing our goals, we have decided to modify our Copyright Reprint Permission to offer Wikipedia editors our information to use or not use as they see fit (see External Links). If there are any changes you want, let us know. If one of the Wikipedia pros edits in some of our material, there would be no original research violations.
Would it be OK for us to add links from your External Links sections to our articles, with link deletion being the worse action your editors take?
DonDesignJr Spokesperson for: Ideas4Humanity.com DonDesignJr 23:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair Use?I cannot figure out what I've done wrong with these two pictures of all the ones I've uploaded. The Wiki instructions for creating a fair use rationale are murky at best. I'd appreciate any input from someone who can tell me what I am missing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kingstrio.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kingstontriosnap.jpg
Gypsy RoverThanks for your message. I am very surprised to hear that a blog is a reliable source. Can you prove even that the persons posting are really who they say they are? However, I am not disposed to argue. Let the article say whatever people want it to. Good luck.--Bedivere (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Shane62.jpgThanks for uploading Image:Shane62.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Small noteHello Sensei48, Just wanted to mention that I responded to your response regarding the Little Bighorn battle, and to compliment you on your cordiality and civility. Also, for your information and for no particular reason, you refer to me as "s/he" ("he" is appropriate); your use of "defence" where I use "defense" gives us both a sense of the other's language environment (which is good; and besides, it gives others a way to tell us apart); and especially, thanks for the friendly familiarity of using my first name ("24" instead of the stodgy and formal "24.178.228.14" ;-). Best Regards, 24.178.228.14 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) We need more legit professors around here...I've tagged the image Image:Us^cav35.gif for deletion since it's been replaced by the new SVG image on the page, and it supposedly copyrighted by FotW. The tag requires me to notify you to dispute it if you want. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC) FlagIn my mind's eye, it looks like I got 1867 and 1876 reversed. I have reverted it back to the correct flag. Thanks for noticing. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Just in case you've ever wondered whether you got it right...
It would seem so... ;-) Shenme (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Heston filmographyNo, thank you for alerting me to that. Your message was a big help. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Heston's "homophobia"I appreciate your remarks. The problem (which I perhaps did not address well) is that the editor under discussion is a known sockpuppet who fills a dozen or so articles with agenda-based accusations of racism, homophobia, treason, cowardice, all of them aimed at targets who were popular leading men of Hollywood. He has been banned under several dozen identities and now edits without a Username in order to escape the bans. (It's easy to recognize his edits -- they're almost always worded verbatim from the ones he submitted under his banned sockpuppet identities and always favor the same targets.) So while my response in this particular case may be kneejerk (for which, mea culpa), it was directed at a longstanding problem. In the case of Heston, this fellow's comments are more ludicrous than usual, as Heston was one of the least racist or homophobic people in the history of Hollywood, with intense public activity that counters such accusations. So the question becomes one of whether to allow a banned sockpuppet free reign simply because he ceased registering under a Username. Certainly viable citations for his accusations would be meaningful in evaluating his edits. But there are other things at stake. I suggest you take a look at the HarveyCarter sockpuppet history. It's pretty ugly. All the best. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Edits from Banned User HC and IPs
2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:
Thanks! ~ IP4240207xx (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Recent changes at Mitch BouyerHi, an IP editor just made some big changes at the B. of Lil Bighorn related Mitch Bouyer page (which I have watchlisted for some reason). I don't have much experience with the source materials (hell, until I read the main article I thought Little Big Man was trying to be accurate), so do you mind looking at the changes and seeing if they are appropriate. I reverted one, but feel free to change that back if you want. I did leave a message at the IP's talk page, but it looks like they've edited from 2 IPs in their 2 visits, so I don't think they'll get the message. