the article on tariffs must be based on Reliable Secondary Sources (RS) AND it must be about tariffs. The passage about antitrust law does not mention tariffs at all. Rjensen ( talk) 07:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edit to the Jefferson Davis article. However, much of what you added to the opening paragraph is already covered later in the lead. In particular, Davis' performance as president is already criticized sufficiently in the lead; this duplication seems to give excessive weight to that area. Is there anything you feel belongs in the lead but is not already present? Omnedon ( talk) 02:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thatns for your insights. The lede is in two parts--an opening summary (like a headline) and the full lead. Lots of people just read the opening to get the main points in a nutshell. Rjensen ( talk) 02:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I entirely agree... It is a summary of the article, only a few paragraphs long. There aren't really two sections to it, IMHO. In any case, though, duplication shouldn't occur. Omnedon ( talk) 02:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Davis, not about his presidency. The lead summarized the article in the same order as the article. Now it no longer matches... I am trying to get this article up to FA and have five supports after extensive review. Why do you feel the criticism portion must be first in a general article about his life? Omnedon ( talk) 02:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The lede has to say why Davis is important -- that is why people read it. His presidency was a failure in the views of all RS. There is no FA requirement about chronological order, because it scrambles the importance of history. Rjensen ( talk) 02:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

But the lead does say that. It makes it very clear. A chronological lead scrambles nothing. This is about the person, not his role as president specifically. It is still best to have the lead match the body in terms of order. I did not say it was a FA requirement. Omnedon ( talk) 03:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

students will remember what you tell them first, which should be the important issues. Rjensen ( talk) 03:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead is only 4 paragraphs long -- or it was, which is the recommended maximum, until your edits bumped it to 5 and introduced direct duplication between the first and second sentences of the article. It is a concise summary of the article, and is easily read; there is no need to diverge from the order that it was in, especially since it went through a GA review, a peer review, and has received detailed FA review, and no one has ever suggested this. Particularly since it is currently being considered for FA, this is not the time to make large changes like reorganizing the lead, especially when that has been questioned.

I've corrected some minor errors you introduced into the article, and will fix a reference issue in which you provide an inline citation to the same book twice; this probably calls for use of a short citation instead. I'd really appreciate your cooperation on this; thanks. I do appreciate your efforts. Omnedon ( talk) 13:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

In looking at this further I think I have found a compromise. I believe I understand your goal here, and hopefully the current lead will satisfy that. The opening paragraph is about his Civil War role. Thanks. Omnedon ( talk) 23:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

When to a very nice conference recently about WW1 at the Canadian War museum and Tim Cook was one of the speakers. I had not heard of this young man till you posted a few of his books at Bibliography of Canadian military history. Hes a wonderful articulate young man (in his 40s) so this fact led me to read Tim Cook (2011). No Place to Run: The Canadian Corps and Gas Warfare in the First World War. UBC Press. ISBN  978-0-7748-4180-1. and to my surprise his enthusiasm that was seen at the conference comes out in his writing. Have you read any of his works? what do you think of them? Was going to cite his work for many things. -- Moxy ( talk) 05:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks...I have a high regard for Cook (I never met him). His reviews are +++ and I liked the Madman And The Butcher Rjensen ( talk) 06:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you intend your rollback at WT:Manual of Style/Biographies? Johnuniq ( talk) 22:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

May I ask why you have reverted my edits to the above page, with a purely automatically generated edit summary and no explanation to me of what is problematic about my question? Paul B ( talk) 22:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've restored my section, since I'm guessing that it was deleted because it began with the word "Hi" (a common prelude to vandalism/test edits). I normally don't start discussion sections that way. I guess I did so because I've never edited that page before, and wasn't sure if I was in the right place - rather like walking into a room full of strangers. Paul B ( talk) 22:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

yes that was the reason--my apologies. Rjensen ( talk) 04:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have replied to you at Talk:Stephen_Harper#World_View - M.Nelson ( talk) 00:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I started a discussion on Grant's presidential reputation in the discussion page. I don't want to keep reverting edits. I hope we can resolve this issue through discussion. I would state the destruction of the Ku Klux Klan was a success, including the fair election of 1872 for African Americans. Indian Wars decreased under President Grant as Brands states. I would call that successful. Grant's Apache reservation was also a success and still in operation today. I am open to opinions. If Grant was a failure as President then what is the definition for success? I hope we can continue conversation on the discussion page. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 07:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice start of an article.As of the moment: -comparison of GDP of both sides could be useful-I remember seeing it in a couple of publications. From the start Entente had huge advantage in GDP and population. -use of forced labor by German Empire should be mentioned. Just a thought. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

