User talk:Sensei48

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Interest Emblems? 2 Orphaned non-free image (Image:KingstonTrio AtLarge.jpg) 3 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Shane FC5.jpg) 4 Fair use disputed for Image:Kingstontriosnap.jpg 5 Twinkle & edit summaries 6 Welcome To Wiki? 7 Hello from DonDesignJr 8 Fair Use? 9 Gypsy Rover 10 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Shane62.jpg 11 Small note 12 We need more legit professors around here... 13 Flag 14 Battle of the Little Bighorn 15 Heston filmography 16 Heston's "homophobia" 16.1 Edits from Banned User HC and IPs 17 Recent changes at Mitch Bouyer 18 Requesting third party resolution of Notre Dame Football 19 Draftees 20 Little Bighorn 21 Emporia vs. Washburn/ND vs Army 22 Anthony Quinn 23 Battle of Washita River 24 References 25 ALL COLORS TURN TO RED

[edit] 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

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:KingstonTrio AtLarge.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:KingstonTrio AtLarge.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Shane FC5.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shane FC5.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 15:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Kingstontriosnap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kingstontriosnap.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 05:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

(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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Non-free / fair use media rationale for Bob Shane
Description	Cover of Bob Shane .
Source	Copied from http://www.kingstontrio.com/images/KTR2064.JPG website, and intellectual property owned by The Kingston Trio, LLC.
Article	Bob Shane
Portion used	Album cover only.
Low resolution?	Sufficient resolution for illustration, but considerably lower resolution than original.
Purpose of use	Cover is used for purposes of illustration in the Bob Shane article, a subject of public interest.
Replaceable?	Image is protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Draftees

Hey Sensei, thanks for your message. I actually just added numbers to the draft selections, which won't change regardless if they make the final cut(although I am sure the teams hope they will since they were high picks!). The number is how many players were drafted, not how many stick around. But your question does bring up a point I had in my mind about the list of names of NFL players in the same section. It constantly has to be updated and it's beginning to get tiresome. I usually always edit it during the first week of NFL season but sometimes players get let go mid-season. I actually also thought about creating a separate article on Irish in the NFL, but I'm not sure it would be worth it. If there were a reliable internet link that listed active Irish players it might be preferable.Tedmoseby (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)