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 19
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
I just watched your fantastic 7/13/12 Wikimania talk, and you've inspired me to contribute. Thanks, and keep up the great work! Scewing ( talk) 01:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
If you would like to bring an article on a physicist to featured, have a go at Arthur Compton. Thanks. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 06:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Conservatism in the United State". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, your edit was right, the Colonial era section was miscategorized. The book by Jane Porter was mentioned in the Pula article as part of the positive depictions of Polish Americans. I understand she was Scottish, not American, but the positive reflection of Poland that came from Kosciuszko's role in the war was notable - and was demonstrated in the book. I am still working on the section on the 1960s and 70s, so please check in and we can talk about it if you like. Pola.mola ( talk) 21:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, why did you revert my edit? References to “Britain”, ”Great Britain”, etc., after the Acts of Union 1800 are anachronistic, as Great Britain had been united with Ireland to form the United Kingdom. During the 1830s and 1840s, the period covered in this article, “Great Britain” was not a political entity; the United Kingdom was; the diplomats and officials represented the United Kingdom and not Great Britain. Benjamin M. A'Lee ( talk) 12:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I read this Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States#cite_note-21 and I wonder if it is you who wrote the table named "U.S. historical populations". In the row regarding Sweden I read that there were 2000 Swedes in the USA in 1790. I tried to find the same data on the ICPSR page but I can't. The only thing I know is that in the 1790 census there wasn't any question about place of birth or ancestry. How did you find that number? Can you help me? I am writing a dissertation and I need reliable sources. Thanks. Stefania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.157.26 ( talk) 11:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
First to understand a little more the perspective of those Canadians. Now I understand why they get so fired up. But also things like the comment about 6 year old research work. Nice insights and well presented. TCO ( talk) 01:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Bad timing, I guess, but just a couple minutes ago, I went and looked at the Declaration article. Was unhappy to see Kevin turned off of it. He is a top notch historian and I felt I had gotten him a little re-interested in the Wiki, when I pushed it to GA (not doing any work, just tossing it in there). Maybe that he would FA the article eventually. Unless you are going to brush that article up (basically own it), I wonder if there might be some way, you can disengage and give it back to him. I don't think him walking away from it is the best thing for the readers. And I'm just a civilian, not a historian, but I find the prominent use of "nation" creation for the 1776 work to be jarring. Heck, the Articles and even the experience of the War (most of it) had not happened yet in 1776. Let alone the Constitution, which created the actual legal structure for the nation. TCO ( talk) 02:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
it was nazi germany's motto but dianna wrongfully removed, what is your opinion need a third party view in the Talk:Nazi_Germany#Motto Peterzor ( talk) 08:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen. I indirectly mentioned you at WP:ANI, as I posted a diff from your talk page in a discussion thread there. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal Attack by Peterzor. Best, -- Dianna ( talk) 21:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Nazi Germany". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I read this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States and I would like to know if you wrote it. I am interested in the numbers of the table called "U.S. Historical Populations". I read that there were 2000 Swedes in 1790 but I know that the census did not contain any information regarding place of birth or ancestry, at that time. I see that the source is the ICPRS in Ann Arbor, but unfortunately that kind of data is not available for me (I wrote them in order to know if it was possible to consult that database). Since I am writing a dissertation about the Swedish emigration to the USA I am interested in quoting that number and I am asking you if you can help me with the original source. Do you know exactly from where that numbers come? Thanks, Stefania Stefaniaf ( talk) 12:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I found that pic in Wikimedia Commons, and the picture purports to be of several children standing with a Grand Dragon. The short height of the people with the Dragon lends credence to the claim that they are children. I will put the pic back, and remove the reference to children. Readers can look at the picture and judge for themselves OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 22:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This act did not provide free milk, the 1946 Milk Act did. The Telegraph article even states this- why did you use that as a reference? Please delete any mention of it in the article as it is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.90.93 ( talk) 18:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This is Breeze009 I undid your deletion of my addition to the Indentured servant page. I added more than ample documentation as you will see by the extensive footnotes and citations. Before you delete something you might want to look something up on it. This is actually a well-studied line of scholarship, if you'd bother to check. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not correct. I was planning on adding the citations but couldn't get to it until today. Now I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breeze009 ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I see you have removed all the changes I made to the page on Andrew Bonar Law because I should "Keep details based on scholarly secondary sources; drop original research not based on secondary sources". With all due respect, surely PRIMARY source such as census returns and contemporary newspaper reports are more reliable than family gossip and legend? Printing those in a book does NOT make them true, and a book which is produced without checking the most basic and readily available genealogical sources is instantly, in my view, unworthy of the adjective 'scholarly'.
I am also extremely disappointed that you did not make those comments in the two weeks after I proposed the changes on the Talk page, so that we could have a sensible discussion. Instead, you waited until I had gone to the trouble and effort of making the changes to the main page and then, without having the courtesy to discuss with me, you simply reversed them en masse.
Are you interested in establishing the correct facts? Or merely in preserving the status quo? I would have expected better from a historian with your credentials!
