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 17

A long time ago you helped develop this article, Russia, South Africa and India are notably absent from the article, despite seemingly being major contributors. I also added a short note about Ireland.

It would be appreciated, if you could find some experienced contributors to help to write sections on the regions concerned. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 12:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the good suggestions. I revised and expanded the article. Rjensen ( talk) 09:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed your reversion of Betempte's edits to the Westbrook Pegler article. He has also made questionable edits to the William S. Burroughs article in which it is clear that he finds Burroughs' political views, or rather the views he implies Burroughs held, to be objectionable. It seems that Betempte cannot make edits without adding his opinion about the subject. This is something that may need to be watched. Cheers! --- The Old Jacobite _{The '45} 19:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Following a discussion at talk, my recent collaborative edit with Dancing Philosopher and Golbez copyedits the third United States intro paragraph with the lead transition sentences,

A "second war of independence" in the War of 1812 secured U.S. territorial claims against the British Empire and guaranteed Canadian integrity. The United States then embarked on a vigorous program of expansion across North America throughout the 19th century. ...

Could you give it a look-see relative to your background in the War of 1812? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 13:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

looks ok to me. :) Rjensen ( talk) 13:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain this edit? It seems to me to replace perfectly good punctuation with strange punctuation that makes nonsense of the sentence. Have I misunderstood? I don't understand the edit summary comment about "reject[ing] the Wikipedia ethos", but whatever you think of an editor, that does not justify reverting a perfectly constructive edit. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the commas--but the previous "edit summary" was obscene and disgusting and degrading to Wikipedia and could not be allowed to stand. Rjensen ( talk) 14:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summary was unhelpful (though "obscene and disgusting and degrading" seems somewhat of an overstatement). However, to revert a good edit because you don't like the accompanying edit summary makes no sense, and besides, the edit summary still does stand, as reverting the edit does not remove the edit summary. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

the statement I consider obscene, disgusting and degrading was "who wrote this originally? an illiterate american(did I just repeat myself), or a fucking 2 year old?)". That bespeaks an editor who does not respect the Wikipedia ethos--and a "comma fanatic" willing to make such outrageous statements over a trivial comma issue. Rjensen ( talk) 18:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The comma in question does seem to have affected the meaning of the sentence—it is not the sort of "take it or leave it" comma which only a comma fanatic would insist on. We may therefore be dealing with some sort of all-purpose grammar fanatic, who threatens myriad rude improvements. Only time will tell. groupuscule ( talk) 19:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, Rjensen, thanks for pointing that out. I had assumed that you were referring to the edit summary in the edit that you reverted in the edit I linked to. I agree that the anonymous user has been completely out of order in his/her ridiculous attacks on everyone he/she disagrees with, and I agree completely with your assessment of the edit summary you have quoted. However, I still stand by the principal that objecting to the behaviour of an edit does not justify replacing good content with bad content. Also, a word of advice: in a case like this make sure your own actions are completely beyond reproach. Two different administrators have said that they would not block the disruptive anonymous editor at least partly because he/she was "treated unfairly". JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In answer to Groupuscule, I don't see any fanaticism at all, whether comma-fanaticism, grammar-fanaticism or any other fanaticism. The punctuation of the sentence was utterly crazy, making complete nonsense of the sentence. Any reasonably literate editor, on seeing it, would have put it right, not just a fanatic. JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

