This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Srj4000 (talk | contribs) at 22:39, 28 July 2012 (Undid revision 504622151 by Eagles247 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:39, 28 July 2012 by Srj4000 (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 504622151 by Eagles247 (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)First of all I did not edit the "JOE" PATERNO page but the word paterno which has become and will now remain synonymous with Joe Paterno's admitted actions, so the statement "a paterno" is slang for turning a blind eye. Who really knows or cares what "turning a blind eye" means, some admiral put a spyglass to his blinded eye and did not follow orders??? bla bla bla, ask anybody what "a paterno" is. WHO ARE YOU TO CALL MY WORK VANDALISM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARealDumas (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
Your recent editing history at Joe Paterno shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please gain consensus for your edits on the article talk page, per WP:CONSENSUS. Do not simply repeat the edit again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Please reconsider your edits
Joe Paterno was a sick, sick man, drunk on his ego and his supreme power over thousands of misguided human beings who believe that the silly and meaningless game of football is something to be worshipped, like a religion. Joe would do anything to preserve his sick power, including covering up for a child rapist. All of this has already been established. His own school fired him. His fans reacted with a violent rampage, because they are criminals, as he was. His own school removed his statue. Joe himself admitted his guilt, saying he could have "done more." Yeah, a LOT more. He could have started by being a human being. And yet you and so many others insisted--and still insist--on worshipping him as a god. Well--he was not a god. He was nothing more or less than a monster, created by his fans, who allowed, through their mindless reverence, for these hideous crimes to occur and to be covered up. Qworty (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Opinion pieces and original research
Hello - just to let you know that a number of your edits in the Joe Paterno article have had to be removed, either because they involved your own interpretation of an original source, which is disallowed on Misplaced Pages, or because the only citations provided were opinion pieces (as opposed to news articles). Alfietucker (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)