Sunapics ( talk) 18:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
you tried to restore the nazi motto "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer", can i ask you respecfully why you forgot about the issue? 95.199.24.89 ( talk) 07:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I am WORKING ON ADDING VERIFIABLE RELIABLE SOURCES FOR DISCUSSION.
It is not a "BLP Violation" when there are mainstream news sources covering the issue. Please stop pretending otherwise. I also note that the article has been tainted by Conflict Of Interest issues as Schlafly's son has been editing it: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3APhyllis_Schlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=558569883&oldid=558146339
I am the one following the rules, you are the one lying and refusing to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.208.198 ( talk) 14:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Please add another section about "Quit India Movement", and Congress ministries resigned following out break of WW2. One of the source is http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ga-pmgxsWwoC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=resignation+of+congress+ministries+in+1939&source=bl&ots=HjVsCGYcsy&sig=nhWRo6hzU8y__frWH71hOGZwTJY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zR-yUZOvMMiNrQfo6oHAAQ&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=resignation%20of%20congress%20ministries%20in%201939&f=false Ovsek ( talk) 18:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a minor controversy regarding the photos of FDR at these two pages that may be of interest to you. I welcome your input.
THD3 ( talk) 01:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
TCO ( talk) 17:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Please justify removing my sourced edit regarding the death of Thaddeus Stevens' father, and explain what you mean by "skip the OR on the father date of death" (oral recitation???). You revert to an ambiguous sentence that offers nothing to the reader but (apparent) conjecture on the part of biographer Trefousse. Does it really make the article better to leave a 'says nothing' speculative sentence in place when there is clear citable evidence that he DID die at Oswego. Additionally, if the death of the congressman's father is "not relevant to son's bio" why leave the original passage in there at all?! (I disagree, though, that the death of one's parent is irrelevant to his basic character; and Trefousse even notes Thad's 'daddy issues' in his text.) ;) -- Chachap ( talk) 06:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The Party’s 18th Congress put forward eight fundamental requirements that we must persist in to seize the victory of Socialism with Chinese characteristics, they are: persist in the dominant role of the people, persist in liberating and developing social productive forces, persist in moving reform and opening up forward, persist in safeguarding social justice and fairness, persist in marching the path of common prosperity, persist in stimulating social harmony, persist in peaceful development, and persist in the leadership of the Party. These eight fundamental requirements are the most essential things of Socialism. The Chinese Dream truly is the reflection of the essence of Socialism with Chinese characteristics.
- (...)
Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the undertaking of hundreds of millions of people themselves, the Chinese Dream, in the end, is the dream of the people. The Chinese Dream relies on the people, the Chinese Dream is for the sake of the people, the people are the subjects of the Chinese Dream. Socialism ensures that everyone jointly enjoys the opportunity for a splendid human life, jointly enjoys the opportunity to see dreams become reality, and jointly enjoys the opportunity to grow and progress together with the motherland and the times. The country doing well and the nation doing well, is for the sake of everyone doing well.
- (...)
Common prosperity is the fundamental principle of Socialism with Chinese characteristics, and is the most important foundation supporting the Chinese Dream. Poverty is not Socialism, the polarization between rich and poor is also not Socialism, only common prosperity is the essential characteristic and fundamental value objective of Socialism, and is a symbolic content of the Chinese Dream. Realizing the Chinese Dream requires that we persist in and perfect the basic Socialist economic system and distribution system, adjust the distribution structure of citizens’ income, strive to resolve the issue of a relatively large income disparity, and ensure that development results are extended to the whole body of the people more and more fairly, to make steady progress towards common prosperity.
This is from Qiushi... I've referenced it... Everything is China is connected to the state ideology -- TIAYN ( talk) 14:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, I appreciate your help with the AIG article. I will be working on grammar and punctuation clean up on the article. Did you notice /info/en/?search=American_International_Group#Sponsorship is out of context and actually might be extraneous? Any thoughts on just eliminating that sections altogether? It just doesn't seem relevant. Are you open to collaborating on this article together? I like that you have a passion for history. My next interest is to improve the overall history of AIG. Feel free to post on my Talk page. Thanks. Hiland109 ( talk) 18:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Got a quick moment? The edits I made were each followed by a justifiable edit summary. After meticulously reviewing all references in the previous posting, I found many to be non-existent and others to be unverified third-party citations, corrupting the historical integrity of the article. The intent is to make sure the chronology was in order and to correct grammatical errors. In addition, distinguish the financial crisis from the repayment period history of events. Please take a look again at my precise entries and undo your revert. Thanks. Hiland109 ( talk) 17:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In regards to your revert of my edit on United States Navy, The Chairman/vice-chairman while technically outranking the CNO, is not the 'senior officer' in the navy. They are the senior officer in the department of defense . . . thus placing in the article lead that the chairman/vice-chairman outranks the CNO is misleading. This *technical* detail should be somewhere in the body. The lead paragraph should accurately reflect the subject discussed, in this case the CNO being the senior officer of the navy. I would like to know what type of compromise and/or middle ground you think is appropriate in this instance please. EzPz ( talk) 20:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd be grateful for any comments you might have on the article, which I've been working on. Many thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you know anything about the 1859 painting, "Pulling Down the Statue of King George III" [5] or its artist, Johannes Adam Simon Oertel ? There is a discussion at Talk:Liberalism#Recent edit and it is included in the American Revolution and several other articles. [6] My guess is that it has more to do with the politics of when it was painted than with the Revolution. TFD ( talk) 17:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The Minor barnstar | |
I see your edits flashing across my watchlist so often that I decided you deserve this Minor Barnstar in honor of the high number of small/minor fixes you make. Thank you for all your hard work. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 21:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC) |
Yes, I know that the US Military did not use the O-x labels prior to WWII. However, I was trying to separate am ambiguous link to a company grade captain vs a naval captain. I think what I did was entirely appropriate. -- rogerd ( talk) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
What's going on here?
-- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 06:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just removed two texts you added Józef Beck as it seemed a little bit of a Anna Cienciala overload. Happy to be reverted if they are worth including. Rsloch ( talk) 14:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you a question regarding the Reconstruction era. It is my understanding that you are a professional historian. If you don't mind helping me, I am trying to research the violence that occurred during that period in the US. However, I am unable to find a source(s) that provides statistical data, tables, atlases, chart, diagrams, etc. that provides a comprehensive overview of the violence during that period. I routinely encounter anecdotal evidence or stats in a sentence that hints at the level of violence, but never anything comprehensive. I would appreciate your help on this. Thank you.
About a year ago, you listed some of the biases of David Hume: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_Hume&diff=485855543&oldid=485853739. I've read his first volume of English History, and the material you entered seemed overly generous! Anyway, I attempted to amend this recently to include other biases I perceived, not necessarily as well-cited as yours. Not only was my additions reverted, so were yours. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_Hume&diff=563449755&oldid=563427071. While I felt my additions were defensible, I thought yours were even more so.
I strongly suspect that the editor deleting the material was a) annoyed at me personally, and b) has never read Hume. Since you probably have read his material, I thought I would call this to your attention. Student7 ( talk) 23:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! Your recent edits to the Jefferson Davis article have been very good. One small issue that you might be able to help with: this edit restored some text that may well be accurate, but I have yet to find a reference for the part about printing more paper money, so I had reworded that part to omit it. Would you have any works that you could cite for this? The current citation, which I found and added recently, doesn't cover that aspect. It may not be a big deal, but I thought I would ask about it. Hopefully someone will review the article for GA soon; it's in the queue. Omnedon ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I came across the below image via a Google search and traced it to an upload to Wikipedia from your good self. I am a student at The University of Glasgow and have been preparing a paper for publication a paper on the religious influences of Goethe's Das Märchen. Your map would make a very useful appendix to show the extend of German immigration and influence in the early US.
I would be most grateful if you could let me know the source of the map so I can include it in my paper with a proper citation or find it myself to make a better quality scan.
Thank you for your help in this matter. I can be contacted on 1106784r[at]student.gla.ac.uk
Kind regards, Joseph Russo
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.16.106 ( talk) 09:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Your graph does not explain the gap in asset & earnings from 1897-1999. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.255.4 ( talk) 15:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I recommend Hard Tack and Coffee: soldier's life in the Civil War. by John D. Billings, of the Army of the Potomac, originally 1888. Liberally illustrated many aspects of camp life, raw recruits, veterans, clothing, food, tents, unit patches, wagons and mules, signaling, music notation of bugle calls. Henry Steele Commager's blurb called it "One of the most entertaining of all Civil War books." The Konecky & Konecky edition in print has a cover reproduction of Winslow Homer's "Rainy Day in Camp". It is a memoir, social history of the camps mostly. He mentioned that veterans often sported mustaches over the lips in the after-war decades. I wondered about the attraction. In the heat of a march, perspiration drips onto the lips so as to prevent parched cracking, and though saline, it is a salve to the discomfort of thirst. Still have to watch for heat exhaustion on the march. Deep background only, but I thought it worth passing on. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated History of Puerto Rico for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Philpill691 ( talk) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Just because I'm removing most of the brackets you added to the Diplomatic history of World War II article doesn't mean you don't deserve this,
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
for all your work on numerous articles Rsloch ( talk) 09:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC) |
Rather than instantly removing this edit, it would have been nice to work with me in finding more references for the section - since i am quite sure they exist. When i have time i will look them up. Thanks. Fotoriety ( talk) 05:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, the 'Forced Labour' section seems to be about German labour policy not diplomacy. Also can we really say that it was German policy not to use factories in the territory they occupied when they clearly did? Rsloch ( talk) 07:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to give you a chance to revert your blanking of my statement on a TP before reporting you to ANI, which is strictly against the rules unless a true violation occurs. My comment was directed to the anti-American/British statements of the anon IP, which broke civility rules, etc. Telling him about WP:CIVIL and to cut out the bigotry on the TP is completely "okay" - I am English (from Manchester) who is also now an American citizen, and the anon's comments are insulting. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 10:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
at WP:AN3 in reference to your interactions with LesLein, specifically at New Deal.