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Requesting third party resolution of Notre Dame FootballHello, Sensei 48, I am requesting that you check my recent edits on famous games on the Notre Dame football wiki page. I had started a list of games I knew to be notable and important to Notre Dame and college football and thought I should include them. I also added it to the talk page. Then User:Tool2die4 started saying it lacked NPOV. He then added a 2001 Fiesta bowl game to the list to try to "even the list out" for the sake of NPOV. This was my worry before I even started the section, that people would start adding insignificant games, or try to stretch certain games to make them important, or try to add wins and losses as part of a "fanboy" reaction. Again, the list is meant to include games that are considered important by outside writers, to clear up NPOV. I amended the talk page to say that perhaps it should be just those games, to avoid people adding a huge litany of games. To that end, I included on the list only those games that were identified as "games of the century", #1 vs #2 matchups, or had otherwise been written about as historic games to the game of football, not just Notre Dame. So when I edited the list, I did it by removing not only the 2001 fiesta bowl, but other bowl games and ND games that also did not meet the criteria. Tool2Die4 saw the edit and reverted it, labeling it as vandalism. He may have thought I vandalized the page since I cleared out the section in order to move it to another section. There was no actual deletion of content that would considered vandalism. But instead of asking for a clarification, Tool2die4 acted by reverting my edit, thus deleting all the sources I had just added. I reverted it back, arguing he was starting an edit war. He again reverted my edit with all the verifiable sources included back to the list that had none. I said I used "original research" trying to convey that the list had independently verifiable sources. He is now trying to use the phrase against me to say I am violating wikipedia guidelines and that it is now his duty to keep an eye on the page, like he owns it. He has since offered a compromise to add the Fiesta Bowl back to "let" me have the page reverted back. I believe this is not in the spirit of wikipedia and that he thinks he owns the page. Again, I took out all the bowl games, not just the fiesta bowl, when I edited the list. If he wants to add the game I feel he should find an article anywhere that calls it a game of importance like the other games have been written about, not as a bargaining chip. Please refer to the talk pages to help inform you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tool2Die4#Vandalism_of_Notre_Dame_site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_football#Tool2Die4 Tedmoseby (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Also look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_football#Famous_Games_Part_2_-_Neutral_Point_of_view Thanks. Tedmoseby (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Little Bighorncusterwest.org was created by specialists to show historical material to the general public. If you continue to illegally erase this history portal, you will be reported to Wikipedia. List of contributors to custerwest.org : http://custer.over-blog.com/article-10655846.html 30 specialists have contributed to custerwest.org - and it is much more accurate, with more than 400 historical sources. Both Washita and Little Bighorn articles on Wikipedia are POV with factual errors (the complete missing of white hostages at the Washita) and volontary misinformation on the Old West. The censorship against historical material and the work of dozens of serious and dedicated historians will be reported on the Wikipedia central. There are people here who do not respect historical study and block any attempt to correct a record with historical facts. custerwest.org gives evidence, not clueless opinions. Maybe Wikipedia is the home of opinions. Sorry for the mistake. I thought it was an encyclopedia. Custerwest (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Constant vandalism against custerwest.org and the Little Big Horn Associates on the George A. Custer pages. Take a look. Custerwest (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Emporia vs. Washburn/ND vs ArmyHello Paulmacdonald - I found your recent addition to my section on the forward pass and the 1913 ND/Army game to be fascinating. While I (like many other ND people) were aware that Rockne and Dorais were simply exploiting a maneuver already invented, I had never before seen a specific reference to a player, coach and game. I do wonder, however, if an article on Notre Dame football is quite the right place for this information. It strikes me that in a publication in print, this would likely be in an informational footnote or end note instead of the main body text, and I'm not at all sure that it belongs here. I have a feeling that one or another of my more enthusiastic fellow Notre Dame editors may remove it for just these reasons of relevance, even though it is admirably sourced and noted. Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Anthony Quinn
Wikipedia:POV??? I think you need to site who says that they are some of the most important films in cinema history. IP4240207xx (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
KUDOS!: * Wert, Jeffry D. (1996). Custer: The Controversial Life of George Armstrong Custer, New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0-684-81043-3. Oops...forgot to sign > ~ WikiDon (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Battle of Washita RiverHaving trouble over there are you? Custer attacking? I wrote a poem about the Battle of Washita River a few years ago... ~ WikiDon (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC) ReferencesIf you don't close a REF properly, </ref> or /> it will BLANK (or hide) everything past that point. ~ WikiDon (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC) ALL COLORS TURN TO RED
~ WikiDon PS: Actually the poem is 1/2 about the BoftW and 1/2 about the BoftLBH.