good idea...I will look for data....eg from Maddison. Rjensen ( talk) 01:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Here [1], it has a lot of GDP info, tables comparing population and gdp, as well as analysis. Would add it myself, but unfortunately I am too busy in real life. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

yes thanks! Rjensen ( talk) 12:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This paper [2] might also be of interest.  Volunteer Marek  12:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

yes it is of interest -- thanks! Rjensen ( talk) 12:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what others think - but the article has huge chunks of content removed and along with all the sources there. Yet sections link "Finance" have still no sources. The article has been dumbed down a bit that is a good idea i guess but overall the changes i do not believe were all that positive. What do you think of the changes over the past few months? -- Moxy ( talk) 20:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the sourcing still needs work. Overall it is VERY long but it does a good job in terms of thorough coverage of all the major issues of one of the most studies big events in history. Rjensen ( talk) 01:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of rhetoric flying about the importance of the Dixiecrats and their migration to the Republican party. Some sites claim that the majority entered the Republicans while others call it a myth. The article has had all notable Dixiecrats removed and the three that actually switched party are not named. I would like to see the notables returned to the article, the total numbers of Dixiecrats mentioned, the number that stayed in office and in which party they ended up. 21 of these men were US senators and 4 Governors of states, all offices which meet the level of notable inclusion to the article or to another article List of Dixiecrats.

To give you an idea of the debate I am seeing here is the left view "But the Dixiecrats weren’t ready to migrate en masse to Party of Lincoln just yet." implying that they eventually did migrate enmasse, or Chicago Tribunes claim "But many of those same conservative southern Democrats turned Republican" and the rights view "As the legend goes, those Dixiecrats who broke from the Democrat party in 1948 all joined the Republican Party (Click names to see the articles by Roland Martin and Clarence Page)." or "The Democrats’ own website, to this day, attempts to take fraudulently credit for the civil rights movement and legislation, and when called on it, the recitation is the same: “we’ve grown” and “don’t forget about the Dixiecrats”." which includes a Malcom X clip pointing out the Dixiecrats were still very much a problem for Black America by the 18 of 67 Democrats that still remained in the Senate. (the clip is at the bottom of the opinion piece).

I bring this to you because you are the editor that deleted all references to the notables in the past edits here and here. I think the given reason was a lack of source and currently this is the only one I can find that isn't just a relink back to the older Wikipedia article. You have access to a better selection of source material on the Dixiecrats at hand that has a single entry comprehensive list? The signatories in their Platform was by no means inclusive but maybe there must be a roll call vote or meeting minutes? If need be a link to each senators source that describe them as Dixiecrats can be used.

Here's a little interview I found while source hunting: "Nelson Polsby Interview" Alatari ( talk) 21:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"Dixiecrat" can #1 mean the 1948 group, or #2 it is sometimes loosely used (Polsby) to refer to ALL conservative Southern most of whom had nothing to do with the 1948 episode. Note that in the sources mentioned, NO NAMES are given so that suggests they are using sense #2. Historians are agreed that the actual exodus of state and local Democrats to the GOP began very slowly in 1964 (Thurmond) and only became important in the Reagan-Bush era some four decades after the Dixicrat Movement disbanded. Rjensen ( talk) 01:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. It seems that Dixiecrat is replaced the old term Boll weevil Democrat. It can also mean the 6,000 to 10,000 members (or more) of the people who went to the conventions and worked for the new party and maybe even signed a paper saying they were official party members. So in these political debates when someone says most Dixiecrats rejoined the Democratic party are they talking about individual party members or politicians who held office and were members of the Dixiecrat party (1948) or maybe even just Southern Democrats or members of the later 1960, 1964, 1968 third party attempts.

