User talk:Sensei48/Archive 1

Dave Guard

I 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?

{{helpme}}

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

Do you mean Wikipedia:Userboxes by any chance? That page has instructions as well as links to galleries containing them at the bottom of the page. Harryboyles 10:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's it exactly, and thanks for the prompt response! Sensei48 14:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Sensei48

Twinkle & edit summaries

Re: 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)

It's nothing personal. At the rate that people are joining Wikipedia, we simply can't keep up, so (unfortunately) not everyone gets welcomed. However, I guess I could give you one. :D şœśэїŝәқι^{ￆṱᾅἻқￂ} 19:02, 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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, 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 {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

MBisanzBot (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Hi! You only get one if people give you one. It's not automatic. I didn't get one when I joined either. :-) Stwalkerster talk 19:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello from DonDesignJr

Hello 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.

SPAM DEFINED. BusterD and Golbez thanks for explaining spam as it pertains to Wikipedia. I knew of the common definition of spam but not this meaning. I was surprised. If TabascoMan77 or Golbez had used the term WikiSpam or used BusterD's link to spam, it would have made me investigate the meaning, and I would have found it instantly in Wikipedia. Whereas spam left me puzzled: "What spam? I didn't spam!"

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.

WikiSpam I DID. I saw the ability to add links and thought that implied permission. At the very least, it implied adding links was not totally taboo. It didn't occur to me that links in the body of your articles link only to Wikipedia articles. Sorry.

RE-WRITES. Sensei48, of course you are correct about the re-write. When searching for information, my first click is on the big "W" on my bookmark bar, because I know Wikipedia's information is enormous and not tainted with bias such as mine and has links to "Points-of-View" sites such as ours. However, I dedicate most of my time to achieving the Goals set forth by Ideas4Humanity.com (see External Links) and am driven by forces that appear daily without warning, so I may not return to The Little Bighorn for sometime, especially not knowing that it will be approved. But foremost, I don't have the skill to switch from writing on one side of the fence to walking on top of the fence with my bias lean. Perhaps that is a reason for the original research rule.

MODIFIED OUR COPYRIGHTS. We have several articles that may interest your readers as excerpts or External Links. For our List of All Articles see our External Links at the end of this message.

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.

LINKS BACK AND FORTH. We have been adding links from our articles to Wikipedia. We will add many more. Wikipedia is a powerful resource, thanks to you folks.

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?

ALL EDITORS. Would you pass this message to all Wikipedia editors? Or tell me how to do it, if it is permitted.

MORE THAN WELCOMED. We feel more than welcomed. We feel honored to be known by the Bakers of Wikipedia's Bread of Knowledge.

EXTERNAL LINKS:

• Goals: [1]
• List All Articles: [2]
• Permission: [3]

Cheerio! Don.

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

A bot tagged the images because it didn't recognize any fair use rationale, which is required in addition to the tag placed on the page. Hold on a second and I'll find a template to add to the page. But you didn't do anything wrong, as there is a rationale provided. -Rjd0060 05:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Are those actually DVD's or are they CD's? - Rjd0060 05:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed them both. However, for Image:Kingstontriosnap.jpg, tell me if you got that image from the same website as the other one. - Rjd0060 05:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

All done! So to summarize; the bot went around tagging articles that didn't have any Fair use rationales. Those actually did have them, but the bot didn't recognize them. It is always best to use the template version for fair use rationales. There is a whole list of them here. You'll notice that you have to add a separate fair use rationale template for each article that the image is in. If you have any other questions, feel free to leave them on my talk page. - Rjd0060 05:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Gypsy Rover

Thanks 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.jpg

Thanks 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 note

Hello 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)

Flag

In 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)

Battle of the Little Bighorn

Just in case you've ever wondered whether you got it right...

[4] Revision as of 16:22, 18 January 2007 151.199.193.233 (has numerous bad edits)

[5] Revision as of 16:33, 29 April 2007 71.72.210.226 (3 edits total)

It would seem so... ;-) Shenme (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Heston filmography

No, 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

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

Thanks! ~ IP4240207xx (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes at Mitch Bouyer

Hi, 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)

Hi NJGW! Thanks so much for your heads up on the Mitch Bouyer page. I thought that I had had most of the LBH pages covered on my watchlist sort of to police them for just such non-historical intrusions as you noted. I made about the only two edits that I thought I could make without a complete reversion - getting at POV language, removing even the hint that Curley was anywhere near the battle when it was joined, and calling for specific citations at a half dozen points where some editor or other has weaseled through using passive voice (it is reported) to cover exactly the point that the comments are not sourced in the article. I think I'll let those citation needed tags lie there for a while, and if the posting editor does not respond, I'll go into the article myself to do some sourced clean up. Thanks again! Sensei48 (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting third party resolution of Notre Dame Football