-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 07:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen, I just wondered, in light of your work at Belgium in World War I, if you might be interested in joining the planned Belgian-task-force at WP:MILHIST? Your attendance would be much appreciated! Brigade Piron ( talk) 10:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
In this edit, you appear to be citing an opinion piece [9] as fact. The original source appears to merely be echoing a message from a freight rail lobby group opposing increased regulation and expansion of high-speed passenger service. This fails WP:RSOPINION as the opinion of one writer is being presented as that of The Economist as an organisation or as encyclopaedic fact. The statement "They also directly contribute tens of billions of dollars each year to the economy through wages, purchases, retirement benefits, and taxes" is also not helpful as it could be made of any business enterprise of comparable size. It's promotional fluff for the industry; it adds nothing to the article. Please do not add this again. K7L ( talk) 16:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
You were quite correct to revert my unsourced edit to Richard J. Evans. I've added the information to The Third Reich Trilogy (with references), where it fits much better. I've just watched your talk at Wikimania 2012 on The War of 1812, and I agree with you about the paucity and quality of good maps and illustrations. Trying to persuade suitably qualified people to contribute better content is an uphill struggle, when they look at some of the low grade stuff and wonder why they should bother fighting to get better stuff in to replace it. Edwardx ( talk) 20:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
We have to keep an eye on this Rwenonah user... not sure if you remember but hes the guy that simply lies about sources. For a refresher see User talk:Ronald Wenonah. It is also concerning that hes been working on History of the United States and Manifest destiny -- Moxy ( talk) 22:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, In case you haven't seen, I've just started a discussion of the emphasis which should be given to the Battle of Midway at Talk:World War II#What stopped the Japanese advance in 1942?. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 00:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Would you be willing to point me toward any neutral scholarly analysis of John A. Marshall's "American Bastille"? The book seems polemical, but appears to contain a fair number of accurately described cases. I noticed that Mark E. Neely, Jr. utilizes Sangston's "The Bastilles of the North" but doesn't mention Marshall's book in the same journal article. Would you weigh in? Would you offer an opinion of your own? Thank you. BusterD ( talk) 02:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Maybe you know that Robt. C. Williams recommends your Web Guides to students in the third edition of his historiography manual, The Historian's Toolbox, p. 188, noting it is "particularly useful for finding American history resources." Cheers! Yopienso ( talk) 16:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Rejensen,
I noticed you made a revision in the Southern United States article and, in the "reason for edit" box, labeled it as being "back" to a version pegged as one of mine. It involved gun-death stats. Personally, I have no problem with either the original deletion or your reversal, however, I want to note for the record that the one you reverted back to was not of my coinage. Someone else must have put that in. I never contributed to that particular sub-section.
Thanks,
TexasReb ( talk) 18:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Texasreb
Good morning! At Benjamin Disraeli I have removed the ODNB ref from "the further reading" as it is already listed as a source in the references (refs 41 a to h). But I take your point about its value as a source accessible to multitudes. I'm loth to have a duplicate link (which would almost certainly be shot down at FAC) and I wonder if you have any suggestions for making it more prominent? Regards. Tim riley ( talk) 10:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest destiny#Removal of Stanley reference. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Trying out reach out and say hello. I am grad student at CSU in CO.
What is the next and best way to connect with you?
Kevin.buecher@gmail.com
Trying out reach out and say hello. I am grad student at CSU in CO.
What is the next and best way to connect with you?
Kevin.buecher@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinbuecher ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
While I agree with this reversion [10], remarking that it was made by a 93 year old was a bit ..... – S. Rich ( talk) 23:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
According to [11], you are one of the main contributors to this article. I am done with my rewrite of it, and I'd like to submit it to GAN in the near future. Any comments and edits would be much appreciated, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, Wikipedia instantly lets you know when edits are reverted. Anyway, I know that the worst atrocities ended with the start of the Belgian Congo, but that isn't relevant? The point being made is that the Western world downplayed the Congo Free State's historical atrocities after the "Rape of Belgium". I suppose I can rephrase "Belgium's own atrocities" as just "the atrocities" but I wouldn't exactly call the previous wording unfair; both states had the same King, the administrators of the Congo Free State were mostly Belgians appointed by the King, much of the production of the Congo went to Belgian ports, etc. I consider this far more relevant than the preexisting "Winder says that Britian did bad things too elsewhere" comment in the article, which is just pointless; the fact that people agreed to "forget" about the problems of the Congo Free State after 1914, regardless of who exactly ran it, is a relevant point to bring up (well, at least according to Hochschild). SnowFire ( talk) 02:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
In the article added to the lede a sentence which begins with "Bottom it was a cultural conflict, as the conservative Europeans were specs stated..." I can't find a copy of the source you used so I was wondering if you could clarify if "bottom" is a typo, and what is meant by specs? - Aoidh ( talk) 12:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, your POV pushing is harming the neutrality of the article. You have a clear anti-union POV. I've already warned you about misrepresenting a source. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 09:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
see previous talk at Archive 19
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
I just watched your fantastic 7/13/12 Wikimania talk, and you've inspired me to contribute. Thanks, and keep up the great work! Scewing ( talk) 01:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