Re:Attention Please: Allegedly Orphaned ImagesThe edit summaries I used when removing the images were "Removed non-fair use of album covers per Wikipedia:Non-free content" because all of the images are/were being used against the fair use policy on Wikipedia. Acceptable use of album images include (Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images): "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Unacceptable use of album images include (Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2): "The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). Given below are further examples of images that, if non-free, may fail to satisfy the policy: 1. An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above." A call for a fair use rationale will not work in these cases because the problem is not with the fair use rationales, but with how the images are being used in the articles. I delete images I find that violate the fair use policy. For those images then not used on any articles, I put the orphaned fair use template on the image page instead of letting the bot handle it so the uploader of the image has more time to act on fixing the articles and so it does not look like I am trying to be sneaky in removing the image from the article. As it currently stands the images you added to Bob Shane would also violate the fair use policy, but since we are having this discussion I am not planning on deleting them from the page at this time.Aspects (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Gordon LightfootThat was the most intense edit summary that I have ever read! "remove ungrammatical comma; a subject cannot be separated from a predicate without a nonrestrictive modifier intervening" Wow. Bulbous (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) ThanksThanks for telling me about my mistake. I'm pretty new so I don't know much. Im an asian 04:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Im an asian (talk • contribs)
I'm gonna do just that. Thank you. By the way, I'm narrowing it down to Penn and USC. Both had impressive win today. Im an asian 04:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I remeber a camp with Dat once and he was stonger and faster than me. But it was a few years ago and he was at his prime. Hopefully I can attain his level of condition. Im an asian 06:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Im an asian (talk • contribs)
LBH linksYou're probably right... I hadn't read the exact wording of ELNO #1 in a while and in my head was thinking "any link which could be used as a source" (which now that I think about it has been a popular way to paraphrase it by others). Those two links are useful as sources, but they do "contain unique information beyond what the article would contain if it were a featured article" as well. I just noticed that some link-creep had been going on, and guess I came in kind of rough-shod. I'll put them back. Thanks for keeping me in check ;) NJGW (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC) LBH Unsubstantiated POVSaw your cut to my edits. I've walked the battlefield on 3 separate times. Most recently, I took a group of people from the Theodore Roosevelt Association on a tour last July. From native Indian accounts, I'll begin to provide the documentation to support what you call POV. If you phyically walk across that field you see it as Reno would have seen it. The way the river and trees restricted movement to the right but also tied in Reno's defense giving him a secure right flank is also obvious. There was no where for the indians to go except to Reno's right and virtually every first hand account supports this. I'm up in Calgary Canada but I'll be back with the documentation. Hope you've visited the battlefield yourself. You can't appreciate Reno's situation nor the battlefield geometry any other way. SimonATL (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your LBH CommentsYou make good points on unprovable speculation. I'll do some more research on "much beloved" Keogh. Right now, up in Canada, I don't have access to my LBH library. My whole goal in the article is to try as much as possible to show some of the battlefield geometry and dynamics that really haven't appeared much in press or on-line. As I mentioned earlier, I was personally amazed when, after 40 years, (I grew up only 20 miles from Custer's boyhood town in MI) I finally got the chance to go out to the Battlefield a few times in the past 2 years and walk the ground. What was never clear to me was the limited view of the village that Reno probably had until it was really too late for him to rethink attack - yes or no. This is that part about the bend in a former twist in the LBH river that runs just behind that truckstop size "town" (yes it has a post office) of Garryowen. Most of the battlefield maps indicate that he charged in a line roughly parallel to the village. This doesn't square with either his own accounts (RCOI) nor the Indian account, Sioux, Arikara, and Cheyenne. He actually came at the village with most of it obscured by that trees and brush that are most always running along the track of the rivers. This is why I just uploaded that map from the US Army's Command and Staff College. It has time hacks and is more accurate. Your're 100 right about organizing the article and cleaning it all up. My goal is to get the reader to "feel" the lay of the land. Also would be interested in your thoughts about the paths taken by Crazy Horse and Gall up to Findley Ridge. This is a hotely contested issue. My email is SimonATL@yahoo.com I have an interesting "slide