User talk:QueenofBattle/Archive 12/24/08

My political compass
Another Wikipedian turned me onto this fun website. From | The Political Compass, I am Economic Left /Right: 6.75 (much more economically right than Joe Biden, a bit more than Sarah Palin, but slightly less than Margaret Thatcher) and Social Libertarian /Authoritarian: 2.41 (about the same as Stephen Harper and the Pope, but only a bit more than Barack Obama). Interesting ideologiocal company I keep, I guess...

National Football Championship
I reverted your addition of 8 national championships for USC in 1869-present. Those two tables show only consensus championships, which are the ones bolded in the article. The other edits are fine. Iowa13 (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The second table of the national champsionship article reads "Below is a list of ALL [emphasis added] of the championships from 1869-present", so why would you revert my edits adding USC's totals from the tables above?Newguy34 (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize the wording is a little confusing but the section is titled CONSENSUS national championships. I can't help but smell some favoritism as well, since you didn't seem too concerned about adding championships for non-USC teams. Iowa13 (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe if the wording is confusing, we should try to clarify it? Something strikes me about the value of clear and concise articles.  And, the favortism you smell is fourth generation USC alumni pride, which is not much different than your Iowa favortism.  But, remember, only the article has to reflect NPOV, not the editors.  I have reordered and added to other team's totals (and generally edited for accuracy and clarity) where I could find the research in the public domain, as the history page clearly shows. Newguy34 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget the favoritism thing. I'll try to clarify the wording, but you can't fill in data for a table that is supposed to reflect certain things. We can discuss the incorporation of the total championships into the table, but that has not yet been brought up. The way you are going about it right now is unacceptable. The public domain is not what the table shows. Iowa13 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Four things: 1) Simmer down a bit.  I know you have much pride in the substantial quantity of your edits, but you don't own the article; we all do.  2)  I think clarification is needed, because it is not clear what a "consensus" national championship is, at any rate.  Webster's thinks consensus means that everyone agrees.  The fact that everyone does not agree is exactly why there is so much controversy over this subject.  If you truly want to list "consensus" NCs (i.e., those where everyone has agreed) the list will be very, very short. 3) The public domain shows USC with 11 national championships, for example, so the table and the public domain are terribly at odds with one another, and 4) I have made a few edits (most to clarify) so I am unsure how you can characterize "the way I am going" as unacceptable, which brings me back to point number 1.  Newguy34 (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Okay I will. 2. Webster's "consensus" is one thing, but "consensus" in college football is a fairly commonplace term which is also used in the official record book of FBS football. The two meanings do clash, and a better term should be used, but it's not, and we're not here to change what has been the norm simply because of a wording thing. Instead, we can try to clarify the term and remove the confusion. The consensus national championship is one that is awarded by any number of credible selectors, depending on the year. For instance, though Nebraska was selected by various sources as champion in 1980-1984, none of these were credible. The major selectors in those years instead went with Georgia, Clemson, Penn State, Miami, and BYU. Today there are five consensus selectors (BCS, AP, coaches, FW, NFF), according to the record book, which I should point out is nearly 100% in agreement with nearly 100% of all credible lists. 3. USC's 11 national titles do not come from the public domain, they come from the university, which claims them as such. They have since entered the public domain, and unfortunately the sports media as well. But just because something is held true by the public does not give it cause to be included in an encyclopedia. Until 1992, it was also true in the public eye that Christopher Columbus was a noble, selfless hero, which is not in fact completely true, given his merciless and ruthless slaughter of millions of natives upon arrival in America. Should an encyclopedia in that time have reflected what the public held true? I don't think so. 4. Again I apologize for my wording. There is no problem with the edits, they simply don't reflect the table. You're only trying to clarify and I also now believe that that needs to be done. Iowa13 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We have found our "consensus" happy place ;) Newguy34 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Texas Rangers article
Are you the editor in charge of the Texas Rangers article? 208.191.153.13 (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no "editors-in-charge" on Wikipedia. It is an open forum for all to edit as they see fit, so long as one adheres to the rules of the Wiki community.  Also, just so you are aware, it's very bad form to add items to another editor's talk page at the top; please add questions/comments to the bottom.  Thanks.  Newguy34 (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So then, what are the rules? The reason I ask is that while the article overall is not as bad as some I have seen here, it does have numerous factual errors that are easily documented.

I do not intend to just go in and edit, because I tried that once before and some guy calling himself oldwindybear, who is obviously a descendant or other wise connected to Bonnie Parker, just got defensive and nasty, and despite my proving that the very documents he cites contradict his claims, noone at this site would get involved make changes. They simply referred me to some appeals process that never responded. every time I made a correction and documented it, he would change it back. A review of his lengthy disputes on the Frank Hamer article is the best evidence of his unreasonable and biased nature. He was repeatedly scolded by site staff for the tone and errors in the article, which is completely manufactured (if he still controls it). I saw his name on this articles discussion, but did not bother to waste anymore of my time reading the details.

I do not have the time for such futility, nor to be a regular "editor" on the site, but I was hoping that maybe things had improved with the website since then. The site has absolutely zero credibility in the academic community because of that type of situation. I would like to help with that on this particular article, but will not be dragged into anymore pointless arguments.

