• /Archive 2: April 17 2006-May 21, 2006
• /Archive 1: Nov 2005 - April 17 2006.

You seem to delete information for personal reasons, as if you want to suppress certain factual information. Tsk, tsk.

Hello again User:Rjensen. I now know you are a Reaganite, I always suspected but know I know. I need a favor. Please share you comments at:

The Article is up for deletion

I would like your comments: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR On every page I post this on, many people start passionate conversations about this.

I deleted Reagan from the list because people did not believe me on the deletion page. I will add it back if my article survives deletion, with your quote, which seems unlikely now. Travb 05:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply

done--that was fast! :) Rjensen 01:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Can you comment about your quote and vote on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR, consider it a returning favor for me fighting so fiercely with you on the Dickstien page. Travb 01:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Can you comment here?: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR--thanks Rjensen.

It was a mistake to add Reagan, not because it isn't true, it is true, but because a lot of anti-Reaganites don't want him to be listed on the list, and are voting for it to be deleted. Travb 01:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The argument is better made by a separate article, I suggest. Drop Reagan and keep...who? Rjensen 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't understand. Have a seperate artile on those who predicted the fall of the soviet union?

I dropped Reagan originally because I had not read your quote, and my number one concern is keeping the category. Saying Reagan predicted the fall of the USSR is an unwelcome lightening rod to my category. I figured, being yourself, you would just add it right back. Maybe you can suggest some of your friends comment on this. I will ask some of my arch conservative rivals to vote, for the sake of keeping Reagan. Travb 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Categories in fact are not much used in Wiki. The articles are much more useful, in my opinion. Rjensen 02:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

It will probably be deleted, and then I will rewrite it somewhere else. I may rewrite it somewhere else, anyway Travb 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Man Rjensen, as I wrote on User:CJK page you are: "the best conservative debater on wikipedia I have ever gone up agaist"

As per your comment on the deletion page: I was like wow, why didn't I think of saying that! You have a real gift with words, that is why you are such a formniable (and often terrifying) foe. I would rather be on your side than against you in future edits. Travb 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey thanks! I was on my high school debate team in junior year. Glad to be on the same side. :) Rjensen 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

As per your suggestion

Cold-War groups which predicted the collapse of the USSR you will be happy to know that Reagan got top billing. Edit as you see fit, sir. Nice to be on the same side as you again. Travb 03:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Nice job! I'll look it over and maybe add stuff. You should link it to the people involved and to the Cold War and USSR articles. Yes it is a pleasure to work together. Rjensen 03:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You reverted the category Irish American on the Clinton page. I ordinarily wouldn't quibble with this, as I know nothing of his background. However, you left the explanatory comment "Irish American = Catholic." Why? I'm wondering if this is perhaps a cultural difference, are you located in Ireland. Here in the states, such designations generally mean that your ancestors are from a certain place. Sometimes it also implies that one keeps some sort of cultural affiliation with a place. I don't know whether Clinton has done this latter thing. But, in the States, your religion would never, never have anything to do with common use of such ethnic labels.

Most often, we would simply adopt whatever label the individual agrees with, subject to reason. Kind regards from an atheist Irish American, Derex 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm in Denver (near my Irish Catholic inlaws). look at Irish Catholic. Clinton never joined the Irish Catholic community or to my knowledge ever claimed he was "Irish American". Rjensen 02:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh. Well, that's Irish Catholic. It's not the same thing as Irish American. I assure you that my grandparents are quite Irish, but they're also Protestant. Anyway, I don't really care, but he ought to be described by whatever reasonable label he chooses. I never heard him say he was Irish American either. Just thought you might be actually in Ireland, that's all. Derex 05:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, I notice that you argued in the past for moving Democratic-Republican Party (United States) to a location in line with the fact that the party was actually called the Republican Party. I've tried to reopen that discussion at Talk:Democratic-Republican Party (United States). Any comments would be welcome. john k 03:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

yes, I agree 100% Rjensen 03:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey there. I left a comment on the talk page of the article which you might be interested in reading. I greatly appreciate your attempt at compromise, and I'm not thinking of reverting the article as it presently stands. But I do have a suggestion to make, and an explaination for my previous edits. -- Mal 09:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Rjensen, I have good reasons for that tag. I have explicitly stated them on talk. I have a job to do, so I can't spend every second here debating you. I dispute the neutrality of that section, and I have given specific reasons for it. Pulling that tag is the height of discourtesy. You have now officially pissed me off by removing the tag repeatedly and against my repeated protestations. You will find that was a very poor decision. I'm a nice fellow, but when I run into someone pulling that sort of shit, I get highly motivated to put a stop to it. Don't fuck with me. Derex 00:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

He did it on the FDR page too. 206.124.31.221 05:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

what are your reasons for the tag? Rjensen 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

i've said 3 times on talk. now, i don't have the time to fool with this right now. i'll revisit it tomorrow. but that was complete crap. i don't know how long you've been around, but that's not how we operate here. not if you don't want to make enemies, and you don't want that; it makes the place rather unpleasant. Derex 01:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You will live longer if you calm down, and become more respected if you can explain why other editors are POV and you are not. Rjensen 01:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I did not call anyone POV, I don't even know who wrote the damn thing, though I'm rather beginning to suspect it was you. I said I dispute the neutrality of that section, and I said why. Derex 01:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Two things, first, looking through your talk archives, I see people have objected before to you pulling tags. It's one thing to pull a tag if it's a drive-by tag with no explanation. It's another if the person has listed some specific objection. It's disrespectful whether or not you agree with the objection. That's something to be discussed on talk, and having the tag up for a day isn't going to hurt anything. Pulling the tag will, because it breeds emnity.