the problem was not the comma, it was the edit summary, which is an integral part of the process and is especially public. Such an outrageous statement is never called for and it especially annoyed me because it was a gratuitous statement added on top of a trivial, non-controversial copy edit. 87.232.1.48 had not been provoked in any way & it was the very first edit 87.232.1.48 made to the article. Rjensen ( talk) 20:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Qwyrxian ( talk · contribs) removed the offending edit summaries per my suggestion. You are, of course, right that the tone was not only uncalled for but a violation of policy. Further, Qwyrxian's admonition on the IP's talk page prompted an apology, so hopefully the behavior will not continue, either. Acdixon ^{( talk · contribs)} 22:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I came across your user page and then read the article: Military History on the Electronic Frontier. To prove I read it: there is an error in the caption to Chart 2. It should read: Edit history for World War II: edits per month 2001-2012. Same for Chart 3. Want other typos pointed out? I thought the article was interesting as a kind of history of Wikipedia. The item about the "program in India to incorporate editing in university classes" where "there was so much blatant cutting and pasting from textbooks that senior Wikipedia editors were outraged and the experiment was shut down by the Foundation in midstream." was eye-opening. I was interested in your statement "collaboration behind the scenes is not allowed". I didn't know that. I've actually tried to get people to help with troublemakers - to no avail. GroveGuy ( talk) 18:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the note! you have a sharp eye for typos--the online version is actually the page proofs and the final published version fixed those typos. Rjensen ( talk) 19:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I also recently read your article. I thought it could (and I say only could) have used some edits for concision, but the presentation overall was good. I must say that I have found the "history section", so to speak, in the areas I edit herein on Wikipedia to generally be a more serious group and would not say everyone is happy citing books found on the shelf at "Barnes and Noble". With that said, it is an interesting article and clear you put much time and thought into the body of the work. Cheers, Kierzek ( talk) 20:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) In my opinion the military history editors at Wikipedia are very serious and do very good work. HOWEVER they seldom cite old scholarly books that have not been reprinted, and rarely cite journal articles. That is a weakness I think could be remedied. Rjensen ( talk) 21:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You make some good points. Kierzek ( talk) 17:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I have been working on J. Donald Cameron article. He was the Secretary of War under President Ulysses S. Grant. He was also Pennsylvania's U.S. Senator for almost 20 years. His article is was really stunted. If you have time I believe Cameron, son of Simon Cameron, deserves improvement. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. Grant if off my to-do list for the moment but I will get back to him after I have a chance to read the new Brands book. Rjensen ( talk) 02:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen! Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually can't find allot written on J. Donald Cameron as Secretary of War. However, the 1876 Annual Report of the Secretary of War, Volume 1 , first part written by Cameron, reveals Cameron and his overview of the condition of the U.S. Military. Cmguy777 ( talk) 05:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The Dictionary of American Biography has a good article on J. Donald Cameron: Cameron, James Donald. Cameron was allot like his father Simon. Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have improved J. Donald Cameron article. Please feel free to make any improvements. I did not specifically call him a "politcal boss" in the article since I believe that could be interpreted as a bad toward Cameron's character. I stated he established a "political machine" in Pennsylvania. The Puck cartoon does mention "bossism" infering that is bad for democracy. I put in the article Cameron was for the Federal Elections Bill of 1890 that would have given African American protection at the voting polls. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The main issue I could use help with is the lede narration in the J. Donald Cameron article. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Civil War bibliography is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Civil War bibliography until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — R_ N_™ 16:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen,

I wonder if you could help clarify your recent edit at Lucian Truscott. You changed

"Among his many responsibilities were the overthrow of governments in Iran and Guatemala."

to

"Among his many responsibilities were helping local people overthrow anti-American governments in Iran and Guatemala."

This description of the 1954 Guatemala coup does not square with my understanding of the events. From what I have read the government was not particularly anti-American, and the coup was not particularly local—it was launched by an outside force invading from Honduras (albeit led by an exiled Guatemalan military officer). I am interested in reading any sources you might have on this topic. I'm also curious in any light you might shed on Truscott's particular role in these events. Thanks, groupuscule ( talk) 12:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

the CIA did not overthrow the government--it had only a handful of people there. Guatemalan soldiers did; that's "local". the CIA provided encouragement because it considered the government to be anti-American. I don't think Truscott had much of a policy role; he was more an organizer. See Marks, "The CIA and Castillo Armas in Guatemala, 1954: New Clues to an Old Puzzle." Diplomatic History 14 (Winter 1990): 67-86 for details on the internal situation. Marks argues that there was strong anti-Arbenz feeling among the ground and air forces; also Arbenz's waning popularity was a decisive factors in accounting for Castillo Armas's success. The Cathoic Church opposed Arbenz because it feared the spread of Communism. Students demonstrated against repression during his regime. Agrarian reform was set up to favor his cronies. Not just the CIA but also neighboring countries financially supported Castillo Armas fearing that he planned to spread his influence. Communists played important roles in the Arbenz government, says Marks, and popular opposition and Arbenz's loss of nerve overshadowed the importance of US assistance. Rjensen ( talk) 15:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A "Military" Coup is by no means a "local" uprising as your edit suggests. The use of the word "local" gives the impression of citizens rebelling and overthrowing but this wasn't the case. Also "Anti-American" claim is still completely unsupported and unfounded, even with that citation. 134.226.254.178 ( talk) 16:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Jane

