This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A Good Article review has started on George Washington. It is on hold for seven days to allow issues raised on Talk:George Washington/GA3 to be addressed. SilkTork * ^YES! 23:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If James Madison and Theodore Roosevelt weren't "Juniors", then someone should tell the editors of List of Presidents of the United States by nickname. - dcljr ( talk) 08:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

good point. Rjensen ( talk) 08:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that the lead sentence of James Madison cites three refs giving his name as "James Madison, Jr." They've been in the article at least since Aug 1st. (See also my comment at Talk:James Madison#Refs for name?) - dcljr ( talk) 05:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up regarding anonymous sources; I fixed it. Rjensen ( talk) 05:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... Note also List of Presidents of the United States by name#Last name suffixes. You know... if you still care. (I'm not fixing it myself because I don't want to take the time to research which are right and which are wrong.) - dcljr ( talk) 07:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "annointed", I entirely agree that this is a standard description,and an accurate one, however, it is also a POV word, so if you could dig up a single citation from an RS and add it, I think it will prevent any future problems from people trying to delete it (which is why I believe the two cites were added in the first place). Think of it as prophylaxis. Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

yes but why is it POV? It is the usual english word used when a powerful ruler picks his successor, which is not at all controversial re 1908. We do NOT want over-citations of well-known non-controversial points. Rjensen ( talk) 22:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a POV word because it's being applied to political succession in a democracy as opposed to another form of government in which the ruler has the power to name his successor. As I said, I think it's perfectly appropriate in the circumstances of TR & Taft, but I'm willing to wager that it will draw an objection somewhere down the line, which a cite from an RS would prevent. Still, as long as people are watching the article... Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

well Wiki readers do seem to object to the strangest things! but in my opinion it's best to avoid over-citation before there actually is an objection (especially in the lede). Rjensen ( talk) 22:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the statement.."- Federation, recent historians have argued, confirmed Canada as a nation committed to classical liberalism emphasizing capitalism, individualism, private property, equality, and the rule of law " as its unclear what is being said. "Also is it possible to get you to put refs in templates Pls see Wikipedia:Citation templates as to how to do them. And just fyi i am in the middle of a GA review on the article so i need page numbers for ref..becasue i am in the middle of removing/replacing all those that do not give page numbers. Moxy ( talk) 22:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're not saying that you are removing legitimate references simply because they don't have page numbers? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes i will remove a ref "simply because they don't have page numbers?" pls see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Moxy ( talk) 07:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you're hurting an article simply out of a desire to get GA status. A legitimate ref without page numbers is better than no ref at all. Books, after all, have indexes which a reader can use to run down a pageless reference. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 12:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion about this here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 12:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the article online where it does not give page numbers. Rjensen ( talk) 07:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You read it online well give us the link?? And pls see Wikipedia:Citation templates Moxy ( talk) 07:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's in Academic Search Premier Rjensen ( talk) 07:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

awww easy enough i will get the missing info them, Moxy ( talk) 08:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen! I am thinking about starting an "Unknown Presidents" task force and I noticed that you are an active contributor at WP:USPREZ articles. I was wondering if you would like to join me in starting this task force. The following Presidents would be included:

• Millard Fillmore
• James Monroe
• Zachary Taylor
• Franklin Pierce
• Rutherford B Hayes
• James Garfield
• Chester A Arthur
• James Buchanan

Our Mission: To expand the knowledge of the "Unknown Presidents." Specifically getting all these articles to GA class or higher. Let me know what you think. Thanks!-- Schwindtd ( talk) 01:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

an interesting idea but I have to pass on it myself. Rjensen ( talk) 19:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks for your time and consideration. If you change your mind just let me know and I would be more than glad to bring you in. Thanks!-- Schwindtd ( talk) 22:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

After looking at my talk with you i realizes i am not assuming good faith and i apologizes for that...Again sorry! Moxy ( talk) 02:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

ok let's shake hands and close the episode. :) Rjensen ( talk) 06:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that you listed yourself as invoked in the WikiProject Journalism project, and I hoped that you could help out on another collaborative community edited project.

I run quippd, a collaboratively edited social news site, which mixes elements of Wikis, social networking, and social news sites. You can get some more information about what we are doing at: http://quippd.com/about/intro

Basically, we want to get good coverage on news stories, collaboratively edited, like Wikipedia. We are trying to take the ideas of WikiFactCheck -- to make news less biased and speedier (unlike something like Wikinews). By combining social elements to the project, we hope to bring the benefits of wiki enabled fact checking and npov ideas to the masses.

I hope you check us out -- and feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns.