Second, from your interests, your attitude, and Google, I infer that you might be an academic; perhaps not. But if so, don't assume you're the only one around, or that it gives you any sort of special privilege. What it does give you is the skills to reference your work properly and to argue your case skillfully. I'm a prof too (economics), and I learned early on to lose the attitude because it pisses people off. If you've got the skills, you don't need it. Derex 01:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the complements. But I still don't know why anyone considers the heavily documented section to be POV. What would a non-POV version be like? Rjensen 01:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, that's the point isn't it? We'll kick it around in talk over the next day or two and see if we can agree on a neutral version. Perhaps other editors will contribute. Your paragraph might be perfectly NPOV, but I am not yet convinced and have disputed it. You may persuade me. This is not my specific objection, but what made me first notice was that it received a top-level section. It seemed odd to give it that much prominence in the article hierarchy, particularly since I imagine there are at least a good 90 senators who didn't condemn McCarthy early on either. Then, as I commented in Talk, the specific connection to JFK seemed quite weak. I look forward to resolving the issue with you within a couple days, and will assume your good faith so long as you assume mine. Now, I must resist my compulsion to keep procrastinating by checking in here. Derex 02:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok good faith assumed. Should the story get top billing -- no. Should it be told? Yes it is critical to understanding how conservative and anti-communist was JFK and RFK. (Robert was MUCH more enthusiastic about McCarthy--but then he was also JFK's campaign manager.) The split between the conservative Irish and the liberals in Dem party was very deep; many liberals violently hated and feared Joe Kennedy, for example. Rjensen 02:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See, already you are beginning to put it in some context that helps explain the significance. It needs to be part of a narrative, not hanging out there as a random allegation in a random section. While I have no desire to whitewash events from a half century past, I'm certain my reaction was a common one: just another wingnut Wikipedia smear. So, if it is indeed an important part of his story, the context needs to be explained. That way, the story will have enough credibility that it won't quickly be dismissed as a right-wing smear job. Though I now assume it was not intended as one, it had all the tell-tale signs: no references, artificial heading prominence, little narrative connection, seemingly long on speculation and short on facts, and a very protective guardian. In a scholarly journal, you can perhaps rely on your reputation to ensure a fair hearing. At Wikipedia, overrun as it is with partisan hacks, one must be much much more careful with tone and context. Otherwise, any unflattering contributions you make will likely be quite rationally discredited by the wary reader. Derex 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

ok we're on the same wavelength. :) Rjensen 03:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Is this 1860s tobacco chewing section really needed? Discuss "here" please :)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Brezhnevford.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Hetar 09:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello again. User:PMA-- a longtime history and politics editor-- expects to encounter difficulty bringing the Vladimir Lenin article up to standard, considering-- to say the least-- that the article is being trolled by at least one unreconstructed Stalinist. It'd help if a professional historian could give him some assistance. He contacted Adam Carr, who was too bogged down with other articles to offer much help. Then I told him that I wouldn't be able to find much time for the article myself. So I recommended that he'd get in touch with you. Would you be able to take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 18:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The Lenin article is full of useless trivia and low-level POV, which I reduced a bit. Rjensen 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Wow! Thanks for such a quick response! Excellent work! 172 | Talk 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks :) Rjensen 19:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Just a gentle encouragement to you to check out your use of UK v Britain. United Kingdom is actually the standard political term for the country where I live, and Britain is a rather looser, informal usage which is actual slightly ambiguous. See Britain and British Isles (terminology). Best wishes Gailtb 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the tip. Reference books have a strong preference for "Britain" in most historical contexts, with "UK" used for geography. So we have "British government" and "high tide along the UK coastline." See for example The Oxford Companion to British History ed by John Cannon - Oxford University Press. 1997. I just checked the amazon.uk site and the current list of titles follows that guideline. Thus books on birds, mountains, highways, rivers use "UK". Books about historical topics use "Britain." Rjensen 21:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Until the neutrality issues I raised are resolved, the NPOV tag stays on the Douglas MacArthur article. The article is on my watchlist in case you are thinking of removing it again. I encourage you to resolve the issues and then remove the tag. At the moment the article is totally unbalanced. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello,

Please be careful about accidentally inserting "Insert non-formatted text here" into the article. -- Curps 17:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This is awesome, and will save A LOT of time. Travb 19:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the tip! Rjensen 19:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Out of courtesy

Mentioned your name at: User_talk:Markles#User:Rjensen, I don't really know who User_talk:Markles is, but you probably womped him. Travb 21:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

As a statistician, I find fault with your homeschooling analysis section. It's probably just the way you worded it. Here's an example: based on your description, we have no way of knowing that the 64% of households with degreed fathers correlate with the 58% who have a strong religious affiliation. They could be nearly mutually exclusive. That is, it is possible a segment may have educated fathers, and another segment may have a strong religious affiliation, but rarely both. The question then is, how many in one group also exist in the other? Your presentation doesn't show this, but the analysis [t]hus the profile is a group of well educated, high income parents with numerous children and a strong commitment to fundamentalist religion implies this correlation, and that's just not proper based on the facts presented. I suspect the source you used conducted the analysis and presented the results properly - it's just the way you've presented the facts. I hope that's clear.

Let me give you a textbook example. In a room of one-hundred people, 50 are men, 50 are women, 50 are attorneys, and 50 are secretaries. How many male attorneys are in the room? The only correct answer is "maybe zero, maybe fifty, or maybe some number in-between." Of course, if I mentioned that ten of the men are secretaries, then the rest of the numbers will all fall into place. Without that last vital piece of information, we just can't be sure.

That's the same problem I'm seeing with the section you've added. If you dig a bit more into your source and see how the author sorted this out, you'll be able to present a more logical section. This matter caught me attention because I had the following question: "what are the various demographic segments for homeschooling families?" The conclusion you presented showed only one, and that's when I noticed the flawed logic. Frankly, I suspect there exist several segments: well educated (correlates to income) sincerely religious folks (with or without many kids); well educated (ibid) religiously indifferent people with gifted children; poorly educated, low-income, religious zealots with a lot of kids; and criminals trying to keep a low profile. Of course, if you could dig up the raw data, I'd be keenly interested in checking it over. I realize my findings wouldn't go into Wikipedia (no original research), but I've got kids of my own... Rklawton 21:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I took the information directly from the scholarly source--it's online and I suggest you read it. You say that multivariate analysis might show different patterns--that is theoretically possible but it rarely happens in real life. The data seems to be accurate and the summary is accurate. The group is indeed well educated, high income and fundamentalist. (And yes I am a statistician with a published book on statistics.) Rjensen 21:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I figured the source and the analysis were accurate. My concern was with the wording used in the article. Had I known you were a statistician, I would have used far fewer words! As far as "rarely happens" - I test and live for those exceptions!