I added some more information that I could scrape up from book previews, etc. Since you have access to that Diplomatic History article, perhaps you could add more clarifying information about Truscott's role? Thanks. As far as Marks' perspective on the coup it is interesting but definitely unorthodox—Armas was commanding a tiny invasion force which was by and large defeated. AFAICT, the main intervention was US military and psychology warfare—and Árbenz was quite popular due to real gifts to minorities ;-) Anyway thank you for your comments and as usual I'm sure we can work it out. groupuscule ( talk) 16:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Local = no foreign military invaded the country; it was done by members of the G army and air force. there were no US military involved -- and Truscott had no Pentagon status at the time (he was CIA). The G Army, & air force supported the rebels, which seems "local" to me. All the leaders were Guatamalan. As for psychological warfare, when a radio broadcast can bring down a regime that demonstrates its lack of broad popular support. As for Truscott's detailed role the published RS don't say much, and OR is not allowed here. Rjensen ( talk) 17:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

glancing at the documents that have been released, Truscott's name does not appear, so it's hard to say what his role was apart from general supervision. It was the US National Security Council staff that decided the Arbenez regime was a threat to US national security, not the CIA [says Cullather, Secret History p 32] Rjensen ( talk) 18:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• One of us is seriously mistaken about the military actions taken surrounding these events. It is my understanding that the CIA commissioned warplanes to attack Guatemala City (and elsewhere), and this is the description advanced in contemporary sources that I have read. Check your Cullather book. There was also a US Navy operation called "HARDROCK/BAKER".
• It was of course not just a "radio broadcast" that brought down the regime. Military defection was, as you suggest, a major part of the coup, but this resulted from a long-term arms embargo, CIA infiltration, and direct threats of full-scale invasion. It was not comparable to, for example, the 1973 Chile coup, which was to some degree executed from within the military.
• Regarding Truscott's role, are you saying that the Diplomatic History article doesn't describe Truscott at all? I'm also curious about what "general supervision" entails. groupuscule ( talk) 18:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

History of Belgium ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexander Farnese

History of the Czech lands ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ferdinand II

History of the Netherlands ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexander Farnese

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

move discussion to talk page Talk:Taxation history of the United States Rjensen ( talk) 22:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings,
Dr. Jensen,
Do you have any thought of becoming an admin? I am interested to nominate your name as an admin (though it might be a tough one)!
Tito Dutta ( talk) 03:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion! I am very happy to be a writer rather than administrator.  :) Rjensen ( talk) 05:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bibliography of the American Civil War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of the American Civil War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Vacation ^nine 22:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

- So, two part set up, one question. --don't go there, this is cannot to be an 'edit war' or everything goes to ashes, OF-THAT-I-AM-SURE.

- PART - 1. At 'United States', I've had a month's long run-in with an Ed.-1. I reverted his material three (?) times and got lots of red letters and a temporary edit block. Is the U.S. geographical extent of its federal republic defined by (a) 1904 colonial statutes, or (b) 2012 INA statutes used by the State Department? I called for a 'Request for Comment' Nov 20 from two groups, one to match my political interests and one to match his geography interests. Deafening silence. Happy Thanksgiving.

- PART - 2. At 'United States', I boldly reverted a War-of-1812 sentence at Intro, set up a Talk section. It was reverted without discussion. I got a consensus with two other editors for an amended sentence on War-of-1812. Posted the sentence at intro. Had it reverted. Discussed with reverter in absentia and two additional editors. Posted Amerindian take in 'settlement' as promised. RE-posted the amended intro sentence. Posted Amerindian image as promised in 'settlement' section.

