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.

/Archive 24

This message is being sent to 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 are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Battle of the Somme. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Thomask0 ( talk) 03:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans#Main paragraph thingy. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to Harry S. Truman as it broke links from in-text citations (rendered in the Notes section) to the Bibliography. If you remove one you must remove the other. --   Gadget850  ^talk 18:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors so you can see the link issues. --   Gadget850  ^talk 20:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I saw that you recently reverted my edit to the Alexander Hamilton lead, and if you wish to see the information there, would it be okay if you could shorten it to four paragraphs? I don't want to get into any potential edit wars. I'm trying to nominate this article for GA status, and one of the requirements was to shorten the introduction of the page. Please contact me as soon as you can, and thanks for reading! LeftAire ( talk) 16:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead has to cover the unusual variety of activities but I will try to squeeze it down into four paragraphs. Rjensen ( talk) 16:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OK--The lead is now four paragraphs long and it covers more critical information. Rjensen ( talk) 17:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope I didn't cause any trouble with the request. LeftAire ( talk) 17:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks...i appreciated the opportunity to rethink Hamilton. Rjensen ( talk) 17:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to help improve other aspects of the article as well, see my comments at Talk:Alexander Hamilton/GA1. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see any merit to having a modern picture of Bismarck when there are numerous portraits from life. There are a whole category of them on Commons if you feel the two articles are improved by a picture of him. Also, if you go to the uploader's Commons talk page you'll see that I have questioned whether he really has the right to upload the picture on a free licence, or if he does, whether he really intends that. I've had a Russian speaker talk to him about how to do it properly if he does in fact have the right and the desire to do so; he will need to go through ORTS. Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the article is presenting a 21st century historical viewpoint on Bismarck, and therefore should be accompanied by a 21st century viewpoint on his image. The point is not what he looked like--there are many illustrations in the Bismarck article itself---but how he is perceived today. As long as the Image remains in Commons, it is available for use on Wikipedia. Rjensen ( talk) 17:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I find that a bit of a curious viewpoint, partly because the image looks cartoonish to me and therefore not NPOV and partly because I don't see the two articles as so limited by era - again, that smacks of non-neutrality to me. But I raised it here rather than on the article talkpages because I wondered what your reasoning was, so I have my answer, thanks for responding. Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

the NPOV rule Only applies to editors, not to the sources that we are using. It is very hard to find any historian who is neutral about Bismarck. The image involved indeed looks like a caricature (See the contemporary caricatures in his article)-- the goal here is not to describe exactly how he looked, but how he is viewed today as a very powerful man who insisted on getting his own way Whatever happened. I think the artist's interpretation reflects the views of many scholars. Rjensen ( talk) 17:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen, just wanted to let you know I was impressed by your work here on Wikipedia, and started a Richard J. Jensen lemma to connect the dots. Corrections, addititions or other feedback are most welcome. -- Mdd ( talk) 13:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

hey i'm really flattered! Rjensen ( talk) 17:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Otto von Bismarck by N.Repik.jpg looks more like crosswiki spam. -- Pnapora ( talk) 08:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It gives a 21st century view-- I have not seen a better example Rjensen ( talk) 17:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

From this point of view you are right. -- Pnapora ( talk) 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see you've stuck around on the Western Front, there's plenty to get stuck into in that article. I altered some of your edit to make it fit better but feel free to change it if desired. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 10:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Prof. Jensen, I appreciate very much your support on the matter of British vs. US spelling in the article on the History of Paris. it's very annoying that he's trying to convert every article about France into British English, but he's not the first to do that. In the process of reverting his changes, I made some changes to your edits on the 20th century and postwar period, and I apologize if I didn't do it well; i was trying to made it consistent with the other text in the section, and have it be simply declarative, with the source in the citation, rather than in the style of an academic article. Please revert it back if you don't think it's correct. I'm also starting a separate article on the history of Paris in the 18th Century, starting with the text from that section of the History of Paris and the chronology from the Timeline of Paris, which I hope will give a comprehensive picture of Paris in that period. I would welcome your comments suggestions and contributions as it comes along. Thanks for your good work and best wishes, SiefkinDR ( talk) 18:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. Yes i agree& also want to encourage you on " history of Paris in the 18th Century," Rjensen ( talk) 18:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am from Azerbaijan-- Baskervill ( talk) 23:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand your edit to article Jacksonian democracy. Did Mary Beth Norton et al. in A People and a Nation, Volume I: to 1877 (Houghton Mifflin, 2007) p 287 mention Jackson's adopted Indian son and cite Michael Paul Rogin (1991). Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian? If not, then quote falsification would appear to be taking place... AnonMoos ( talk) 01:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry --yes it was confusing. The Norton quote got cut up and garbled but i fixed it with a link to their text. I also revised the text again for clarity. the 'fellow orphan that was "so much like myself I feel an unusual sympathy for...' quote is directly from Rogin. I referenced Prucha's scholarly article & also a useful recent book by Perdue. Rjensen ( talk) 06:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen...can you help resolve a discussion in the Grant talk page concerning the inclusion of Cuban Insurrection in the Grant Foriegn Affairs section...thanks Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant#Foreign_affairs_first_paragraph_suggestion

What's with the straight revert with no edit summary? [1] That indicates you're reverting vandalism. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right – I should have explained myself. It was a mistake to erase "pejoratively" -- when an opponent characterizes something it is not necessarily pejorative but it was in this case. That is, "neoliberalism" is a term It is used Chiefly a) by the opponents AND b) in a pejorative sense. Rjensen ( talk) 18:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking at Slavery in the United States and particularly Code Noir sections. There was a stat for free persons of color in various states that wasn't well defined and looked much too high and needed a year, so I went searching for the reference in p. 322 of Stark. Stark states "a far higher percentage of blacks in Louisiana were free (31.2 percent) than any other slave state." This is what I thought he was saying...but it is also wrong. He said this came from the 1830 census but the actual computed figure should be 13.2%. Notice the inverted digits. His values for Mississippi and Alabama are correct and agree with the census. His conclusion is still correct, it is just the magnitude of the figure that is off. It was probably a simple typo in his manuscript. I've checked some other decades (1820 and 1860) and this value is just way too high to be an error in the 1830 census data.