You cite the author and year in the article, but you don't provide a link or a footnote. Rudner's got quite a bit of material online. If you could provide a link to the source (beyond [Rudner 1999]), I'd appreciate it. It is not my intention to second guess the analysis. I'm interested in these statistics for personal reasons. In reading the source, I may also find a better way to re-word the section so yahoos like me don't think they can nit-pik it. Rklawton 00:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

citation to Rudner is [1] -- with data coutesy of Bob Jones University Press! Rjensen 00:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

yes the exceptions are the surprises. But the article in questions was full of POV and very thin on facts and so I tried to insert some. In a word: The homeschoolers are an outlier group, characterized by fundamentalist religion and well educated parents. At the 99% level I really have to reject the possibility that it is a mix of poor fundamentalists and rich others. :) Rjensen 00:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I also agree with your view. I mentioned the alternative view only as a possibility given just the percentages cited in the article. I think the useful research you've added to this article is great! Rklawton 00:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Zoiks! Given that the data was gathered only from "[p]arents contracted with Bob Jones University...", I'd seriously consider tossing the data set. Are you affiliated or familiar with BJU? If not, I suggest reading Wikipedia's BJU article. This combination of self-selection and religious extremism isn't a good combination so long as the parents have a choice of testing institutions (and they do). In short, ask a fundamentalist family who they want to do business with - other fundamentalists or someone else - and I think you're going to end up with significant selection bias. The fee-based part of the service concerns me as well. Financially challenged families may be curious to see how their kiddies compare, but they're less likely pay for the services. As a result, I'm interested in hearing why you think this data set is suitable for homeschooling demographic studies. The study's results seem predictable on bias alone. Rklawton 01:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

well you start with what data exists, and worry about bias later. The other study I saw had a good sampling base and N=62. The web sites that serve these groups seems consistent with the religious effects. Rjensen 02:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I checked with da missus. She's an actuary (with a Ph.D. in math). She agrees, "garbage in, garbage out." Unless the author found some way to clean up the data, there's not much you can do with it short of prefacing any result with "People who..." I revisited the article and read the commentaries. Even the reviewers had problems with the data. What do we do? Options:

1. Find a reasonable study
2. Find a survey of literature stating there is no reasonable study
3. Qualify the heck out of the study presented (as you say, start with the data you have)

1) is ideal, but not likely. 2) is reasonable and likely. 3) is most expedient and should cover our credibility butts should the popular press start citing Wikipedia's numbers. Rklawton 03:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree. But don't knock BJU. We're talking about antiestablishment folks here, who know they need things like the Iowa tests if their kids are headed to college. If a group of homeschool parents dislikes BJU for political reasons I think they would still sign up. That is: bias probably is small. I was astonished so many of these kids are not allowed to have home computers! --surely that has changed by now Rjensen 03:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

1) Not all homeschoolers are anti-establishment; we need decent data to sort out how many. 2) Colleges don't look at Iowa tests, they look at EDS'. 3) When given a choice of testing centers, BJU is just one of several. Folks who don't like them have no need to associate with them. 4) When we complained about the rules at Baylor University (Southern Baptist, 1990's), we were often reminded how much worse it could be had we attended BJU instead. BJU is a very special case 5) At least one whole population segment has no need for testing: the Amish (and similar groups). 6) I think you've dropped the poverty issue, and I suspect that's highly relevant (I was a debater, too =B-) ) to our demographic studies (see also point #2).

In short, only certain types of families are going to worry enough (or want to show off enough) to pay for testing that isn't required, won't (directly) get their kids into college, and select (or avoid) a testing service run by rather infamous zealots (they were in the news quite a bit a few years ago much to their detriment when Bush visited). Rklawton 04:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Well you assume there is a family correlation and I think it's pretty weak. And yes, homeschoolers are vehemently anti-establishment. Listen to them talk about the public schools! (they sound like Senator Santorum I guess). If someone has better data I'd love to see it--but it can't exist or it would have entered the debates by now. Rjensen 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC). reply

Family correlation? I'm not sure what you mean. Next, we can't judge any group based on what a few constituent loudmouths say to reporters looking for inflammatory items to publish or broadcast. What we need is real data. Hence, I propose adopting one of the three suggestions I made at 3:18. Rklawton 04:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Do people follow their leaders? in this case I think so. There are lost of political and legal dimensions that come into play here. Rjensen 05:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The political and legal dimensions are interesting, but that doesn't obviate the need for good research, data, and analysis - which is this thread's topic. Rklawton 05:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

great data is wonderful. and rare. Look at the archaeologists who reconstruct a civilization from a couple broken pots. We can do that well. Rjensen 05:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Why in the world do you keep removing any reference to this person's name in the World War I article? You've done so twice now. Given the nature of Wikipedia it makes sense that we should not only provide his name but also a wikilink to the article about him, both of which you are removing for some reason. -- Curps 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The WW1 article avoids names. He in particular did nothing at all and there is no need to know much about him except he got shot. This has to be a very brief summary, and the links should be the ones we recommnend for people to learn more. I added the link to Assassination at Sarajevo because it is quite useful. The Archduke was pretty much a zero in history and in a summary article we should only include important people and events worth reading about. Rjensen 19:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The history books in my high school named him; I suspect simply adding his name and link is called for in this case. The article would look pretty incomplete without this significant and early fact related to the war's flashpoint. Leaving out his name begs the question. Putting it in and letting people click for themselves is perfectly reasonable. Rklawton 22:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Everybody gets very full coverage in Wiki. The question is what to put in the summary. Most people ONLY read the summary. Which names should they know? The article certainly needs to talk about the assassination at Sarajevo -- but it needs to explain why it was important (Serbs kill heir to throne), not to teach people useless names . Rjensen 23:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I scanned the article quickly, and I think name and "heir to the Austrian throne" is sufficient. At the moment, the salient point "heir to the throne" isn't included. It should be. Imagine if terrorists killed Prince William! At any rate, I suggest leaving name and adding "heir to the Austrian throne" or words to that effect. Rklawton 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

yes I agree with you. If they had killed his wife and not the archduke it would not have started a war. Rjensen 00:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