If you would like to bring an article on a physicist to featured, have a go at Arthur Compton. Thanks. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 06:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Conservatism in the United State". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, your edit was right, the Colonial era section was miscategorized. The book by Jane Porter was mentioned in the Pula article as part of the positive depictions of Polish Americans. I understand she was Scottish, not American, but the positive reflection of Poland that came from Kosciuszko's role in the war was notable - and was demonstrated in the book. I am still working on the section on the 1960s and 70s, so please check in and we can talk about it if you like. Pola.mola ( talk) 21:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, why did you revert my edit? References to “Britain”, ”Great Britain”, etc., after the Acts of Union 1800 are anachronistic, as Great Britain had been united with Ireland to form the United Kingdom. During the 1830s and 1840s, the period covered in this article, “Great Britain” was not a political entity; the United Kingdom was; the diplomats and officials represented the United Kingdom and not Great Britain. Benjamin M. A'Lee ( talk) 12:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I read this Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States#cite_note-21 and I wonder if it is you who wrote the table named "U.S. historical populations". In the row regarding Sweden I read that there were 2000 Swedes in the USA in 1790. I tried to find the same data on the ICPSR page but I can't. The only thing I know is that in the 1790 census there wasn't any question about place of birth or ancestry. How did you find that number? Can you help me? I am writing a dissertation and I need reliable sources. Thanks. Stefania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.157.26 ( talk) 11:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
First to understand a little more the perspective of those Canadians. Now I understand why they get so fired up. But also things like the comment about 6 year old research work. Nice insights and well presented. TCO ( talk) 01:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Bad timing, I guess, but just a couple minutes ago, I went and looked at the Declaration article. Was unhappy to see Kevin turned off of it. He is a top notch historian and I felt I had gotten him a little re-interested in the Wiki, when I pushed it to GA (not doing any work, just tossing it in there). Maybe that he would FA the article eventually. Unless you are going to brush that article up (basically own it), I wonder if there might be some way, you can disengage and give it back to him. I don't think him walking away from it is the best thing for the readers. And I'm just a civilian, not a historian, but I find the prominent use of "nation" creation for the 1776 work to be jarring. Heck, the Articles and even the experience of the War (most of it) had not happened yet in 1776. Let alone the Constitution, which created the actual legal structure for the nation. TCO ( talk) 02:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
it was nazi germany's motto but dianna wrongfully removed, what is your opinion need a third party view in the Talk:Nazi_Germany#Motto Peterzor ( talk) 08:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen. I indirectly mentioned you at WP:ANI, as I posted a diff from your talk page in a discussion thread there. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal Attack by Peterzor. Best, -- Dianna ( talk) 21:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Nazi Germany". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I read this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States and I would like to know if you wrote it. I am interested in the numbers of the table called "U.S. Historical Populations". I read that there were 2000 Swedes in 1790 but I know that the census did not contain any information regarding place of birth or ancestry, at that time. I see that the source is the ICPRS in Ann Arbor, but unfortunately that kind of data is not available for me (I wrote them in order to know if it was possible to consult that database). Since I am writing a dissertation about the Swedish emigration to the USA I am interested in quoting that number and I am asking you if you can help me with the original source. Do you know exactly from where that numbers come? Thanks, Stefania Stefaniaf ( talk) 12:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I found that pic in Wikimedia Commons, and the picture purports to be of several children standing with a Grand Dragon. The short height of the people with the Dragon lends credence to the claim that they are children. I will put the pic back, and remove the reference to children. Readers can look at the picture and judge for themselves OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 22:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This act did not provide free milk, the 1946 Milk Act did. The Telegraph article even states this- why did you use that as a reference? Please delete any mention of it in the article as it is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.90.93 ( talk) 18:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This is Breeze009 I undid your deletion of my addition to the Indentured servant page. I added more than ample documentation as you will see by the extensive footnotes and citations. Before you delete something you might want to look something up on it. This is actually a well-studied line of scholarship, if you'd bother to check. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not correct. I was planning on adding the citations but couldn't get to it until today. Now I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breeze009 ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I see you have removed all the changes I made to the page on Andrew Bonar Law because I should "Keep details based on scholarly secondary sources; drop original research not based on secondary sources". With all due respect, surely PRIMARY source such as census returns and contemporary newspaper reports are more reliable than family gossip and legend? Printing those in a book does NOT make them true, and a book which is produced without checking the most basic and readily available genealogical sources is instantly, in my view, unworthy of the adjective 'scholarly'.
I am also extremely disappointed that you did not make those comments in the two weeks after I proposed the changes on the Talk page, so that we could have a sensible discussion. Instead, you waited until I had gone to the trouble and effort of making the changes to the main page and then, without having the courtesy to discuss with me, you simply reversed them en masse.
Are you interested in establishing the correct facts? Or merely in preserving the status quo? I would have expected better from a historian with your credentials!