This figure is quoted in several places on Wikipedia. How do I correct it within Wikipedia guidelines? I didn't find an errata for the book and I don't think I can use my own calcs from the census browser to override the value. Red Harvest ( talk) 21:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A few years ago, I ran into a similar problem with the launching dates of Brazilian cruiser Bahia and Rio Grande do Sul, which were reversed in standard reference works. I explained the discrepancy with a explanatory note and linked to other sources which used the correct dates. I also confirmed the correct dates with the Times of London, although I still need to add those articles to the notes. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 21:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've done this sort of thing for some obviously erroneous cannon dimensions/stats in tables before, and I've fixed some casualty figures and dates in similar manner. But in those cases I could cite other direct sources to correct the values, as you have. There was also a recent example where the digital scan of some supplemental census data was being widely misread. The first digit was of low resolution and looked like an "8" when it should have been a "3" if I recall correctly. To determine the actual value I cross checked with sums in the table in both directions. The lower value was required in order to satisfy the rest. Since the scan was harder to read for this digit I didn't consider it OR to demonstrate how to determine the value. Red Harvest ( talk) 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Basically you are calculating a percentage from published census data. That is perfectly legitimate use of a primary source. It is not original research. Just include a note on the talk page saying there was a typo in the Stark book, And cite the census source. Rjensen ( talk) 22:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've also confirmed with the author that it was indeed a typo in hardcover and that it has been corrected in the paperback edition. I'll need to ask if the page numbers are the same. Red Harvest ( talk) 01:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd strongly push for a note in the article itself, if only to prevent readers from making a similar mistake (they don't look at talk pages!). Best, Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 08:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Already done. (This is something I've done before.) Found references to it on three pages, corrected and noted all of them. Had to make about a dozen other edits on each one for case, typos, etc. Much of this had been the additions of a single French editor. Oops, looks there is at least one more out there... Red Harvest ( talk) 09:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced information. If you feel that the information of Titanic does not belong here, then please start a conversation about it. Zyon788 ( talk) 17:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've started a talk section if you wish to voice your opinion. Zyon788 ( talk) 20:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	its for you professor..i hope you guide me in wikipedia m,sharaf ( talk) 19:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I know that writing a good article about military affaires is difficult but possible. I wane to know about your experience in this sphere particularly in Wikipedia articles on military.-- m,sharaf ( talk) 19:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I accidentally saved without an edit summary.

But I think that edit is a good compromise. Tharthandorf Aquanashi ( talk) 04:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Who told you it was a traditional flag? Rjensen ( talk) 04:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you were adding sources and a lot of content to NYC-related articles. Keep up the good work on that. However, I just wanted to let you know that some of the sources you are adding, like the Encyclopedia of New York City, can be invoked using specific-source templates like {{ cite enc-nyc}}. Thanks, Epic Genius ( talk) 15:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks – and many thanks for your excellent work. The problem with the template is that it includes Useless information that we do not repeated Over and over: New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN  0300055366. Rjensen ( talk) 03:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

All right. I will help you remove the repeated information in these citations if you need it. Epic Genius ( talk) 16:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The solution to that is to put the citation in a "Bibliography" section directly under the notes section, and convert the notes into the form "Jackson (ed.) (2010), p.373", or similar. This avoids repeating the ancillary information unnecessarily.

Oh, and if you're using the second edition, the proper specific source template is "cite enc-nyc2". BMK ( talk) 16:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

MAny people only read one section and I think the notes to each section should say "Ency of NYC" , Jackson ed. p 101 will puzzle these people. Rjensen ( talk) 02:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. If you copy text from one Wikipedia article to another, you should add the "copied" template to the talk pages of both particles. Best, BMK ( talk) 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

yes--I use the edit summary as a signal. Rjensen ( talk) 02:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

But I don't see the copied template on the Tammany Hall talk page. understanding that this is required for copyright purposes. BMK ( talk) 05:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The actual requirement at WP:COPY is "If you are copying text within Wikipedia, you must at least put a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page." and that is the rule i am following. (There is more detail at WP:CWW The template is not required. Rjensen ( talk) 06:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There were a few errors to the lead that needed to be corrected, but I didn't want to rush and make corrections myself, since it was your writing. Just make them when you get the chance, the article status for GA has been put on hold for seven days; hopefully you'll get the chance to edit by then. If not, just let me know. Thanks for reading! LeftAire ( talk) 22:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

which errors? Rjensen ( talk) 07:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing major. In retrospect, my word choice was an overstatement. From the GA review:

Lead

• Mother's heritage isn't really lead-worthy
• "Recognized for his abilities and talent" is POV
• Add a comma after "1795" in "In 1795 he returned to the practice" per MOS:DATE
• "In 1798–99" ? "In 1798 and 1799"
• "Hamilton's opposition to Adams' re-election helped cause his defeat in the 1800 election"..... awkward phrasing
• In its current state, the quote "When Vice President Burr ran for governor of New York state in 1802, Hamilton crusaded against him as unworthy. Taking offense at some of Hamilton's comments, Burr challenged him to a duel and mortally wounded Hamilton, who died the next day." seems to suggest the duel was in 1802. Probably best to clarify that the duel took place later on.

As for the Wilentz link, please send it to gtownhoyasdc@gmail.com. I'll use it and give it a proper citation when possible. Thanks for reading, and thanks for your help! LeftAire ( talk) 22:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how is "recognized for his abilities and talent" POV? Is there a school of thought that Hamilton was not a talented and able man, and displayed these traits while young?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

To be frank, I felt the same way. Perhaps it is the wording that has potential issues. Maybe it is thought that it should be Due to his perceived talents and abilities or Due to local wealthy men seeing talent in Hamilton, he was able to obtain a college education (I think that it's something like the latter). LeftAire ( talk) 03:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

We follow the RS and they are unanimous in emphasizing that his talents were recognized & rewarded by the local elite. Rjensen ( talk) 05:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with it at all, don't shoot the messenger (I can't tell your tone online, so I apologize if I sound as if I was disagree, or misinterpreting you previous statement). I thought that the latter suggestion I gave could keep in line with the alleged POV violations; it was just a suggestion. I didn't want to rearrange the lead you wrote myself. You can give your reasons to SNUGGUMS at the GA review line, if you want. LeftAire ( talk) 22:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if I sounded too harsh! LeftAire is doing a very good job. Rjensen ( talk) 05:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen, thank you for improving the articles related to Serfdom, and I'm tipping my hat to you for not letting my removal of the text detract from your dedication. I have to say that the actual guideline WP:REDUNDANTFORK only talks about forking whole articles. The reason why I opposed the forking stemmed from my own frustration with trying to merge forked articles, and, as a reader, with having to read and reread almost identical texts on Wikipedia. — Sebastian 07:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that duplication can be a nuisance to highly experienced Wikipedian-- however I think it is a godsend to the quick dipper who want some facts in a hurry, and can see both the basic facts and the links to two articles on serfdom in Russia that he otherwise would have overlooked. The Wikipedia rules about forking emerged from squabbles over interpretation, in which two editors went their separate ways After being unable to agree on a common theme. Rjensen ( talk) 09:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You are an experienced editor, and I see from your edits that you know what you're doing. I'm heartened to read that you see my point, and I see yours. I agree that Russia is important in this context, and I trust that you generally do the right thing.

Our difference is a gradual one. I disagree with you that it takes a highly experienced Wikipedian to be bothered by excessive duplication. It is a nuisance to any reader. Any human being only has limited time. Let's assume that Darcy, grade 5, avid reader with a WPM of 120, has 50 minutes to read up on forests. That translates to 6000 words. She looks up the article Forest, which has 4800 words already. Let's assume the article had a subsection for "Trees" which intrigued her. It is 1200 words long. She clicks on the link for trees and finds the corresponding article with, say, 2400 words. She starts reading it and finds that it duplicates much of what she read before. Most other kids would get bored and stop reading at this time. But Darcy is an avid reader, so she plows on. Sadly, she only gets halfway through the article when her time is up, so she misses the new information in the lower half.