Hello, 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)

Let Tedmoseby add material as he sees fit. If his list can be sourced via reliable third-party references, then I have no problem with it. Sports blogs, and material of that sort, don't fly here. He had pointed out criteria of games having had books written about them, so I'd expect to see citations heavily favored towards mentioning books, rather than websites. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Little Bighorn

custerwest.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 Army

Hello 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)

I do think that you're right, I went just a bit "overboard" on the information, really kind of repeating what is in the article on the "forward pass" -- I would encourage ND fans such as yourself to re-edit the information that I brought and make it better!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Quinn

"Quinn appeared ... in some of the most important films in cinema history..."

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)

Ebert, Roger. - Lawrence Of Arabia. - Chicago Sun Times. - March 17, 1989

If you check here, I didn't edit anything back out. What I put here is still here, plus I added the Ebert link/reference to LofA. The other comments are on the AQ talk page. IP4240207xx (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

After you wake up I would like to ask you to format your references similar to the formatting that I left for the Ebert LofA link. I know it takes work, but Q'N-Q'out. Once you start doing it, it becomes a nice habit. CO. IP4240207xx (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea - and will do. I haven't figured out yet the ins and outs of Wiki refs - and need to and will.Sensei48 (talk) 10:30, 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 River

Having 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)

References

If 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

Out of the darkness of black they came.

Sun at their backs, wind in their face.

Their faces blank of feeling, void of emotion.

Blank stares of evil, eyes as cold as a stone.

Hand of the devil on their shoulder.

Riding hard and fast, turning green and white to red.

Cries of mothers and children silenced with flashes of lead and steel.

But soon the tables will turn, their blue will turn too red itself.

Golden hair will fall to the ground,

Mix with the yellow of the grass and become one.

Out of the brightness of blue they came.

Sun shining all around them, no wind, except what they made.

Their faces red with justice, full of emotion.

Hard stares of pain, eyes hot as blood.

Cries of mothers and children silenced with flashes of lead and steel.

Now the tables have turned, their blue turns too red.

Golden hair falls to the ground.

Mixes with the yellow of the grass and becomes one.

~ WikiDon

PS: Actually the poem is 1/2 about the BoftW and 1/2 about the BoftLBH.

Thank you for the nice compliment. I am not the scholar that Auden was. If I don't tell people what the poem is about, I don't know that any, if few, would figure out that Custer, Black Kettle, the Cheyenne, etc., is the subject.

Yes, the enlisted and non-commissioned of 1870 probably had the education of today's 10 year old. They just wanted their pay and their beer. They did what they were told, or left, or were kicked out. You can't blame them. But, Custer, and Crook, and Sheridan, were "educated" and, well, they could have done a better job. Custer had an ego the size of an elephant. Like Patton, he should have someone like Bradley, Smith, and Eisenhower keeping an eye on him. When you need a guy like that, none can be better, but part of them needs babysitting. Imagine being stationed on the Western Plains back then was almost like being in charge of Antarctica today. One could let the isolation and lack of supervision send them spinning off to their own insanity. Lord of the Flies comes to mind. ~ WikiDon (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Attention Please: Allegedly Orphaned Images

The 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)

If there was critical commentary for the pictures then they could possibly be kept in the discographies but then as a whole they could fail the third point of the Policy section of the fair use policy: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Aspects (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Lightfoot

That 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)

Thanks

Thanks 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 been training all my life and now it's beginning to paid off. But I know I have to do well in school too because I can never know what happen. Hopefully my career can resemble Dat Nguyen or better. Im an asian 04:59, 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 links

You'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 POV

Saw 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)

I saw this, so would offer the thought that unless they are very long lived trees that are not affected by over a century of seasons, they are probably not a good factor to consider in how their position NOW affected behaviour of combatants THEN.--58.165.128.120 (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your LBH Comments

You 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)