Sunapics ( talk) 18:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
you tried to restore the nazi motto "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer", can i ask you respecfully why you forgot about the issue? 95.199.24.89 ( talk) 07:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I am WORKING ON ADDING VERIFIABLE RELIABLE SOURCES FOR DISCUSSION.
It is not a "BLP Violation" when there are mainstream news sources covering the issue. Please stop pretending otherwise. I also note that the article has been tainted by Conflict Of Interest issues as Schlafly's son has been editing it: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3APhyllis_Schlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=558569883&oldid=558146339
I am the one following the rules, you are the one lying and refusing to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.208.198 ( talk) 14:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Please add another section about "Quit India Movement", and Congress ministries resigned following out break of WW2. One of the source is http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ga-pmgxsWwoC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=resignation+of+congress+ministries+in+1939&source=bl&ots=HjVsCGYcsy&sig=nhWRo6hzU8y__frWH71hOGZwTJY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zR-yUZOvMMiNrQfo6oHAAQ&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=resignation%20of%20congress%20ministries%20in%201939&f=false Ovsek ( talk) 18:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a minor controversy regarding the photos of FDR at these two pages that may be of interest to you. I welcome your input.
THD3 ( talk) 01:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
TCO ( talk) 17:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Please justify removing my sourced edit regarding the death of Thaddeus Stevens' father, and explain what you mean by "skip the OR on the father date of death" (oral recitation???). You revert to an ambiguous sentence that offers nothing to the reader but (apparent) conjecture on the part of biographer Trefousse. Does it really make the article better to leave a 'says nothing' speculative sentence in place when there is clear citable evidence that he DID die at Oswego. Additionally, if the death of the congressman's father is "not relevant to son's bio" why leave the original passage in there at all?! (I disagree, though, that the death of one's parent is irrelevant to his basic character; and Trefousse even notes Thad's 'daddy issues' in his text.) ;) -- Chachap ( talk) 06:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The Party’s 18th Congress put forward eight fundamental requirements that we must persist in to seize the victory of Socialism with Chinese characteristics, they are: persist in the dominant role of the people, persist in liberating and developing social productive forces, persist in moving reform and opening up forward, persist in safeguarding social justice and fairness, persist in marching the path of common prosperity, persist in stimulating social harmony, persist in peaceful development, and persist in the leadership of the Party. These eight fundamental requirements are the most essential things of Socialism. The Chinese Dream truly is the reflection of the essence of Socialism with Chinese characteristics.
- (...)
Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the undertaking of hundreds of millions of people themselves, the Chinese Dream, in the end, is the dream of the people. The Chinese Dream relies on the people, the Chinese Dream is for the sake of the people, the people are the subjects of the Chinese Dream. Socialism ensures that everyone jointly enjoys the opportunity for a splendid human life, jointly enjoys the opportunity to see dreams become reality, and jointly enjoys the opportunity to grow and progress together with the motherland and the times. The country doing well and the nation doing well, is for the sake of everyone doing well.
- (...)
Common prosperity is the fundamental principle of Socialism with Chinese characteristics, and is the most important foundation supporting the Chinese Dream. Poverty is not Socialism, the polarization between rich and poor is also not Socialism, only common prosperity is the essential characteristic and fundamental value objective of Socialism, and is a symbolic content of the Chinese Dream. Realizing the Chinese Dream requires that we persist in and perfect the basic Socialist economic system and distribution system, adjust the distribution structure of citizens’ income, strive to resolve the issue of a relatively large income disparity, and ensure that development results are extended to the whole body of the people more and more fairly, to make steady progress towards common prosperity.
This is from Qiushi... I've referenced it... Everything is China is connected to the state ideology -- TIAYN ( talk) 14:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, I appreciate your help with the AIG article. I will be working on grammar and punctuation clean up on the article. Did you notice /info/en/?search=American_International_Group#Sponsorship is out of context and actually might be extraneous? Any thoughts on just eliminating that sections altogether? It just doesn't seem relevant. Are you open to collaborating on this article together? I like that you have a passion for history. My next interest is to improve the overall history of AIG. Feel free to post on my Talk page. Thanks. Hiland109 ( talk) 18:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Got a quick moment? The edits I made were each followed by a justifiable edit summary. After meticulously reviewing all references in the previous posting, I found many to be non-existent and others to be unverified third-party citations, corrupting the historical integrity of the article. The intent is to make sure the chronology was in order and to correct grammatical errors. In addition, distinguish the financial crisis from the repayment period history of events. Please take a look again at my precise entries and undo your revert. Thanks. Hiland109 ( talk) 17:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In regards to your revert of my edit on United States Navy, The Chairman/vice-chairman while technically outranking the CNO, is not the 'senior officer' in the navy. They are the senior officer in the department of defense . . . thus placing in the article lead that the chairman/vice-chairman outranks the CNO is misleading. This *technical* detail should be somewhere in the body. The lead paragraph should accurately reflect the subject discussed, in this case the CNO being the senior officer of the navy. I would like to know what type of compromise and/or middle ground you think is appropriate in this instance please. EzPz ( talk) 20:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd be grateful for any comments you might have on the article, which I've been working on. Many thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you know anything about the 1859 painting, "Pulling Down the Statue of King George III" [5] or its artist, Johannes Adam Simon Oertel ? There is a discussion at Talk:Liberalism#Recent edit and it is included in the American Revolution and several other articles. [6] My guess is that it has more to do with the politics of when it was painted than with the Revolution. TFD ( talk) 17:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The Minor barnstar | |
I see your edits flashing across my watchlist so often that I decided you deserve this Minor Barnstar in honor of the high number of small/minor fixes you make. Thank you for all your hard work. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 21:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC) |
Yes, I know that the US Military did not use the O-x labels prior to WWII. However, I was trying to separate am ambiguous link to a company grade captain vs a naval captain. I think what I did was entirely appropriate. -- rogerd ( talk) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
What's going on here?
-- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 06:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just removed two texts you added Józef Beck as it seemed a little bit of a Anna Cienciala overload. Happy to be reverted if they are worth including. Rsloch ( talk) 14:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you a question regarding the Reconstruction era. It is my understanding that you are a professional historian. If you don't mind helping me, I am trying to research the violence that occurred during that period in the US. However, I am unable to find a source(s) that provides statistical data, tables, atlases, chart, diagrams, etc. that provides a comprehensive overview of the violence during that period. I routinely encounter anecdotal evidence or stats in a sentence that hints at the level of violence, but never anything comprehensive. I would appreciate your help on this. Thank you.
About a year ago, you listed some of the biases of David Hume: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_Hume&diff=485855543&oldid=485853739. I've read his first volume of English History, and the material you entered seemed overly generous! Anyway, I attempted to amend this recently to include other biases I perceived, not necessarily as well-cited as yours. Not only was my additions reverted, so were yours. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_Hume&diff=563449755&oldid=563427071. While I felt my additions were defensible, I thought yours were even more so.
I strongly suspect that the editor deleting the material was a) annoyed at me personally, and b) has never read Hume. Since you probably have read his material, I thought I would call this to your attention. Student7 ( talk) 23:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! Your recent edits to the Jefferson Davis article have been very good. One small issue that you might be able to help with: this edit restored some text that may well be accurate, but I have yet to find a reference for the part about printing more paper money, so I had reworded that part to omit it. Would you have any works that you could cite for this? The current citation, which I found and added recently, doesn't cover that aspect. It may not be a big deal, but I thought I would ask about it. Hopefully someone will review the article for GA soon; it's in the queue. Omnedon ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I came across the below image via a Google search and traced it to an upload to Wikipedia from your good self. I am a student at The University of Glasgow and have been preparing a paper for publication a paper on the religious influences of Goethe's Das Märchen. Your map would make a very useful appendix to show the extend of German immigration and influence in the early US.
I would be most grateful if you could let me know the source of the map so I can include it in my paper with a proper citation or find it myself to make a better quality scan.
Thank you for your help in this matter. I can be contacted on 1106784r[at]student.gla.ac.uk
Kind regards, Joseph Russo
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.16.106 ( talk) 09:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Your graph does not explain the gap in asset & earnings from 1897-1999. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.255.4 ( talk) 15:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I recommend Hard Tack and Coffee: soldier's life in the Civil War. by John D. Billings, of the Army of the Potomac, originally 1888. Liberally illustrated many aspects of camp life, raw recruits, veterans, clothing, food, tents, unit patches, wagons and mules, signaling, music notation of bugle calls. Henry Steele Commager's blurb called it "One of the most entertaining of all Civil War books." The Konecky & Konecky edition in print has a cover reproduction of Winslow Homer's "Rainy Day in Camp". It is a memoir, social history of the camps mostly. He mentioned that veterans often sported mustaches over the lips in the after-war decades. I wondered about the attraction. In the heat of a march, perspiration drips onto the lips so as to prevent parched cracking, and though saline, it is a salve to the discomfort of thirst. Still have to watch for heat exhaustion on the march. Deep background only, but I thought it worth passing on. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated History of Puerto Rico for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Philpill691 ( talk) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Just because I'm removing most of the brackets you added to the Diplomatic history of World War II article doesn't mean you don't deserve this,
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
for all your work on numerous articles Rsloch ( talk) 09:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC) |
Rather than instantly removing this edit, it would have been nice to work with me in finding more references for the section - since i am quite sure they exist. When i have time i will look them up. Thanks. Fotoriety ( talk) 05:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, the 'Forced Labour' section seems to be about German labour policy not diplomacy. Also can we really say that it was German policy not to use factories in the territory they occupied when they clearly did? Rsloch ( talk) 07:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to give you a chance to revert your blanking of my statement on a TP before reporting you to ANI, which is strictly against the rules unless a true violation occurs. My comment was directed to the anti-American/British statements of the anon IP, which broke civility rules, etc. Telling him about WP:CIVIL and to cut out the bigotry on the TP is completely "okay" - I am English (from Manchester) who is also now an American citizen, and the anon's comments are insulting. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 10:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
at WP:AN3 in reference to your interactions with LesLein, specifically at New Deal.
