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. |
see previous talk at Archive 15
May I request that in citations, the format be "surname, firstname"? In Reftags, it is done by pressing the or button, after an author's name. This is to preserve uniformity in an article. AshLin ( talk) 13:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I have seen, I get the impression that a great deal of latitude in interpretation of rules is given to GA/FA reviewers in terms of their insistence of asking for quality and improvement points. Consistency is a major issue and I'd just like to bring things to a common format which will make it easier for the article to get through GA & then FA. Your point about readability of citations is well taken. AshLin ( talk) 00:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Rjensen. Lionelt has expressed interest in getting the Timeline of modern American conservatism up to standards so it can be promoted to Featured List. As far as I know, page numbers are required in cites sourced to books. I see several references to books without page numbers. Is it possible for you to add page numbers to the cites you added? If I'm mistaken about this requirement please let me know. If it is a requirement and you are unable to add page numbers, let me know that too and I'll see what I can dig out of Google books. Thank you, and keep up the good work on the Conservatism Project! -- Kenatipo speak! 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I am currently working on an Indian Trader Post scandal article that involved the impeachment of William W. Belknap in 1876. An article was written by John Koster (2010), The Belknap Scandal Fulcrum to Disaster. I wanted to know what a good title would be. One title would be Indian Trader Post Scandal (1876). Would this be appropriate or does Belknap's name need to be in the title? Do you have any suggestions for any titles? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been working on the Trader Post Scandal (1876) article work in progress in my sandbox page. If you want you could review the article. The article is not complete, however, if you have any opinions on the article that would help. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have improved and expanded the William W. Belknap article. If you have time could you look at and possibly tweak and/or improve the narration in the lede section. I got the lede into three paragraphs. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 05:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Re "better start with George Nash's major biography that covers all this. Please avoid original research into primary documents--rely on Nash for that. Drop patent numbers. The Lyons book is no longer a RS. Yergin and McNeill are dubious sources on Hoover. Try not to string more than 2 notes in a row. Use American spelling not British....and good luck!"
Thankyou very kindly sir for your feedback. I am new to this process and greatly appreciate your assistance. Just going through your points one at a time.............. -first of all, your overall comments appear to be regarding the citations............does this mean that, at this point, you do not feel that any re editing is required for the body of the edit? -do you suggest that the Nash reference come up first? The order was created because my first citations came from the previous paragraph, where I first mentioned "Lyster". I'll see how I go to change the order of the bibliogrpahy then. -"Please avoid original research and rely on Nash for this". I am a little confused by this............are you suggesting that I delete some other references? Which ones please. (I'm very inexperienced here) -"Drop Patent Numbers". Should I remove all reference to the USA Patents, or perhaps should I simply make a reference to US Patents in general and leave out the numbers? What should the exact reference be please? -"Lyons book is no longer a RS". Sorry, I don't know what RS means.....please explain and recommend what I should do thx. -So I taker it that I should remove the Yergin and McNeill sources? Why are they "dubious" please? -"Try not to string more than two notes in a row". Does this mean somehow not lumping all the ciations in one place at the end? The way I worked was to read up my references and then write a complete paragraph, also including portions from the present paragraph......ie a rewrite. I didn't take bits of individual sources into separate sentences and then individually cite each sentence, as I see that others have done. Consequently the entire paragraph is my own rewrite, and so I felt it necessary to simply add all of the citations together at the end. Is this what you are referring to? -yes we Australians naturally use British English.............I'll have a look at this, but Iam happy for you to edit any that I miss.
Thanks for your assistance.............I look forward to more comments regards, John Lyster (grandson of Fleury James Lyster..............however he passed away before I was born) Jlyster ( talk) 07:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have just now adjusted my edit as best as I can according to your comments.........
I attempted to put the Nash reference to the top of my references, however it is still below the first two ANU references as these relate to the previous paragraph that contains my initial reference to FJ Lyster and so does not require the Nash reference. (FJ Lyster references came from the ANU sources and not from Nash) I gather that I didn't really understand what exactly you meant just here. Please re advise thx
I did some other changes such as correcting British spelling of "floatation" to "flotation" and deleting the Yergin and McNeill refs.
I don't know what to do about the fact I have "bulked" the notes together...........please see my previous eml to you regarding this very point.
I look forward to your thoughts
Jlyster ( talk) 10:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC) OK I just noticed your second comments.......still learning this wiki thing. I'll delete all reference to Yergin McNeill Lyon and US Patents, and just leave Nash and ANU. The ANU (Australian National University)links to their web site includes the material related to FJ Lyster, Delprat-Potter that I mentioned. Did you have anything further to add re " -"Try not to string more than two notes in a row". ??? thx JL
PS I have made my changes only the the edit on the Herbert Hoover talk page and left the version on my own talk page in its original state until it is finalised.
Jlyster ( talk) 13:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Ok read up on primary sources and original research thx, getting the gyst of it. I have removed the three references that you indicated as being unsound and I'll see how I go about sorting the remaining references within the body of th work thx jl
put all that inside this footnote form: <ref> ...put stuff here...</ref> Rjensen ( talk) 15:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I'll add this last point to the Hoover Talk. Rjensen ( talk) 15:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have The Timeline at Talk:Timeline_of_modern_American_conservatism#Collaboration's talk page.
Jlyster ( talk) 14:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC) I have worked on the citations for my Hoover edit thx jl
Hi. When you recently edited Quit India Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saurashtra ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 20:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Greetings. Would you be able to check out the Pogrom page? User:Jayjg reverted my changes to this article, saying " "pogrom-like" isn't "pogrom", and the others aren't called pogroms, they're called "riots" etc..". This editor has failed to understand WP:RS policy. Sources describe the incidents as "pogroms". Thanks, Tobby72 ( talk) 11:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, could you explain what's wrong with Peel's writings as a RS? I am not aware of British writers - or politicians - as being unreliable sources about Japan on principle. Peel was very well-published and I thought offered an interesting near-contemporary view on the consequences of tariffs. I have in front of me Peel's 1941 book and some of his correspondence associated with it. Peel is less well-known today than Freeman but was also a monetarist. He was a politician for about 18 months during WWI, although appears to have been more of a technocrat, working in the Treasury. Writing in mid-1941 (before Pearl Harbour & the invasion of Singapore) he describes a clear link between the suppression of Japanese exports (especially silk), the damaging effect it had on the agricultural base of Japan and their support for the building of an Imperial sphere of influence which would support agriculture and industry. (His writings suggest a more complex link towards the Axis countries.) He demonstrates a far better grasp of Japanese militarism and politics in the 1930s than WP currently holds. He also thought it a foolish path as the country was too co-dependant on the US for trade. I hope this explains my carefully-couched phrase in the tariff section - as it suggests some informed people recognised huge consequences from a simple question of trade protectionism. I would therefore be interested if you have any evidence as to why his opinions are invalid? Thanks, Ephebi ( talk) 15:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 10:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You should provide a Reliable Source that states Spivak asserted Jewish financiers were working with Nazis to create the Business Plot. There is not such a ref related to Nazi involvement now. Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah. I was just typing an edit summary for reverting the "more encyclopedic" edit, but I see you got there first. Wouldn't you think people might at least read the "section headers" before mucking about with the lede? And possibly, in this case, notice there was a section about push and pull? But I've noticed it many times: people read only the lede (which is of course a summary of the long boring article below): "Well, that can't be right, I'm changing that. Heck, I do it myself. Anyway, thanks for a timely revert. Bishonen | talk 18:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC).