If Serbia had signed the terms given them by the Austrians, they could have averted the war. Unfortunately and at the last minute, Russia agreed to back its Slavic brothers, so Serbia refused to sign. It was Russia's mobilization (subsequent to Austria's and as promised the Serbs) that sparked Germany into mobilization and escalation. Though Germany's war plans required a mobilization response to Russia lest they find themselves overrun, these plans did not require a German attack. Though the assassination prompted mass mobilizations on all sides and set the stage for disaster, it was the Germans alone who actually pulled the trigger. Rklawton 01:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with Rklawton on the sequence of events. The chain of events "might" have been broken IF.... However the assassination did start the chain going, and in real life it did not break. I would add that once Germany mobilized France had to mobilize immediately too. Rjensen 01:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Sad but true. Rklawton 01:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

A few points: 1. It is relevant to point out that the Dominions did not have independence at the time and that they did later, a major difference between WW1 and WW2. 2. You have removed the sentence: "However, Dominion governments did withdraw elements of their forces from time to time." Is there a reason for this? 3. If you mention the war cabinet there is no need to mention "British generals", who were also answerable to the war cabinet. If we mention the "British generals" we should mention that, after April 1918, all of the Allies were commanded by Ferdinand Foch. Grant65 | Talk 09:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the thoughtful comments. 1) Lots of things happened after 1918. 2) not sure what that sentence means--if it means Canada did X in 1917, then it should day that. 3. The Dominion forces were at all times under the control of British generals, who in turn were controlled by a war cabinet that had dominion representation. (not to mention Foch's role in 1918) Rjensen 09:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

What part of this revert [2] do you consider to be untrue? -- Mwanner | Talk 01:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Daniel Boone was not a rich speculator and that was not Washington's motivation. Rjensen 01:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

True, it was not a well-written addition, but I think it would be fair to add something along same lines. I think there can be little doubt that the proclamation line played a part in the motivations of many patriots, no? -- Mwanner | Talk 01:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

yes it certainly annoyed the colonists, even though it was officially temporary and new treaties with Indians in 1768 opened up the territories Washington was inteersted in. The article Royal Proclamation of 1763 covers the issues pretty well. the main grievance was not so much the land as the arbitrary ruling from London without consulting the Americans. Rjensen 01:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

...how Image:Tin3.JPG is a {{ SovietPD}} candidate? While I don't know its original source, all the signs point against that provenance. 68.39.174.238 02:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

it's an American newspaper ad published about 1899. Rjensen 02:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, but it was tagged as a Public Domain as published in the Soviet Union, which was what I was wondering about. 68.39.174.238 09:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hmmm-- the two codes for US pre 1923 and Soviet are next to each other and maybe a finger slipped. :) Rjensen 09:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Excuse me, why did you revert my edit without any explanation? [3] 199.111.230.195 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

if you think it needs sections by all means put them in yourself. Don't ask others to do it. Rjensen 05:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Huh? So which Wikipedia policy states that I cannot seek editing help from others? If I had been familiar with the subject I would have added sections myself. That's exactly why I had to put up the tag - to seek assistance in improving the article. If you think {{sections}} is redundant, go nominate it in TfD. Do not take away my right to ask for help. 199.111.230.195 19:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks :) 199.111.230.195 14:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I see you removed the colors and the image with the comment "del highly distracting & useless graphics & colors". The colors may not be exactly utilitarian, but the graphic wasn't. I'm also not quite sure what you mean by distracting-- would you care to elaborate? Now all the articles bearing the template are devoid of color. It's kind of sad! I'm willing to compromise on the issue, but I think there should be consensus in the community before major changes like yours are made to templates that are used on a multitude of articles. And I know for a fact that the template's creator is NOT going to like the new version. So please, discuss the reasons for your changes on the template's talkpage.-- Rockero 10:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The template should be an auxiliary device--minor in comparison with the main article. Preferably is should come at the end (is that possible?). With colors it dominates the plain B&W text of the main article, which is not acceptable. Readers will visually see the template is MORE important than the article. Worse, they will assume that all the categories listed the template apply to the article and usually that is not true. The graphic adds no information whatever and just distracts from the reader's attention. Worse, readers will assume the graphic somehow DOES pertain directly to the article and that is usually false info. We can NOT have these templates take control of the article they are supposed to be supporting. If they do, they have to be removed all together. So let's ask: why do we have this template instead of a "See also" reference at the end?? Rjensen 10:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

There is another version of the template that does go at the bottom of articles, and the members of WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos and I have been using it for short articles where the long side template creates too much empty space. The idea behind the template is to have a means to link the major political movements, cultural phenomena, and historical aspects together in a way that is not possible through categorization. True, sometimes the Aztec sunstone is not germane to the topic of an article. However, it is a symbol used by Mexican Americans, especially since the Chicano Movement, as a means of reclaiming their indigenoud heritage and as a cultural symbol. In that sense, I think it is pertinent to the series as a whole. Take {{ African American topics sidebar}}, for example. It has colors and an image representing the African presence in the United States. Do you object to that template on the same grounds? I agree that the text of an article should be its substantive aspect. But it doesn't hurt to have some images and other ways to "spice up" an article's appearance, especially with Wikipedia's tendency to cater to the lowest common denominator. Please let me know what you think.-- Rockero 10:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I have not seen the Af-Am template. I strongly oppose using symbols that are not selected especially for an article by the editors of the article. "Spice up" equals POV I fear, and certainly confuses the reader. My objections are MUCH LESS is the template is located at the end of the article. (In my view, 50% of users only look at the first screen.) As we saw with the pro-immigration rallies in US cities in last month, it really matters a lot what flag you wave. Rjensen 11:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The editors of the aforementioned WikiProject are, for the most part, the editors of the articles bearing the template. I'm afraid I still don't understand your objection. Maybe if you would point out which articles you don't think the image belongs on? How does the use of the Aztec Sun Stone on Mexican American articles present a point of view? Sorry to keep bugging you on this...-- Rockero 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd originally posted this in response Rjensen's comments above yours - I just posted them in the wrong place. My Bad. Rklawton 05:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

To be quite frank, and based upon prior experience, you seem to forget that we are all editors of these articles. Hence, if I add a graphic, I am an editor and I am specifically picking it out. No one owns anything here. Personally, I think that the symbol you though POV is a very distinguished symbol for the Mexican people, one that's commonly used to represent Mexican heritage and history. Please consider that your taste in illustrations strongly reflects your point of view, and more to the point, if you aren't Mexican, then you should leave the Mexicans to sort out what ever representative symbol they feel appropriate. Rklawton 03:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You're 100% Mexican or 50% Mexican American or what? you have a POV or maybe you have no POV?? Rjensen 04:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