show" I found last night from a university on the whole battle which I had never seen before. I can email it to you but I'll also post its URL on the LBH discussion page. Simon SimonATL (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Bottom line, next time I contemplate any major change, I'll run it thru good ole Microsoft Word rather than just putting it "out there." I'm sorry but I rushed to get the stuff out there way too fast and it was also far from even remotely fully developed. I should not really have done that. In fact, most of the stuff I added should have been put in the discussion page - then again, who actually READS that page? Frankly, didn't really think anyone cared as there were so few edits. I was presuming that I could "develop" the "improvements" over time. This did NOT really take into account, as you pointed out) the fact that new readers could really be confused by any interim changes. Essentially, I was developing the article for the editors and not the readers, as it would seem, and this is NOT the best approach.... So... I stand corrected and will work from the reader's perspective going forward. Apparently there's actually MORE interest in the topic than I realized. Email me at SimonATL@yahoo.com as I have a couple interesting things to send you including an excellent discussion of LBH in a South African Military Journal and also a really interesting PDF. Thanks again! SimonATL (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
File:Shanesun2.jpg listed for deletionAn image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Shanesun2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Jane Bowers?I posted this on the discussion page of Here We Go Again! and then thought of your expertise in this area. The mysterious Jane Bowers... Did she write the songs done by the KT or arrange them? Senora... what an intense song. San Miguel... an incredible story told in the right way... ambiguity in the end! I've been unlucky finding any bio info on her on the web. For the number of songs the KT recorded of hers, I'm curious of her song writing career. I know Ernest Tubb recorded The Alamo didn't he? Any light to be shed on her? I would think she is notable enough to have a page... Thanks in advance. Airproofing (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit Problems - LBH - For Admin Review58's First reply to my reversion of his order of march edit to the LBH page:
Hi 58! I appreciate the energy that your current edits display and your passion for accuracy on LBH - and your note on my Talk page. I do in fact read a LOT more than edit summaries and have put more time in on this article (as referee as well as editor/writer) than nearly any other editor. Perhaps you misunderstood MY edit summary, and you apparently do not see why your edit of Custer's division of command is seriously misplaced in this article. This is a matter of rhetoric and chronology. The rhetorical problem is that by placing the division of GAC's command where you do, in the paragraph at the outset of the campaign, prior to June 17 Rosebud, the inescapable implication is that this division was made at that time by Terry or under his supervision. Your clear expertise about the battle tells me that you know that this was not so - that the division of the 7th Cavalry into three battalions was a controversial command decision made by GAC immediately prior to the battle. Certainly the division of the 7th into battalions (or detachments, as the article now states) needs to be elucidated, but not in that paragraph. Look again, please - every other unit described in that paragraph left their respective forts in the configurations there presented. Putting GAC's division of June 25th should not be in the same paragraph with Terry's columns leaving Ft. Lincoln on May 29. We hve a dozen or so other editors and admins working consistently on this article, and rather than go to the three revert situation, perhaps we could ask someone else to take a look at the placement and comment. Regards Sensei48 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
"Custer and the Seventh Cavalry were ordered to the Dakota Territory in March of 1873. Life in Elizabethtown had probably become monotonous for Custer and the Seventh. Immediately upon receiving orders, they hurriedly packed and left Elizabethtown over the L & N Railroad bound for Louisville, then Memphis. The regiment was to rendezvous in Memphis. From Memphis steamers were boarded for transport to Cairo. From there rail and horse carried the Seventh to the Dakota Territory. Once there the Seventh Cavalry was reunited and prepared for active operations." The 1st cavalry division site http://www.first-team.us/journals/7th_rgmt/7thndx07.html shows that with the exception of E & M companies, the rest were scattered all over the South. They would have arrived for transportation to Dakota at different times, loaded at different times, and certainly not sequentially, unloaded in the same order as loaded, taken up same place in the regimental order of march and struck camp in the same order. This is how I would explain the non-sequential assignment of the companies to the three senior officers. Custer commanded the main force of the regiment while others commanded the advance guard (Reno) and the (rear guard, Benteen), with the main also including the pack train with one company for escort. Interestingly some sources describe the regiment having only 11 companies on this campaign, and they are right since the A company was the Regimental HQ and band company, although it is listed in the order of march as a line company in most sources. Undoubtedly they all fought just the same as ordinary troopers even if most were not.