-- My War-of-1812 intro sentence was reverted with more Amerindian. Editor on Talk -- in on the last collaboration -- is disappointed his agreed-to sentence is reverted and the discussion is mysteriously archived out-of-sight. He now wants to expand War-of-1812-more-Amerindian with more-Canadian.

- QUESTION. How do I restore the previously-agreed-to-War-of-1812 sentence without a bot taking it to mean that I am now disrupting a SECOND editor's contributions at 'United States', again, some more, like, DISRUPTING the article? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk about stuff like that before doing it, once you know there's resistance, and build a level of trust.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, lesson learned on geographical extent. No consensus over four weeks, but the jury is out. Let's build a level of trust for War-of-1812.

(1) Since War-of-1812 item was boldly reverted (copyedit-1) by me with discussion at Talk,

(2) It was reverted without discussion.

(3) My contribution (copyedit-2) was amended as the result of my building a level of trust with two others, including DancingPhilosopher.

(4) THAT was reverted by a another editor without discussion,

(5) I then built a level of trust with two additional editors for the next contribution (copyedit-3). Before posting copyedit-3, as a part of building trust, I promised to write (a) an Amerindian-aware text contribution and (b) an Amerindian-aware image in the 'Settlement' section.

(6) Copyedit-3 is now reverted without discussion. The Talk section that DancingPhilosopher collaborated with me is archived. He proposes taking the undiscussed reversion of Copyedit-3 as a starting point, ignoring the previous collaborations across TWO sections and SIX editors.

If the collaborated-upon text cannot be protected from undiscussed reversions, -- how does a COLLABORATOR avoid charges of disruption when he -- in discussion with other editors -- reverts the editor boldly reverting without discussion? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk)

My experience is that TheVirginiaHistorian is quite active and thoughtful and not disruptive, so I'll look into it. Rjensen ( talk) 01:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

move to United States talk page

At 'American Civil War', I have posted what I hope can be received as a balanced account of the Confederate 100,000 using all four sources among Mikexx, Rjensen and TVH at American Civil War#Mobilization. [Before I read an additional source Rjensen posted, so it remains a draft even among these three editors.]

- Please read the note all-the-way-through, I ALWAYS need sympathetic assistance on notes, it's like I have a blind spot -- I'm a "digital migrant" not a "digital native". So shoot me -- "they kill horses don't they" -- that's a literary allusion and metaphor and English-major-stuff I don't know about either -- so, anyway,

- I mean to restore the 4-paragraph INTRODUCTION section with conributions from Mikexx, JimWae, Rjensen and TVH. Omitting mobilization detail in the Introduction. Detail relating to the November 1860 through March 1861 mobilization ramp-up to an important mid-19th century war of mass-conscript armies -- BOTH armies matching or excelling Napoleon's armies in important respects of world military history -- are intended to be developed in the linked 'Mobilization' section.

- At the 'Mobilization' section, the idea is that ALL vantage points can be written up in a more accurate narrative that is ALSO more compelling than a one-note drum beat. Like the song said, "nobody's right, if everybody's wrong". I will try to bring along JimWae and Mikexx also, resulting in a WP:LEAD four-paragraph article Introduction to meet peer-review critique for article GA status. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 07:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that you reverted my removal of the citation template link. I disagree with its restoration. The template link is really for internal usage by editors, not people reading the article to understand what JSTOR is about. I believe that the link is also the only template that is linked to its related article: arXiv doesn't link to {{ cite arXiv}}, digital object identifier doesn't link to {{ cite doi}}, Handle System doesn't link to {{ cite hdl}}, International Standard Book Number doesn't link to {{ cite isbn}}, and PubMed doesn't link to {{ cite pmid}}.Links to templates for citations are really best left where they are already listed in the citation template documentation pages. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