Of course, not all of our readers are children, but I wanted to go as far away as possible from your assumption that it only bothers "a highly experienced Wikipedian". I am grateful that you are dedicating your time to improving Wikipedia, so I'm not going to battle with you over this. I just ask you to please keep my words in mind and think of all the different readers we're writing for. — Sebastian 16:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Alexa data shows the average user on Wikipedia spends only about four and half minutes-- they typically want quick information. If what they need is not in the article that Google sends them to, they give up on Wikipedia, Rjensen ( talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Good idea to refer to available data. This actually supports my point: In four and half minutes, the average user (let's call him "Joe") reads 1080 words. The article Serfdom already had 3600 words. If you write only for Joe, then you should reduce the article, rather than add to it! Of course, we're not only writing for Joe Average, that's why I use personas. I'm not seeing a persona you're writing for. — Sebastian 17:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

We could reduce the size of the average article to the length of say Columbia Encyclopedia. It is better than Wikipedia because it is terse and only covers the important points. However Wikipedia is largely written for the benefit of the editors, not for the readers – we actually know extremely little about who reads or uses Wikipedia. Rjensen ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point; I'll have to think about that. What benefit do you get out of copy pasting text from one article to another? — Sebastian 17:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Twice as many people read it. ( in this case, by the way, I rewrote half the text on serfdom in Russia using new sources who were not in either place). Rjensen ( talk) 17:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you rewrote part of it, which is one reason why I said that you're an experienced editor.

As for your argument that "Twice as many people read it", there is something to that; that's the motivation for thousands of people every day who try to spam Wikipedia with advertisements for their product, or proselytizing people to their religion or fringe political opinion. But that doesn't describe you; you seem to have the same scholarly interest in a historical topic that I do. You must be aware that by stealing peoples' eyeballs for one article or section, you are taking them away from millions of other interesting articles. Who is that supposed to help? — Sebastian 18:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen, I did not mean these as rhetorical questions. I am seriously trying to understand which user you have in mind with your edits. Also, if you would like me to understand your above point about "Wikipedia is largely written for the benefit of the editors", I would need you to let me know which benefit you are getting out of such edits yourself. Thank you! — Sebastian 05:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. My edit was an attempt to address the discussion point left on the talk page about WP:POV. It was largely motivated by a review of similar articles that do not make similar claims despite being globally and historically recognized as negative things ( The Holocaust, Nuremburg Trials, Rape of Nanking, etc.). I chose "significant" because it would imply impact or severity (perhaps "severe" would have been better) of the actions committed without providing a perspective (outside of a secondary source). If you feel that the term "notorious" does not violate WP:POV, then I have no problem with your reversion and would appreciate your thoughts and reasoning for why for future editing reference. Thanks! Luminum ( talk)

In my opinion 'notorious' is the exact terminology. It means that the practice involved is widely condemned. Indeed I believe it is universally condemned, for I have never seen anyone try to defend that program. In other words, it is not a personal POV evaluation on the part of Wikipedia editors, but a reflection of what the reliable sources are saying about it. The dictionary definition of 'notorious' = " "widely and unfavorably known or discussed for something reprehensible or scandalous or for some negative quality or trait" (Webster's Third Unabridged Dictionary). More generally, the reason for all this attention to Unit 731 was not the chemical or medical advances it made, but rather the judgment that what it did was a bad thing. In other words, the article in Wikipedia exists only because it was notorious. Rjensen ( talk) 14:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for your input! Luminum ( talk) 12:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings User:Rjensen. Nice working with you on the American frontier page. I see your work all over Wikipedia, top-notch. It's lucky to have such a resource. Yours, Wikiuser100 ( talk) 14:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey thanks, and I appreciate your good work on the frontier! Rjensen ( talk) 15:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You/re welcome. Heckofa page. Yours Wikiuser100 ( talk) 16:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Bumping into you today reminded me of something I read a bit back on a Talk page where there was some yipping going on over whether someone was qualified to be cited as a source of material on a subject, in the instance regarding a Medal of Honor award. I was piqued to go back and check whether it was you being referred to.

Here's the passage (the italics are mine):

• Actually, the photo is not from the Texas Handbook Online. It is on the HomeofHeroes.com, which is a reliable source of information on Medal of Honor recipients. The author of the information is D. Sterner. He is considered a reliable source by the U.S. Army ... his page on Herrera is cited by the U.S. Army as the source for the information that they put in their Field Manual 70-21.13: The Soldier's Guide, Chapter 1 - The Individual Soldier's Role in the Army, Section I - The Warrior Ethos and Army Values, Selfless Service, section 1-40. [2]. See reference 1-13. In addition, the Sterner has been honored by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society — men of integrity who value his integrity as well.

Oh, you mean the guy the Army cites? With the MOH society honor heaped on for good measure.

I could practically hear the OP going Gulp.

Yours, Wikiuser100 ( talk) 17:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DD2K reported by User:TBSchemer (Result: ). The article in dispute is Democratic Party (United States). Perhaps you have a suggestion for how this can be resolved. It is not easy for an outsider to even grasp what the dispute is about. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Your personal attacks have exhausted my patience, and I have reported you to the administrators. [2] I think it would not be very difficult to come to an agreement in this dispute, but you've burned your bridges prior to even hearing my side of the story. I hope the administrators can convince you to behave in a more civil manner and we can work together to include this content in a way that is mutually agreeable. TBSchemer ( talk) 21:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have aside to your story? you kept it secret so far & have released threats instead of information. Rjensen ( talk) 07:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for coming across as argumentative. However, this particular page has put the number of Missouri Confederates at about 40,000. The number is probably higher, but records from the time are very fragmented. May we just put this editing war away, and put it back to what it was before?- Spradlagg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spradlagg ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes but it's worth discussing on the talk page for the article. Rjensen ( talk) 22:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		Don't know if you actually did write half of the article or not, but I don't care enough to switch awards. During the process of the nomination for Alexander Hamilton, you were both tenacious in your defense of the page and edits to users who were quick to make changes (including myself), yet amiable and easy to work with. I'm a bit burned out on Hamilton as of now, but we will meet again, as I hope to get that article (along with a few other Founding Fathers) to an FA status (though I might settle with a few just at GA). Just a matter of when...Anyway, here you go! Thanks! LeftAire ( talk) 22:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Also added to Ulbricht Talk page:

Hi, I saw you reversed my removal of the Kocka quote as the question whether "was the GDR a dictatorship / what were its policies is a major question for legacy of Ulbricht as #1)". If so*, then the text needs to be embedded better and that statement made explicit. As things stand now, it is a rather misplaced appendix to this paragraph.