Re my recent so-called edits - hey - Edit away. I really don't know how to use the so-called sandbox. My goal has been to move the article forward. There has NOT been enough organization. Reduce topic size, etc. I had intended to directly quote the "Indian Village" snippets. But - the point is, my thought is that a person new to the topic needs to know something of the incorrect assumptions and YES - they WERE fatal - that's hardly POV. Look at the article 6 months ago. It was NOT organized enough topically. Let's look at it from the point of the newcomer as you say. It's one of those cases where the reader doesn't KNOW what he doesn't know - what I call "double-blind" ignorance. My point is that a new reader should be apprised of the questions that research into LBH that the article tries to answer. Please try to keep you comments less emotive. I have tried to make some of these changes with little spare time available. Don't worry about my ability to write in the English language. I'm what you call "over educated" and can hold my own in the English 101 department. I've also contributed to Wikipedia in Spanish and Latin. If some of the edits have appeared to be sloppy, its' been a question of time availble and not editorial ability. In the future, I'll try NOT to make so many abrupt changes. Please understand my overall goal - to enlighten the reader. Think about this. How many casual readers know, for example, that Custer road down from the Continental Divide with INCORRECT assumptions about the size of the Indian forces in the field as well as INCORRECT assumptions about their willingness for fight over flight. These are HUGE aspects of the overall picture. Custer has even been termed insane. I'm no Custer fan at all. He really DID have a bad day and made one mistake after another, but we should be able to provide the context for what happened - wouldn't you think? That's what I'm trying to accomplish in what looks to have been a lurching way. Thanks for your understanding. I am NOT the enemy here. Nor am I some unthinking Wiki vandal, either. Look at the history of my edits. I've worked in some other major areas besides LBH. On the other hand, only last August, I personally took a group of people from the Theodore Roosevelt Association on a guided tour of the battlefield, so I'm no slouch on the topic either. Please understand my goal - to make this article "the" place to read a concise, accurate and thoughtful discussion of the Battle. I did a LOT to IMPROVE the article on Theodore Roosevelt. I added entire sections and uploaded more than half of the photos and THAT article did become a featured article. In the process, I ended up joining the Theodore Roosevelt Association and even becoming friends with a couple of TR's descendents. All that was initially unintended. But in the case of LBH, I've joined the one "Friends of" group. So please be patient, I'll get in line here and NOT destroy the article. I'm GLAD to find someone also highly interested in its success! SimonATL (talk) 12:15, 6 November 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)

Some fairly useful editing in the past fall-winter months. Looks like Doktorschley is a fairly good writer. I can see you in there making improvements too. What's this "Custer Massacre" vs. "Custer Battle" business? Have a great New Year. Hope to visit the LBH Battlefield again - in Spring of 2009. SimonATL (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you really strive for "balance" in the article and fight to keep it from drifting into a long "opinion piece" or editorial on what may or may not have been the various motivations. I just can't shake the feeling that Custer really felt he still had things under control until the last hour of his life. Why not? HE, GAC, was the consumate professional. He had the string of victories streching back to the opening years of the Civil War. HE had never had a major defeat. Sure - Reno/Benteen MUST have heard his volleys and were "almost there," "enroute," those dang savages usually always RAN from him. But I think his usual instincts were seriously marred by massive sleep deprevation and exhaustion. I think we see him making one bad or uninformed decision after another, while the Indians seemed to make one right decison after another. I think someone needs to make a complete battlefield survey of just who could see whom from where. I mean something the Park service would support. I'd take out a string of RVs with huge mirrors and see just how long people from Reno Hill could see Custer as he moved toward near due east across Nigh-Cartright and the various ridge lines. I remember standing on top of Reno Hill and wondering just how well the Indians attacking Reno might ALSO have seen him as he contined to move roughly west. And visa-versa. The END of the Custer column would have been able to maintain visiblity of Reno Benteen on Reno Hill as long as possible. I think an iron-clad, knock-down, bullet-proof verifiable RE-contruction of the Custer column's line of march up to Calhoun Hill is maybe THEE as yet UNDISCOVERED key to understanding more of the Custer Mindset. I mean, we KNOW that he KNEW that Reno had been driven back up to Reno Hill. He KNEW an approximate arrival of the pack train, Benteen, etc. He CERTAINLY had in mind his OWN idea of link-up times of these elements. This is why I'm almost CERTAIN that a timely link-up by at least ONE of his rear units was his ultimate fatal assumption. And when he REALIZED it was NOT going to happen, he ALSO realized that he was NOT going to survive the day. In other words, a LOT of his assumptions were PERFECTLY reasonable even as they were fatally flawed because of their MISTAKEN nature. I'm SURE he might NOT have realize the INTENSE hatred that both Reno and Benteen had for him and their ultimate RELUCTANCE to simply MOVE fast enough to come to his help. By the way, I capitalize for the sake of emphasis as I would do if I were orally discussing this with you. Don't be offended. SimonATL (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Shanesun2.jpg listed for deletion

An 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)

Thanks for the note re: Jane B. I'm looking forward to your edits on the KT entry. I had planned on moving some of the releases out of compilations to principal release such as the Lost Album. I basically put what the previous creator had done into a table. I'll let you know if I find out anything on Jane. I have run across your video page before. Nice work. Airproofing (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I just found this: JANE BOWERS died June 18, 2000, in San Antonio, Texas. She was 79. Jane wrote dozens of recorded songs, including THE KINGSTON TRIO's "El Matador," "Coast of California," "Senora," "To Be Redeemed," and "Remember the Alamo." I found it at Old Ben's Music. Not much but the first I've found that says anything.Airproofing (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Airproofing!