Hi. When you recently edited Alexander Hamilton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annapolis Convention ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an outstanding proposal to merge American gangsters during the 1920s into the Prohibition article. I don't favor that but don't really have a good solution either. The originating editor's analysis, with which I concur, is that "gangsters.." is poorly written. No one has yet commented (!) I was hoping you might suggest a more elegant solution which you would not be obliged to execute (!). Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 02:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
FA/GA of the month - Gandhi | |
Here's a glass of milk for you which will energize and motivate you in improving
Gandhi further. Thank you for your contributions so far. BPositive (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC) |
Since you wrote some advice in WP:RS about good sources for history-related articles back in 2006, I thought you might be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct, but using terms like "Third Party System" (it's article says it's a term used by historians and political scientists) is too technical for the first paragraph of a lede. And there is no particular need to source them, I'm not questioning your word, merely trying to phrase things in a way which will be most effective for the lay reader.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Found a dramatic old-time graphic for your article on the United States Housing Authority. Take a look! Am discovering that the NARA photos plus a government agency infobox can really bring these articles to life. Great to know we have some actual trained historians here! It sure helps to have a sound article as a base. Djembayz ( talk) 02:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
to McKinley talk page
Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 15:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Timeline of British diplomatic history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statute of Westminster ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you please explain the reasoning behind the content you restored there? I am still having difficulty understanding why it is relevant. Thanks! -- LWG talk 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been improving the George S. Boutwell article. Please feel free to evaluate if you have time. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:1832bank.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cloudbound ( talk) 17:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I did a copy edit on the "died of states rights" section, restating the theme national v. local "states rights" in the paragraph from Potter, making it the conclusion, which then serves as a transition into "died of Davis" subsection. Then moved solders paragraph up to "conscription" to make it the concluding paragraph there, since it serves as a better summing up-conclusion there. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Your recent restoration of a sentence by Thorpe makes the bit redundant. Per WP:LEAD, I was providing a summary of the full Thorpe quote in the article body. Binksternet ( talk) 19:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
You are at the limit of 3RR on that electoral fraud issue. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC) --thanks. nogte that 3R does NOT apply to BPR violations. Rjensen ( talk) 20:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Noticed that this article was nominated for deletion partially based on the fact that the article's lead itself screamed "not notable". When examining the article's history I noticed that this edit you made to it back in December of 2010 basically "painted a target" on it. I'm not going to make a big deal about it because it's now old news but I'm curious as to why you didn't just nominate it for deletion or prod it? -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 17:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Historian, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Labor history and Demographic history ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Move to East Germany talk page
"YEOMAN" on WIKIPEDIA HELLO,LAST CONTRIBUTOR ON THE ARTICLE "YEOMAN"! HAVE YOU SEEN LAST REVISION , i.e., countrysides instead of country sides? Is that correct? I suppose yes...But I wonder ..what about "country sides"? How long this mistake survived? No contributor noticed that? So strange! 82.55.89.150 ( talk) 18:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Just what is involved is the words " country sides" which were used until some days ago!
Thanks a lot! 95.246.62.120 ( talk) 06:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Fine work on the "Women's suffrage" article, I appreciate your fixing the "India" section. Sunray ( talk) 00:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Please see my note on the Charles Sumner talk page. Thanks. Yopienso ( talk) 20:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 02:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
move to Talk:Timeline of modern American conservatism Rjensen ( talk) 03:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Timeline of modern American conservatism's talk page.– Lionel ( talk) 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. Do you know who appointed the Supervisor of the United States Military Academy? This is in reference to the William W. Belknap and Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant articles and the appointment of Thomas H. Ruger in 1871 as Supervisor. Ruger implemented a policy that successfully reduced hazing at the Academy. This was at a time when African Americans were first entering the Academy. Thanks for you time. Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The 17th amendment and states' rights can be easily sourced on the internet. Also your removal of the following makes know sense. "Historians such as Thomas DiLorenzo and Charles Adams[disambiguation needed ] argue that the Southern secession and the ensuing conflict was much more of a fiscal quarrel than a war over slavery. Northern-inspired tariffs benefited Northern interests but were detrimental to Southern interests and were destroying the economy in the South." That is a key argument from southerners on states' rights. Economics, such as tariffs also play a huge role in modern states' rights arguments. I plan on adding back the economic argument and will look for a source on the 17th Amendment section. -- Southronite ( talk) 23:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm curious why you removed my research on military law exclusions while leaving the reference to the VTVPA, which it contravenes? I will be asking this on the talk page of that topic as well, as I feel that the deletion of relevant cited facts is harmful to the purpose of wikipedia. Thanks, Mwenechanga ( talk) 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 15:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen, how are you? After making changes in the article can you please update that in Review page too (I mean, write in brief that you have made change, or you have not made any change since you feel it is not needed)? It'll help in the review process! Thanks! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. How much did the sale of breach loaders and 300 repeating rifles to hostile Indians at traderships under Sec. Belknap's authority affect the Battle of Little Big Horn? Historian John Koster (2010), The Belknap Scandal Fulcrum to Disaster, on page 58 contends that breach loaders and 300 repeating rifles sold to Indians at trader posts were a factor in the defeat of Custer at the Battle of Little Big Horn. Koster I believe had based this theory on the investigation afterwards that U.S. Military breach loaders had jammed on the third round. Sec. William W. Belknap (1874), Annual report of the Secretary of War, on pages XVII-XVIII stated he gave his troops superior top of the line Springfield breach loaders. Custer had for unclear reasons refused to take Gatling guns that could shoot 150 rounds per minute and would have strongly increased his fire power. Did U.S. troops have repeating rifles or were they only given Springfield breach-loaders? Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. I suppose my "real" concerns are how to put any pertinent additional facts in the William W. Belknap article and how to find information on what weapons the U.S. military used at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Is Kosner's (2010) suggested theory that Belknap's trader posts selling arms to hostile Indians caused the defeat of Custer at the Battle of the Little Big Horn legitimate? Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Rjensen. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | |
Congrats on 100 edits in Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi article! Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 08:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Sorry about that edit. I thought it said Dem support increased. Zach Vega ( talk) 14:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I am attempting to improve President Grant's cabinet articles. I believe possibly by understanding Grant's cabinet members one can understand Ulysses S. Grant better. I have recently improved the George M. Robeson article. Please feel free to make any improvements to or comments on the Robeson article. Robeson seems to have been a scholarly spokeperson for Grant. I am finding the Naval contract scandal is somewhat complicated, since Robeson had limited funding from Congress. Do you, Rjensen, believe what Robeson did in the Navy contracts was corruption? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits and clean ups on the article, Rjensen! I have known there was profiteering in the Naval Department under Robeson, since he had $300,000 in his bank account on an $8,000 year salary. However, I never knew he was a scholar and an outspoken advocate of Radical Reconstruction. I found his developement of underwater warfare, including submarine testing, and administering the exploration into the artic interesting. I am going to try and write a section on the Virginius incident. Robeson had to make ships on limited budgets, however, that apparently in the end led to costly "rebuilding" efforts on dilapitated ships. Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. I'll be sparing on the footnotes. From what I have read, Robeson, seems to have been a very powerful or efficient Secretary of Navy. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited History of immigration to the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scots Irish ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You are co-nominator at the above FLC. It has received multiple comments but none of them have been addressed. Could you indicate to me whether you intend to fix the issues or would you prefer to withdraw the nomination? Cheers, The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, your addition to the Historiography section of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 reads like a review of Dalrymple's book and thus seems out of place. Thoughts? Rsloch ( talk) 13:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the David Brooks thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeedh ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Jensen,
I was wondering if you could tell me about the units for the vertical axis of the chart you uploaded, "Economic Growth in America, per capita income 1700-1840". Is per capita income value exactly the number of dollars listed (as opposed to tens of dollars, or hundreds of dollars)? Does it account for inflation? Are all income values shown in-for example-year 1800 dollars?