-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 07:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen, I just wondered, in light of your work at Belgium in World War I, if you might be interested in joining the planned Belgian-task-force at WP:MILHIST? Your attendance would be much appreciated! Brigade Piron ( talk) 10:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
In this edit, you appear to be citing an opinion piece [9] as fact. The original source appears to merely be echoing a message from a freight rail lobby group opposing increased regulation and expansion of high-speed passenger service. This fails WP:RSOPINION as the opinion of one writer is being presented as that of The Economist as an organisation or as encyclopaedic fact. The statement "They also directly contribute tens of billions of dollars each year to the economy through wages, purchases, retirement benefits, and taxes" is also not helpful as it could be made of any business enterprise of comparable size. It's promotional fluff for the industry; it adds nothing to the article. Please do not add this again. K7L ( talk) 16:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
You were quite correct to revert my unsourced edit to Richard J. Evans. I've added the information to The Third Reich Trilogy (with references), where it fits much better. I've just watched your talk at Wikimania 2012 on The War of 1812, and I agree with you about the paucity and quality of good maps and illustrations. Trying to persuade suitably qualified people to contribute better content is an uphill struggle, when they look at some of the low grade stuff and wonder why they should bother fighting to get better stuff in to replace it. Edwardx ( talk) 20:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
We have to keep an eye on this Rwenonah user... not sure if you remember but hes the guy that simply lies about sources. For a refresher see User talk:Ronald Wenonah. It is also concerning that hes been working on History of the United States and Manifest destiny -- Moxy ( talk) 22:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, In case you haven't seen, I've just started a discussion of the emphasis which should be given to the Battle of Midway at Talk:World War II#What stopped the Japanese advance in 1942?. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 00:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Would you be willing to point me toward any neutral scholarly analysis of John A. Marshall's "American Bastille"? The book seems polemical, but appears to contain a fair number of accurately described cases. I noticed that Mark E. Neely, Jr. utilizes Sangston's "The Bastilles of the North" but doesn't mention Marshall's book in the same journal article. Would you weigh in? Would you offer an opinion of your own? Thank you. BusterD ( talk) 02:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Maybe you know that Robt. C. Williams recommends your Web Guides to students in the third edition of his historiography manual, The Historian's Toolbox, p. 188, noting it is "particularly useful for finding American history resources." Cheers! Yopienso ( talk) 16:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Rejensen,
I noticed you made a revision in the Southern United States article and, in the "reason for edit" box, labeled it as being "back" to a version pegged as one of mine. It involved gun-death stats. Personally, I have no problem with either the original deletion or your reversal, however, I want to note for the record that the one you reverted back to was not of my coinage. Someone else must have put that in. I never contributed to that particular sub-section.
Thanks,
TexasReb ( talk) 18:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Texasreb
Good morning! At Benjamin Disraeli I have removed the ODNB ref from "the further reading" as it is already listed as a source in the references (refs 41 a to h). But I take your point about its value as a source accessible to multitudes. I'm loth to have a duplicate link (which would almost certainly be shot down at FAC) and I wonder if you have any suggestions for making it more prominent? Regards. Tim riley ( talk) 10:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest destiny#Removal of Stanley reference. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Trying out reach out and say hello. I am grad student at CSU in CO.
What is the next and best way to connect with you?
Kevin.buecher@gmail.com
Trying out reach out and say hello. I am grad student at CSU in CO.
What is the next and best way to connect with you?
Kevin.buecher@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinbuecher ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
While I agree with this reversion [10], remarking that it was made by a 93 year old was a bit ..... – S. Rich ( talk) 23:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
According to [11], you are one of the main contributors to this article. I am done with my rewrite of it, and I'd like to submit it to GAN in the near future. Any comments and edits would be much appreciated, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, Wikipedia instantly lets you know when edits are reverted. Anyway, I know that the worst atrocities ended with the start of the Belgian Congo, but that isn't relevant? The point being made is that the Western world downplayed the Congo Free State's historical atrocities after the "Rape of Belgium". I suppose I can rephrase "Belgium's own atrocities" as just "the atrocities" but I wouldn't exactly call the previous wording unfair; both states had the same King, the administrators of the Congo Free State were mostly Belgians appointed by the King, much of the production of the Congo went to Belgian ports, etc. I consider this far more relevant than the preexisting "Winder says that Britian did bad things too elsewhere" comment in the article, which is just pointless; the fact that people agreed to "forget" about the problems of the Congo Free State after 1914, regardless of who exactly ran it, is a relevant point to bring up (well, at least according to Hochschild). SnowFire ( talk) 02:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
In the article added to the lede a sentence which begins with "Bottom it was a cultural conflict, as the conservative Europeans were specs stated..." I can't find a copy of the source you used so I was wondering if you could clarify if "bottom" is a typo, and what is meant by specs? - Aoidh ( talk) 12:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, your POV pushing is harming the neutrality of the article. You have a clear anti-union POV. I've already warned you about misrepresenting a source. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 09:18, 25 September 2013 (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. |