And your point is? Rklawton 05:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I think we agree that the symbol is Mexican POV. My point is that strongly violates Wiki policies: NO POV. Rjensen 05:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree the symbol is Mexican. I very strongly disagree that it's POV. And that's the point of my prior note. I think you are over senstive regarding what is POV and what isn't. Don't think of this as POV. Think of it as an identity. Consider the word Mexico itself. The word is fraught with POV when you consider its origins, yet we use it anyway. We use it because it's a word that represents a nation. Likewise, the symbol in question prepresents that nation's ancient heritage. There's nothing POV about it. Nothing POV whatsoever. Notice also that you are the only one who thinks otherwise, and a vote of one is not sufficient to override the community. That, as you know, is how it's done here. Rklawton 05:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

what you have just described is highly POV for Mexicans in the USA. Note the huge debate in last month re Mexican flags at rallies. So we go to arbitration on this one. Rjensen 05:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The flags and the symbol under discussion bear no relationship. You would waste the committee's time when you are the only one objecting? Do you realize how that will look? Why not cast about and see if you can find support for your position first? That's one of the first questions they'll ask. Rklawton 05:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

antislavery.eserver.org was linkspammed across many articles by 129.219.46.76 ( contribs). Granted it may have some pertinent information about the topics, but the fact that it was spammed suggests it was added primarily to promote the spammer's site and should be removed. Surely there's other useful information available that could be added in a more legitimate manner? -- AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The link is a legit academic source with very good material for the article, so I think it ought to stay. I added it myself in legit fashion after looking into it. Rjensen 04:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi! I have a question for you about a change you made on this page (diff: [4]). Actually you suppressed something which is still on the french page (it was translated on the 28th october 2004) and I just want to know if you deleted it because you think it's not important or because it's false? So I'll know if I have to delete it on the french page too or not. I'm talking about this:

In December 1887, he called on Congress to reduce high protective tariffs. Told that he had given Republicans an effective issue for the campaign of 1888, he retorted, "What is the use of being elected or re-elected unless you stand for something?"

I guess you just though it was not important (you made lots of other changes in this article) but I prefer to ask you to be sure... Could you please respond directly on the french talk page of this article (in english of course... unless you know french) or eventually on my french talk page if you prefer (please not on my english page... I don't check it regularly). Thanks. Polletfa 12:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for your response... it is always better to check... I was interessed in that because I found an error in the translation which was there since a year and half!! Polletfa 08:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Rj, I wasn't quite sure what your latest edit to WP:RS meant, so I've left a query for you here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Your most recent edit of American conservatism has produced what I'm sure is unintended repetition. I thought you would rather fix it yourself than have someone else fix it. Aside from that, I like your recent edits. Rick Norwood 22:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the tip-- the problem with cut and paste is that I don't always delete the cut! Rjensen 22:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Rjensen, you've just put a comment on the guideline page. Did you intend to do that? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

no I goofed--and just reverted it. :( Rjensen 02:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I have a friendly suggestion. Stop promoting an inappropriate POV with this article. Tennessee is a great state! Southern, today, is strictly cultural and has racist overtones. Please refrain from using it on the Tennessee article. Thanks, -- Bookofsecrets 06:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Better get some sources for your claims. Rjensen 06:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• I need no sources. Tennessee is in the Southeastern United States of America. Southern has become cultural and with racist overtones. I was born and raised in Tennessee. The American Civil War ended in April 1865. It is time to bury it and move on. -- Bookofsecrets 06:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

What states do you consider southern? Rjensen 06:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• None of them. Southeastern is NPOV and Southern is not. -- Bookofsecrets 06:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

It's not that TN isn't southern, it's that southern is an old expression that's full of dated POV. Southeastern is not only less POV, it is also more geographically specific. Rklawton 06:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

old expression--well tennessee is an old state. What year did it stop being southern? Rjensen 06:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

If you want a source, just check in with AAA. Their Southeastern States highway map features TN dead center. This should suffice unless you are writing for a different historical time period. Rklawton 06:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Again and finally, Southern is cultural and has strong racist overtones and is not NPOV. -- Bookofsecrets 06:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

well it's more southeast than southwest THESE DAYS. But in the days of Andrew Jackson it was called the "Southwest". The AAA is a wonderful service for maps, motels and emergency calls when you get a flat tire. Who says "southern" is racist-- let's have a name or two. Rjensen 06:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

In today's multi-cultural society "Southern" has serious racist overtones. Who is to blame for this? I believe you know the answer without me telling you. Since Wikipedia is multi-cultural and crosses international lines, "Southern" in not NPOV. -- Bookofsecrets 07:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

here's a citation from liberal magazine "New Republic": "Congressman Harold Ford suddenly has a real chance of winning--and becoming the first black senator from the South to be elected since 1874." [12.16.2005] Proof that the blacks consider Tennessee to be South. Rjensen 06:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Citing Harold Ford is not going to win your battle here. -- Bookofsecrets 07:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I am weaiting for your VERY FIRST citation.... Rjensen 07:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I gave it to you - AAA. And you admitted that THESE DAYS southeastern was the correct geographical location. Lose graciously on this one and gain respect for your opinions. Rklawton 07:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• I am merely attempting to keep article NPOV nothing more and nothing less. -- Bookofsecrets 07:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

did you read it? Rjensen 07:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I checked with AAA. They do not have a Southeastern states tourbook. they did have a "Dixie Motor Club" (logo is onsale at Ebay). The AAA Auto Club South was established as a Florida corporation in 1938 and now covers the areas of Florida, Georgia, the western two-thirds of Tennessee headquarterdin Nashville. Rjensen 07:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

AAA Auto Club South is the third largest affiliate of the AAA federation with members in Florida, Georgia and the western two-thirds of Tennessee. headquarters is Nashville. Rjensen 07:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I didn't say tour book. I said AAA map. And I'm sitting here looking at it. Rklawton 07:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

What does the map SAY in words about tenn? Rjensen 07:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