Thanks for your help,
Tom 168.7.235.165 ( talk) 22:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.235.165 ( talk) 21:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been improving the Lot M. Morrill article. Morrill was Grant's Secretary of Treasury during his last year in office. Morrill was also U.S. Senator for the entire Civil War and most of Reconstruction. Do you know if Morrill was considered a Radical or Moderate Republican? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. Since there apparently is no biographer for Morrill, I have been putting the article together piece meal with newspaper and biographical dictionary sources. Is there any way of finding out if he voted for the Enforcement Acts while Senator? Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
A good link. I looked up Senate debate on the Klu Klux Klan bill, but I could not find any mention of Sen. Morrill argueing for the bill. I have to go page by page since the site apparently does not have a search engine for the Congressional Globe. Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Education Act 1902, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Acland ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert your edit on the Atlantic Slave Trade page, but I just wanted to let you know that it was my own material that I deleted. I had already added a lot of material to that section and I thought that that one part was a bit over the top. If you would be so kind, I would appreciate it if you took a second look- if you agree with me that it is unnecessary (given that the preceding sentence discusses the same historian and the same study by that historian), then please revert it back to my last version. Thanks. ElliotJoyce ( talk) 22:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 00:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
You are adding long unsourced segments of text, and changing other text cited to footnotes. This is not proper. Please cut it out.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Since I did end up posting a more precise poll, could you kindly vote again —just below the first poll. Sorry for not being sufficiently precise the first time. Bytwerk ( talk) 13:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that on the page List of books about the War of 1812 someone added a book in April that will not be published until July 30 of this year. Is it acceptable to list a book that is not published yet? I suspect that the person who added it is either the author or the publisher, but I cannot prove it. Dwalrus ( talk) 18:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been working on the Virginius affair or "Virginus incident" during the Grant Administration. I have been using Bradford (1980), The Virginius Affair as source. The U.S. almost went to war with Spain over Cuba in 1873, thanks to Grant and Fish, war was averted. I believe Charles Sumner was against going to war with Spain over the incident. Any help would be appreciated in terms of narration or historical accuracy. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. Any opinion on the Virginius Affair article? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow! You did a good job on the summary in the lede section in the Virginius Affair article. The article lead stresses that the ship was purchased for the Cuban insurrection. Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The article Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself?
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar
| |
I am elated to see your excellent contribution and super excellent teamwork in
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi article, which was also the
Indian Collaboration of the Month for taking upto GA/FA level under
WikiProject India. Your long struggle and hard-work helped the article to achieve
Good Article status.
Along with you, the Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar has been awarded to the–
Note: If you are seeing this barnstar in someone's user page, you can also see this barnstar in
GA review page where it was actually posted.
BPositive
(talk) 12:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
|
I admire your zeal, but I feel removing a link to word from dictionary is taking things a little far! ;-)
If the removal of common words is taken to that degree, then the word article will end up with zero incoming links!
The policy says:
Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article,
I think in this case, words are particularly relevant to dictionaries. Hope this helps! Planetscared ( talk) 21:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been working on another Grant Cabinet member U.S. Attorney General Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar. Hoar was well qualified for this position and did not use patronage to make any court appointments. His tenor seems to demonstrate the power of the Senate who had no issues with dispensing patronage. Apparently Grant's first Cabinet: Hoar and Cox made efforts to control the patronage system. Please feel free to make any narration or historical context edits. Do you believe patronage is a corrupt system? Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I suppose my issue is that Grant put in persons who were opposed to patronage. Grant deserves credit for choosing an independant cabinet. Grant did not trust polititians, according to Hoar's biographers Storey-Emerson. Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have edited concerning Att. Gen. Hoar and the overturning of Hepburn v. Griswold; the Supreme Court case that outlawed paper money. I suppose this is Hoar's most important accomplishment as Attorney General. Do you know any information or historical context concerning this case? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
ah, and you just revealed why you wish to have such rubbish in the article - you obviously have disdain for President Buchanan, and quite unfairly I will ad. Just because he is not a favorite of yours does not give you the right to ridicule him. I would hate to see what someone such as yourself would have done when faced with the difficulties in the late 1850's & 1860. I suggest to you young man that you get over your arrogance and deal with historical truth.
For what reason do you think that the UDC had anything to do with Memorial Day? Memorial Day was created by the Ladies Memorial Associations of the 1860s. The UDC did not come along until much later and had little or nothing to do with the history of this day. The material about the UDC belongs on the UDC page. If you want to substitute it with information about the Ladies Memorial Associations, that would make sense. But arguing for the importance of the UDC regarding memorial day is nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | ||
For your swift work to construct usable content here. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC) |
These situations are pretty demoralizing for me; articles like that one - extensively edited and important articles with foundational copyright issues that cannot be easily excised - are "my worst nightmare" territory. Thank you so much for stepping in to do something constructive and reminding me why Wikipedia works. What we achieve, we achieve because of impulses like that and people like you. We're lucky to have you. And, personally, you've made my day. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been looking over Benjamin Franklin Butler article. I recently updated his photo in the lede section. His article needs work or possibly an overhaul, particularly his lede section. I figure since he was prominent during the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant that he is worth looking into. He does get a signifigant number of article traffic attention I believe to deserve improvement. His lede section really needs work and expansion. I do not currently have enough information on Butler to redo the lede section. If you have time or inclination to fix the lede, that would be good. This is only an optional suggested request for article improvement. I am sure you have a busy schedule. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. Yes. Strange and politically powerful. He has an interesting face. He seemed to always walk the tight rope between corruption and legality, yet, Butler as a Radical, protected African American rights. Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I just got your message. Sorry I didnt read it sooner, Ive been really busy. I would like to begin making changes, but its really late now so I'll start tomorrow. I dont really intend to do much other than rename the article though.-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 08:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi - there is a report about disputed content in the White trash article at he BLPN - Wikipedia:BLPN#White_Trash - as you are the the User replacing the disputed content please comment there - thanks - Youreally can 18:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I still have issues with this article that unresolved - I dispute your removal of all the templates - please replace the COI and NPOV and the BLP better citations required - these templates should not be removed unless issues are resolved and these issues clearly are not - thanks - Youreally can 21:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I will notify my mentor about your warning - thanks - Youreally can 21:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 15:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Links to digital archives at unz.org. Thank you. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 05:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
-- Pass3456 ( talk) 08:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been working on and expanding on the Marshall Jewell article, President Grant's Postmaster General. Jewell is interesting because he apparently reformed the Postal Service from the Star Route contract profiteering. In addition Jewell had helped Bristow shut down the Whiskey Ring. His life events were interesting and he was a world traveler. If you want to look at the article, that would be good. Your perspective is needed. What are your views on the article? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I suppose my concern is that historians have apparently forgetten Jewell was a reformer during the Grant Administration who aided Benjamin Bristow. Jewell for a while stopped the Star Route profiteering and aided Bristow in stopping the Whiskey Ring. Jewell also landed an authentic trademark treaty with Russia that protected American products while he was U.S. Minsister. I believe Jewell has been an under-rated Grant appointment. If you wanted to look at the article that is fine. I believe Jewell is worth looking into, particularly why Grant forced his resignation without any explanation. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. Grant is starting to make more sense, I suppose. Your insight has helped. Grant was at times a reformer and then if a friend was involved he would become aggressively protective, a relentless dichotomy. One issue concerning the Marshall Jewell article are the titles for each segments. I am not sure if all the titles are accurate or concise. If you could look at the segment titles for any suggested changes that would be appreciated. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Implying the US was seen as "seeking to spread republican and democratic ideas" and writing off the threat of US expansionism as "propaganda" is extremely controversial and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaylencrufts ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I found addresses made by George Henry Williams, President Grant's Attorney General. He gives some candid revelations of Grant as President. Here is the link: Gen. U.S. Grant August 8, 1885 Portland, Oregon. Williams stated Grant was not an emotional man and that he had a public and private personna. Williams stated that in the Cabinet meeting Grant was "frank, fluent, and exceedingly interested in conversation." Publically Grant was known to be private and an indifferent listener. I have expanded more on the William's bio article. I thought you would be interested in his comments on Grant. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Your welcome. I guess another issue is that Williams was a Radical. He stated that Grant held him back as Attorney General and that Williams would have been more forceful towards the South. What is interesting to me is that the person in charge of all the federal legal aspects of Reconstruction for over three years was a Senator from Oregon. I believe Williams was an under-rated U.S. Attorney General and a good writer himself. Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