One might also argue that Ulbricht's legacy and the GDR's legacy are not at all the same thing. You could admire Ulbricht for his political stamina, and simultaneously denounce him and the state he headed for moral reasons. -- Ilja.nieuwland ( talk) 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow your point. Our job is Wikipedia editors this report with the scholars are saying – and Kocka is a leading scholar who in a few words summarizes the basic operational principles Ulbricht put into practice. Rjensen ( talk) 23:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you look over the recent edits back and forth and give your view in the talk page discussion? Thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In the article Liberty, a large amount of referenced material has been replaced by the single sentence "Modern proponents of liberty are known as libertarians." There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. I think we need a fresh point of view to avoid a revert war. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we have a troll at work. Rjensen ( talk) 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, saw your removal of my paragraph about Morgan's house. No problem. The reason he knocked the middle house down to form the garden is that he installed his son in the house the other side of the garden; the one built by Isaac Newton Phelps. The Hartford link is interesting as some of the newspapers of the period felt there was a Connecticut "mafia" controlling the money in New York; many of them had links to the Phelps family. Interesting period in history.

Ted Sidpickle ( talk) 21:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

ok Rjensen ( talk) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought you might like to know that you have been mentioned in a discussion at WP/ANI here (but not in a bad way!). andy ( talk) 19:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This concerns the coronation of Napoleon I !! This is the last dress that exists in the world of the sacred. It is shown all over the world because there is only one !!! The museums all want !!!

Fondation Napoléon in Paris: http://www.napoleon.org/fr/galerie/iconographie/files/robesacre_josephine.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaltenbachthea ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The museums can have it-- I'm sure all the women there wore beautiful dresses. The picture belongs in the fashion article, not in the biography of Napoleon who may never actually have seen this dress for more than 10 seconds. Rjensen ( talk) 22:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Here. I did not intend to flatter. And I believe I reached my goal. The reference is to your comments at Indefinite ban from creating merger proposals or anything related to merging. Last I heard, bees pollinate new subjects. Do you wear the bottoms of your trousers rolled?   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 07:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just passing along a warning that I learned the hard way. Bees who wandered into the wrong location will sting you, and that is a nuisance. Rjensen ( talk) 07:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I can see that. Locale is certainly a topic I've addressed before as an electronics expert. On occasion, "Run away" is the best bet. But is it in this case? How often, precisely, do you meet these stinging bees walking down the street? Can you extend your metaphor to something that occurs daily, or maybe once in a lifetime?

How can you so easily dismiss these questions without addressing the larger problem? I suspect that problem might be pedagogic, so you you may not want to address it, since you would convict both yourself and your colleagues in the indictment (I note the subject of the discussion was born some 22 years after you earned your PhD)?

Your recriminations are quite hollow, nearly 40 years hence, you made the institution that he was brought up in, after all. You take credit for it. So take credit. Now. You, and the other pedagogues like you, made Bryce exactly what he is.

But there is no indication in your response that you either 1) missed, or 2) failed to miss, the T. S. Eliot (Nobel Laureate, ahem) reference ("Love Song...", 1915) in my post. Which is it (or will you ever admit it honestly)? Allow me to quote another poet germane to the subject under discussion (while not a Laureate, there are other close-by references to his works in these discussions in which I partake, can you even pin the tail on this donkey as my young niece can?): "And these children that you spit on / As they try to change their worlds / Are immune to your consultations / They're quite aware of what they're going through" ("Changes", 1971)

I would advocate for this younger generation, despite their falling down the steps, hitting their heads on every stair. You fell down once as I did, I do not need to read your biography to be aware of this.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 11:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm an optimist about the world of ideas. I think facts and ideas and collaboration are key to Wikipedia (and to all intellectual endeavors that I respect). People who lack facts & ideas & are locked into a private interpretation of a guideline weaken the system. They are young collectively because they do not stick around very long. Rjensen ( talk) 16:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned you. [3]

Dear 0Dear 23:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads-up. I think I will not become involved. Rjensen ( talk) 23:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to find sources for the term "civil rights movements" as defined by the article "Movement for civil rights." Are you aware of any sources that treat the topic of this article - an encyclopedia, textbook, anything? Every mention of this term I've encountered uses it differently as follows:

• as a term that is synonymous with civil rights movement, but in plural form
• as a term that represents multiple campaigns within the civil rights movement in the United States
• as a term used by the Library of Congress as a classification term
• as a term used by scholars and academics to examine two or more movements within a comparative study
• as a typo
• as a term to denote multiple movements within a single country

Thank you. Mitchumch ( talk) 05:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

try these: 1) "Additionally, a comparison of the two movements permits a sustained discussion regarding the divisive power of race, the nature of racial formation, and the concomitant racial transformations that both civil rights movements wrought." Brian D. Behnken (2011). Fighting Their Own Battles: Mexican Americans, African Americans, and the Struggle for Civil Rights in Texas. Univ of North Carolina Press. p. 4.; 2) "The resistance movements in these [Asian] societies also call themselves 'civil rights' movements" Olle Törnquist ed. (1991). Asian Societies in Comparative Perspective: Papers Presented at the 7th Annual Conference of the Nordic Association for Southeast Asian Studies, Møn, Denmark, 1990. NIAS Press. p. 336. {{ cite book}}: |author= has generic name ( help); 3) in USA: " mobilised in opposition to the Vietnam War, supported civil rights movements such as women's and gay liberation, and raised awareness of environmental" Judith Bara & Mark Pennington (2009). Comparative Politics. SAGE. p. 277.; 4) " explores the African American and Hispanic civil rights movements within a comparative framework." Debra A. Reid (2009). Seeking Inalienable Rights: Texans and Their Quests for Justice. Texas A&M UP. p. 169.; 5) "Civil rights movements of blacks and Catholics" Frank Wright (1988). Northern Ireland: A Comparative Analysis. p. 164.; 6) Goodwin, Jeff, and Steven Pfaff. "Emotion work in high-risk social movements: Managing fear in the US and East German civil rights movements." in Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements (2001): 282-302; 7) google books uses the category " Civil rights movements—United States—History—2oth century." Rjensen ( talk) 05:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I am not disputing the existence of the term in books or journals. As I said before, I noted multiple uses for the term in the works I've encountered. Nearly all of the works you listed used the term for comparative study purposes. Google used it as a classification term like the Library of Congress.

Other uses include as multiple campaigns within the American civil rights movement, “At least three distinct though interconnected civil rights movements developed in Sunflower County between 1945 and 1986." 1) Moye, J. Todd (2004). Let the People Decide: Black Freedom and White Resistance Movements in Sunflower County, Mississippi, 1945-1986. Univ of North Carolina Press. p. 25.; 2) "Segregation and racial discrimination were facts of life for most blacks in America until the birth of civil rights movements in the 1950s and 1960s."Ritchie, Nigel (2003). The Civil Rights Movement. Barron's. p. 66.