--58.165.128.120 (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What happened - the US Cavalry POVI wrote the following as a reply to a friend who is not editing on Wikipedia. It may be useful as a consideration. Actually the entire thing was far simpler. Ordinarily the regiment would have had 4 squadrons of 3-4 troops each, but reduction of the Army after the Civil War resulted in "short" regiments with no squadron commands, these being reintroduced in 1881. Custer followed regulations for the Charge. He positioned one "squadron" (Reno) to charge the front of what he thought was a large (but not how large) village with the warriors sleeping. This was his assumption from testimony given by the H Company trumpeter attached to him (and the only person present at the final observation point), but later sent with the order to Benteen (commander of H Company). According to the regulation (#561) the flank attack was to be carried out simultaneously, so Custer galloped (testimony of the trumpeter) while Reno advanced at a walk and then a trot. Benteen as the third in command got the reserve "squadron". Writers had alleged enmity between Custer and Benteen, but Custer also knew Benteen's character, and he knew that Benteen would come to the rally signal (a volley) when and if needed. Benteen was somewhat behind Custer, and positioned so he could come to Custer or Reno, but primarily Custer, along the bank of the river rather than over the hills since there would be no need for hiding movement by that time. So far, Custer was doing everything by the book as they say. What happened was the unpredictable. Firstly the warriors were not asleep, but just departing camp having collected their ponies. When Reno found himself facing 300-600 warriors, he stupidly dismounted (loosing 25% of his troops as horse holders) and deployed in skirmish order! This caused his command to rout quick smart and he retreated towards last known position of Custer, arriving at a spot between Custer and Benteen. He then was charged again, and ordered the volley fired. Benteen, thinking this was Custer's signal, charged in and relieved Reno, at which time Reno took command again, and they both settled in to look after the wounded. Meanwhile Custer not trotted, not cantered, but galloped (on exhausted horses) at the Indian village. Only as he neared it did he suddenly realise it was much larger than he had seen from the hill. It was too late to stop however, when suddenly he was faced with about 600 warriors (of a different tribe to that charging Reno). Since these were attacking and not retreating, as Custer expected, he promptly took the only decision he could, to put some distance between them and his troops and gain a height. The distance was crucial since the US Cavalry troopers were armed with longer ranged rifles, and could pick riders off at a distance, but the warriors kept charging. To add to his voes, another group of warriors showed up from a different direction forcing Custer to order an all-round defence to be formed (standard tactic). At this stage the Reno/Benteen command was joined by the pack train and the warriors seeing the position reinforced, and hearing the firing to the distance (of the village) departed and joined the Custer position combat from yet another direction from which Custer expected Benteen to appear. I can only imagine the thoughts in Custer's head at this moment! However, he had possibly died earlier because soon after a part of the command, the E "Grey horse" Company decided on a breakout and charged, only to be killed to a man in a ravine that forced them to slow down to a walk. Essentially as far as I can see Custer's folly was to assume too much and fail to identify the actual enemy. Besides that he had orders to wait for the infantry, indeed the rest of the Terry column. Other than that he had acted like a typical cavalry officer of the period, and did everything else according to regulations. Reno was an idiot and a coward. On discovering himself outnumbered he should have a) sent a messenger to Custer and Benteen, and b) attempted to join Custer thus denying the regiment's flank (also standard regimental tactic). He did neither, and in fact lost men in the wrong deployment order (skirmish). Benteen failed to follow orders. He should have kept going and joined Custer (also a standard regulation for a reserve squadron). There was still time, and as soon as the pack train reached the Reno position, Benteen (since Reno was by this stage incapable of command) should have taken 4 companies and gone off to aid Custer. Instead he chose to follow Reno's orders which was technically correct, but highly treacherous, i.e. leaving a fellow officer, indeed commanding officer, without aid as was his role in command of the reserve. I have no doubt that they would have heard the fighting only 2.5 miles away, and in any case, they witnessed the departure of the Indian warriors. There was also failure to pursue the enemy (another regulation). The ONLY excuse that he gave later which was valid was that their horses were too tired, which is true because Custer had pushed the regiment on a night march the night before with only 3 hours rest and a short watering. All in all this is basic cavalry tactics completely miscarried by all three senior officers. I'm not sure there is anyone to blame since much of the action had to do with terrain. Custer made one crucial mistake. He had detached all his scouts (20 Indians and whites) to Reno's command. These