""I reworked the article so that the main events are only covered once, not twice. It could use more detail on his work as Atty General. Was his resignation involving a bribe or his wife? Rjensen ( talk) 10:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I cleared things up. His wife's carriage cost him the Supreme Court nomination. I believe he resigned due to his wife, possibly under William's direction, unproven, taking money from Pratt and Boyd. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been reading sources and Louisiana was an extremely complicated Reconstruction state in 1872. Since there was no biographer of Williams, I have been having to piece-meal book and newspaper sources. I need to get a handle on the Louisiana political situation in 1872. My sources include: Retreat from Reconstruction Gillette (1979); The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1789-1878 Coakley (1988); William H. Emory: Soldier-Scientist, Norris-Milligan-Faulk (1998); and Reconstruction in Louisiana after 1868, Lonn (1918). I am beginning to think historians have ignored the Grant Administration due to the complicated Reconstruction process in the South. Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjesen. I added a section on the contested Louisiana Election of 1872 using the Norris-Milligan-Faulk (1998) source. Please feel free to make any edits or improvements. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix; having {{or}} in such a prominent position didn't look good! -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 07:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, An image of Har Dayal was uploaded (I was not the uploader) in Commons which has been recently deleted. According to 1957 Indian copyright act photos ned to be published at least 60 years ago to be in public domain. The image of Har Dayal we uploaded was taken in 1908 and Har Dayal died in 1939 and since the image was taken before his death the image should be in public domain. But someone has asked us to tell in which year the image was published since it can be a "family photo" too and it was kept private and has been published recently! And here is the problem– how do we know exactly when and where the image was published! Can you give us any clue that when image was publicly used (any movement, any conference, any manifesto etc)? This is the image we uploaded and here is the detailed discussion in Commons? Or if you know Indian copyright act, do you think Indian copyright act is being misinterpreted here? -- Tito Dutta ✉ 16:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Richard! If you have some time to review the quality of some articles, we're using the results for a really important research project that will help shape the future of the US/Canada Education Program. For a few projects, we're on a pretty tight timeline and are really eager to have many more of these articles reviewed over the next week. However, we think it's most useful to come from experienced Wikipedia editors.
I have gone through each class to prioritize for various projects, and everyone on the Education team at the Wikimedia Foundation would be extremely grateful if you could participate by reviewing a few articles ('pre' and 'post' versions). If we can rally a lot of editors to review one or two articles each day, we will be able to make the most use of this research for our tight timeline. As many of our Ambassadors have requested it, we are really eager to find out which classes have been successful according to the Wikipedian standard.
If you can spare some time, please check out these priority articles and give it a go. Even 1 or 2 a day would help immensely! JMathewson (WMF) ( talk) 02:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Rjensen. Because you have been the top contributor, I thought you might wish to comment. I'd like to merge Frontier Thesis into " The Significance of the Frontier in American History" (I'm open to any other suitable solution). - SusanLesch ( talk) 17:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Please contribute your comment and sources at >> Talk:Confederate States of America#RFC Infobox flag choice << to select the flag representing an historic nation-state 1861-1865 from three alternatives, a flag _____ . a) sourced as flown everywhere in the Confederacy, 1861-1864, b) sourced as "not satisfactory" at the time 1863-1865, or c) sourced as "never" seen by the participants 1865. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 02:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Great Job on defending Lincoln as a conservative from those who would throw out paramount of evidence asided simply because of there conservative bias's that make them refuse to add Lincoln because it might make them recognize that need to think twice that there narrow view of conservatism as nothing but a racist idealogy isn't entirely correct Lincolnworshipper 2.0 ( talk) 06:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
Hello Rjensen. I expanded the Later Reconstruction section in the Ulysses S. Grant article, adding more on Grant's use of the U.S. military, the Department of War, and the Justice Department to defeat Klan violence in the South. I mentioned Amos T. Akerman, George Henry Williams and Benjamin Bristow in terms of them prosecuting and shutting down the Klan. The narration may be a bit sloppy, since I added information to existing information. Could you look at the section and possibly clean up the narration? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 19:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rings Ulysses Grant cartoon.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. Stefan2 ( talk) 10:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I am currently working on the Annexation of Santo Domingo article. I believe the article will fit in well with the Ulysses S. Grant article, and possibly clean up any misunderstandings. I attempting to write the article as neutral as possible, without judging either Grant's, Babcock's, or Sumner's motivations. I am not sure there is any concrete answer why Grant did not authorize Babcock through Sec. Fish's State Department. I have rewritten the lede and first segment. Feel free to look at the article or make any improvements. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I have reworked the Annexation of Santo Domingo article. The Aftermath section has not been completed. That might be the most important part with the Republican Party split and never ending hostility between Sumner and Grant. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's a pie for your hard work! Thanks for updating the History of Mexico page! Keep up the good work and feel free to add more stuff. You work is greatly appreciated! ComputerJA ( talk) 20:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
I was reviewing your recent edits of History of education in the United States and was unable to find support for a particular phrase in the citation. The phrase in the Policy Since 2000 section indicated that NCLB state exams are on "math and language skills". While I know this to be true from my personal experience, I couldn't find it supported in Class Warfare. Since I changed it once and you changed it back, I am assuming that I was just unable to find it. If this is the case let me know, otherwise I will move things around and add the citation needed tag back to that phrase. Thanks Lexandalf ( talk) 22:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have looked at the Columbus Delano article and I believe needs extensive revision. His life is apparently interesting. More then "corruption" went on during his administration of the Interior. I do not understand why historians including McFeely and Smith dismiss Delano and other Grant appointments as corrupt without actually looking into what was done under their tenor. Delano did allot during his lengthy tenor in terms of Indian Policy. Anyways, enough of my soapbox. If you want to look at the Delano article that would be fine. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 July 2012 (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. |
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. |
see previous talk at Archive 15
May I request that in citations, the format be "surname, firstname"? In Reftags, it is done by pressing the or button, after an author's name. This is to preserve uniformity in an article. AshLin ( talk) 13:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I have seen, I get the impression that a great deal of latitude in interpretation of rules is given to GA/FA reviewers in terms of their insistence of asking for quality and improvement points. Consistency is a major issue and I'd just like to bring things to a common format which will make it easier for the article to get through GA & then FA. Your point about readability of citations is well taken. AshLin ( talk) 00:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Rjensen. Lionelt has expressed interest in getting the Timeline of modern American conservatism up to standards so it can be promoted to Featured List. As far as I know, page numbers are required in cites sourced to books. I see several references to books without page numbers. Is it possible for you to add page numbers to the cites you added? If I'm mistaken about this requirement please let me know. If it is a requirement and you are unable to add page numbers, let me know that too and I'll see what I can dig out of Google books. Thank you, and keep up the good work on the Conservatism Project! -- Kenatipo speak! 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I am currently working on an Indian Trader Post scandal article that involved the impeachment of William W. Belknap in 1876. An article was written by John Koster (2010), The Belknap Scandal Fulcrum to Disaster. I wanted to know what a good title would be. One title would be Indian Trader Post Scandal (1876). Would this be appropriate or does Belknap's name need to be in the title? Do you have any suggestions for any titles? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been working on the Trader Post Scandal (1876) article work in progress in my sandbox page. If you want you could review the article. The article is not complete, however, if you have any opinions on the article that would help. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have improved and expanded the William W. Belknap article. If you have time could you look at and possibly tweak and/or improve the narration in the lede section. I got the lede into three paragraphs. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 05:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Re "better start with George Nash's major biography that covers all this. Please avoid original research into primary documents--rely on Nash for that. Drop patent numbers. The Lyons book is no longer a RS. Yergin and McNeill are dubious sources on Hoover. Try not to string more than 2 notes in a row. Use American spelling not British....and good luck!"