Just got your note and forgot to tell you about her death - I clipped the obit from the LA Times and kept it somewhere, but it had less info than Old Ben's music. A word about that. "Old Ben" is Ben Blake, co-author of The Kingston Trio On Record with the abovementioned Allan Shaw. Shaw and Blake "met" each other in the 70s via connections between rare records dealers. They started a monthly newsletter called Kingston Korner, and much of the material in KTOR started there. Eventually, each started a company, Allan starting FolkEra/RediscoverMusic, and Ben doing an online site that you found. I'm sure that each of them and Bill Bush and Bob Shane know more - I just haven't had time to contact any of them but will soon.

BTW - if you haven't visited [6] and its message board [7] you'd have fun stopping by. The official site is also fun if you haven't been there in a while - [8].

Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on Close-Up. I also found a link to Jane Bowers' obit so I added that.Airproofing (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim, forgot to mention, I was in San Antonio in July and toured the Alamo along with browsing the book store. No one working there had ever heard of Jane Bowers. I told them they should address that fact since she was a native and wrote one of the most well known songs regarding the mythology of the place. Also, just wrote here below re: references on KT article in case you missed that. - Bruce Airproofing (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit Problems - LBH - For Admin Review

58's First reply to my reversion of his order of march edit to the LBH page:

• It is really irrelevant when Custer divided the regiment among the three commands. For the purpose of the article which is largely about these divided commands this needs to be said somewhere from the start, and since it would be ridiculous to include an order of battle for a single regiment, I judged the best place to do so when the 7th Regiment is first mentioned as is the standard practice in military history. Please evaluate edited texts, not edit summaries where there is less space to explain all this--58.165.128.120 (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1) My initial comment on 58's page and 58's response:

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)

Sensei, for a start the regiment at this time was not divided into battalions. Secondly, it is known when Custer divided his command, on Sunday afternoon, June 25, 1876. It is almost a given though that it was divided when it left the garrison although squadrons were also not used at the time. The command of US Cavalry regiment on the march was effectively divided into four (4) squadrons of three troops (companies in US parlance) as the Cavalry Manuals states. This was in fact a World-wide practice, and senior troop commanders in this case acted also as squadron commanders, or detachments from the regiment. You will note that the companies were not assigned sequentially as they would if deploying by squadrons, i.e. A, B, and C in 1st squadron, etc. Therefore it is probably safe to say that they did not march together either. Given this is an encyclopaedic work and not a detailed literary account, the necessity of showing exactly when the companies were "split up" by Custer would border on trivial since they probably continued in their order of march when the regiment was detached from Terry, and before hand also. In any case, the point at which they were detached bears no significance to the rest of the article. All the reader needs to know from the onset is which companies were commanded by whom for reference to the events related later in the article and as a place of reference should the reader need one.--58.165.128.120 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

2) My response to this put on 58's page - deleted but not answered by 58: Hello again 58 - Thanks for the prompt reply! You seem to be an experienced Wiki editor, so my observations here should be familiar ground. Above you state, "It is almost a given though that it was divided when it left the garrison..." - but it is not an established, verifiable, sourced fact. It is a supposition on your part, speculation if you will - and not at all a common one. Without sourcing, it becomes WP:OR even if true. Further - "You will note that the companies were not assigned sequentially as they would if deploying by squadrons, i.e. A, B, and C in 1st squadron, etc." - which underscores the "command decision" nature of the decision to detach the companies irregularly 6/25/76 and not 5/29/76 in order of march. Every history of the battle that I know of - hundreds - asserts from eyewitness testimony that GAC detached those companies at noon on the day of the battle. Further - "it is probably safe to say" - "would border on trivial since they probably continued in their order of march when the regiment was detached from Terry". As above - except that this is hardly a "trivial" point, since - if you look at some of the more inflammatory edits earlier to the article and check the controversies section at the bottom of the current - the battle tactic of division of command in the face of superior numbers remains a flashpoint of controversy to this day. I'm just pointing that out, BTW, without comment pro or con. Keeping the article free of POV suppositions has been a challenge over the years. Some well-meaning editors have tried to assert as factual speculations about troop movements and combat details from GAC's annihilated command that can never be factually established. Prior work on the article has tried to assure that observations are presented in balanced fashion - as with the division of command, which may or may not have been a fatal error. Finally - "All the reader needs to know from the onset" should be the established facts from which s/he can draw independent conclusions. Regards - Sensei48 (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

#) 58 replaced the deleted paragraph with this: *I fact it seems that prior to the last campaign Custer was stationed in Elizabethtown, Kentucky with only the A company.