should have screened the main force, thus providing warning. Has Custer's command been able to engage the Indians at the extreme range of their rifles, the Indians, incapable of returning fire, would have retreated to the village. This would have allowed Custer to retire on Benteen's reserve, collect the pack mules, recall Reno and report warrior location to Terry as ordered, while resting his men and horses. Alas, the cavalry was made for glory.... Cheers Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.128.120 (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Joe Montana and redshirtingAs a double alum, I have a comment on your comment "Notre Dame does not practice redshirting", followed by the medical reasoning for Joe Montana. The team does in fact hold players back just for eligibility purposes, for example Dayne Crist, which is redshirting. The two differences is that after that year held back, Notre Dame properly calls them Sophomores, and furthermore they need to graduate in the same amount of time that others in their major would have (usually four years, five in the case of say an Architect or Business+MBA degree). If they've graduated, then they will have to apply to be in an additional grad school. So the proper answer is that ND redshirts while maintaining academic integrity. Also note I had no problem with your actual edits to the article. Cheers. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Bonnie & ClydeThanks for letting me know. I hadn't gotten that far up my watchlist yet. Yes, this article takes much too much policing, but it's necessary, I think. The Klepto Clyde apparently slipped in there without my noticing, it's not really about this pair. The link given for the Hilary Duff debacle is mostly a blog so it's not reliable. Unfortunately, IMDB lists it as a possibility, but gives Duff's involvement as rumored, so I'm taking this out, too. I wince at the thought of this - the clothes horse princess from Cheaper by the Dozen and the voice of Sunshine Goodness in Foodfight???? Say it ain't so!! I can't see it having the depth of character necessary. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Thom HatchHi, do you remember about a week ago I asked some questions at BofLBH about references using Thom Hatch's book? I cleaned up Thom Hatch while I was trying to figure out if he was notable (basically removed 6k of spam and some poetic language), and now 2 IP ranges that resolve to Thom's hometown keep reverting back to the spam version. Do you mind putting that page on your watch list? Also, you can see the two ranges involved there and compare them to any you may find oddly pushing Thom's books as sources at other pages. NJGW (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Keith LarsenThank you for your kind comments about the Keith Larsen article. Compliments are rare on Wikipedia. There are a few missing pieces about his personal life, but I included all the info that I had. Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC) re: B&CI wasn't home today and missed this. I appreciate your keeping an eye on it! Thanks!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi!Well, thank you for clearing that up for me :) I hope I am doing this right, by responding to your message on your talk page? As for Jeremiah Johnson - first, thank you for helping me figure out it out. Second, I recall trivia sections being frowned upon? To the point where articles that still have them, are being edited to integrate the information elsewhere in the article? If I am wrong, then I would definitely like to try adding it.. but only if you wouldn't mind looking at the article when I am done to make sure I don't royally screw something up! SarahKellyScott (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC) I've explained, in both edit summaries, why this addition is not trivia. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
""apologies to Yaf for using this page to reply. Sensei48 (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
San Gabriel ValleyIt does not snow in the SGV, could you provide a source? I lived there 15 years never saw snow until moved east to the higher country in San Bernardino County (2000 ft). Until you provide a source, your edit will be reverted, please disscus it in the SGV talk page. Thank-You itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
June LockhartFor her appearence on Weakest Link, Which section should I put that under? HannahMiley, Talk. Lawrence and linkspamOrdinarily, I would agree with you about the article found at that link - however, the article was added in by Morgands1, who had just added in a raft of links to items written by a "David Morgan" at that site. I called all the reverts linkspam based on the username, plus the fact that the user had previously been warned about WP:COI edits by DreamGuy but continued to do nothing but add links to what appear to be articles that he wrote, hosted on his own website. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) KT discographyAdditions done per your request! Take care. Airproofing (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC) ???I never called you a Climate Change denier! Franklin J. Robinson (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
CusterSorry about the mess I made with the archiving bot. It was supposed to take sections which had gone without comment for more than 90 days, which generally seems to me long enough to assume that they're dead. But I screwed up the formatting, so it simply erased sections older than 24 hours! I've deleted the bot; you can do a manual archiving.