Thankyou very kindly sir for your feedback. I am new to this process and greatly appreciate your assistance. Just going through your points one at a time.............. -first of all, your overall comments appear to be regarding the citations............does this mean that, at this point, you do not feel that any re editing is required for the body of the edit? -do you suggest that the Nash reference come up first? The order was created because my first citations came from the previous paragraph, where I first mentioned "Lyster". I'll see how I go to change the order of the bibliogrpahy then. -"Please avoid original research and rely on Nash for this". I am a little confused by this............are you suggesting that I delete some other references? Which ones please. (I'm very inexperienced here) -"Drop Patent Numbers". Should I remove all reference to the USA Patents, or perhaps should I simply make a reference to US Patents in general and leave out the numbers? What should the exact reference be please? -"Lyons book is no longer a RS". Sorry, I don't know what RS means.....please explain and recommend what I should do thx. -So I taker it that I should remove the Yergin and McNeill sources? Why are they "dubious" please? -"Try not to string more than two notes in a row". Does this mean somehow not lumping all the ciations in one place at the end? The way I worked was to read up my references and then write a complete paragraph, also including portions from the present paragraph......ie a rewrite. I didn't take bits of individual sources into separate sentences and then individually cite each sentence, as I see that others have done. Consequently the entire paragraph is my own rewrite, and so I felt it necessary to simply add all of the citations together at the end. Is this what you are referring to? -yes we Australians naturally use British English.............I'll have a look at this, but Iam happy for you to edit any that I miss.
Thanks for your assistance.............I look forward to more comments regards, John Lyster (grandson of Fleury James Lyster..............however he passed away before I was born) Jlyster ( talk) 07:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have just now adjusted my edit as best as I can according to your comments.........
I attempted to put the Nash reference to the top of my references, however it is still below the first two ANU references as these relate to the previous paragraph that contains my initial reference to FJ Lyster and so does not require the Nash reference. (FJ Lyster references came from the ANU sources and not from Nash) I gather that I didn't really understand what exactly you meant just here. Please re advise thx
I did some other changes such as correcting British spelling of "floatation" to "flotation" and deleting the Yergin and McNeill refs.
I don't know what to do about the fact I have "bulked" the notes together...........please see my previous eml to you regarding this very point.
I look forward to your thoughts
Jlyster ( talk) 10:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC) OK I just noticed your second comments.......still learning this wiki thing. I'll delete all reference to Yergin McNeill Lyon and US Patents, and just leave Nash and ANU. The ANU (Australian National University)links to their web site includes the material related to FJ Lyster, Delprat-Potter that I mentioned. Did you have anything further to add re " -"Try not to string more than two notes in a row". ??? thx JL
PS I have made my changes only the the edit on the Herbert Hoover talk page and left the version on my own talk page in its original state until it is finalised.
Jlyster ( talk) 13:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Ok read up on primary sources and original research thx, getting the gyst of it. I have removed the three references that you indicated as being unsound and I'll see how I go about sorting the remaining references within the body of th work thx jl
put all that inside this footnote form: <ref> ...put stuff here...</ref> Rjensen ( talk) 15:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I'll add this last point to the Hoover Talk. Rjensen ( talk) 15:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have The Timeline at Talk:Timeline_of_modern_American_conservatism#Collaboration's talk page.
Jlyster ( talk) 14:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC) I have worked on the citations for my Hoover edit thx jl
Hi. When you recently edited Quit India Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saurashtra ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 20:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Greetings. Would you be able to check out the Pogrom page? User:Jayjg reverted my changes to this article, saying " "pogrom-like" isn't "pogrom", and the others aren't called pogroms, they're called "riots" etc..". This editor has failed to understand WP:RS policy. Sources describe the incidents as "pogroms". Thanks, Tobby72 ( talk) 11:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, could you explain what's wrong with Peel's writings as a RS? I am not aware of British writers - or politicians - as being unreliable sources about Japan on principle. Peel was very well-published and I thought offered an interesting near-contemporary view on the consequences of tariffs. I have in front of me Peel's 1941 book and some of his correspondence associated with it. Peel is less well-known today than Freeman but was also a monetarist. He was a politician for about 18 months during WWI, although appears to have been more of a technocrat, working in the Treasury. Writing in mid-1941 (before Pearl Harbour & the invasion of Singapore) he describes a clear link between the suppression of Japanese exports (especially silk), the damaging effect it had on the agricultural base of Japan and their support for the building of an Imperial sphere of influence which would support agriculture and industry. (His writings suggest a more complex link towards the Axis countries.) He demonstrates a far better grasp of Japanese militarism and politics in the 1930s than WP currently holds. He also thought it a foolish path as the country was too co-dependant on the US for trade. I hope this explains my carefully-couched phrase in the tariff section - as it suggests some informed people recognised huge consequences from a simple question of trade protectionism. I would therefore be interested if you have any evidence as to why his opinions are invalid? Thanks, Ephebi ( talk) 15:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 10:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You should provide a Reliable Source that states Spivak asserted Jewish financiers were working with Nazis to create the Business Plot. There is not such a ref related to Nazi involvement now. Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah. I was just typing an edit summary for reverting the "more encyclopedic" edit, but I see you got there first. Wouldn't you think people might at least read the "section headers" before mucking about with the lede? And possibly, in this case, notice there was a section about push and pull? But I've noticed it many times: people read only the lede (which is of course a summary of the long boring article below): "Well, that can't be right, I'm changing that. Heck, I do it myself. Anyway, thanks for a timely revert. Bishonen | talk 18:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC).