"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)

Hello 58! I'm not sure what this is supposed to be, but whatever it is it is not sourcing or proof for your POV speculation about the dividion of command and its importance to this article. So following Wiki guidelines - it's time to bring some other editors in on this. Sensei48 (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Its actually shows that as usual Wikipedia "editors" know very little about the subjects they edit. Did you look at the 1st Cavalry division site? Did you see the different posts the different companies were billeted at before the campaign? Do you appreciate the logistics of moving men and horses from the Southern states to Dakota Territory? Do you understand what order of march is? If not, see p.187 in The Roman Army, by Pat Southern [9] Do you understand what rank seniority is? This article is largely about the 7th cavalry, so why is it that the other units are given in the article in their breakdown, but the only unit that mattered was left as being present "in its entirety"? I knew what happened, and on first reading had trouble following who was where with what, and here the identity of each company mattered. Don't care how many other "editors" you bring to this article. Wikipedia guidelines are that in the first place the article content should be about the subject of the article, and should provide the detail that informs the reader. I added the reference from which I obtained the company assignment to various detachments although it was not the best reference because it also calls them "battalion" despite the squadrons in the regiment not being instituted until 1881. It was the Infantry that had battalions at the time. I did not say they were split up early in the campaign although they probably were as this was common practice during campaigning. You inferred it from my edit summary. Division of the command is obvious from the very contents of this article and every work that ever was written on the subject! The very concept of the operation against the Indian village by Custer is highly dependent on the understanding how companies were divided for it. The order of battle of the other troops is the one that is irrelevant to the battle since none took part in it.--58.165.128.120 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello 58 - Inferences based on a list - http://www.first-team.us/journals/7th_rgmt/7thndx07.html - , an article about the Roman army's order or march [10], and redlinking of order of march indicate only that you are unfamiliar with the basic tenets of scholarship, either within or without Wikipedia. None of these is a source directly related to the 7th Cavalry division of command at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876. I am tagging the article with appropriate cautions. Also, since my initial inference that you were familiar with Wiki guidelines and procedures may not be accurate, I believe you should consider checking WP:CIV - for starters, among several other policy pages.

In sum - here on this page, the works you cite do not constitute evidence for your POV statement. In the article, your citation of the Hatch book is to a section in that book that does not confirm your POV assertion. Your rejection of my suggestion of bringing in other editors for mediation suggests that we may need arbitration. regards Sensei48 (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sensei48 - See my recent comments on the discussion page of the LBH article. SimonATL (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened - the US Cavalry POV

I 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 redshirting

As 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 & Clyde

Thanks 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 Hatch

Hi, 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 Larsen

Thank 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&C

I 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)

Charlton Heston

I've explained, in both edit summaries, why this addition is not trivia. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have explained why your POV makes it so. However, Wiki discourages pop culture refs, and why anyone reading an article about CH would care about one random reference from a minor sitcom viewed by a small segment of a large population is a mystery. We're at 3 reverts so it's time for a review by an administrator to make a final determination of relevance. 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

""apologies to Yaf for using this page to reply. Sensei48 (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Two major mistakes:

• My explanations are fairly wp:neutral as an encyclopedia is usually expected to mention the cultural impact of a TV icon such as Heston;

True, definitely, - but reference in one animated show hardly constitutes "cultural impact." How does this differ from any other minor reference to CH in any and all other shows - why not mention instead the sketches on SNL? Why FG only? FG reference belongs in a trivia section, if anywhere - though Wiki does discourage trivia sections.

• Family Guy is not a minor sitcom watched by a small segment of the population, but rather one of the most watched animated series of the 21st century.

OK - let's examine that thought. From BuddyTV.com - ref. below:

since Family Guy has already been cancelled not once but twice in its entire eight-year run. The series, which launched in 1999, first went off the air in 2000 and then again in 2002.

and [11] - ratings for the first three years prior to initial cancellation - average (generously) of maybe 5 with a 7 share - meaning that roughly a few million people out of a total population of 300 million in the U.S watch the show. That's minor by any yardstick. If you want major cultural impact, you need to look at something like a Super Bowl or "last episode" of a show like Mash or Cheers or Friends - ratings for these go into the 30s with a market share in the 40s or nigher, up to a Nielsen estimated 93 million for the last episode of Mash.