I'm looking for roll calls or other information that place elected officials at the Dixiecrat convention and supporting members of the 1948 party. Robert Byrd was supposed to have been at the convention and part of that party and it's odd that it is not mentioned in his article or the Dixiecrat article. Did you remove the section here with Stennis and Russel because you could not find sourcing? Alatari ( talk) 06:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who has followed up the post 1948 roles of the Dixiecrat leadership below the 5 or 10 top men. As for the voters, that is VERY hard to do because most of them simply voted the straight Dem ticket in 1948 as they always did. Rjensen ( talk) 07:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see Want to be a guinea pig for Flow?. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you might provide a source for your remark made with no edit summary or source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 ( talk) 09:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I did comment on the talk page. the issue was the slave TRADE and Britain was in the lead. Rjensen ( talk) 09:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Advantages.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: My objection to the recent edit made to United States Coast Guard Academy? is not to the content but to the appearance of link spam in that the same unregistered editor added several links to that webpage in different articles; the links were of varying quality with this particular edit being the most substantive and useful. The information is good but we need to ensure that the source is reliable and of sufficient quality (and is not in our articles merely to boost its reputation or visibility). A quick search of the institution's website didn't turn up a good accreditation link so I don't have an alternative to offer right now. ElKevbo ( talk) 16:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought that was useful and correct info on the Coast Guard Academy so I restored it. Prospective faculty, students & employers pay attention to the accreditation status of a school, and rightly so. Rjensen ( talk) 16:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Wiki policies per Reliable Sources are ok with adding a source published by an university and a scholar(unless it is very controversial),as I did in Axis page. If you believe the sources is not reliable direct it to RSN. Have a good day. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the excerpt from source used did not discuss Nazi Germany policy or mention Hitler's favorable view of Poland in 1934 or 1938. Rjensen ( talk) 13:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler never had favorable views towards Poland as his earlier statements show. Certainly in 1938 when Germany started creating lists of people to execute in Poland it wasn't favorable. I take it that you now don't dispute that this isn't a reliable source btw.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not what the leading biographers say. They don't use snippets from old speeches they use in-depth study of major policy moves . Hitler rejects the foreign office hostility in 1934 and forced through a pact, and tried to get another one in 1938. Read JKershaw for example: Ian Kershaw (2000). Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris. p. 160, 543-44. Rjensen ( talk) 13:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Polish historians have more in depth and extensive works about Nazi relations with Poland than Kershaw Rjensen. Out of curiosity-have you read some of them? And of course Hitler never wanted a pact with Poland, but annexation of its territory and making it a puppet state by cutting of the main trade route of Polish state. Anyway since you don't dispute now that this isn't a reliable source, I see no reason not to restore it. Wikipedia can't depend on western sources alone, especially when non-western ones offer much more detail and information on this issue.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the English language Wiki so the evidence must be available to the readers or it is useless. If you use Polish language items you need to translate the relevant details (in a footnote) so people can verify your reading and compare it with standard sources. In this case we need to see what the Polish author said about 1934 and 1938 negotiations. Statements like "And of course Hitler never wanted a pact with Poland" are pretty controversial. (He made pacts with Poland, Britain and USSR) Rjensen ( talk) 14:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If translation is needed it will be provided. As to Kershaw-what does he write about Nazi Germany arming paramilitary groups in Poland in 1935? Or about execution lists being prepared in 1938 ? I don't recall him mentioning it, but maybe I forgot. "In this case we need to see what the Polish author said about 1934 and 1938 negotiations" Sure thing, but I see no reason why we should conceal what Hitler stated earlier, as the basic program of NSDAP, including its foreign policy was formulated in 1920(and yes alliance with Soviets was contemplated even back then)-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No it's not true that all the Nazi basic programs were formulated by 1920. Rjensen ( talk) 14:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen-just a question(I know I asked it before),what does Kershaw write about Nazi Germany arming paramilitary groups in Poland in 1935? Or about Polish execution lists being prepared by Nazis in 1938 ? I don't have him at hand at the moment, and you seem to know him well.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Kershaw & R Evans are two of the leading British scholars on Hitler. Their books get very good international reviews and get translated. As for hit lists--the Nazis made up war plans for every country on who they would arrest. Hitler did not make the lists. As for Kershaw, he has 91 pages dealing with Poland (in volume 2 and also 18pp in vol 1 at http://books.google.com/books?id=nV-N10gyoFwC&pg=PA543&dq=Poland+inauthor:kershaw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kBGSUpHsJI61qAH7sYGoCQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Poland%20inauthor%3Akershaw&f=false) -- you can easily read many of them at this link See for example this page and pp 159-60 and 190. Rjensen ( talk) 14:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Kershaw & R Evans are two of the leading British scholars on Hitler", oh I know who they are. I don't see why should we limit ourselves to British or even western sources, especially considering the well deficiency of Western historiography on Nazi policies and actions in the East such as Wehrmacht rapes, or atrocities in Poland 1939 or Soviet Union(the latter which only recently was slightly better researched)."Hitler did not make the lists", a very strange argument, considering he was the leader of a totalitarian state.But anyway, I see that you haven't really answered my question.Kershaw doesn't mention these things does he? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The German, British and American historians agree that Hitler wanted positive relations with Poland until March or April 1939. The wisecrack about "well deficiency" is not based on any scholarship. The NPOV rules are that all serious scholarship has to be considered, but from Poland we are given mere one-sentence summaries or paraphrases, or one-line quotes from decades before--so please do the translations (in a footnote) to demonstrate the argument. Hitler made the decision to favor or invade or postpone re Poland/France/Spain/Italy/USSR/ Britain/Hungary/etc etc etc. and during the war he did become very involved in the daily movements of his armies. But no, he did not make up lists of the names of tens of thousands of Polish priests, professors or politicians. In early 1939 Hitler said there were "solid common factors" for working out a deal with Poland--and one was discussed by Beck that fell apart in the end. See Fest biography of Hitler Rjensen ( talk) 15:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The German, British and American historians agree that Hitler wanted positive relations with Poland until March or April 1939 First of all, no, they do not, although I do am well aware that it is your opinion that you advocate on Wikipedia. Second of all if he wanted positive relations with Poland "until March 1939" then why did he call Poles murderous bandits whose state should be destroyed in 1920? Third of all, if he wanted positive relations he could easily call off demands to annex Polish territory linking it to the sea. Sorry Rjensen, your argument is completely baseless when you look at the facts. Anyway, I am back to editing, I doubt I can change your POV. Have a good day. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler did not demand to annex Polish territory. (He wanted a closed rail line thru the Corridor to Danzig. As for 1938-39, Hitler said Poland and Germany had enough in common to be allies, especially after Warsaw supported Berlin in the Munich crisis & alienated Britain & France. Hitler wanted an ally in the East and approached Poland. Poland said no so he turned to the USSR. Rjensen ( talk) 17:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Hitler did not demand to annex Polish territory. (He wanted a closed rail line thru the Corridor"-you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen,