Hi. When you recently edited Alexander Hamilton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annapolis Convention ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an outstanding proposal to merge American gangsters during the 1920s into the Prohibition article. I don't favor that but don't really have a good solution either. The originating editor's analysis, with which I concur, is that "gangsters.." is poorly written. No one has yet commented (!) I was hoping you might suggest a more elegant solution which you would not be obliged to execute (!). Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 02:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
FA/GA of the month - Gandhi | |
Here's a glass of milk for you which will energize and motivate you in improving
Gandhi further. Thank you for your contributions so far. BPositive (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC) |
Since you wrote some advice in WP:RS about good sources for history-related articles back in 2006, I thought you might be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct, but using terms like "Third Party System" (it's article says it's a term used by historians and political scientists) is too technical for the first paragraph of a lede. And there is no particular need to source them, I'm not questioning your word, merely trying to phrase things in a way which will be most effective for the lay reader.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Found a dramatic old-time graphic for your article on the United States Housing Authority. Take a look! Am discovering that the NARA photos plus a government agency infobox can really bring these articles to life. Great to know we have some actual trained historians here! It sure helps to have a sound article as a base. Djembayz ( talk) 02:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
to McKinley talk page
Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 15:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Timeline of British diplomatic history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statute of Westminster ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you please explain the reasoning behind the content you restored there? I am still having difficulty understanding why it is relevant. Thanks! -- LWG talk 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been improving the George S. Boutwell article. Please feel free to evaluate if you have time. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:1832bank.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cloudbound ( talk) 17:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I did a copy edit on the "died of states rights" section, restating the theme national v. local "states rights" in the paragraph from Potter, making it the conclusion, which then serves as a transition into "died of Davis" subsection. Then moved solders paragraph up to "conscription" to make it the concluding paragraph there, since it serves as a better summing up-conclusion there. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Your recent restoration of a sentence by Thorpe makes the bit redundant. Per WP:LEAD, I was providing a summary of the full Thorpe quote in the article body. Binksternet ( talk) 19:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
You are at the limit of 3RR on that electoral fraud issue. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC) --thanks. nogte that 3R does NOT apply to BPR violations. Rjensen ( talk) 20:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Noticed that this article was nominated for deletion partially based on the fact that the article's lead itself screamed "not notable". When examining the article's history I noticed that this edit you made to it back in December of 2010 basically "painted a target" on it. I'm not going to make a big deal about it because it's now old news but I'm curious as to why you didn't just nominate it for deletion or prod it? -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 17:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Historian, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Labor history and Demographic history ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Move to East Germany talk page
"YEOMAN" on WIKIPEDIA HELLO,LAST CONTRIBUTOR ON THE ARTICLE "YEOMAN"! HAVE YOU SEEN LAST REVISION , i.e., countrysides instead of country sides? Is that correct? I suppose yes...But I wonder ..what about "country sides"? How long this mistake survived? No contributor noticed that? So strange! 82.55.89.150 ( talk) 18:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Just what is involved is the words " country sides" which were used until some days ago!
Thanks a lot! 95.246.62.120 ( talk) 06:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Fine work on the "Women's suffrage" article, I appreciate your fixing the "India" section. Sunray ( talk) 00:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Please see my note on the Charles Sumner talk page. Thanks. Yopienso ( talk) 20:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 02:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
move to Talk:Timeline of modern American conservatism Rjensen ( talk) 03:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Timeline of modern American conservatism's talk page.– Lionel ( talk) 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. Do you know who appointed the Supervisor of the United States Military Academy? This is in reference to the William W. Belknap and Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant articles and the appointment of Thomas H. Ruger in 1871 as Supervisor. Ruger implemented a policy that successfully reduced hazing at the Academy. This was at a time when African Americans were first entering the Academy. Thanks for you time. Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The 17th amendment and states' rights can be easily sourced on the internet. Also your removal of the following makes know sense. "Historians such as Thomas DiLorenzo and Charles Adams[disambiguation needed ] argue that the Southern secession and the ensuing conflict was much more of a fiscal quarrel than a war over slavery. Northern-inspired tariffs benefited Northern interests but were detrimental to Southern interests and were destroying the economy in the South." That is a key argument from southerners on states' rights. Economics, such as tariffs also play a huge role in modern states' rights arguments. I plan on adding back the economic argument and will look for a source on the 17th Amendment section. -- Southronite ( talk) 23:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm curious why you removed my research on military law exclusions while leaving the reference to the VTVPA, which it contravenes? I will be asking this on the talk page of that topic as well, as I feel that the deletion of relevant cited facts is harmful to the purpose of wikipedia. Thanks, Mwenechanga ( talk) 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 15:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen, how are you? After making changes in the article can you please update that in Review page too (I mean, write in brief that you have made change, or you have not made any change since you feel it is not needed)? It'll help in the review process! Thanks! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. How much did the sale of breach loaders and 300 repeating rifles to hostile Indians at traderships under Sec. Belknap's authority affect the Battle of Little Big Horn? Historian John Koster (2010), The Belknap Scandal Fulcrum to Disaster, on page 58 contends that breach loaders and 300 repeating rifles sold to Indians at trader posts were a factor in the defeat of Custer at the Battle of Little Big Horn. Koster I believe had based this theory on the investigation afterwards that U.S. Military breach loaders had jammed on the third round. Sec. William W. Belknap (1874), Annual report of the Secretary of War, on pages XVII-XVIII stated he gave his troops superior top of the line Springfield breach loaders. Custer had for unclear reasons refused to take Gatling guns that could shoot 150 rounds per minute and would have strongly increased his fire power. Did U.S. troops have repeating rifles or were they only given Springfield breach-loaders? Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. I suppose my "real" concerns are how to put any pertinent additional facts in the William W. Belknap article and how to find information on what weapons the U.S. military used at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Is Kosner's (2010) suggested theory that Belknap's trader posts selling arms to hostile Indians caused the defeat of Custer at the Battle of the Little Big Horn legitimate? Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Rjensen. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | |
Congrats on 100 edits in Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi article! Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 08:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Sorry about that edit. I thought it said Dem support increased. Zach Vega ( talk) 14:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I am attempting to improve President Grant's cabinet articles. I believe possibly by understanding Grant's cabinet members one can understand Ulysses S. Grant better. I have recently improved the George M. Robeson article. Please feel free to make any improvements to or comments on the Robeson article. Robeson seems to have been a scholarly spokeperson for Grant. I am finding the Naval contract scandal is somewhat complicated, since Robeson had limited funding from Congress. Do you, Rjensen, believe what Robeson did in the Navy contracts was corruption? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits and clean ups on the article, Rjensen! I have known there was profiteering in the Naval Department under Robeson, since he had $300,000 in his bank account on an $8,000 year salary. However, I never knew he was a scholar and an outspoken advocate of Radical Reconstruction. I found his developement of underwater warfare, including submarine testing, and administering the exploration into the artic interesting. I am going to try and write a section on the Virginius incident. Robeson had to make ships on limited budgets, however, that apparently in the end led to costly "rebuilding" efforts on dilapitated ships. Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. I'll be sparing on the footnotes. From what I have read, Robeson, seems to have been a very powerful or efficient Secretary of Navy. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited History of immigration to the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scots Irish ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You are co-nominator at the above FLC. It has received multiple comments but none of them have been addressed. Could you indicate to me whether you intend to fix the issues or would you prefer to withdraw the nomination? Cheers, The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, your addition to the Historiography section of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 reads like a review of Dalrymple's book and thus seems out of place. Thoughts? Rsloch ( talk) 13:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the David Brooks thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeedh ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Jensen,
I was wondering if you could tell me about the units for the vertical axis of the chart you uploaded, "Economic Growth in America, per capita income 1700-1840". Is per capita income value exactly the number of dollars listed (as opposed to tens of dollars, or hundreds of dollars)? Does it account for inflation? Are all income values shown in-for example-year 1800 dollars?