It says "Southeastern States" and it lists the states - to include TN. Are you suggesting that Southeastern is somehow not as specific as "Southern"? Please be reasonable! Rklawton 07:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it is for automobile drivers not Wiki users. We have to be serious here. We cannot tell out audience that the term "Southern" is racist or is not used for Tennessee. That would be spreading falsehoods. We have to give facts about history and geography and culture. The fact is the map you use does not have ONE SENTENCE that is relevant to this issue. The map is published by AAA-South which is headquartered in nashville. It is NOT published by AAA-Southeast which does not exist. Rjensen 07:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Southern is a cultural term in the 21st Century. Southeastern better describes those states that were once in the Confederate States of America because of the Geographical location in the United States of America. -- Bookofsecrets 14:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

For what its worth, I agree with you on this issue. Bookofsecrets is dramatically overstating his case. However, I don't think this particular issue is really worth the trouble. It seems like such a trivial distinction to me. I say if they want "Southeastern" that badly, let them have it. Regardless, I'm withdrawing myself from the debate. I have no opinion one way or the other about it. I just hope this rediculous conflict will end soon enough. Kaldari 02:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

That poll is POV, you don't have any information on whether everyone polled was actually mostly Irish or just claimed some Irish ancestry. You also don't have information on what the elections were for or what cities the poll was taken in.

Do you believe that only 50% of Irish Catholics in Massachusetts vote Democratic? Do you think that only 50% of the Irish Catholics voted for Martin O'Malley in Baltimore? Do you think that Richard M. Daley only gets 50% of the Irish Catholic vote in Chicago?

The poll is unreliable and POV, please stop putting it back in. 75.3.4.54 16:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

(Prof. Jensen, you and I share one thing, at any rate, on Wikipedia: we run by our own names!) I'm the Bill Thayer with Freeman online and a growing collection of American history material on my site, homepage here, and my question has nothing to do with Wikipedia. What really triggered it is that I just noticed you've written a history of Illinois, — and I'm looking at expanding my stuff to include a (public domain, of course) text on Illinois, since after all it's where I live. So: what would you advise? US‑published pre‑1923 is all public domain, of course; so is quite a bit between 1923 and 1963 because 85% of copyright holders failed to renew.

If you should feel inclined to answer the wider question of what stuff belongs online that I could usefully provide, I'd be honored, and — human nature being what it is! — might even take your advice.... Seriously, right this minute, but without being committed to any of it, I'm looking at Channing's History (the long one, the short is already online, beautifully done, too), Sherman's Letters, Wilson's bio of Lee, and histories of (1) Kentucky, Illinois, Chicago; (2) Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, Texas (despite the competition online!); maybe a biography of Edison; finally maybe a good book on the railroads and our westward expansion. But ideas I haven't come up with are also very welcome, of course. The question is obviously one of priorities, I work by myself and can only do so much.

Feel free to contact me off-Wiki, by e‑mail, and thanks in advance. Best, Bill 16:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Rjensen, this is aoeu on the topic of illegal immigration. I was wondering if I could work with you on this segment, since we appear to have opposing (or different) views and also since we both are continually editing this segment. I just want to prevent strife, useless edits and gain some understanding. Appreciate it! Aoeu 22:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC) reply

yes, very good idea! Rjensen 01:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

unless they're fellow editors......--02:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

most cranks and vandals are anonymous like this guy. Stick to adding porno, please. Rjensen 02:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, well, you're a towel and that's awesome that someone finally blocked you, sucka! LOL! :)

====Regarding reversions [5] made on May 6 2006 ( UTC) to New Deal====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 11:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

After I explained on your talk page how the poll is unreliable, you still add it back in. You refuse to even discuss the issue, I explained how it is unreliable and it is to remain out of the article especially since you don't even contest why it is unreliable. 75.3.4.54 19:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

read the sources. they are Irish Catholic voters in Presidential elections, which is what article talks about.

For example in 1980 Reagan (who won 51% of the national vote) won 53% among Irish-Catholics in New York state, 64% in California, and 65% in Texas. Kerry (who is Catholic) narrowly lost the Irish Catholic vote in 2004 to Bush (who is Methodist). I have seen only a few polls for state races, for example in 1998 when D'Amato (R) lost his senate seat in New York, D'Amato carried 66% of the Italian vote and 63% of the Irish vote. If someone has more polls for statewide races lets see them. Rjensen 23:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

If you don't have polls from every election, then you can't make the claim it's 50-50. Also, you have provided no information on whether the people being polled are actually Irish Catholic or just Catholics with partial Irish ancestry. 75.3.4.54 22:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

OK...are you even remotely Irish? The Irish language is not considered Gaelic, nor can you possibly argue that there was little to no prejudice against Irish Catholics in America throughout the 19th and 20th century. Are you serious? IrishGuy 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

My own background is Italian Catholic. I attended 12 years of Catholic elementary and high schools in 3 states and then graduated from Notre Dame, back when it was very largely run and taught by Irish. I married into an Irish Catholic family 30 years ago and remain quite close to them on a daily basis. As for Gaelic and Irish language, I confess to knowing zip. But I do claim to know as much as any historian about 19th century discrimination against the Catholics in general and the Irish in particular, as shown in a series of books and articles on the subject. (Like The Winning of the Midwest published in 1971). Rjensen 07:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

If you admittedly known little about Gaelic and Irish (languages) why do you make edits on those subjects? No offense to you, but Italian Catholic (not first generation, I assume) is very different than Irish Catholic. If you have numerous Irish Catholics contesting your edits...why do you insist that you are correct and everyone else in wrong? IrishGuy 08:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I have distance and perspective and my own identity is not tied to proving the Irish were victims. Mostly I read and listen to other historians--my "No Irish" essay was ready by about 40-50 Irish scholars (mostly in US and some in Ireland) before publication and I had six months of online debates with them on every nuance and fine point. As for Gaelic I wouldn't dream of editing an article about its the syntax or vocabulary. What language immigrants spoke in Boston in 1850 is, however, a subject I have looked into. Lots of people commented on how the Irish talked, and I have read them. Rjensen 08:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

So you are actually arguing that distance (meaning: not being directly affected by the subject) is superior to actually having felt the effects of what you have the luxury of being distant from? IrishGuy 08:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes indeed. It makes it possible to be detached and analytical, and not burn with a desire for revenge. Doctors who do not have cancer study it more carefully. Rjensen 08:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Nice. I'm glad you aren't prejudiced at all. Clearly all Irish people burn with a desire for revenge. Nice stereotype there. IrishGuy 16:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