I am disputing the existence of a book or journal that treats it as the topic of the work. For example, I can find a book or journal on the topic American Revolution that defines it, provides a history of it, etc. I can't seem to find anything comparable for the term "civil rights movements" or, for that matter, "movements for civil rights." The term is often used as a means of articulating a thought on a different topic. Never as a stand alone topic. Mitchumch ( talk) 06:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I still can't see your problem. Scholars use it as a useful concept. And yes it does appear in titles such as Origins of the Civil Rights Movements; Do the Civil Rights Movements in Israel Fight for Jewish Rights Too?; Literature and Its Times: Civil rights movements to future times (1960-2000); Civil Rights Movements in Twentieth Century Georgia; The Jewish role in the American Civil Rights movements; But for Birmingham: The local and national movements in the civil rights struggle; Segregationist violence and civil rights movements in Tuscaloosa; for article titles: "the role of the black church in black civil rights movements"; The Role of Religion in the Civil Rights Movements; "Social Class, Race, and the Extension of Citizenship: The English Working Class and the Southern Civil Rights Movements"; " Social Movements and Policy Implementation: The Mississippi Civil Rights Movements and the War on Poverty"; in India: Civil Rights Movements; Human rights movements in India State, civil society and beyond; in Europe: "From 'catacomb'to 'civic'action: transformation of civil rights movements in Hungary after 1989"; Rjensen ( talk) 07:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What sources have you encountered that explicitly defines that concept? Mitchumch ( talk) 07:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"Origins of the Civil Rights Movements" is an example of a typo. The actual title is "Origins of the Civil Rights Movement." See actual book cover here. Mitchumch ( talk) 07:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

yes I did not check the jacket. :) if you want to see definitions used by these authors you should look at the contents of the books. Rjensen ( talk) 08:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the best I could find in a book for a definition, "In the case of lesbian politics, this primarily involves connections with other groups dealing with issues of race, class, and gender, including gay men's groups, women's groups, human rights groups, and other social justice groups that embrace the ideal of doing away with oppression(s), as in civil rights movements." Myers, JoAnne (2013). Historical Dictionary of the Lesbian and Gay Liberation Movements. Scarecrow Press. p. 112. ISBN  9780810874688. There does not appear to be an explicit definition for the term "civil rights movements" or "movements for civil rights." At the very least, I should be able to find a definition in a dictionary or encyclopedia - but I found nothing. Both terms, "civil rights movements" or "movements for civil rights," don't appear to be notable enough to warrant a definition in such works. I'm inclined to think another term is used to represent the content of the article. It seems improbable that the content of the article doesn't have a well studied term to represent it.

Terms like "civil resistance" have an entire book dedicated to it. See, Ash, Timothy Garton; Roberts, Adam, eds. (2009). "Introduction". Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present. Oxford University Press. ISBN  9780191619175. for the quote, "Civil Resistance is a type of political action that relies on the use of non-violent methods. It is largely synonymous with certain other terms, including 'nonviolent action', 'non-violent resistance', and 'people power'. It involves a range of widespread and sustained activities that challenge a particular power, force, policy, or regime – hence the term 'resistance'." There are no page numbers, but can be found on the second page of first chapter titled, "Introduction." Also see, "resistance by civilian population" or "the resistance by civil society". Clark, Howard (2000). Civil Resistance in Kosovo. Pluto Press. p. 3.

I am not advancing the term "civil resistance" as an alternative to either terms "civil rights movements" or "movements for civil resistance." I use it as a model for what should be, but is not.

The article "Movements for civil rights" was examined last year for a comparable reason. See Remove Movements for civil rights. Mitchumch ( talk) 11:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I've noticed you have a distinct flare for removing content you don't like. Rather than vandalising articles in this way, please try improving coverage of content you DO like. I personally don't at all agree with Karl Marx's theories, but I see that they are extremely under-covered. Please just let Wikipedia be WP:NPOV. Even after adding what small coverage of Socialism I did, their views are still outnumbered 1000 times to 1 by the mainstream views of history. Please stop your persistent, POV, vandalism. Thank you. Hendrick 99 ( talk) 08:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Keep posting the same points in multiple articles even though none of them are based on modern scholarship. You really need to read up on what Marxist historians have been doing for the last 150 years. Rjensen ( talk) 09:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I hope you don't mind my reformatting your request for votes. I'm quite sure there are only two editors who disagree with you, and their reasons aren't sufficient. I appreciate your participation there. Would you want to move your new comment up to the top of the list? You initially opened the vote, closely followed by Coemgenus. Of course it really makes no difference where your comment is, but I don't want you to seem to have been displaced there. I'd be happy to restore your first place if you like. Best wishes, YoPienso ( talk) 02:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you did-- thanks. Rjensen ( talk) 02:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Richard,

Last June I spent a bit of time looking at the supposed representation of an early railway in Freiburg Minster (see History_of_rail_transport#Medieval_railway). I'm convinced that the representation has nothing to do with railways, but there is a supporting citation. If you have time would you look at talk page and tell me what you think?

Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 14:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Without looking too closely into it, I think you're right. it's ridiculous to mix up medieval and modern the way that article does, Rjensen ( talk) 15:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As the one that did the checking up I might be accused of WP:OR if I delete the claim. I was hoping you might be prepared to do so. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 17:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen you added some text on women in The Gilded Age, with refs, but no page numbers. One sentence was startling to me, that Roman Catholic married women were encouraged to work outside the home in that era. Not my ancestors! And not any RC group that comes to mind, so I would value a back up on that, and possibly a bit more as to why that is credible -- all over the country, in certain cities, at certain income levels? The RC families coming from modern Slovenia and Croatia in that era, all Roman Catholic, many went to mining areas (having been miners in the old Austrian Empire), many of which became boom towns, and the women ran the family, with full time job of cooking and raising children. Similarly, singling out African American married women, about whom I have less historical knowledge, at least in that period. Slavery was over, reconstruction had been a bust, but the life of freedom was just beginning, so your sentence jarred, to link those two groups of women. You cited two books, but no page numbers and no publishers for the books. I was assuming they were books from what info you did include. I put the cites in cite book format, and uses the 'page needed' template so you can see the refs easily. Anyway, I thought it might be more polite to tell you here, as you might not read my warning to revert in the edit summary without page numbers to back up those exact statements. I know you are a good writer and editor and likely do have the page numbers. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 19:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I specified the Irish Catholic women. There's a large scholarly literature on them but start with Hasia R. Diner (1983). Erin's Daughters in America: Irish Immigrant Women in the Nineteenth Century. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 74–85., which I added to the page just now. Rjensen ( talk) 00:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on resources? I have plenty of stuff on the numismatic side, but I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on the historical side. I'm going to try to focus as tightly as I can on the act itself while obviously paying some attention to what came afterwards.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 07:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a couple of articles of interest, especially Weinstein, Allen. "Was There a" Crime of 1873"?: The Case of the Demonetized Dollar." Journal of American History (1967) 54#2 pp: 307-326. in JSTOR and Barnett, Paul. "The Crime of 1873 Re-examined." Agricultural History (1964): 178-181. in JSTOR ...good luck with the editing! You know that Wikipedia editors can get a free subscription to JSTOR? see free access Rjensen ( talk) 08:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks yes, but I have through my affiliateship with George Mason and also through a local library so I should be good. Thanks for the recommendations.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 09:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Rjensen, I've added a bit to the article The Capture of the USS Chesapeake, would you mind terribly to give the addition a once over? I wanted to have you do a sniff test and make sure it is up to snuff.. Tirronan ( talk) 11:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

it smells well done! I made a few c/edits and added 2 books. Rjensen ( talk) 13:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I just now removed it from the blacklist, tho it will still be reverted for new editors. Could you please check that it works ok for you; if not , let me know. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be added in the section Other Conflicts/ Feuds. It's one of the most notable feuds in the American frontier, and was an important event in the reconstruction era. Godzilladude123 ( talk) 07:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I found two sources; The Encyclopedia of the New West by John Henry Brown pp 98-100 and the Arkansas Odyssey pp. 259, that mentions the War as being a feud in the Old West. Arkansas itself is a state west of the Mississippi. I'm not planning to add a whole description of it, but I think its worthy to named in that section which includes the Tutt–Everett War, Flynn–Doran feud, Early–Hasley feud, Sutton–Taylor feud, Horrell Brothers feud, Brooks–McFarland feud, Reese–Townsend feud and the Earp Vendetta Ride.