The only place that FG appears in the most recent ratings as having any impact on viewership is for boys 12 - 17 first and girls farther down the list...not major cultural impact. [12]

As for your claim that "Wiki discourages pop culture refs" — please find me a WP rule that can solidly back it up. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I should have said, as noted above, that Wiki discourages trivia sections - which clearly FG is. But as I suggested in an edit summary, since this point has reached the three revert stage, and administrative review might be in order. Sensei48 (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, as per your link: FG is the only animated show appearing in that list sorry, my mistake. (Generally, that sample is from a single week over the course of the past decade!) As for the show being canceled twice — it was also "resurrected" twice (it's still on the air, isn't it?) due to massive DVD sales and letters/petitions from fans. It was the only series in history to be canceled and restored twice. Today, its competition is quite limited: South Park, King of the Hill, The Simpsons and Futurama (the latter is not even a series anymore). Oh, there's also American Dad! of the same creator... I wouldn't include SpongeBob SquarePants (although it does appear on that list) since it's a kids show, while the others are adult-oriented.

Bottom line: more young people today know FG than CH. Therefore, that episode was a cultural window for those people as for introducing iconic figures such as CH. If you know the episode, it deals with animosity between neighbors; they acquire weapons and start acting like paranoid rednecks. Considering that, the "cameo" by CH is quite symbolic.

Finally, if you want to include the SNL sketch(es) — be my guest, it might be a fine example too. (Not instead, but additionally.) 87.69.176.81 (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As above - "Bottom line: more young people today know FG than CH." Very likely true, but that's one reason why the ref. shouldn't be in the main body of the article. A reference that has value or meaning to one segment of the population and not to the others is either trivia or POV. Heston's cultural impact on the largest single cohort of the population - the approximately 85 million so-called baby boomers - is not related to an animated show that most of them do not watch and for many of whom Heston is an iconic figure of overblown movie epics. Ditto that for the cohort of senior citizens as well as the elements of the youngest cohorts that do not watch the show. That's why I wouldn't include the SNL sketches - its audience, however broadly based within its own population cohort, is by the niche nature of the show not a reflection of a comprehensive cultural impact.

However, as I mentioned above, why don't we get an administrator's opinion on this? If an admin review approved the reference, I'd of course have no objection to it. Sensei48 (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

POV POV POV... let's see:

• As I've explained, this is not a minor reference but symbolic for the episode plot;
• None of the shows you've mentioned fall under the specific category of animated shows designed for adults;
• Please find a reliable source that can back up your own judgment of just how much the Nielsen ratings should be for a show to be considered notable;
• SNL has been somewhat of a humorous/satirical mirror of contemporary culture since the 1970's, not some kind of a fringe show for a limited audience as you tried to portray it.
• Although I've never seen the SNL sketch, I'm pretty positive that it dates from way before the FG episode. Therefore, if we include both examples we just might demonstrate that Heston's legacy was strong to lead to contemporary parody (SNL) and is still strong, even long after the peak of his film career. The fact remains that satire shows use CH as a vehicle for lampooning the infamous American obsession for firearm possession, and that is significant cultural impact.

In any case, please take it to the appropriate admin board and let's wait for their decision. Please notify me when doing so. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I will certainly do so - I'm a little short of time right now but should be able to do so in a day or two.

Your point about the satire of CH after his acting career had ended rekative to his impact is a good one. It strikes me that this is the kind of point that often appears in Wiki articles under the heading "In Popular Culture," though I think there's a tag that states that Wiki discourages these.

Also - I am going to copy and paste this entire dialog between us to my own talk page and clear the space for YAF in case s/he wants to delete this. Regards Sensei48 (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

San Gabriel Valley

It 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)

Thanks for the note - I have responded on the Talk:San Gabriel Valley page. I'm not sure where you lived in SGV, but I have to say I'm surprised that if you did you would not know how frequently it does snow in the high elevations of the northern communities - while still being in the Valley and not in the mountains per se. Sensei48 (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

June Lockhart

For her appearence on Weakest Link, Which section should I put that under? HannahMiley, Talk.