My mission is to be not prejudiced; what's your mission? Rjensen 16:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Then clearly you have failed your mission. IrishGuy 16:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

what is your mission? Rjensen 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Unless you have voting records of every 100% Irish Catholic person from every election from 1968, you can not make a claim that they have split 50-50. 75.3.4.54 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

what nonsense--ever heard of polls? apparently not. Rjensen 03:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

You don't have polls from every election. 75.3.4.54 14:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Rjensen, Thanks for adding references for the military section. Could you please format the books and journals using the Template:Cite as with all the other sections. Most important is the ISBN for which all other info can be found. Also, I think there are too many references there now, can you leave the ones that are definitely needed in the References page, and move the others to their appropriate subpages (they could definitely be used for the Military history and Canada's military articles. Thanks -- Jeff3000 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Rjensen, if you are going to add references, can you please put them in the cite format as with all other references. It's the standard way to cite things in Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 13:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

My mistake--I meant to add titles to "Further Reading" and not to "references". Rjensen 13:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I appreciate your efforts in adding to the History of Canada page, but I'm worried that if it is changed into a summary article (see Talk:History_of_Canada#Organisation), your edits might get lost Can you post your opinion on the talk page, and maybe think about working on the sub-pages, instead of the main page? Thanks -- TheMightyQuill 12:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the tip. I will follow through. Rjensen 12:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Yet you just added more before the discussion was worked out? I'm confused. -- TheMightyQuill 12:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I am trying to improve the History of Canada article and show it is not merely a summary of subarticles. Rjensen 13:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

You're being rather agressive in your updates, considering I just asked you to wait until discussion was completed before adding more to the main article. Did you read my response? Why not work with me instead of against me? You could improve the summary style article, making it longer and more full, and then we wouldn't have to argue. -- TheMightyQuill 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

If you want to have a moratorium on updates you should say so and we can discuss that too. I don't see the need fo that. Rjensen 15:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding the edit that I made and you made, [6]. I'm sorry, I personally thought it was a year (as in when they started there). Hope you understand! Thanks, K ilo-Lima| ^(talk) 17:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for keeping close watch! :) Rjensen 17:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

my text was in the talk page of the image, sz

thanks-- I don't see any real mistakes. The red color scheme is confusing but that is not a mistake. The Czech split was made possible by the end of the Cold War and should be included. ````

well, Im a Czech and I know something about history of my country. The split wasnt´t due to the end of the cold war. The fact that you dont see mistakes is not important for me.

Unless you actually have a source that supports the literal "over 95% of the territory and 99% of the population", I would be much happier to see revised language, something like "overwhelming control and numbers". -- Mwanner | Talk 23:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

here's a quote: "With the fall of Boston, the British army lost its last foothold in the thirteen rebellious colonies." Miller "Triumph of Freedom" p 86. Rjensen 23:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I've tried again, language I think we can both live with? If not, be my guest. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

yes--just right! thanks. Rjensen 00:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

John Roberts is Polish and if you look at a picture of him closely, you can see that. 75.3.4.54 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

his mother is Polish. His father is Irish. Rjensen 10:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you have a source or are you assuming that his father is Irish? 75.3.4.54 14:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

it was on one of the news reports when he was confirmed. Rjensen 15:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I think your latest edit got lost in a storm of vandalism, you will probably wan tto double-check and restore. David Underdown 15:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the tip! Rjensen 16:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

They aren't protected so that good-faith edits can be made to them when they need to be updated by interwiki links or for improved wording. They are not the place for you to promote your ideas about how you would like Wikipedia to handle unfree content. Jkelly 22:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I am following the federal fair use guidelines. Someone added new restrictions on the editors from out of nowhere--not based on law or practice or anything else. Those restrictions have not been justified and cannot stand. --for example the nonsense that the article has to discuss the magazine itself rather than topic XXX which is illustrated on the cover. That has to go. Rjensen 22:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

You seem to be confused, and I am not sure that I will be able to be of much help. Wikipedia is a project to create a free, reusable encyclopedia. There's no such thing as "the federal fair use guidelines", but a number of intellectual property experts have attempted to provide helpful rules-of-thumb. You can find links to these at our article on Fair use. How Wikipedia handles fair use is described at Wikipedia:Fair use. Nothing about how the Wikimedia Foundation handles unfree content needs to be justified; it is not your, or my, call to make. I have no idea what conversation you may have had with "TIME", but until they start producing free, reusable content, it isn't of much interest. Jkelly 22:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

On Wikipedia, we don't push the limits of what copyright law and the courts say about the use of the "fair use" defense. Instead, we try to avoid the grey areas in the law that could result in a copyright infringement lawsuit. -- Carnildo 22:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks for the tips. Wiki is legally a nonprofit educational institution and the copyright laws are pretty clear as they apply to us. Rjensen 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi! I reverted your deletion of two paragraphs at Jim Crow laws. While your edit summary may have been accurate, it did not explain the deletion of the content. Please discuss broad and sweeping changes such as these on the article's talk page prior to removing them.

Thank you for your contributions! Bastique▼ ^parler _voir 18:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I deleted incorrect info about gerrymandering. That has been illegal for 40 years now. The para on Redeemers is from a low quality newspaper source and just duplicates info we have from solid history books like C Vann Woodward. Rjensen 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Your reasons for deletion are invalid. Whether or not the practice is illegal, it is a practice. The quote from the New York Times is a valuable source. This article will not be subject to your POV-pushing. One more revert and you will be blocked from editing. Bastique▼ ^parler _voir 18:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

NO-- there is no such gerrymandering. The quote by a 1999 journalist is not of the quality the article is using--see bibliography. It adds no new information. Rjensen 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

After reading the paragraph several times, I realize that in the respect of contribution to this article, it is entirely worthless, and, well, you were right, and I'm removing it.