Thanks for your help,
Tom 168.7.235.165 ( talk) 22:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.235.165 ( talk) 21:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been improving the Lot M. Morrill article. Morrill was Grant's Secretary of Treasury during his last year in office. Morrill was also U.S. Senator for the entire Civil War and most of Reconstruction. Do you know if Morrill was considered a Radical or Moderate Republican? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. Since there apparently is no biographer for Morrill, I have been putting the article together piece meal with newspaper and biographical dictionary sources. Is there any way of finding out if he voted for the Enforcement Acts while Senator? Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
A good link. I looked up Senate debate on the Klu Klux Klan bill, but I could not find any mention of Sen. Morrill argueing for the bill. I have to go page by page since the site apparently does not have a search engine for the Congressional Globe. Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Education Act 1902, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Acland ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert your edit on the Atlantic Slave Trade page, but I just wanted to let you know that it was my own material that I deleted. I had already added a lot of material to that section and I thought that that one part was a bit over the top. If you would be so kind, I would appreciate it if you took a second look- if you agree with me that it is unnecessary (given that the preceding sentence discusses the same historian and the same study by that historian), then please revert it back to my last version. Thanks. ElliotJoyce ( talk) 22:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 00:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
You are adding long unsourced segments of text, and changing other text cited to footnotes. This is not proper. Please cut it out.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Since I did end up posting a more precise poll, could you kindly vote again —just below the first poll. Sorry for not being sufficiently precise the first time. Bytwerk ( talk) 13:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that on the page List of books about the War of 1812 someone added a book in April that will not be published until July 30 of this year. Is it acceptable to list a book that is not published yet? I suspect that the person who added it is either the author or the publisher, but I cannot prove it. Dwalrus ( talk) 18:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been working on the Virginius affair or "Virginus incident" during the Grant Administration. I have been using Bradford (1980), The Virginius Affair as source. The U.S. almost went to war with Spain over Cuba in 1873, thanks to Grant and Fish, war was averted. I believe Charles Sumner was against going to war with Spain over the incident. Any help would be appreciated in terms of narration or historical accuracy. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. Any opinion on the Virginius Affair article? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow! You did a good job on the summary in the lede section in the Virginius Affair article. The article lead stresses that the ship was purchased for the Cuban insurrection. Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The article Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself?
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar
| |
I am elated to see your excellent contribution and super excellent teamwork in
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi article, which was also the
Indian Collaboration of the Month for taking upto GA/FA level under
WikiProject India. Your long struggle and hard-work helped the article to achieve
Good Article status.
Along with you, the Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar has been awarded to the–
Note: If you are seeing this barnstar in someone's user page, you can also see this barnstar in
GA review page where it was actually posted.
BPositive
(talk) 12:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
|
I admire your zeal, but I feel removing a link to word from dictionary is taking things a little far! ;-)
If the removal of common words is taken to that degree, then the word article will end up with zero incoming links!
The policy says:
Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article,
I think in this case, words are particularly relevant to dictionaries. Hope this helps! Planetscared ( talk) 21:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been working on another Grant Cabinet member U.S. Attorney General Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar. Hoar was well qualified for this position and did not use patronage to make any court appointments. His tenor seems to demonstrate the power of the Senate who had no issues with dispensing patronage. Apparently Grant's first Cabinet: Hoar and Cox made efforts to control the patronage system. Please feel free to make any narration or historical context edits. Do you believe patronage is a corrupt system? Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I suppose my issue is that Grant put in persons who were opposed to patronage. Grant deserves credit for choosing an independant cabinet. Grant did not trust polititians, according to Hoar's biographers Storey-Emerson. Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have edited concerning Att. Gen. Hoar and the overturning of Hepburn v. Griswold; the Supreme Court case that outlawed paper money. I suppose this is Hoar's most important accomplishment as Attorney General. Do you know any information or historical context concerning this case? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
ah, and you just revealed why you wish to have such rubbish in the article - you obviously have disdain for President Buchanan, and quite unfairly I will ad. Just because he is not a favorite of yours does not give you the right to ridicule him. I would hate to see what someone such as yourself would have done when faced with the difficulties in the late 1850's & 1860. I suggest to you young man that you get over your arrogance and deal with historical truth.
For what reason do you think that the UDC had anything to do with Memorial Day? Memorial Day was created by the Ladies Memorial Associations of the 1860s. The UDC did not come along until much later and had little or nothing to do with the history of this day. The material about the UDC belongs on the UDC page. If you want to substitute it with information about the Ladies Memorial Associations, that would make sense. But arguing for the importance of the UDC regarding memorial day is nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | ||
For your swift work to construct usable content here. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC) |
These situations are pretty demoralizing for me; articles like that one - extensively edited and important articles with foundational copyright issues that cannot be easily excised - are "my worst nightmare" territory. Thank you so much for stepping in to do something constructive and reminding me why Wikipedia works. What we achieve, we achieve because of impulses like that and people like you. We're lucky to have you. And, personally, you've made my day. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been looking over Benjamin Franklin Butler article. I recently updated his photo in the lede section. His article needs work or possibly an overhaul, particularly his lede section. I figure since he was prominent during the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant that he is worth looking into. He does get a signifigant number of article traffic attention I believe to deserve improvement. His lede section really needs work and expansion. I do not currently have enough information on Butler to redo the lede section. If you have time or inclination to fix the lede, that would be good. This is only an optional suggested request for article improvement. I am sure you have a busy schedule. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. Yes. Strange and politically powerful. He has an interesting face. He seemed to always walk the tight rope between corruption and legality, yet, Butler as a Radical, protected African American rights. Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I just got your message. Sorry I didnt read it sooner, Ive been really busy. I would like to begin making changes, but its really late now so I'll start tomorrow. I dont really intend to do much other than rename the article though.-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 08:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi - there is a report about disputed content in the White trash article at he BLPN - Wikipedia:BLPN#White_Trash - as you are the the User replacing the disputed content please comment there - thanks - Youreally can 18:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I still have issues with this article that unresolved - I dispute your removal of all the templates - please replace the COI and NPOV and the BLP better citations required - these templates should not be removed unless issues are resolved and these issues clearly are not - thanks - Youreally can 21:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I will notify my mentor about your warning - thanks - Youreally can 21:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 15:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Links to digital archives at unz.org. Thank you. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 05:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