Arkansas is west, but not frontier at that stage. It was a political battle that resembled other states during Reconstruction. National people like President Grant were heavily involved, Making this totally different from all the other cases. the problem on the frontier generally was a lack of official law enforcement. in Brooks-Baxter, whose too much official law enforcement, with competing agencies, including the sheriff, the state militia, and the U.S. Army. The old Brown book is not a reliable source -- it's pop history about the New West written in 1880 with no access to modern scholarship. Rjensen ( talk) 08:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

But isn't that why the war should be inducted in the article? The use of private agencies instead of proper law enforcement to solve disputes is a major element in pretty much every conflict in the Old West. Little Rock was still a developing community during the Arkansas Reconstruction, and at that time (during the war), historians state that the place was still part of the Arkansas frontier (Shay E. Hopper, Boyd Johnson and John Hugh Reynolds). Even those who participated in the War, such as George Crump, were included in the list of the Old West lawmen/gunfighters. (Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography) Godzilladude123 ( talk) 10:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Private agencies were not used in the Brooks Baxter War--there were different levels of county, city, state, and federal forces involved. The big issue was who Washington would support, and president Grant kept changing his mind. You can argue there were frontier elements in western Arkansas in the 1860s, but they did not feature in the Brooks Baxter War. It was mostly fought out in downtown Little Rock. On the other hand, it's quite similar to the Reconstruction conflicts that were stretched out across the south all the way to South Carolina. I suggest it has almost no resemblance to the other local feuds that are listed. By the way the source used, by John Henry Brown, explicitly says it is dealing with the NEW West, Not the old West. Rjensen ( talk) 10:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Sorry for the strings of argument. By the way, do you think the article is good enough for GA? I'm hoping to nominate it.13:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the quality, coverage and footnoting is pretty good; the maps and illustrations are good. The article is been stable without edit warring. The problem I have with GA evaluations is that they deal largely w formatting issues and minor complaints raised by people who have little interest in the substance of the matter. So yes go ahead and nominate it! Rjensen ( talk) 13:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the approval! If the review finally commenced, I hope you can help me out due to the large scope of the article. Godzilladude123 ( talk) 14:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

yes, happy to help. :) Rjensen ( talk) 14:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

	All-American meal
	For your contributions to the discussion at Talk:Korean American#Requested move 11 March 2015, I provide you this meal to fuel your continued discussion regarding this renaming attempt. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Town Destroyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seneca. 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) 09:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see [ [4]]. The user's account was globally blocked by Vituzzu ( talk) on 25 March for long-term abuse (Abelm7). Four days later, the account for Editing net ( talk) popped into existence and immediately resumed UnbiasedVictory's campaign of stuffing cruft and unresearched opinion into information boxes. This was a blatant attempt to evade the block. I have launched a sockpuppet investigation.

Please note although UnbiasedVictory was cleared of sockpuppetry on the last occasion the question arose, UnbiasedVictory was twice proved to have indulged in sockpuppetry, but allowed rope by the admins. I find it significant that at the time, UnbiasedVictory, with several thousand edits already made by the account, was recommended by the admins to seek mentorship. HLGallon ( talk) 19:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Long-term abuse under the UnbiasedVictory account isn't something I'm trying to deny, but I never committed sockpuppetry and still haven't under this account, which is the only one I've established other than the now-deceased aforementioned account. I'm not attempting to evade anyone or anything, and support your decision to launch a sockpuppet investigation. Editing Net ( talk) 02:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

		The Feather Barnstar
		Excellent work on creating History of higher education in the United States. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Rjensen :)! Great to see you! I was confused a bit when you added back the arms import content by Sipriot. I removed that content not only because it was different from the topic but also the source was the user's (organisation) own research. I was following the edits of Sipriot from when he edited Indian Armed Forces with a source from www.sipri.org and not adhering to NPOV, and found out that the user is editing the articles of each and every country (adding details about arms import) with references all of which pointed to www.sipri.org. My best bet is that the user is mentioning their own research which is against Wikipedia:Spam. So, are you sure I did the wrong thing? If yes, I'm sorry to have wasted your time. If no, thanks for your time! -- Jaaron95 ( talk) 14:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not spam to have actual accurate information from a reliable source tailored exactly to the article in question. In fact Wikipedia welcomes that information. The fact that the Editor actually knows a lot about the subject is not a negative. The information this case is not in the least bit controversial, but it certainly does relate to Australian foreign policy. WP:SPAM this data when the person is trying to promote himself for his organization, rather than to enhance the article itself. It is clear that enhancement is the goal, since the SIPRI organization Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Is one of the most influential think tanks in the world. It has a very strong reputation for its research, so a couple of sentences in this article is for the benefit of Wikipedia. Rjensen ( talk) 14:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

hi dr jensen,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jean_le_Rond_d%27Alembert#atheism_or_agnostic

i've started a new topic here trying to ponder the origins of why people think d'Alembert was atheist.

as i state in that page, i do not dispute the vehement anti-clerical attitude taken on by him (and his successor, Laplace), however it does seem a bit rash to categorize him as atheist.

yes, i understand him and diderot were boyz and collaborators, but i still have reservations on whether he was actually atheist.

i know there are many atheist people who are eager to find reputable individuals such as d'Alembert to the 'atheist camp' so they can say 'HEY SEE, THIS GUY WAS SMART & HE DIDN'T BELIEVE IN GOD. SO YEAH'. many atheists have an axe to grind and are prone to confirmation bias, as i suggest is the case here.

if you could help me out in researching this a little (as you did with nightingale wrt sylvester, tyvm for that), i would appreciate it.