yes but it's false to say that wikipedia articles are only for outsiders and we should not try to be helpful to editors also. In this case JSTOR has suddenly (in recent weeks) become available to hundreds of editors and they may appreciate some help here--a factor that does not apply to the other templates you mentioned. The JSTOR article thus has multiple roles and there is no need to reduce its usefulness in the name of a nonexistent policy. Rjensen ( talk) 23:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be focused on readers, not editors. Articles are not replacements for the help documents. You don't see detailed instructions on how to edit Wikipedia on the Wikipedia article. There's not even a link there. I know that JSTOR access has recently been granted to many editors, but that doesn't mean that the template should be linked from the article. The page to get access to JSTOR isn't linked to the article (and it shouldn't be either). -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 23:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should be focused on readers, not editors." indeed the STOR article is primarily focused on readers. But editors are readers too and every help they are given will improve the encyclopedia. The JSTOR business is very new to experienced editors who do not need help on other matters but can use it here and now. Hey, editors are people too and helping them improve Wikipedia is a worthy meta goal. Rjensen ( talk) 23:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have been standardizing and cleaning up the intro section of every single US presidential election article. In the few days I have done all elections from 1900 onward and will finish up the rest next week. The election articles are currently a mess and start in various different ways and mention different information. This unacceptable. Many of them start with automatic details in the first sentence, yet the ones from 2000 onward were generally fine. I have been doing the good duty by giving them all the same basic intro that the 2000s ones had plus some others (the XXth quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November X, XXXX, etc.) and rearranged the paragraphs to flow more nicely. In addition, links to the major parties were standardized... many linked to the parties themselves (as in "Republican Party (United States)") but many linked to the histories of both parties, which makes no sense as we were only talking about the parties themselves and any article would mention so. My edits made all of the election intros neat and cleaned up. There is absolutely no reason why they should be entirely reverted.

You reverted my edits to 1900, 1904, 1912, and 1924, none of the others, and yet you even reverted someone else's edit BACK TO MINE for the 1972 one! Do you even know what you are reverting? I look at your edit history and it seems to be mostly just random reverts here and there. For example, why wouldn't you revert 1908 or 1916... when my edits there are exactly the same as in the years you reverted? It looks like you just chose a few random elections out of many to revert and one of them was even back to one of the ones I made (as in you either supported it or you weren't paying attention, and I'm assuming the latter). You didnt even give reasons. Please realize that your edits are completely unjustified and harmful to the standardization and cleanup of the election articles. Go back and look at every single election from 1900 onward and see how nice and neat they are compared to before my edits. I made the same edits to all of them- nothing special to 1900, 1904, 1912, and 1924. Because I believe you do not know what you were doing. Appreciate and defend it, and if you have any concerns please respond here. I am editing from a college, so the IP address changes every day, and thus you shouldn't respond on this IP's talk page as I probably won't see it. I edited the blocks of 1960-2012, 1940-1956, and 1900-1936 on the same IP for each, with this one reverting the reverts you made to mine. 134.139.212.135 ( talk) 10:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue revolves around political party links. We have articles on 1) the party today (with a glance at its history) and 2) more in-depth history of the party. For historical election the (2) articles are a good fit but you switched the link to the (1) articles which deprives the reader of the more useful links. Rjensen ( talk) 10:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case then just change back those. Don't be lazy and revert the entire standardization edits just for what you believe is one error. You have to do it manually because I was doing other necessary cleanup maneuvers for each edit (such as removing unnecessary spaces that the other articles dint have). Look how sloppy it looks to have an unstandardized one, then 30th quadrennial, then two more unstandardized ones, then 33rd quadrennial. I understand what you mean about the party today vs. the history, but some of the older (pre-WWII) articles had the same link as the latter ones. It should the same for each old article if that's the case. Either they all are to one standard before a certain year, or none of them are. You can't have, like, 1904 linking to the party itself and then 1908 link to the history. Several of the articles had no links at all. Again, I edited each and every election year article with the same standard so I still think you didn't know what you were doing when you were reverting, especially how your 1972 edit was in support of my edit. Be extremely mindful of this. Please read over my edits again and what I have to say here before you make changes. 134.139.212.135 ( talk) 10:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's nice to see people so eager to standardize, but to link to the wrong article detracts from the gains. In this case standardization produces an aesthetic effect to make all the articles to line up like uniformed soldiers, which is noticeably only to people who move from one election to the next. However the wrong link is a substantive issue because it leads readers to an inferior article (for the reader's historical purpose). To get credit for all the work you need to register as a Wikipedia user--it's hard to warn an IP about a problem when it can be many people at Long Beach State. Rjensen ( talk) 11:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that being correct and accurate is priority over everything. You are definitely right about that. However, you still shouldn't revert an entire large edit for the sake of one mistake. If there is one mistake that should go back, then please manually change that mistake back rather than revert the whole edit (where 5-10 other positive changes would be lost). Goes for anything. In addition, as I said earlier, some articles had the history link, some had the party link, and some had none at all. That means some were obviously "wrong" from the start from BOTH of our perspectives, so something had to be changed. In this very case, where many articles lacked the link, a link to one of them is better than none. From then, you can change a block accordingly (such as all elections before 1964 to history, all from 1964 onward to the party itself, etc.). Lastly, I didn't standardize for the sake of standardizing. I changed things based on what actually made sense, which was already in place from 2000 onward. The first sentence of an election article should not be about some detail about the election, a date should be mentioned early on, and the candidates in the election are important than what was going on at the time and thus should go first (as in some of FDR's elections started off with WWII in the first sentence). The standardization made the articles neat of course, but its primary model is based on accuracy and flow above anything else. The status quo we have now is not acceptable for these reasons, not just a lack of "neatness". 134.139.212.135 ( talk) 09:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope that you keep up the useful work and use the "history" link for pre-2000 elections. Rjensen ( talk) 09:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I'll definitely use the history link for the remaining articles. I hope that you continue to mindfully patrol political and historical articles with care. :) 134.139.212.132 ( talk) 22:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User Npellegrino has been revising the Treaty of Tripoli with a more Evangelical slant. I noticed he has reapplied changes formally watered down or reverted by you: [1] Additions I have checked were not supported by the citations that he added along with them. I partially reverted one. It seems he is attacking the article by a fragmentation grenade; Make enough changes and some will stay. I do not have enough comfort to repair the damage. What is the correct action?