I thought I'd leave this here, the Education Noticeboard being pretty swamped. I think WikiProject National Register of Historic Places would be an ideal on-wiki partner for an effort like you've described. The scope for articles to be created is very clear, and they have a huge number of enthusiastically-created stubs that have infoboxes, categories, etc. but little to no actual content. I think they'd be overjoyed to be connected with local historians. The main issue I can see arising is use of sources and original research; the locals would probably be working with a lot of primary sources, possibly not well cataloged, and are probably used to citations like "Old Resident, pers. comm.", so policy in that line would need to be squared away before they ran into trouble. But I think that would be largely positive for us. Choess ( talk) 14:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--yes it is an excellent fit. The local specialists have access to lots of published material (like local books, pamphlets, newspaper clippings) that qualify as reliable sources, so it's a matter of explaining the rules. They have a long-term interest in their topics and will not go away when the semester ends as happens to 99% of the undergraduates we deal with), Rjensen ( talk) 16:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you were on of the contributors on the Article of George Washington. So I just wanted to drop you a message to let you know I have nominated the article for FA status, you can see the nomination here. -- Clarkcj12 ( talk) 20:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

good work! Rjensen ( talk) 21:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

[3]Isn't neutral, and Wrzesinski doesn't say anything like that at all.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A extreme POV quote was added "Due to Polish nationalism outraged at the loss of independence when Poland was partitioned, he is a great villain in Poland" and attributed to among others Wojciech Wrzesinski. He writes no such thing, and the quote doesn't fulfill NPOV Rules of Wikipedia. Unless no serious opposition is stated I will remove it in following days and restore more neutral description.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Bömelburg says Polish nationalism and resentment over loss of independence was and is a very powerful force. I did not add Wrzesinski and will remove it. Perhaps you are unaware of your own keen Polish nationalism--you seem to have a grudge against Frederick that risks adding POV material. Rjensen ( talk) 00:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please cease with your personal and ethnic based attacks against me. You have added a highly POV quote to the article that has no place in it. Wrzesinski is a highly valued Polish scholar and perfectly reliable source. Polish sources as explained to you before are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 00:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Davies says they intervened because Poland "had denied the religious minorities, Orthodox and Protestant, full political rights since 1718 Davies says no such thing. You added this quote. I have the book right in front of me. There is no such sentence and there is no such claim. The only sentence were such words are used is one where he says that despotic Prussia and Russia could never achieved such freedoms as in Poland.Why have you added this sentence if it is false?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

maybe we have different page numbers. Look at these Google links which includes the text "denied the religious minorities, Orthodox and Protestant, full political rights since 1718." Rjensen ( talk) 21:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I have the quote right in front of my eyes. Te whole sentence says something completely different than you claim.You have taken out a part of far larger sentence which says something completely opposite.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