Lawrence and linkspam

Ordinarily, 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 discography

Additions 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)

He called me a climate change denier, which is incorrect - we still have seasons in the US! It also has nothing to do with pointless, irrelevant gossip on Roger Moore's bio, sourced or not, and is borderline PA. - BillCJ (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Custer

Sorry 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.
—WWoods (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Replaceable fair use

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:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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 deletion

Following 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 Film

No 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! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One thousand miles? I guess you're an optimist. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

KT Rewrite

Great 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)

I'll try to fix up some more repeated references too. This is going to be a nice page.Airproofing (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

KT GA review

I 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)

The Bot didn't change what I did... I removed "As significantly, " and just capitalized "The" in the last sentence. I could see what she was getting at and think it's ok. I know what you mean about the other stuff though. I'm going to look around at some other GA articles to try get the references all consistent. The pics... leave it for last and see. I'll mull over the chart stuff too. I was looking for some of her citations but got side-tracked. I might have time for this stuff in the next few days. We can always re-submit it later. No rush as it's been around a long time already. Don't be discouraged! Airproofing (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I needed that! I left a preliminary response on the Review page and will get back to it soon. Some of the comments calling for greater clarity of issues are just fine but will require an expansion of the article. Thanks, Sensei48 (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sensei - I've got over a dozen of them formatted using templates already. Will try to upload a them tonight. - Bruce Airproofing (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Great! Sorry to complicate things, but as directed by Moni3 I had to add a sentence to the now-labeled "Folk music label" section (I like Music and Controversy more) that involved a new reference by Robert Cantwell that I'm about to add to sources. The rest of the citation needed tags can be filled in from existing sources like KT On Record. - Jim Sensei48 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim — OK. Got it... re: charts citation thingie. I'll fix it. Any issues with the citations I've done using the templates? I'll continue if you think it's ok. Airproofing (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bruce - doing a great job and the refs section looks immensely better. I'd like to see if I can help out (since they're all my refs!) by going in, looking at your formatting for multiple refs from the same source, and at least sandboxing some consolidation of the two most often repeated refs, Bush's Frets Mag article and KTOR. regards, Jim Sensei48 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I did a bunch today... as best as I can do I think, so check them out. I'm done with the major work. See my comment on GA/Article also. I did consolidate a few but think minor tweaks would be ok. I'm leaving it alone now so you can do that voodoo that youdo. Airproofing (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Even as you were doing it, I've been looking on and going through your cites one by one to try to decipher the peculiar alchemy of it all. You've done a massive amount of work here. I also note that GA reviewer Moni3 also added some copy edits, and they're generally helpful (though there really is one I need to redo both for grammar and clarity - some others are a matter of taste, but I'm not married to my deathless prose so it's ok).

One thing - I will strive mightily to imitate/use your templates for citation at a couple of points - I need at add sources in a few places, and unfortunately (though I have them) some will be from sources as yet uncited. I'll try to get them right. Thanks a million! Sensei48 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and good move on finding the Matt Fink AllMusicGuide ref for review for HWGA re: 4 albums in top ten - it's a better source than Dreier for this particular point. Sensei48 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:DaveGuard3.jpg

File Copyright problem

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

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

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 intervention

Hi 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

The term was coined by Time publisher Henry Luce used to claim the historical role of the United States during the 20th century. Henry Luce, the son of a missionary, in a 1941 Life magazine editorial urged the United States to forsake isolationism for a missionary's role, acting as the world's Good Samaritan and spreading democracy. He called upon the U.S. to enter World War II to defend democratic values.

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

Hello MB Allen -

Thanks for the note! I clarified the fact on 173's Talk page that I am delighted by the intelligent and constructive edits you and s/he have made to the Hays article. My sourcing request was in no way a challenge to the validity of the assertion but rather (as I said to 173)a desire to see all the Ts crossed in order to make the article rock-solid. FWIW - I concur that Time has never been a RS and especially under Luce was a crypto-fascist rag. It's just that I've seen too many good articles derailed by unsourced assertions that eventually get challenged and/or reverted by POV-pushers, esp. from both extremes of the political spectrum - and here I'd fear some neo-McCarthyite bagnging in and ruining the article. Maybe you've seen some of the comments under Weavers YouTube videos decrying Seeger and the group as red traitors and so on. You and I may well know that Luce was an interventionist Republican pro-business jerk, but the sourcing in the article makes the point incontrovertible.

Another note - I earlier reverted reference to Hays' alcoholism only because it, too, was unsourced. I remember that Doris Willens went into this in her bio, but I didn't have the book handy and couldn't access the parts online at GoogleBooks. I think that that too needs sourcing but IMHO should be in the article.

regards, Sensei48 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really mind being asked to source my statements. Perhaps in my reading, I'll come upon an even better one.