-- Yoasif ( talk) 02:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If you could take the time, could you possible fill out references templates properly (as we need page numbers) See : Wikipedia:Citing sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.108.160 ( talk) 15:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Hi Rjensen,

I saw some of your contributions on an article that falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, you have a lot of expertise in the broad area of public policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) ( talk) 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, you removed a bunch of refs. Would you please explain if the book is no good, or it supports none of the info in the article, or whatever? It's not accessible on google books, so I can't check what's going on. It seemed like we had some good refed info, and now I can't tell why that whole paragraph needs sources when it seemed OK before. Or maybe you could add the correct citation. Thanks for your help. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 06:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was removing a lot of miscellaneous, useless facts that detract from the main themes--for example a long irrelevant discussion of Booth's flight, and naming Barnes--one of the many MD's at AL's deathbed. I also fixed an error re the Presbyterian minister (he counseled Mrs Lincoln in another room and it was Stanton who said "Now he belongs to the ages."

That's totally cool. I'm feeling a bit high strung about this Lincoln FAC, so I apologize about the aggressiveness of my comment. You're the best Lincoln scholar on WP that I know, so keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 06:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

hey thanks--you're doing great work and we all appreciate it! Rjensen ( talk) 06:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,   Roger Davies ^talk 19:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

You added a stock market index graph in the article "Causes of the Great Depression" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_great_depression )the graph link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stocks29.jpg .

I was wondering where that index comes from? I'm a RA of a professor working on a book on the financial crisis and would like to examine that index for use as a comparison with the current crisis.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.31.191 ( talk) 19:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

well I scanned it in from an old textbook and lost the citation--my apologies! Rjensen ( talk) 20:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence now says "and and". 166.137.139.169 ( talk) 22:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

got got it it thanks thanks Rjensen ( talk) 22:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

no no prob prob 166.137.136.186 ( talk) 02:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of computer methods, have you been in bed with any of the quant people? I went to a conference with a bunch of librarians, archivists, information professional and the company, and don't quite know how to deal with their effortless belief in the quality of computational analysis and metadata. It made me a bit grumpy about close reading and my (seemingly) old school advocacy of text reading no matter what the depth. [I'm a doctoral candidate, and over 30, to contextualise]. I even felt strongly enough to give the data-information-knowledge-wisdom metaphor, and talk about how reducing informational texts to data was backarsewards. Fifelfoo ( talk) 11:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not recently been working with these people. Good luck--they seem less interested in actual content. Rjensen ( talk) 21:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

They didn't seem content oriented until I mentioned I was a traditional close reading humanities researcher; then everyone wanted me to use their resources :). Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing this article. You know as well as I do that you have to belong to JSTOR and that costs money. We are not giving links to JSTOR unless the article is for free or the information is on the first page, so just cut it out, please. Dave ( talk) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In your last edit, you changed the Boritt refs [1] which I think I now have correct. Does my changing back look kosher to you? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 03:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that link is me changing it back. Here's your edit. [2] - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 03:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The change was made to remove mistakes (retired Chief Justice Taney's seat-- Taney died; Chase was strategically designed to facilitate reconstruction, -- the RS emphasize the need to placate Radicals, as well as support the war policies; they dod not mention Reconstruction; I replaced Donald, who is overused, with Nevins & Randall/Current, who are more detailed and more useful in this topic. Rjensen ( talk) 04:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I just wanted to make sure that what's in the references matches what's in the bibliography, which I think it currently does. This all started because we had some cites to Boritt 1997, and nothing in the bibliography to match. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 04:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Might want to pop over and see what you want to add or not. Tirronan ( talk) 01:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. I agree with you 100% on this issue. Rjensen ( talk) 03:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits, as in one case in the main Freemasonry article, the level of detail is too high, and you are relying on a view that is not supported by the majority of historians. Moreover, this is an encyclopedia, and we do not argue viewpoints. In History of Freemasonry, you inserted this same material into a section on Prince Hall Masonry, which is unrelated to the material you added. We also do not add random bibliographic material into articles, and I removed that as well. MSJapan ( talk) 12:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

take such issues to the talk page. Rjensen ( talk) 23:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I just wanted to let you know that I made an editing mistake this morning, and did not notice the error until just a few minutes ago. The error I made caused me to inadvertently dump ten of your edits that you made between 0215 and 0334 this morning on the American Revolution article. I have just reverted back to your last saved version, and then continued on from there. What happened was that I went to bed late last night, before you began your last round of edits, but I had left my editing window open. When I woke up, I returned to my editing and saved, without realizing that intervening edits had been made. Still not exactly sure how this happened, because typically the browser will alert me to such edit conflicts.... Anyway, I just wanted to let you know this was nothing more than an honest mistake, and it has been fixed.