we seem to agree that the words are correctly quoted and that the dissenters had been denied their rights since 1718. Rjensen ( talk) 02:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope.The words are taken out of context and Davies doesn't say what you alleged he claims but something completely opposite.The whole sentence has diametrically different meaning from what you claimed.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 07:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Davies means that the rights of dissenters were NOT denied???? you're not telling what you think it means. Rjensen ( talk) 08:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Full quote: "If in the subsequent period the Poles are judged to have contributed to the catastrophe themselves, it was more by their desperate efforts to ecape from ANarchy, than from their supposed desire to wallow in it. It should have been clear to all that the despots of St.Petersburg and Berlin, who denied most civil liberties to their own subjects, could never be the genuine champions of any "Golden Freedom in Poland" The same sort of hypocrisy was current in matters of religion. It is true that the Roman Catholic establishment of the Republic, despite the long tradition of toleration and freedom of worship, had denied the religious minorities, Orthodox and Protestant, full political rights since 1917. In this, Polish practices resembled that of Great Britain or Holland, and until bishops were goaded into retaliation in the 1770s, had been far more tolerant that that of Russia, whose visiting armies had invariably inflicted forcible conversion on the Republic's Uniates. " This is something completely different from what you claimed by writing:Davies says they intervened because Poland "had denied the religious minorities, Orthodox and Protestant, full political rights since 1718.Norman Davies, "God's Playground: A History of Poland, Vol. 1: The Origins to 1795 (1982) p 514. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

you miss the point. Prussia & Russia acted to protect their co-religionists whose rights Poland was trampling--that was a very dangerous move by Poland especially since it had almost no army to defend itself. Rjensen ( talk) 04:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Poor Davies ... he writes "It is true that the Roman Catholic establishment of the Republic, despite the long tradition of toleration and freedom of worship, had denied the religious minorities, Orthodox and Protestant, full political rights since 1617." and some people say he never meant for readers to take that statement as true. Rjensen ( talk) 08:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, has your free Questia account renewed? I'm a few entries below you on the list of renewal requests and haven't heard anything since my account expired several months ago. Ylee ( talk) 06:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

no--i'm in the same boat  :( Rjensen ( talk) 06:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

How does one interpret cites like "Davies, 1:497"? They don't link to anything. What Davies' work or edition? Orczar ( talk) 12:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's Davies vol 1 page 497 (God's Playground is a 2 vol work). The problem is that there are many cites all to the same page of Davies -- what I was trying to do was give the right page #. Rjensen ( talk) 12:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Rjensen, I agree that those sources are RS, and so technically exempt from WP:Weasel. The reason I mentioned weasel words, was because when there are five other sources for the same stat, phrases like "mostly buddhist" add nothing of value. Does this make sense? Do we really need seven sources for that statistic? Cheers, Vanamonde93 ( talk) 10:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The word is "redundant" -- but in this case I think multiple sources are helpful for students looking for books in small libraries. Rjensen ( talk) 11:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well okay, not a big issue, I'll drop it. The only problem is that your reasoning can be applied to a lot of such statistics. I could flood the holocaust page with "helpful" RSs, for instance, without improving the article........ Vanamonde93 ( talk) 11:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You reverted all my edits. Why? Did you even review them? The article goes every direction with whole paragraphs that make little sense. I was trying to fix it. I'll bet you anything nobody else read it as closely as I did. The article is atrocious. Chisme ( talk) 06:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I thought the changes were not useful. The major change was you systematically changed the usual "Rep" name to the Dem-Rep version, which is used by political scientists doing comparative work & seldom by historians looking at this one period. That indicates an unfamiliarity with how historians have approached the issue. Secondly you turned a normal active voice sentence into the passive voice (The Jeffersonians invented many of the campaign techniques which the Federalists later adopted and which became standard American practice became Campaign techniques invented by the Jeffersonians were later adopted by...). Passive voice is usually not recommended for serious work. Rjensen ( talk) 06:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The changes were useful. Your sentence contains two "whiches." In the first place, those "whiches" should be "thats" in American usage. In the second place, those whiches introduce two subordinate clauses, one after the other, which is ungrammatical and why I changed the sentence. Read mine again. It makes better sense than yours. As for Dem-Rep, that is the party's official name. You'll find the party called that name in Wikipedia itself: Democratic-Republican Party. The party names should be consistent. I really think this article is awful and difficult to understand. I was only trying to make it read better. I didn't mean to tread on your bailiwick. Chisme ( talk) 07:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"Dem-Rep is the name assigned by political scientists in the 20th century; it was rare before 1816 when the opposition had collapsed. People at the time & most historians today call it the Republican party. Rjensen ( talk) 09:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I have posted a comment in Talk:Peace_movement#False_attribution_to_Gandhi about your recent edit to Peace movement. — Danorton ( talk) 17:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that you are the U.S. Region 8 (Skyplains) Ambassador. I am in your area at New Mexico State University Doña Ana Community College. I have not had a response to my December 10 request for course instructor rights. It was archived without action on December 16. Today another editor put it back on the EducationNoticeBoard [ [4]] and supported the request. New Mexico State University is not on the institutions list. Do you have any suggestions about for how I might get the needed approvals so that I can add my institution and then the course page? -- Joe ( talk) 21:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