I am glad you reverted the reference to Hays' alcoholism because it doesn't seem to me to be a significant thing about him, even if true. After all, it was a hard-drinking time and alcoholics were a dime a dozen in that era, but people like Lee Hays were not. As far as the red-baiting, I hope the time will come when people can view these things more dispassionately. It has been almost seventy years.Mballen (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Sensei48/Archive 1! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 00:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Jay-Z

Sure, here you go: [13]. The Blueprint 3 is his 11th. Hope that helps. - eo (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It'll do fine. Think it should be noted in the Billboard 200 article? I've just found some other inaccuracies there...Sensei48 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be added and quite frankly I should have done it before. I try my best to keep tabs on the Billboard 200 article, but so many people add so many tidbits to it, there's no doubt that there are a lot of inaccuracies at this point; it's hard to keep up. If you want to do a pruning or cleanup or start discussing certain points on the Talk Page, then go for it. I'll help out if needed or contribute to any discussion(s). - eo (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sensei48. You have new messages at Berean Hunter's talk page.
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 rock

Hi 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)

Thanks, K! Agreed about Collins/Baez - though B was well-known in Cambridge/Boston prior to 1959, it was her debut at the first Newport Folk Festival in July that year - she wasn't on the program but was brought to the stage by pop folk aristocrat Bob Gibson - that got her the Vanguard contract and national attention leading to the Time Mag cover in '62, if memory serves. I think BTW that the Collins year may have been 1960 - she also introduced by Gibson.

The reason I questioned PP&M, whose bona fides as Village coffee house performers are unimpeachable (though they were at all points as commercial as any other big, corporate "folk" group), was because even though I noted the extra instrumentation on the albums you cited, it just never reached for me the level of the folk-rock sound of Byrds, Mamas and Papas, Lovin' Spoonful, S&G, and others so identified, correctly or not. No problem with including them, though I think that the now fifty year perception of them will remain as folk.

BTW, I've followed your edits over the last year or so on Byrds and Sweetheart - great work. I work more in the pop folk and folk revival pages - hence my interest here. Glad that we're finally getting a responsible and sourced article on folk rock. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree that PP&M will forever be a folk act in the minds of the general public but they did certainly dabble in folk rock between 1967 & 1968. Actually, I've always thought that their folk rock sound was uncannily similar to The Mamas & the Papas, at least in the M+P's quieter moments. A good illustration of this is how effortlessly PP&M mimic The Mamas & the Papas' sound in the relevant section of "I Dig Rock and Roll Music", beginning with the line "I dig the Mamas and the Papas at The Trip, Sunset Strip in L.A." But that's just my opinion on the matter, so take it for what it's worth. Thanks for the kind words about my work on The Byrds related articles, they were in a right old state when I first came to them roughly a year ago. I've already got the Sweetheart article up to GA status and The Notorious Byrd Brothers is currently a Good Article Nominee. The folk rock article has long been on my "hit-list" and I'm enjoying finally getting around to improving it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Since you've been taking an interest in my recent edits on this article, I just wanted to give you the heads up about what I'm planning to do. I've still got a lot of work to do yet but I'm already foreseeing a problem with the existing layout of the article. Initially I planned to split the "History" section into a few different sub-sections but the more I think about it the more that I'm convinced that a single, overreaching "History" section with multiple hierarchical sub-sections isn't the best layout for this article. In fact, to have a section named "History" is a bit misleading anyway, since there are subgenres and international forms of folk rock listed after that section - meaning that it's a "partial history" at best.

Instead, I intend to remove the "History" section header and replace it with multiple sections - each with their own relevant sub-sections. If you click here you can see how the article menu might look with what I'm proposing. Bear in mind that the titles I've used in this example are just place holders and may not be what I ultimately choose to call the sections but hopefully you can get an idea of what I'm planning. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know because the article may look a bit wonky from time to time (like at the moment) with some sections being really detailed and others being rather scant in their information. Anyway, let me know what you think of my proposed changes. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me in on your plans, K - sounds absolutely solid to me. The problem with an article like this is that a lot of editors seem to want to advocate for a particular POV rather than keeping the point of an encyclopedia-style overview as the prime mission of the article. I think, for example, that the perspective is a little out of whack (as it was before you started your work) when a fairly minor phenomenon like so-called "medieval folk rock" gets equal billing with the Byrds and M&P et al. in the mainstream of the movement or era. The lasting impact of folk rock is there, in its commercial impact on pop music overall. In any event, your proposed changes, based on historical development primarily, will help to keep things in perspective. I'll help out where I can while working within the excellent framework you've set up. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

[[talk archive}}