So, do you want to work with me to correct the errors in the Texas Ranger article, or can you refer me to someone who will? 208.191.153.13 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help. Because Wikipedia is an open forum, anyone is able to make edits.  Sometimes, those edits are clearly childish vandalism, which the Wiki community is usually quick to revert.  Other times, editors (all of us) have a difference of opinion on the substance of an entire article (or parts of it), which we try to work out on the talk pages of the respective article.  And, often, editors have a particular point of view that they are attempting to advance.  One of the hallmarks of Wikipedia, though, is a neutral point of view similar to an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is all about.  I have found that properly citing any additions, and drawing those additions from reliable sources is the best way to improve articles, which I like to believe is the reason editors participate.  So, let's start with the areas you feel need improvement?  Newguy34 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. The first error is the assertion that SFA "created" the rangers. In fact, the documented referred to was one in which he offered to personally finance an additional ten men to a pre-approved (by mexican authorities) and pre-existing force of fifteen men under the command of moses morrison. additionally, there is no evidence that the ten men referred to by SFA where ever actually recruited or put to work. furthermore, scholars only acknowledge those groups as being a part of the "ranger tradition" but do not recognize them as having been "real" rangers in the historical sense. they consider them to have been officially formed in 1935. see Robert M. Utley's "Lone Star Justice: The First Century of the Texas Rangers" page 15-19. let's start with that. 208.191.153.13 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, let me look into the source you cite and I will make the edit, if I agree with your reading. Newguy34 (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the reference you cite in Bob Utley's book, as well as accounts of Austin "forming" the Rangers in The Texas Rangers: A Century of Frontier Defense, by Walter Prescott Webb (pages 20 and 21), and The Texas Rangers: Wearing the Cinco Peso 1821-1900, by Mike Cox. Both authors affirm your assertion, as noted in Utley's book.  However, both also confirm that legend and lore point to this event as the first known use of the word "rangers" in frontier defense.  As such, they believe it serves as the support for the popular notion that Austin "unofficially" formed the Rangers.  I have made a few edits to the article in an attempt to reflect this thinking.  Remember, one of the content guidelines of Wikipedia is not necessarily (emphasis added) to document the truth (as truth can be subjective), but rather to document those matters that come from reliable sources.  The general policies of Wikipedia prohibit original research.  Hope this helps; it can be frustrating for those in academia. Newguy34 (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is the source for the statement "...they are legally protected against disbandment."? 208.191.153.13 (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 208.191.153.13 (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The historical importance and symbolism of the Texas Rangers is such that they are protected by statute from being disbanded. Under Texas Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987, "The division relating to the Texas Rangers may not be abolished."  See http://www.texasranger.org/today/abolishment.htm  Newguy34 (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and courteous efforts. Your understanding of the complexities of historical understanding is impressive. It is often that verification of any sort of "absolute truth" in the historical sense is unachievable, which is why acknowledgment of the relevant complexities is the most accurate method to address such issues.

The reason that I asked about the source for the "anti-abolishment" statement is that I beleive it should be cited directly on the article. This is because that statute came about as the resulted of repeated and significant efforts to disband them. Ranger conflicts with Tejanos over several generations were the catalysts for those efforts. Those conflicts are another area of intense historical complexities, and myths exist on all sides of the issue.

I will get back to you with my next suggestion later this week. Thanks again. 70.2.10.153 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pac-10
My bad, when I reverted the Big 12 edit, I did not see I was reverting the Pac-10 edit also. My apoligies. Bcspro (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks.  Newguy34 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
Yes someone went on my account and edited the George Bush entry. It was a bad joke and i'll make sure it doesn't happen again. RobbieG2448 (talk)


 * OK, thanks. Newguy34 (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter
The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Texas Ranger Division
It is an encylopedia article not a history book, try KISS (keep it Short and Sweet)--Tomtom9041 (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I am trying to do. Keep in mind, though, the article (in its current format) has been a featured article for a while now. Newguy34 (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Link removal
It was removed in a series of removals because an SPA has been spamming the links to various pages. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it. Good catch, then.  Newguy34 (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it is necessary at this point. Time will tell, though. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush
Hey there Newguy, you might be interested in a proposal I've made at Talk:George W. Bush. I know you said you were done there, but I'd really appreciate it if you could check it out. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama article probation
You should know that articles related to Barack Obama are under article probation, and that higher standards are expected of editors than elsewhere on Wikipedia. For more information, please read Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, and your point is?? Newguy34 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Words to avoid for full details. The first clause of your first edit ("Despite his inability to quit smoking, Obama has said he will not smoke in the White House") amounted to editorialising and wasn't supported by the article. Your second edit (reverted by another user) added "Although failing to give a straight answer when asked whether he has managed to quit smoking". While that is a quote from the source, it presents an opinion (a viewpoint held by the source) as a fact, which is contrary to WP:NPOV. In general it is a bad idea to try to add material to biographies of living persons that might be seen as a way to make them look bad, unless your desired change is very well supported by very reliable sources. In this particular case, since the article is under probation, you should join the dicussion at the Talk page and try to reach consensus for any changes.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although I wasn't trying to make him look bad because he is a smoker. Us cigar smokers could use a bit of support in the White House.  I was really just trying to find an adequate transitional phrase.  Perhaps I should have thought through how NPOV would negatively impact the ability to use good grammar, and improve readability? Newguy34 (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)