Srj4000

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)

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 Wikipedia, or because the only citations provided were opinion pieces (as opposed to news articles). Alfietucker (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Continued whitewashing of Paterno page

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit regarding Joe Paterno's role in covering up the Sandusky scandal. You removed a valid reference, and replaced it with a different one, while taking Paterno's name out of the text in question entirely - all with no explanation, and pretty clearly with the intention of making Paterno look better. Please don't do this again. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think newer articles are more objective and neutral since some of Freeh's conclusions have now been questioned in the past few years. I'm sure more changes will be necessary as additional evidence is produced and tested later when the court cases of Penn State administrators begin. Please explain why at this point you feel it is necessary to state definitely that Paterno knew about the 1998 investigation instead of saying more neutrally that "Freeh concluded" that Paterno may have been informed about 1998 based on Freeh's interpretation of what the athletic director had written in emails to university administrators. Srj4000 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)