Thanks. Analognipple ( talk) 22:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up--the solution is to revert the changes. I'll look into it. Rjensen ( talk) 04:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Stafford ( 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) 11:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. Thanks for your edits on Grant's peace policy in the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. I added information more information on Sec. Columbus Delano in Grant's presidential article. I have recently been editing the Zachariah Chandler, Grant's Secretary of Interior after Sec. Delano, article. From my research Sec. Chandler had massive reforms in consolidation with President Grant in the Department of Interior. I believe Chandler's article needs to be improved in narration and context. Please feel free to edit or make any improvements. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

ok willdo. Rjensen ( talk) 18:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of the Naval Department, I believe that there is signifigance in noting that although Grant defended "corrupt" associates, he also appointed reformers to several Departments, including the Postal Service, the Interior, and the Attorney General's Office. Thanks! Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

[debate moved to Talk:Bengal famine of 1943 Rjensen ( talk) 06:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rejnsen. Sorry to complain, but why did you undo this?

The version I restored was the one present in this article for prolonged period of time. In the main part, it appears to me well referenced and justified. A past single IP edition basically changed the words to opposite (and rather weird), and one word to a term which is not in the dictionary. That's why I undid this revision. Suggest you reconsider.

Best regards, Stan J. Klimas ( talk) 12:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your hard work in wikipedia. Stan J. Klimas ( talk) 12:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

you're right and I was wrong so I reverted myself just now. :( Rjensen ( talk) 12:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Happens to everybody all the time. Don't worry about it. Rare to be able to admit. Be proud of that. :) Cheers. Stan J. Klimas ( talk) 21:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Please give me a couple hours on this so that I don't get edit conflicted. Thanks. —Tim //// Carrite ( talk) 19:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