Orphaned non-free image (File:Shane62.jpg) Thanks for uploading File:Shane62.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Replaceable fair use Image:Shane62.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:Shane62.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC) RE: More On Non-Free Images; Clarification/Assistance?Given that there is a free image that can be used instead of the non-free one, you will probably have to use it. There really isn't any wiggle room when it comes to non-free images. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC) File:Shane62.jpg listed for deletionFollowing your comments, I've opened a discussion for File:Shane62.jpg at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Re: Cult FilmNo problem, I was glad to do it. In my edit summary, I was referring to your talk page comment from back in April. You might notice, though, that I did a lot of work in the article last month. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
KT RewriteGreat job on your re-write of The Kingston Trio article. Nice work. It even makes sense now! Airproofing (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 7/25: I'll add the new album to the discography. Really nice work on the man article especially the Music and controversy section. Much needed section I think.Airproofing (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I'm really not to clear on formatting references/sources. I'll dig into it a little when I can, but don't let me hold you back!Airproofing (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
KT GA reviewI made one small change in the lead after reading recommendations after GA review. See if it's OK. Hate to mess with your work too much!Airproofing (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:DaveGuard3.jpg Thanks for uploading File:DaveGuard3.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 23:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Time Magazine and interventionHi Sensei, I really don't think its debatable that Time Magazine was interventionist or politically conservative in outlook. However, I am glad to supply references to back it up, insofar as I am able. Did you consult the wikipedia articles on Interventionism (politics) and non-interventionalism? Henry Luce (q.v.), publisher of Time, was the author of the American Century, advocating US intervention world wide. According to wikipedia
For further corroboration, I suggest you google "Henry Luce interventist" and take a look at this http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3468301620.html for example. I agree with your removal of the quotation marks around "patriot", by the way. Glad you enjoy folk music. -Mballen
regards, Sensei48 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Service awards proposal
re: Jay-ZSure, here you go: [13]. The Blueprint 3 is his 11th. Hope that helps. - eo (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Talkback Message added 17:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Folk rockHi Sensei48! Thanks for picking me up on my spelling mistakes and non-NPOV writing with "sanitized". I intend to do a lot more work on the folk rock article over the coming weeks - fully covering the British Invasion's influence as well as the whole 1960s folk rock boom. With regards the Collins/Baez debate...I do sort of agree with you but in my opinion neither Collins nor Baez are a particularly good fit. The ref cites Collins as someone who paid her dues in the Greenwich Village coffeehouses and later transition to folk rock (which is why I included her) but I don't really think she's a good fit because as you rightly point out, she was more in the pop-folk camp than the urban revivalist one. I also must confess that I didn't know about her breakthrough performance at Newport in 1959 but that's another reason why she's not a good fit here. Baez doesn't really work for me either though because (correct me if I'm wrong) she came out of the Boston scene and was already a relatively famous Vanguard Records recording star before she lived in NYC. My feeling is that in lieu of a suitable alternative, Collins and Baez should be dropped from that sentence. As an aside, PP&M definitely became a folk rock act in the late 1960s. Yes, they began as an earnest pop-folk act but they began to tentatively move in a pseudo-folk rock direction on their The Peter, Paul and Mary Album in 1966 and several tracks on 1967’s Album 1700 clearly fall into the folk rock camp, not least the folk rock pastiche "I Dig Rock and Roll Music". By the time of 1968's Late Again, PP&M were fully immersed in folk rock, recording with drums and electric rock instrumentation - just listen to songs like "Too Much of Nothing", "Moments of Soft Persuasion", and "Love City (Postcards to Doluth)" on Late Again. These tracks are as folk rock as you can get. I do agree that Paxton was never particularly folk rock though - that's why I said "many of whom ". ;-) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
[[talk archive}} |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
){kind=link}
