Led by truth

Welcome!

Hello, Led by truth, 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:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! gdaly7 (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Phi Kappa Psi -- 2008 December edits

Sneaking-in a patently unnecessary {{fact}} tag, under cover of other edits, to cast doubt on an assertion drawn from reliable sources is vandalism. The tagged claim is supported by the citations already present. In an article to which, with the same edit, you deleted the citation, it says

Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Claude Worrell dropped a bombshell: “Other sexual assaults occurred that night by other individuals in that fraternity,” he announced.

Could you be more busted? If you persist in such edits, then you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Many of your other edits have been positive contributions; I hope that you will focus on these. —SlamDiego_←T 07:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a reply to this message on User talk:SlamDiego. —Led by truth (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The reply is now at User_talk:SlamDiego/Archive_15#Reply to "2008 December" on Talk:Led by truthLed by truth (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

19:59, 10 December 2008 Revision

Because of some discussion that followed this revision which I made, I would like to clarify a few points.

1. The addition of the {{fact}} was not snuck in as alleged in his following edit by user SlamDiego. The change description stated "Noted citation needed for statement unsupported by citation provided.".
2. The edit did not remove a citation per se, it replaced it with a later one. The first citation was to an article that said Beebe was awaiting sentencing. The replacement said that he had been sentenced to 18 months in prison. This new citation was appropriate for the updated text which said the same thing.
3. The replaced in-line citation was not properly located to apply to the first sentence, where there was another citation, and when I read it quickly it I did not notice anything in the cited article that did that was not already covered in the previous citation. Evidently, based upon the location of the citation, neither did anyone else. I did not learn until later that there was a sentence or two in the cited article that user SlamDiego felt supported his position, although I do not agree for the reasons I presented in my response to his post.

Led by truth (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

1. As noted, the edit was buried. It was place in a stream of changes, and the section edited was obscured.
2. The “replacement” citation does not contain the explicit assertion from the DCA, quoted above, where a state official, explaining the pleas bargain, asserts that there were multiple rapists.
3. Led by truth is correct that the citation was not initially specifically applied to a single sentence; it was applied to a passage more generally. As I have stated elsewhere, if Led by truth had not buried the edit, and had placed the {{fact}} tag without deleting the very citation that would support the assertion in question, it would be plausible that he had simply not attended sufficiently to the cited references.
4. As also stated elsewhere, his response actively misrepresents what the article says about Beebe's status. The article no more claims that that Beebe was a member of the fraternity than the phrase “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves” implies that Snow White was a dwarf. The sentence could be rewritten to emphasize that Beebe were not a fraternity member, but any natural way of doing that will further emphasize that some of the rapists were fraternity members; this is a WP:NPOV wash. The article plainly notes the national organizations denial that Beebe was a member and a lack of evidence that he was a member, though he lived in the fraternity house, and the DCA explicitly claimed that some of the rapists were fraternity members. —SlamDiego_←T 06:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I notification and warning.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Latest_attempt_to_censor_.E2.80.9CPhi_Kappa_Psi.E2.80.9D is about you and your edits to a page here. Please note that while this edit contains some great explanations of your position, it also violates WP:LEGAL, which states that making even veiled legal threats is a violation which can and often does lead to blocking. Please remove the nonsense about libel from your comment, so no administrator blocks you. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that that was a veiled legal threat. Hesperian 01:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And I don't care whether it was a legal threat of any sort. —SlamDiego_←T 01:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters

Hello, As you have heavily edited List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters, I thought that you would be interested in proposed changes that I've posted. They are here: Talk:List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters#Change Proposals. NYCRuss ☎ 15:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. As it turned out I have not checked this page until just now, so all your changes are already incorporated. BTW, nice job on List of Phi Kappa Brothers. There is a third Adjutant General that will need to be added--Walter Huffman, who preceded Scott Black.Led by truth (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about Walter Huffman. He's been added. As far as the List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters, it should undergo a peer review within a few weeks, and then it will be nominated to WP:FLC thereafter. You did a lot of work in the past on it in the past, which is appreciated, and much of what you did is still there. It just looks quite different. I'm trying to get all of the Phi Kappa Psi articles to featured status, and then the articles about Charles Page Thomas Moore and William Henry Letterman to good article to status. After that, Phi Kappa Psi will be eligible to become a featured topic. NYCRuss ☎ 15:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Phi Kappa Psi badge on green background.JPG

Possibly unfree File:Phi Kappa Psi badge on green background.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Phi Kappa Psi badge on green background.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. NYCRuss ☎ 19:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you marked this image "possibly unfree". Please explain why, or what information you feel is missing. I see that you have replaced it with a similar image on the Phi Kappa Psi page. Someone else has stated "Keep: no reason given" on PUF talk page. Thank you.

Phi Kappa Psi's badge is protected by a trademark, which is why it is unfree. That means that it should only appear on Wikipedia under the fair use guidelines. The reason why I replaced this image on Phi Kappa Psi is because I also added an image of Phi Psi's pledge pin, and I was trying to achieve a uniform look. NYCRuss ☎ 12:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Phi Kappa Psi badge on green background.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Phi Kappa Psi badge on green background.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.