ok i will check into it. Rjensen ( talk) 08:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Why have you blanked the Bugle? That page (via transclusion on my user page) was my primary way of viewing the latest issue. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

anyone can subscribe directly Rjensen ( talk) 04:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I know. I prefer to have the latest issue of Bugle, like Signpost, placed on my user page rather than have it deposited onto my talk page on an ongoing basis. Chris Troutman ( talk) 05:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

+1, many people use the Signpost's front page too! Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you that really appreciated your assumption of good faith on American Civil War. Certainly sir no one could ever accuse you of bias. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 11:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen, I don't see how the 1982 quote from the historian supports the claim that there are small groups that continue to support annexation. Are there any such groups now, in the 21st century? Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I read it as saying that there is no serious support for any such. The last sentence in the lede is a summary of the article section 2 ("Modern annexationist groups") and does not need a citation. Rjensen ( talk) 12:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a summary doesn't need a cite, but the summary in question is not accurate: section 2 refers to two political parties that rose and fell in the 1980s. If you don't object, i will revise the summary accordingly. Ground Zero | t 12:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

the two parties did not exactly rise. One never elected anyone and the other got 1/1000 of the vote. They both quickly vanished. Rjensen ( talk) 13:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

so you agree that there is no evidence that there are a few groups now that support annexation and i can make the change? Ground Zero | t 13:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you want to say that in recent decades the support for annex has been trivial or nonexistent. Rjensen ( talk) 13:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This IP, 68.14.160.191, [5] has removed references and referenced information from the Crusades article and has chose to engage in discussion on the talk page. Would you be interested in participating? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel like the parody movie information is irrelevant to WASP in general. It's just a parody and would really appreciate it if that could be removed. Will get your opinion before doing anything further with it. Thanks. SuperPunch87 ( talk) 07:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

it's a very strong parody ridiculing the WASP culture as murderous and nasty below the surface (hidden in the windowbox or below the surface in the basement). It reached a wide audience in the form of a major Hollywood movie (and Broadway show). This is an article about that WASP culture, so attacks on its false pretensions & evil nature fit the topic. Film historians have noted how it explores the deep contradiction in American history between the freedom to do anything (Brewsters see that as their historic right) and the resulting murderous history. See Matthew C. Gunter (2012). The Capra Touch: A Study of the Director's Hollywood Classics and War Documentaries, 1934-1945. McFarland. pp. 49–50. Rjensen ( talk) 07:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I really feel it doesn't fit though. I think the culture section shouldn't include parody films in it. I personally don't think it's really trying to be a realistic portrayal and at the very least there shouldn't be anywhere as much as is currently written on the wikipedia page for this film on WASP and should be reduced. I don't think it's that important and there's too much written on this on the page. WOuld like to know your opinion. thanks SuperPunch87 ( talk) 08:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular images of the WASP are important in a cultural topic like this. Does the article suggest the movie is realistic? Don't worry: very few viewers think that two old aunts actually murdered 12 lonely men. Millions of people laughed. But you surely agree that the article already uses parody-- look at at footnotes 14, 16, and the cultural points at notes 17, 20, 35. The history of parody is used at 28 and note 39 specifically mentions Ford's movies. Rjensen ( talk) 08:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I really think it should be removed. I don't like the content of the movie in this regard and think it should be removed. I think it's portrayal of WASP is crazy and think it should be removed. THe contents of the movie is offensive and I don't think it ads anything constructive to the WASP culture section. Again, I would really appreciate it if it was removed. I mean really really appreciate it. Can you please bend on just this? Again, would really appreciate it. Will get feedback before doing anything, always. Thanks. SuperPunch87 ( talk) 08:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

millions of people saw the movie and loved it. you seem to be offended by something--but just what do you find "offensive"??? the idea that WASPs can and were be ridiculed? Surely that tells us a lot about how WASPs were perceived in the 1930s. and why should Wikipedia be sanitized? Rjensen ( talk) 09:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I really really wish you would bend for this, sir. I just find the content of the movie very offensive towards wasp. Can you please bend on this, Rjensen? It would mean a lot to me. Just please do it for this segment. Again, it woul mean a lot for me. Thank you. SuperPunch87 ( talk) 19:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