ok Rjensen ( talk) 19:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

My edit conflicted paste ran over your change (thereby reverting it), so a couple words to explain the weird form of the Gamaliel Bradford link. There are already two Gamaliel Bradfords with bios on WP and a disambiguation page for the name. The "(banker)" differentiates from the two others and is on the disambiguation page in that form. An unlinked listing of the name is apt to have double square brackets added by a drive-by editor, which will result in an un-disambiguated blue link, which is sort of a no-no. So I put up the somewhat unusual long form as a red link as the best long-term solution. He was a key figure in the group and needs to be in the member list whether there is a WP article on him or not. It wouldn't be out of the question that someone takes his bio on at some future date.... Anyway, that's the rationale there, let me know if you think I'm way off... Carrite ( talk) 19:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

ok that makes sense. why not do a short bio on him?? Rjensen ( talk) 19:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm clear for the day if you want to bang on it for a while. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite ( talk) 21:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Belgium in World War I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Four ( 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) 11:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Did not record populations according to ethnicities but by language and religion. The map, by Shepherd, is an interpretation based on language data of the time. Look for yourself: Ethnic and religious composition of Austria-Hungary. 90.230.54.125 ( talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thus he lumped all speakers of Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian) as "ethnically" either Serbs or Croats, in spite of the Bosniaks constituting a separate ethnic group in Bosnia. The map cannot be considered an "ethnicity census" because the population was never asked for their perceived ethnicity but for their language and religion, the former which was used by Shepherd to categorize ethnicities according to his interpretation. In fact, the map is quite obsolete and fails to highlight the actual ground-situation at the time. I am certainly surprised it is being used. 90.230.54.125 ( talk) 19:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

all maps are interpretations and this was based in fact on census data. Ethnicity is a matter of language and religion, and this is probably the best work available. Emphasis on

"perceptions" is a postmodern approach that would have been quite unlikely in 1900. Rjensen ( talk) 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was based on data relating to language and religion, not ethnicity. Ethnicity is a matter of language, religion and a bunch of other things. Yes I know, back in those times scholars were dealing with "races" and skull measures, not ethnicities. Yet another reason its use is inappropriate and outdated. A suitable version would look something like this [2], otherwise we could just start referring to black people on Wikipedia as "negros" again. I hope you're reading me. The Bosniaks (Muslim), the Croats (Catholic), and the Serbs (Orthodox) had definitely crystallized into separate nations by the mid 19th-century, in spite of speaking the same language, some would say even further back. 90.230.54.125 ( talk) 19:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What is more, due to ethno-politic tensions in Bosnia at the time, "Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian" was officially subsumed under "Serbo-Croatian" in 1907 after earlier attempts to introduce a unitary Bosnian language had failed. By the census in 1910, as a compromise, Bosnia was the only country within the AH empire that recorded "Serbo-Croatian" whether or not the language was "really" Bosnian, Serbian or Croatian among the population. For this reason, the map cannot be said to represent the existence of an ethnic census, but an interpretation based on the pooling of all "Serbian", "Croatian" and "Serbo-Croatian" speakers into "Croats and Serbs" without further demographic distinction. 90.230.54.125 ( talk) 20:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to illustrate to you how subjective the scholars often were, heres another German-language map from about the same time which mentions the Croats, Bosniaks and a few others as "Serbs": [ [3]]. There is of course no genuine ethnology behind these maps but merely the subjective interpretations of various Scholars of the time, as is the case of Shepherd. 90.230.54.125 ( talk) 21:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed the point is that ethnicity is an outsider's construct, not something inherent in people. (We have that debate now in the US census, especially regarding Native Americans, Hispanics and Asians) It's impossible to imagine a census taker going to peasants in 1900 and asking them what their perceived ethnicity might be. Language and religion, on the other hand, are constructed too, but within much narrower bounds. Age is also constructed, by the way, and was nailed down only when draft laws were linked to age. Now the deeper point is that scholars use and depend upon these constructs--and to reject scheme A and adopt B and C is tricky ground in Wikipedia. Editors are only allowed to say that most RS use B and C and few anymore use A. We are not allowed to impose our own schemas. Rjensen ( talk) 22:02, 17 December 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.