With respect to the article itself, I very much appreciate all the hard work you and Shoreranger have put into this project. I will leave comments about the article and refernces on the Talk:American Revolution page, where they belong. Respectfully, DiverDave ( talk) 03:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. I make this sort of blooper myself and I appreciate your note. Rjensen ( talk) 04:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Rjensen. You have new messages at Talk:George_Washington.
Message added 17:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink ( talk) 17:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I pointed to your plagiarism & use of copyrighted text in the James Monroe article, and warned you not to use other people's text as your own; you also added information that wasn't in the source, and presented the person as you felt others should see him. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Monroe#Slavery

Now in the George Washington article you did the same thing with a different book (Chernow). MagicPiano warned you the text was a verbatim copy & so did I. You did nothing. I removed the text & you restored it. I'm required to warn you of Wikipedia's policies, and have done some at least 3 times. The information is on the talk page, where I list Wikipedia's plicies. I suggest you read those sections and remove the copyrighted text you copied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Washington#Last_paragraph_of_.27French_and_Indian_War.27_section Ebanony ( talk) 05:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

check again--here is no hint of copying or using ideas without giving credit. Rjensen ( talk) 05:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You cut and pasted words from at least 2 writers; you did not put said words in quotation marks. That is by definition plagiarism; and in the case of copyrighted books, that is also copyright infringement; Wikipedia's policy isn't limited to using "ideas"; it extends to pasting text itself - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism. You knew this before you added that section to the Washington article. Or do you deny this? Ebanony ( talk) 06:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

denied. check again. Rjensen ( talk) 06:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You say I'm wrong; you present no evidence; you defend your actions. Ok. On the James Monroe article in the section on slavery, you 1) copied text directly from Arthur Scherr's article GOVERNOR JAMES MONROE AND SOUTHAMPTON SLAVE RESISTANCE OF 1799'

Your edit

"Monroe's governorship is best known for the violent suppression of Gabriel's slave conspiracy in 1800. There was no actual uprising, but slaves from Henrico and nearby areas plotted to burn the capital at Richmond, kill white slaveholders, and perhaps kidnap the governor."

Scherr's article

"James Monroe's governorship of Virginia(1799-1802) is best known for the violent suppression of "Gabriel's slave conspiracy" in 1800, in which freedom-seeking slaves from Henrico and neighboring counties plotted to burn the capital, Richmond, kill its white slaveholders, and kidnap Governor Monroe. The rebellion was quickly crushed, and over 30 blacks were executed in its aftermath. http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001286103

How is that not copying & pasting? Changing a few words is not a paraphrase; you violated the rule because you cannot duplicate text. 1) it's copyrighted work; 2) it's plagiarism. Wikipedia's policy says:

"If the external work is under standard copyright, then duplicating its text with little, or no, alteration into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation, unless duplication is limited and clearly indicated in the article by quotation marks, or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism

That is on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Monroe#Slavery After Graeme Bartlett removed the original copyrighted text, you posted part of it again (above) saying it was a paraphrase.This was in Spetember. So On Oct 7 you said "denied. check again." That's what you say. You also say plagiarism in not limited to "ideas"; Chambers Dictionary

"to copy (ideas, passages of text, etc) from someone else's work and use them as if they were one's own." Perhaps you want to at least admit you made an error. Ebanony ( talk) 10:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't attempt "to use them as if they were one's own" -- the author always gets credit. Do you have any problems with George Washington?

Yes you do uese themn as your own because you copy text and do not put the words in quotation marks. This is a violation of the wikipedia policies I cited above. You cannot copy text and cite an author UNLESS it is in quotation marks. It's as simple as that.

Example number 2:

you added to the Washington article on Oct 6 above:

"most important, his experience in French and Indian War made him a believer in a strong central government and a vigorous executive. Forced to deal with destructive competition among the colonies, dilatory legislative committees, and squabbling, shortsighted politicians he had passed through an excellent dress rehearsal for the prolonged ordeal of the American Revolution."

Now compare that to the article

"His experience in the British Army made him a believer in the importance of a strong national government, and a vigorous executive agency, and gave him the diplomatic skills necessary to deal with officials at the local and colonial levels." - this is the quote you yourself posted from Chernow.

You added this text to the Geroge Washington article on Oct 5th. MagicPiano on 6 Oct pointed out it was "copied from above, but it's practically verbatim in the article"

Yyou ignored MagicPiano. I warned you 7 Oct to "please remove the plagiarised text". Instead you said "plagiarism = taking credit for originating some IDEAS; here all the credit is given to Chernow. So it's not plagiarism. It's a paraphrase that accurately reflects what Chernow was saying and gives him the credit, which is what Wiki recommends."

This is also false; Wikipedia says ""duplicating its text with little, or no, alteration into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism You again state no evidence, just your opinion, which is at odds with the facts. Ebanony ( talk) 10:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Copying_.26_pasting_of_copyrighted_text Ebanony ( talk) 11:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions and clean up. Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.