offensive towards WASPs -- well yes, the very first sentences of the article points out that WASP is a derogatory term. SuperPunch87 should avoid reading material on the Internet that he finds personally offensive. It violates the spirit and policy of Wikipedia to block 400 million users from reading accurate information because one person for reasons unknown does not like the information--and indeed SuperPunch87 is getting rather offensive himself by over and over refusing to explain what the "problem" is but begging for erasure anyway as some sort of personal favor. Rjensen ( talk) 01:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how well Wikipedia would fare without your help on many history articles. We'd probably be noticeably worse off.

Having said that, I beg to differ on the use of adjectives which are not able to be verified such as the use of "beloved" to modify "granddaughter" in the article on Al Capp. Use of adjectives in an encyclopedia should be severely limited to words that can be measured IMO. We don't even use "Gross Domestic Product" anymore! :)

I have threatened to return from the dead to haunt my descendants if adjectives like that are used in my obituary! I want them to stick to objective observations. Ones that are verifiable. Student7 ( talk) 16:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

hey I enjoy your work too! "beloved" is its usual meaning & in this context it means he was very close to this girl. (that is verifiable). That's why it deeply affected him, and that's important when dealing with an artist who focused on interpersonal relations. Nobody will think that THEY should love the girl. Rjensen ( talk) 18:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

With these edits you expanded the article Treaty of Chaumont, but you seem to have stopped in mid sentence. Please either complete "These included ..." or delete it. -- PBS ( talk) 15:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OK I fixed it & added a major study: The Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848 (1994) (Oxford History of Modern Europe) by Paul W. Schroeder Rjensen ( talk) 15:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen, hope you are doing well, I saw you contributed in medieval Spain topics a couple of times. Not sure if you are a native English, sorry if I came to the wrong place. There is a tedious grammar discussion with an IP editor on grammar, I'm 95% certain that his whole sentence is wrong, but ultimately I'm not native. Could you take a look? It would be appreciated. Iñaki LL ( talk) 19:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

well I know English grammar better than I know medieval history. I think this is a case of excessive controversy over very minute points. Happens all the time in email and Wikipedia. My advice is to move on to something else instead of using up a lot of energy. Rjensen ( talk) 22:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent edits to David Lloyd George! I don't often see a set of edits where every edit is an improvement and there are no errors. You might want to check WP:MOS regarding whether a hyphen or an en-dash is needed in the pair of years in the last set of edits. – CorinneSD ( talk) 19:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks! Rjensen ( talk) 19:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you please let me know why you removed my addition to William Louis Poteat today? JCvP 21:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki ( talk • contribs)

I dropped a trivial factoid that bears only remotely on the topic. There was no evidence presented that the great uncle significantly influenced the great nephew. Rjensen ( talk) 02:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Further to your revert in Anglo-Saxon. Before you revert please can you discuss on Talk. This change had been discussed. I am especially interested that as a historian you would be attached to such a clearly unrelated section of information. Could you explain why this misuse of a cultural term is so important, especially when we have articles for WASP and Anglo-Saxon model. Thank you. J Beake ( talk) 08:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of British diplomatic history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeremy Black ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 17:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I’ve begun a stub American Civil War history on stamps, which has been moved for me to “Articles for Creation” somehow, with one encouraging comment and one other editor collaborating. It has grown while awaiting review to five sources treating "Civil War on stamps", seven general references and 67 footnotes referring to the subjects of 99 stamps. I would appreciate any comments you may have. Still a work in progress. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 20:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

it looks good! keep at it. needs a link to Commemoration of the American Civil War, and a paragraph is needed at that page about stamps Rjensen ( talk) 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain to me how http://www.sahistory.org.za/ is an anonymous block Jochum ( talk) 02:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

it's an anonymous self-published blog. It fails the standards of WP:RS Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. a) it's anonymous--has the weak quality of student work; -- for example the footnotes are to Sparticus (a popular encyclopedia) and Wikipedia! no track record of reliability, fact-checking or accuracy. b) no prestige among scholars (they do not footnote it and Wiki should not either) c) it is not third party--it's a pro-Boer site that spews hatred for the enemies of the Boers. d) it's not published (WP:RS calls for academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources....Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available.... Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." The POV is because the editor selected not on the grounds of quality but on the grounds of text that seemingly supported the editor's private POV. Rjensen ( talk) 04:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted a bunch of changes, which included yours, only because yours were entangled in other, incorrect changes. My apologies. If you want to go back and trim those sections, I would completely understand. Onel5969 ( talk) 04:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll try it again. Rjensen ( talk) 04:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. One thing regarding the edits to the Papago escape, I appreciate your eye, but do you think it was necessary to trim that much? Onel5969 ( talk) 14:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with One15969, take it easy with the trim of the article. Please. Rather take out small parts. And if you want to remove a bigger part of the article bring it up at the talk page first. Regards,-- BabbaQ ( talk) 14:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