-- Pass3456 ( talk) 08:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have been working on and expanding on the Marshall Jewell article, President Grant's Postmaster General. Jewell is interesting because he apparently reformed the Postal Service from the Star Route contract profiteering. In addition Jewell had helped Bristow shut down the Whiskey Ring. His life events were interesting and he was a world traveler. If you want to look at the article, that would be good. Your perspective is needed. What are your views on the article? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I suppose my concern is that historians have apparently forgetten Jewell was a reformer during the Grant Administration who aided Benjamin Bristow. Jewell for a while stopped the Star Route profiteering and aided Bristow in stopping the Whiskey Ring. Jewell also landed an authentic trademark treaty with Russia that protected American products while he was U.S. Minsister. I believe Jewell has been an under-rated Grant appointment. If you wanted to look at the article that is fine. I believe Jewell is worth looking into, particularly why Grant forced his resignation without any explanation. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. Grant is starting to make more sense, I suppose. Your insight has helped. Grant was at times a reformer and then if a friend was involved he would become aggressively protective, a relentless dichotomy. One issue concerning the Marshall Jewell article are the titles for each segments. I am not sure if all the titles are accurate or concise. If you could look at the segment titles for any suggested changes that would be appreciated. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Implying the US was seen as "seeking to spread republican and democratic ideas" and writing off the threat of US expansionism as "propaganda" is extremely controversial and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaylencrufts ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I found addresses made by George Henry Williams, President Grant's Attorney General. He gives some candid revelations of Grant as President. Here is the link: Gen. U.S. Grant August 8, 1885 Portland, Oregon. Williams stated Grant was not an emotional man and that he had a public and private personna. Williams stated that in the Cabinet meeting Grant was "frank, fluent, and exceedingly interested in conversation." Publically Grant was known to be private and an indifferent listener. I have expanded more on the William's bio article. I thought you would be interested in his comments on Grant. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Your welcome. I guess another issue is that Williams was a Radical. He stated that Grant held him back as Attorney General and that Williams would have been more forceful towards the South. What is interesting to me is that the person in charge of all the federal legal aspects of Reconstruction for over three years was a Senator from Oregon. I believe Williams was an under-rated U.S. Attorney General and a good writer himself. Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
""I reworked the article so that the main events are only covered once, not twice. It could use more detail on his work as Atty General. Was his resignation involving a bribe or his wife? Rjensen ( talk) 10:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I cleared things up. His wife's carriage cost him the Supreme Court nomination. I believe he resigned due to his wife, possibly under William's direction, unproven, taking money from Pratt and Boyd. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been reading sources and Louisiana was an extremely complicated Reconstruction state in 1872. Since there was no biographer of Williams, I have been having to piece-meal book and newspaper sources. I need to get a handle on the Louisiana political situation in 1872. My sources include: Retreat from Reconstruction Gillette (1979); The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1789-1878 Coakley (1988); William H. Emory: Soldier-Scientist, Norris-Milligan-Faulk (1998); and Reconstruction in Louisiana after 1868, Lonn (1918). I am beginning to think historians have ignored the Grant Administration due to the complicated Reconstruction process in the South. Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjesen. I added a section on the contested Louisiana Election of 1872 using the Norris-Milligan-Faulk (1998) source. Please feel free to make any edits or improvements. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix; having {{or}} in such a prominent position didn't look good! -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 07:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, An image of Har Dayal was uploaded (I was not the uploader) in Commons which has been recently deleted. According to 1957 Indian copyright act photos ned to be published at least 60 years ago to be in public domain. The image of Har Dayal we uploaded was taken in 1908 and Har Dayal died in 1939 and since the image was taken before his death the image should be in public domain. But someone has asked us to tell in which year the image was published since it can be a "family photo" too and it was kept private and has been published recently! And here is the problem– how do we know exactly when and where the image was published! Can you give us any clue that when image was publicly used (any movement, any conference, any manifesto etc)? This is the image we uploaded and here is the detailed discussion in Commons? Or if you know Indian copyright act, do you think Indian copyright act is being misinterpreted here? -- Tito Dutta ✉ 16:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Richard! If you have some time to review the quality of some articles, we're using the results for a really important research project that will help shape the future of the US/Canada Education Program. For a few projects, we're on a pretty tight timeline and are really eager to have many more of these articles reviewed over the next week. However, we think it's most useful to come from experienced Wikipedia editors.
I have gone through each class to prioritize for various projects, and everyone on the Education team at the Wikimedia Foundation would be extremely grateful if you could participate by reviewing a few articles ('pre' and 'post' versions). If we can rally a lot of editors to review one or two articles each day, we will be able to make the most use of this research for our tight timeline. As many of our Ambassadors have requested it, we are really eager to find out which classes have been successful according to the Wikipedian standard.
If you can spare some time, please check out these priority articles and give it a go. Even 1 or 2 a day would help immensely! JMathewson (WMF) ( talk) 02:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Rjensen. Because you have been the top contributor, I thought you might wish to comment. I'd like to merge Frontier Thesis into " The Significance of the Frontier in American History" (I'm open to any other suitable solution). - SusanLesch ( talk) 17:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Please contribute your comment and sources at >> Talk:Confederate States of America#RFC Infobox flag choice << to select the flag representing an historic nation-state 1861-1865 from three alternatives, a flag _____ . a) sourced as flown everywhere in the Confederacy, 1861-1864, b) sourced as "not satisfactory" at the time 1863-1865, or c) sourced as "never" seen by the participants 1865. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 02:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Great Job on defending Lincoln as a conservative from those who would throw out paramount of evidence asided simply because of there conservative bias's that make them refuse to add Lincoln because it might make them recognize that need to think twice that there narrow view of conservatism as nothing but a racist idealogy isn't entirely correct Lincolnworshipper 2.0 ( talk) 06:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
Hello Rjensen. I expanded the Later Reconstruction section in the Ulysses S. Grant article, adding more on Grant's use of the U.S. military, the Department of War, and the Justice Department to defeat Klan violence in the South. I mentioned Amos T. Akerman, George Henry Williams and Benjamin Bristow in terms of them prosecuting and shutting down the Klan. The narration may be a bit sloppy, since I added information to existing information. Could you look at the section and possibly clean up the narration? Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 19:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rings Ulysses Grant cartoon.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. Stefan2 ( talk) 10:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I am currently working on the Annexation of Santo Domingo article. I believe the article will fit in well with the Ulysses S. Grant article, and possibly clean up any misunderstandings. I attempting to write the article as neutral as possible, without judging either Grant's, Babcock's, or Sumner's motivations. I am not sure there is any concrete answer why Grant did not authorize Babcock through Sec. Fish's State Department. I have rewritten the lede and first segment. Feel free to look at the article or make any improvements. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I have reworked the Annexation of Santo Domingo article. The Aftermath section has not been completed. That might be the most important part with the Republican Party split and never ending hostility between Sumner and Grant. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's a pie for your hard work! Thanks for updating the History of Mexico page! Keep up the good work and feel free to add more stuff. You work is greatly appreciated! ComputerJA ( talk) 20:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
I was reviewing your recent edits of History of education in the United States and was unable to find support for a particular phrase in the citation. The phrase in the Policy Since 2000 section indicated that NCLB state exams are on "math and language skills". While I know this to be true from my personal experience, I couldn't find it supported in Class Warfare. Since I changed it once and you changed it back, I am assuming that I was just unable to find it. If this is the case let me know, otherwise I will move things around and add the citation needed tag back to that phrase. Thanks Lexandalf ( talk) 22:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I have looked at the Columbus Delano article and I believe needs extensive revision. His life is apparently interesting. More then "corruption" went on during his administration of the Interior. I do not understand why historians including McFeely and Smith dismiss Delano and other Grant appointments as corrupt without actually looking into what was done under their tenor. Delano did allot during his lengthy tenor in terms of Indian Policy. Anyways, enough of my soapbox. If you want to look at the Delano article that would be fine. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 July 2012 (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. |