174.3.213.121 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I commented there – a quick look shows that historians are split on the issue. Rjensen ( talk) 21:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, Why do you feel that the ref you deleted did not support the section you deleted in that article? Scott P. ( talk) 18:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That is your private interpretation of one letter. Wikipedia demands we use experts and published reliable sources. These experts have looked at thousands of letters and read hundreds of Studies of Jefferson and his contemporaries, so that makes for reliability. Rjensen ( talk) 18:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson's own words do not interpret his own thoughts correctly, but you do, then is that what you are saying? Scott P. ( talk) 18:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that you believe when in his letter Jefferson attacks those who say God is "immaterial" as "heretics", and when he sides with the "antient fathers" in this letter, and reports that they hold that: "It (God) to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter," that you believe he is really trying to say something other than that he believes that God is "material", and he is not proclaiming a disbelief in God himself? Scott P. ( talk) 19:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, how do you feel I misread Jefferson's words in that letter, and specifically, what do you feel was the "correct" interpretation of that letter regarding Jefferson's views on God and "immaterialism"? Scott P. ( talk) 19:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your one answer above. I'm not certain exactly why you feel that I "misunderstood" Jefferson's writing. Whether it was because you believe (as many now mistakenly do) that Jefferson did not believe in God, or if it might have been for some other reason. I will wait until tomorrow for your answer. Your answer would be much appreciated. Scott P. ( talk) 19:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether you correctly or incorrectly interpret one letter from Jefferson. The issue is the very strict rule that Wikipedia editors are obliged to take their information from reliable secondary sources, and not depend on their own private reading of one tiny slice of the many original sources. If it's important topic, then numerous scholars will have made the point, and you should cite one of them. Rjensen ( talk) 21:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I still would very much appreciate it if you might be able to explain what "point" in that deleted section, you felt was "contrary" to what you apparently feel is the currently prevailing scholarly opinion on the subject at hand. Obviously you wouldn't have deleted it if you felt that the section I inserted was in harmony with prevailing scholarly opinion. Normally, in the absence of any conflicting evidence, or conflicting prevailing scholarly opinion, direct quotes from a person who is the subject of an article are not deleted. What point in that deleted section did you not like? Scott P. ( talk) 21:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If additional documentation about Jefferson's belief in the existence of a Creator is what you are wanting for the deleted section, then I would be happy to include additional refs to support that point that Jefferson did in fact believe in the existence of a Creator. If you are wanting some other type of supporting refs, then please explain. I am always open to improving my contributions to Wikipedia, or to be proven mistaken, but so far I still feel pretty much in the dark, only able to make uninformed guesses as to what point exactly you think is either inaccurate, incorrect, or incorrectly cited. Thanks, Scott P. ( talk) 22:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You have to provide evidence that your interpretation is congruent with the prevailing scholarly viewpoint. That means a footnote to a reliable secondary source that makes the point. The issue here is materialism, rather than deism. Let's start with the basic point: what secondary sources are you Depending upon for your edits on Jefferson's materialism? Rjensen ( talk) 22:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I got what you were saying. I believe there are now two fairly straightforward direct quotes from Jefferson, and no "interpretation". Scott P. ( talk) 00:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

you seem to be telling me that you in fact are not using any reliable secondary sources. That would be a serious mistake because it violates Wikipedia principles. The world is not want the personal views of anonymous editors. Rjensen ( talk) 01:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Reply entered at: TJ&R talk page Scott P. ( talk) 11:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Reply entered at: TJ&R talk page Scott P. ( talk) 10:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Reply entered at: TJ&R talk page Scott P. ( talk) 21:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Reply entered at: TJ&R talk page Scott P. ( talk) 22:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Reply entered at: TJ&R talk page Scott P. ( talk) 22:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Reply entered at: TJ&R talk page Scott P. ( talk) 00:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Editorial cartoon mocking FDR's "Alphabet agencies".jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Please be more careful to proofread your edits before considering them complete. I've read some of your recent major edits and so far the majority of them seem to have one or more serious grammatical errors. Scott P. ( talk) 11:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the advice. :) Rjensen ( talk) 17:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Religious studies may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Carl. ''The Allure of Decadent Thinking: Religious Studies and the Challenge of Postmodernism'' (Oxford University Press, 20130

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 04:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the United Kingdom during World War I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kenneth Morgan. 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) 09:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Per multiple posts on your Talk page, you continue to revert reasonable contributions to articles that are well-sourced, such as in this case. I understand you are an expert and therefore feel you are qualified to undo interpretations of sources that you disagree with, but you need to discuss good-faith edits that have sources on the article's Talk page instead of repeatedly reverting them. Perhaps you could modify or provide an alternate viewpoint, but policing articles for edits that you happen to personally disagree with does not encourage contributions. That edit cited a book, not the SPLC itself. You need to make your case on the Talk page for what the content of the book is, why that book is not a valid source, and/or how the text is being misinterpreted by that edit. Strom ( talk) 02:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the book is a RELIABLE source on the Klan????--it has just one footnote (to the SPLC pamphlet). That is bad sourcing for an important claim. Rjensen ( talk) 06:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Given the discussion on the Talk page and the related content that was added, I now fully understand why you reverted the edit. Thanks for your time and attention to this. Apologies for the distraction, but I hope that being able to point to that discussion on the Talk page will be useful in the future. Strom ( talk) 15:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I believe it was a useful discussion for all of us. Thank you. Rjensen ( talk) 22:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted edits you made on Theodore Roosevelt. Although I did make one typo, using an 'as' instead of 'and', your edits had multiple typos, and some grammatical issues which created sentences that border on being incomplete. I don't want to start an edit war here, but I had to revert edits which were made that reduced the grammatical composition of the lead. Spartan7W § 04:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

well you did the right thing and I should be more careful. I gave it another whack--and dropped footnotes that are not needed in the lede. Rjensen ( talk) 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have created a talk page subsection to discuss, you are welcome to participate: Talk:World_War_I#Weapons_of_mass_destruction. Thanks IQ125 ( talk) 11:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 310 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

. Buster Seven Talk 12:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks! Rjensen ( talk) 06:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It was a long rambling rant about how jews were somehow responsible for the transatlantic slave trade. Clearly out of place in that article. What was I supposed to do? 213.112.251.224 ( talk) 07:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies – you did exactly the right thing and I reverted myself. Rjensen ( talk) 07:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Was wondering about the deletion of {{see also|Abraham Lincoln's patent}} in this edit, especially since that whole first paragraph is about the patent. I know the article is linked in that section's first paragraph but I think it might be helpful to readers (especially casual readers new to Wikipedia) to delineate the fact that there is a separate article about the matter. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 12:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

the readers will learn that there is another article when they get to the patent section. Otherwise we are diverting them away from this ***** article to a minor * article on a minor topic. It's not like he invented the telegraph. Rjensen ( talk) 21:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The review points out McCarthy's political affiliations. The fact of the matter is he made a career out of being a propagandist, and when things he says are contrary to most historians this needs to be noted. -- Steverci ( talk) 01:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP rules require very careful handling of derogatory information about living people--and one negative book review focused on technical errors on other issues is not enough when the wiki editor does NOT mention his favorable reviews. "propagandist" means an advocate of a position you dislike. He is a full-time university professor with "propaganda" = books that (mostly) get positive reviews from scholars. I actually read the scholarly reviews. The cited review complained about his errors on topics centuries earlier. the cited review said zero about his "political affiliations" but the reviewer did suggest that Armenians are attacking him because he is pro-Turkish on Balkan topics (which did not involve Armenians). Rjensen ( talk) 01:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

drop BLP violation--unsourced false personal attack. For sourced data look at "Google scholar" and "google books" --they report hundreds of citations to his work, & its acceptance by major publishers. For example see favorable citations: 1) Encyclopedia of the Palestinians (2005) - Page 404; 2) The Demographic Revolution in Modern Egypt (2007) Page 15; 3) Global Middle East, A: Mobility, Materiality and Culture (2014) p 160; 4) Imperialism on Trial (2006) p 46; 5) The Kurds: A Concise Handbook (1992) - Page 120; 6) Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (2003) - Page 235; 7) Bracy, Printing Class: 'Isa al-'Isa, Filastin... (2010) p 15 calls his work " the most reliable demographic source."; 8) Hadassah and the Zionist Project (2006) - Page 79 says " Figures for the Jewish population of Palestine in this period vary widely and are contentious. [He] has tried to balance and correct the demographic figures for Palestine from conflicting sources." 9) Frontiers of the State in the Late Ottoman Empire (2002) - Page 162; 10) Zurcher, The Young Turk Legacy and Nation Building (2014) uses his "solid historical demographic studies"; 11) The Ottoman Administration of Iraq (2006) p 157....etc for over 1000 books in books.google. Rjensen ( talk) 06:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen,

You reverted my edit of the KKK page [ [5]] using the reason 'kkk2 was NOT associated mostly with Dems--both parties involved.' In fact the quote that I've added was taken directly from one of the 3 references I've included, not sure how you missed it, with one from the University of Washington which supports my edit specifically regarding the 'national KKK2 mostly associated with Democrats'. An academic reference from a major university's civil rights dept. is a valid and reliable source, while you provided nothing but your personal POV as the sole reason for removing it. Please show a source backing up your claim. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 11:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you misread the quotation. It says that in the politics of the 1920s the Democratic Party got all tangled up in the KKK issue (meaning at the famous 1924 national convention.) That is true enough but it does not actually say That ordinary Democrats were more likely to be clansman than ordinary Republicans. The Democrats nominated a Catholic in 1928, and the Republicans head support from the voters who had supported the KKK. In any Case the Washington reference is primarily about a local episode in one county in one state, and does not pretend to cover voters anywhere else. The link which you have is a student paper there I think rather than a university professor. Some quotations on the national pattern will be useful [You can read the full details by using Google]: 1) "state KKK leaders worked with nativist legislators in both parties" Horowitz, Inside the Klavern 2) " It successfully penetrated both parties' primaries" Mayhew, Placing Parties in American Politics; "The Indiana Klan not only took over state government, it overturned local political organizations in both parties" Lay, Invisible Empire; 3) In Oklahoma, "August 1922: Klan candidates swept primary elections in both parties" Historical Atlas of Oklahoma - Page 165; 4) "Klan leaders hoped to have all major candidates competing to win the movement's endorsement" McVeigh The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan; 5) " it acts secretly in both parties, it tries constantly for control—secret control—of elections, legislature, and government" Best, the Dollar Decade; 6) "he Klan had a foothold in both parties since Deep South members tended to be Democrats while Klansmen in the North and West were often Republicans." Bullard, Ku Klux Klan; 7) " local politicians in both parties found the Klan" Moore, Citizen Klansman; 8) " it was non- partisan in the sense that it pressed its nativist issues to both parties" Cummings, Red states, Blue states ; 9) " the intrusion of the Second Ku Klux Klan into both parties' processes at the state and local levels in the 1920s." Mayhew, Electoral Realignments. Need more evidence??? Rjensen ( talk) 13:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

My edits which you reverted were discussed via talkpage with an editor, in fact the only other editor, who's been active in trying to improve the article. You might also care to note my various comments and proposals about improvements, on the article talk page. The version to which you reverted is riddled with repetitions, inconsistencies, POV, original research etc etc which has been that way for a long time going back years and years. My edits have made long overdue improvements. You might care to help improve the article. 41.162.131.130 ( talk) 12:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

yes but it's too much for other editors to handle. Please do it one section at a time. Rjensen ( talk) 12:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Richard,

Whew and wow! You really were busy yesterday, weren't you? Congatulations on your hard work!

I have already made minor changes to both pages under "Sealed Set system". I intend holding off on making other changes for a day or so, until I hear your comments on what I've said below.

Firstly, some comments on the modifications you've made to "History of broadcating". Some of the changes are excellent, particularly your introduction. However, I am inclined to re-state some of the sections that you've deleted:

1) References to Electrophone, etc. This is an extremely important pre-decessor to radio broadcasting, but very few people know much about it! Therefore I think that the brief mention I made is important.

2) The full caption to the Voigt photo is important simply because it explains his rig-out.

3) I think it's vital to mention Fisk's name in connection with the Sealed Set.

4) Although the US doesn't have any government broadcasters, it does have public stations which serve a similar function. Perhaps mention of this should be made.

Regarding the ommission of Bruce Carty's book from the list of Further Reading. Yes, Bruce's book has many contradictions: one the one hand, it has much valuable information that can't be found elsewhere; on the other hand, the book is atrouciously written and ridiculously Sydney-centric! I have been in email contact with Bruce for a couple of years and have made numerous suggestions for improvement, but I'm quite frustrated because he has only used a few of my suggestions.

Bruce wanted to set up a Wikipedia page re 2CM, but didn't have the computer knowledge to do so. I have recently set up that page using Bruce's notes as a base. You may like to have a look at "2CM - an Australian pionerr broadcaster".

Have you seen the 3AK page which is mainly my work? As you are probably aware 3AK probably has the most unusual history of any Australian broadcaster, which is why I'm obsessed with the hisatory of this station.

Now, to the "History of broadcasting in Australia" page. You beat me to it - I was thinking of setting up a similar page, and congratulations to you for getting around to doing it! It looks good! Perhaps some of the Australian info on the "History of broadcasting" page can now be deleted.

I haven't had a chance to properly study the lengthy ABC section that you've added, but will eventually get a chance to look at it.

You haven't added the latter Australian sections from "History of broadcasting", ie "1950s, 60s & 70s", "80s & 90s", "2000s". I think that this information should be added to the Australian page!

Finally (sorry about the long letter), I note that the ABC photos that you've added are all already in the Wikipedia photo bank. I would love to add new photos but find the system extremely difficult. Therefore, I've just shrugged my shoulders and haven't bothered. Am I right in thinking that you may have a similar problem?

Well, that's certainly enough from me. I do look forward to your reply.

Regards, ALBERT.

Thanks for the nice note. I'm a Yank with an interest in OZ, hence the activity. I agree with your points. Except the Electrophone...it's a curiosity that deserves its own article, but it's not included by the Reliable Sources Australian broadcasting. I think the Australia section and the "history of broadcasting" could indeed be reduced, but I'd rather you do the reduction since you wrote it. As for adding the latter Australian sections on 1950s etc...good idea! I hope you can do that, since I'm focused right now on working through the scholarly journal literature on Australian broadcasting. If you think Carty is hard reading, you should plow through the "Quarterly Journal of Postmodern (re-)studies and (un-)theories." As for Voigt -- I don't think his costume is distracting at all: he seems so Australian! the United States has "public" broadcasting stations all right, but they are not owned or operated by the government. They are independent entities, for example like a private college. :) Rjensen ( talk) 00:40, 11 May 2015 (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.