the Papago escape is very well covered in its own article. It does not need much space here. People interested really should go to the other article. We need to use the Phoenix space for events that are not covered in other articles and which had a major impact on Phoenix. Rjensen ( talk) 06:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your deletion of the Goldwater/wedding anecdote. While inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, I think anecdotes (as long as they are cited, as this one is), add to depth of the article. As long as they are not too detailed (like the edits you made on the escape and the riot). Onel5969 ( talk) 00:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your upload of File:Advantages.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 11:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read the description page for this file? If not, could you please do so now and let me know whether it is licensed as free or non-free? VernoWhitney ( talk) 14:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I did read it and in my opinion it is free ("public domain" in USA). Allied policy was to seize the Nazi copyrights and the US government put them in public domain. take a look at Heinrich Hoffmann#Photographic archive for example. See official US government statement Rjensen ( talk) 02:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I must say I'm more than a little concerned that you can look at the file page and read {{ Non-free fair use in}} as "public domain". That aside, we are not discussing any number of other images which were seized and are now public domain, but simple with one particular image. The US government statement you linked to even states "A relatively small number of these papers may have been of private origin, but the fact of their seizure is not believed to divest their original owners of any literary property rights in them. Anyone, therefore, who publishes them in whole or in part without permission may be held liable for infringement of property rights." Now if you are aware of evidence that this image specifically is PD, then we should go ahead and retag it appropriately. Until then, it remains a non-free image and is bound by the same policy and guideline as all other non-free content on Wikipedia. VernoWhitney ( talk) 03:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The photo itself provides evidence that it was taken on government property by someone on duty there --rather than taken at home by someone off-duty using his private camera. The editor who mistagged it thought it was the property of the British medical journal. But their reproduction of the photo did not generate a copyright for that journal. Rjensen ( talk) 03:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The photo is certainly evidence that it was taken on government property, but not that that was necessarily by someone on duty or even working directly for the government such that the copyright would be assigned to it. And I am completely aware that the BMJ doesn't have a copyright claim, that was not an issue. VernoWhitney ( talk) 22:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

copyright law suits are based on preponderance of evidence, and that weighs in favor of free use. A posed photo of official Luftwaffe activity inside a top secret Luftwaffe facility in wartime is what official photos look like. They did run a tight ship. Let's look at the evidence the other way: zero. The photo was tagged as copyright by a person who assumed falsely that the British journal owned the copyright. Rjensen ( talk) 22:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello RJensen,
you corrected a typo in the named article. As I cannot amend the article myself, I ask you to correct the link of Constance of Castile to Constance of Castile, Duchess of Lancaster too. The link refers to the wrong person. The two Constances didn't even lived in the same time. And it would be nice, if you know a person who is better informed about this time of history than me who could answer my question about the guardianship of Black Herbert. Thanks in advanve -- StephenMS ( talk) 23:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

ok, willdo. Rjensen ( talk) 06:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen,

I reverted your edit board submission since it wasn't really close to being viable. Maybe you can get help resubmitting it if needed? Thanks, -- Malerooster ( talk) 12:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Richard, I would disagree. This was created specifically as an Outline article for the very purpose of putting all the related topics on this subject in one place. As a list type article it has some protections from indiscriminate removal of content. Expanding individual sections with prose would be very difficult in some sections and most likely encourage some "anti-list" types to come along and delete the lists on the basis that they don't belong in the article. If there are sections that warrant expanding that currently don't have an article, then I would encourage creation of one and use hat notes to lead readers to them. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 15:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

OK Rjensen ( talk) 07:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement. My proposed article on ACW on stamps has been promoted to a B class article, Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps. I listed it below Commemoration of the American Civil War in the ACW See also section under Topical subsecion.

Is it proper to place the template 'main article: American Civil War' at the top of 'Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps'? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 13:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

nice job! In my opinion the proper template is Commemoration of the American Civil War, since the stamps are a part of that larger process (and they are not part of the civil war itself). Rjensen ( talk) 13:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 13:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)