However, make no mistake, gerrymandering exists. Its just not for racial, but political reasons. The state governments of Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas and California all engaged in the activity after the 2000 census. But these were designed to maximize party represntation in each of the states in Congress (Florida and Texas had districts that maximized Republican coverage, Pennsylvania and California, Democrat) Bastique▼ ^parler _voir 02:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh sure gerrymandering exists. But if it reduces minority power it is immediately overthrown by the courts. So what the GOP does is give the minorities a couple new districts and take away twice as many white Democratic districts. Hence there are more blacks in Congress and far fewer southern Democrats. Rjensen 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Let me repeat verbatim what someone else said on your discussion page, quoting, "I reverted your deletion of two paragraphs at Jim Crow laws. While your edit summary may have been accurate, it did not explain the deletion of the content. Please discuss broad and sweeping changes such as these on the article's talk page prior to removing them." Is this a consistent trend!?

Comment. Editing is one thing, but does wikipedia say, "Everytime you add even so much as a paragraph to any article, it will be delted repeatedly?" You asked, "If you have some serious scholars who think the relationship was really important, then please cite them." OK, instead of repeatedly deleting a paragraph added by a fellow editor, edit what the person submitted with something like, "but....blah blah blah, 1. blah blah blah, 2. and the dreamer that imagined the above doesn't realize that blah blah blah, 3.  ? Why not add to either the ALR or ER article FOOTNOTES substantiating your particular points of view? You demand that I substantiate my claims about that rivalry business. Or what, you just wholesale delete everything you don't agree with in Wikipedia. How much footnoting substantiating do YOU do? There were NO footnotes in the ER article until I began adding them. Not one. Instead of sniping and deleting, how about researching and footnoting? Then we'll get past just our opinions. I didn't just dream up or imagine this ALR-ER rivalry thing and was suprised to see how many "serious scholars" do mention it. As for "a nasty cousin she rarely saw," Ok, if that was true, ER would have pretended that pesky Alice just didn't exist. But for many years, that was NOT the case, as that photo of ER at Alice's demonstrates. As Eleanor rose more amd more in popular stature, I think she did eventually ignore Alice more and more. But, you know, I think she must have felt some of that incredible ER compassion and empathy for her cute little pathetic cousin. ALR could talk and comment and snipe, but unlike ALR, ER could both TALK, write and DO. So the world has fogotten Alice while it memorializes ER. And thus ALR had almost NO influence beyond her own life. I think she probably figured all this out about what she lacked that ER had, but that was really late in ALR's life. Despite all of ALR's unkindnesses, it was ER who had the compassion to reach out to Alice and write ALR tender words of sympathy after her daughter Paulina died. In the end, even AR had to say of ER when someone made a mean comment about ER being an ugly, something like, "but she became a swan and so much MORE than a swan." (my emphasis). Neverthless, why would photos be out there with ER dressed to the nines at Alice's parties? As I said, I agree 100% with you that ALR was not even in the same league as ER and its so tragic that while ALR could "talk" about everyone else, when she DID have the opportunity to contribute positively, as when the Ohio Republicans offered her her husband's vacant seat in the House, she didn't have the gumption to "act." Neither could she sustain any interest in that weekly column which was boring compared to ER's. She had good looks and a sassy attitude that appealed to the media, but no where near the substance of ER, no, not even close. Yet Edmund Morris calls her "the only original thinking child of TR or words to that effect and speaks of TR turning more and more to ALR for political advice and the two really began to have a genuine friendship and a political relationship until her dad died. It would be Alice who predicted disaster if her father challenged Taft, and TR would admit later that he should have listened to her. ALR had incredible instincts but they were all based on her ability to understand the demons in people and not see the angels, while ER was 100% the opposite. I think no one's done a movie on ALR, because the more you know about her, the less you like of her, except for her finally stepping up to the plate with her grand daughter. ALR's life was one long list of missed opportunities until her 70s to make use of her talents in a POSITIVE as opposed to a negative way. For me, when I finished 4-5 books about ALR, all I could say to my wife was, "Such a sad, sad pathetice waste of talent and opportunity that comes to so few people. She was right in the literal middle of things, but what positive thing did she DO?" For ALR it was always beauty, and sassiness over positive contribution. She entertained us but how many people laughed "at" as opposed to "with" Alice? When I attend the Theodore Roosevelt Association annual meeting in Atlanta, I'm going to ask that lady who wrote the book on the Roosevelt women to comment on that. While Alice took all the pain of rejection by a step-mother and half-brothers and sisters who were even taught to call her "sister" instead her own name for reasons we know, and lashed back cruely against the world, ER took the much greater rejection and developed an empathy for all who suffer. In so doing ER transformed and elevated herself to a grandnes and greatness that few have equalled. But ER was still so emotionally vulnerable that she had to have staffers in between her and a manipulative world. ALR didn't need them, she was all OFFENSE and didn't need DEFENSE. I think someone could write a book simply called "Alice and Eleanor, entertaining nasty opinions vs. achieving noble acts" or something like that. But everyone would end up loving ER more and despising ALR more. I think ALR went though life dependent on her looks and name, while ER seemed to have to somehow make herself "worthy" of the love of the public. Despite their common backgrounds of childhood rejection, just HOW they responded to those experiences was absolutely 100% different. I guess I relate to them both becaue in me, there's a mean little vindictive ARL always at war with a compassionate ER. SimonATL 07:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I suggest you work on the ARL entry. Let'm move ER's into politics and activism. Rjensen 12:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks but no thanks, I've improved the ER article and will continue to do so. I've noticed an interesting trend in your work on various articles, such as FDR, you have been asked repeatedly by many editors to stop deleting wholesale sections in articles. I went through the discussion on the FDR article until it gave me a headache. Amazing acrimony expressed. I'll be continuing to improve the ER article and doing the research and add DOCUMENTED footnotes, something you demand of everyone, but not always of yourself. Please no more section deletions. Improve them and you'll have less editors complaining about arbitrary actions on your part. Let's all stick to what facts we can gleam from various sources and try to have less of a personal agenda. Sure, people love FDR and ER and some even love ALR, but that's not the point of these articles is it. Hope to see you at the Theodore Roosevelt Annual Meeting in Atlanta, GA in October. SimonATL 19:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the keep vote on the AFD. If you agree with the subpage, please revert to the version of the Canada article that has the link to it. -- Jeff3000 15:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I have removed the 'liberal' and 'conservative' adjectives on the Wisconsin page once again. Please discuss the issue on the talk page before making another edit regarding this. Regards. aliceinlampyland 16:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC). reply

This article has gone to the dogs - the Legacy section especially reads like an essay. PMA 18:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply