the latest archive is User talk:Rjensen/Archive25 Rjensen ( talk) 09:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You added the term "politician" to describe Trump. However, that is only how he referred to himself, but does not reflect what he is, or does. As I noted, I could call myself a platypus, but that doesn't mean I actually am one. Until he earns the title, he cannot be referred to in that way. You're not a doctor or an astrophysicist, just because you call yourself one. Knowledge Battle 00:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Townshend Acts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edmund 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) 09:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen - this is to let you know that the edit you made most recently to Sport in Canada uses a reference name "fiskesuppe Sports of Canada Act" but it's not defined in the article. Please fix what needs to be repaired. Thanks in advance, PK T(alk) 15:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen,
I noticed an edit you recently made on Anti-Irish sentiment looks to be regarding a disagreement that you are a core part of. I know you've been an editor here for a long time (and fondly remember your WMDC talk) but given your Conflict of Interest in this I'd like to ask that you revert yourself and take it to the talk page so that less involved users can review the request and make the changes if they see fit. This is especially true since the edits you made seem to be focused on trying to (rightly or wrongly) discredit the other side in the dispute. Thanks in advance and if you have an questions feel free to ping :). James of UR ( talk) 20:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen. I'm curious if my ping worked from the Perry talk page. I just did it wrong a minute ago, so re-did it and re-signed. Did it work okay? If not, I have to do something differently next time. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been watching your work recently and I'm pleased to see you are trying to add a bit of balance to some articles that looked very one sided in their presentation of material. Keep up the good work! Springee ( talk) 02:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Took a look at the page Reagan Era for a cursory taste on the topic. It was well balanced and informative, and the citations point towards more treasure. Thanks for bringing that article to life! Airplaneman ✈ 00:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hi! I would like you to take a look at the ongoing debate on the origin of the word Canada in the article Canada. Your unbiased opinion would be appreciated J Pratas 18:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I see you reverted the citation needed on the Protestant Reformation article. I read the source indicated in the footnote and it says nothing about Hus' view of justification, and in fact notes that Hus and Luther were not on the same theological grounds. I am notifying you before I reinsert the citation markup, to see if we cannot come to a common understanding of what needs to be done. Thanks Mikeatnip ( talk) 19:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Is the date of birth (DOB) on Richard J. Jensen correct? 172.56.21.235 ( talk) 02:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please provide citations for embolden phrase In a single stroke. Claiming RS says so, then not provide RS is dubious work. Mitchumch ( talk) 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
.. at Micael Bindefeld, Anna Bråkenhielm, Saga Becker, Lo Kauppi and Ester Claesson. If you find time for it., Thanks.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 21:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey Rjensen. I forget whether we have collaborated anywhere in the past, but it seems likely we have worked together unknowingly on any number of articles given our common area of interest. So I guess I'll say お久しぶり! :D
Anyway, sorry to bother you with a dispute from which you seem to have removed yourself, but CurtisNaito has recently started claiming that "almost half of the users who have commented agree with me, so I must be right". However, you are the only user who has a history of editing Japanese history articles (and who didn't follow me there as part of a hounding campaign or what looks a feeling of owing CurtisNaito a "favour" despite having no interest in or awareness of the topic) who has expressed any agreement with him whatsoever, and that before I had presented my argument in full, and before the other users weighed in with their own evidence.
Would it be possible for you to post some indication on the talk page or here as to whether
Sorry for the long and rambling post (I'm trying to change, I really am...) and sorry if your actual reasoning is different from all six options above (I tried to guess as many possibilities as possible to avoid appearing to assume one or another without evidence).
If you just don't care any more and want me, or CurtisNaito, or both, to buzz off, that is also an acceptable response. ;-)
Cheers!
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting my restoration of Henry Ford's comments in his book here. You did revert my addition of a quote from that book, but that's OK with me. I don't believe that the article asserts that Ford intended his comments as "Anti-American" comments. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
"Mussolini thought of himself as an intellectual". Here you got the point. The "Duce" had a very great opinion of himself, and no doubt that he thought about himself as an "intellettuale". As soon as I will recover my De Felice (it is at my other home) I will add more info about his education. Alex2006 ( talk) 07:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In Feb 2013 as you were creating this article History of medicine in the United States, you added this sentence: "Pest houses aimed at newly arrived infected sailors were established in port cities, notably Boston (171), Philadelphia (174) Charleston (1752) and New York (1757)." Any ideas as to what the years should actually be? If so, please fix. Hmains ( talk) 22:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to thank you for that link you added to the abolitionism article. However "Sources of Abolitionist Income", was a JSTOR link. Some folks who have accounts at big libraries think that JSTOR is a great service, but my personal point of view I think that they charge $19.00 for what should be information freely loaned out to readers. I mean its not like we're going to use it commercially! Not to draw you into the forever disagreement about freedom of information at not for profit sources like Wikipedia, but do you happen to have a free lending library link for the article? Free lending library, you say? Yes, something like the Open Library project Benjamin Quarles page, which would allow us poor folk to borrow it to read. Thanks. Trilobitealive ( talk) 01:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, if I lived within 20 miles of a public library I would. If you ever find a free resource for this one please send the link to me. ;^) Trilobitealive ( talk) 13:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see the article's talk page for responses to your post. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:6DE5:5086:EA68:1BDD ( talk) 11:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
History of Japan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Richard J. Jensen. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. If you are logging out and using the IP address 108.56.199.37, you need to stop and state that you have done so. Editing under an IP to avoid detection is considered socking and is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy. GregJackP Boomer! 01:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Richard J. Jensen shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I would recommend that you self-revert your last edit.
GregJackP
Boomer! 01:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not Rjensen and Rjensen is not me. So please stop your nonsense about sockpuppets. On the other hand, if your hallucinations are more powerful than your common sense, please feel free to launch whatever investigation you want to. I won't be bullied. 108.56.199.37 ( talk) 03:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The article Ebrary has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Witch-hunt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman Christianity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
HazelAB ( talk) 18:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
What's important is the Haber-Bosch process was a much cheaper method to produce nitrogen through ammonia synthesis than anything previously developed. The Haber-Bosch process was only used in Germany until after WWI and was not that widely used in the U.S. until after WWII. {cite book |title= Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production|last=Smil|first=Vaclav authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2004 |publisher= MIT Press|location= |isbn= 0262693135 |pages= |url= }} Also see the Alexander Field reference. Phmoreno ( talk) 16:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I have been doing some editing on Salazar’s article. Mostly cosmetics, trying to bring the article to higher standards. The article has been fairly stable over the last months. Could you please read the article and point out those areas where you think the article needs improvements? Or do some editing yourself? J Pratas ( talk) 08:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding to your reversion to information on the World Wide Web page: Wikipedia asks for dependable sources, and surely none can be more dependable than the creator of the World Wide Web himself? I have reverted your change and will report the matter to admin as it seems that wholesale and puzzling changes are happening to the Web pages at the behest of a very few number of editors.
( Etheldavis ( talk) 03:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC))
Rjensen ( talk) 03:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
LOL! I appreciate your humour. Here's a CERN article from March 2014 celebrating the "Birth Of The Web" in 1989:
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2014/03/world-wide-web-born-cern-25-years-ago
It's a fascinating subject. Hard to imagine life without the Web now.
( Etheldavis ( talk) 04:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC))
It is clearly not "following the rules" to back un-cited wholesale changes to an article. The information about Tim Berners-Lee inventing the Web is widely available. However, I have informed admin so I daresay admin can decide. Wishing you a very pleasant day.
( Etheldavis ( talk) 04:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC))
This RM discussion is ongoing. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Obi2canibe seems to pushing their own agenda at Tamil population by cities and Tamil population by nation without using any logic. I think the articles should be deleted but I request that you must do something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filpro ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Callinus has been removing all links to state atheism all over Wikipedia. You should look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Religion_in_Cuba&diff=prev&oldid=683337655
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Freedom_of_religion_in_China&diff=prev&oldid=684156805
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Religion_in_North_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=684176371
Mr.strangerX ( talk) 14:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I started a discussion about ledes in general. I invite you to this. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Since your a regular editor on the page, i wanted to notify you of an ongoing discussion relating a content fork article of the American Revolutionary War page. See here Talk:American_Revolutionary_War#Merger_proposal XavierGreen ( talk) 18:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I want to know if you can help me settle a argument with the Anti-Iranian sentiment and Sinophobia articles? I and two other users keeps reverting my change to the Pew Research Center tables from the positive change from 2014 to the positive-negative difference. But from what I see, the positive-negative difference isn't useful. We took this to the Sinophobia's talk page, and it was first about how there weren't any cited references. So I added references, and again it got reverted now because one user says that because the other anti-sentiment articles have the positive-negative difference, it should be here to. But I've done the same thing to the Anti-Russian sentiment and Anti-Americanism articles, and no one complained. Seqqis ( talk) 16:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
A central discussion on certain titles has started already. I invite you to comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen
Could we open a discussion about the "Causes of WWI" page? This remains one of the most controversial and complex historical events ever and I believe that the current page can be made more readable, and better reflect modern scholarship.
Keith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, Any particular reason for this revert? This came from the Chronicle book listing which says that this book, "Draws on literary and other realms in a study of the social, cultural, and psychological impact of Shanghai's transformation in recent years." Thanks! Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 20:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen, I recently added a bit to the lead and scholarship section of the Southern Strategy article. I would appreciate your take on the changes. Article history [1] and my new section in talk [2]
Perhaps you'd like to join Outedexits ( talk) 05:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I brought this issue there mostly because I wish more people would discuss. Don't take it so seriously. Cheers. Outedexits ( talk) 05:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to copy everything we say here to the talk page for the article. We're talking about a different thing now. Anyway, now I'm curious to know about your political views. You seem to have an obsession with issues like power and social inequality. Outedexits ( talk) 06:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
[4] please stop inserting your personal analysis into the article . Any time you are framing material in a "see also" method you are not accurately presenting what the source is actually stating. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This sentence is just perfect. No need to change it. You don't need to say they supposedly have too much power: Just say they have more power. Now let's not fight over a simple sentence. Cheers. Outedexits ( talk) 04:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The Dutch aren't Anglo-Saxons? Pardon my ignorance Outedexits ( talk) 06:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
In White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, I removed a mention of Irving Lewis Allen, which I suppose you added. That is not necessary because he is mentioned in the reference. Second, he is not famous enough to be mentioned. Third, the lead section is not supposed to contain such details. Cheers, Outedexits ( talk) 20:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
Rjensen (
talk) 22:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Idea: Instead of using disproportionate, is it ok to say "proportionally more"? It is a more positive way to put it and doesn't sound so negative. Outedexits ( talk) 22:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Does this sound ok to you? It uses proportionally more because if you say "disproportionate", it is vague to whether it is proportionally more or less. Outedexits ( talk) 23:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Since you were previously involved in this discussion would you mind adding your take to this No OR discussion [6]. The short version is I'm arguing that the bottom up version of the Southern Realignment theory should be given weight equal to that of the top down theory. Scoobydunk disagrees. His argument is that the proponents of bottom up acknowledged they were the minority opinion at the time they published their theories. My counter argument is of course they were the minority at the time of publication but that was 10 years back, 4 years after publication another scholar said the bottom up theory was rapidly gaining acceptance. Finally, a quick Google Scholar search of citation counts shows the primary bottom up sources have almost 2x as many citations as the top down works even though they are half as old. Hence the "gaining rapidly" should be seen as at least close enough to equal to be given equal weight. Anyway, since you have been involved with this discussion in the past I would like to ask you to weigh in. Thanks Springee ( talk) 00:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all your helpful input and edits. I was making the Palast move when I discovered it conflicted with another edit. It was you making the same change. I was going to add NY-based and "video" reporter for the BBC, but it's not necessary. Activist ( talk) 09:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
RJensen: Given your expertise, I think you might have needed mainstream historical insights/references relative to the trade/tariff issues as discussed in Commonwealth realm (Proposed arrangements) as well as related links: Commonwealth free trade and Imperial Federation. I understand you may not have the time. Though a niche subject, I think it is interesting and the current treatment I suspect is at least somewhat fringy. By the way, thanks for all the content you have added. Juan Riley ( talk) 21:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no choice but to pluralize "xxx-Americans" right away (except ones requested in the past). The consensus says so. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. On this edit, I will post on the article talk page. I do not disagree with what you say, but... -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I am a student writing a research paper on the Third Great Awakening, trying to determine an exact period for when it occurred, as well as if one even occurred. For this, I'd like to use your definition of a Great Awakening ("Each of these "Great Awakenings" was characterized by widespread revivals led by evangelical Protestant ministers, a sharp increase of interest in religion, a profound sense of conviction and redemption on the part of those affected, an increase in evangelical church membership, and the formation of new religious movements and denominations.") as it seems to be a sufficient definition, including nearly all the aspects of a Great Awakening. Of course credit would be awarded to you in the form of a footnote, but I would like to know how you derived this definition before I apply it. I know its been years, but do you remember where it came from? Thanks for any information,
sincerely,
mnkewicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnkewicz ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen One IP address user continues to alter the same text about per capita income in the US compared to other countries in the article on the Gilded Age with no reason or source given. Is it possible to block that user? I left a message on the talk page advising that the changes are not productive, but it has had no positive effect. I do not know how to block someone; do you? You can see the recent history to see actions from 2602:306:BD4F:A130:A4EE:A074:463A:B959 . You reverted him/her the first time, and I did it the next two times. Sorry to bother you with this. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 22:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
They acted quickly! Editing is limited to autoconfirmed users for one week, today until Nov 28. I thanked the editor who did it, and I thank you for adding your support. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 17:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Historiography of the British Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Armitage. 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) 10:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
So we've both violated WP:3RR several times, let's cool things down. My reason for deleting the "holy aura in their minds" bit is that it's WP:PEACOCK. The quote is enough, we shouldn't invoke religious connotations because it's a violation of WP:NPOV. -- Monochrome_ Monitor 01:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I was rather confused by your recent reversion of my edit to the "Anti-Americanism" page. Please see the talk page of that article for an explanation. History2222 ( talk) 04:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I added a section on Orville E. Babcock's historical reputation. Could you look at the section or article ? Any edits or added references or sources to make the article better is appreciated. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thirteen Colonies 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 07:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Baby M 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 10:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Jean Talon 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
<clear>
Rjensen,
Do you have a copy of this source?
I'd like to make a Spanish article about this school, so I would like to use this source.
Thank you! WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
dept Educational Inquiry and Curriculum Studies College of Education Office: Northeastern Illinois University, LWH 4007 Mailing Address: 5500 N. Saint Louis Avenue Chicago, IL, 60653 Rjensen ( talk) 05:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I got the electronic copy. If you want I can send it to you WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I can only see a snippet of the section about India. I can see the opinion is attributed to John Bosanquet. Do you know what case he was commenting on? TFD ( talk) 22:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why you reverted most of my additions of an honorific prefix to the US presidents. "The Honorable" is the formal honorific prefix for a US president, and my addition of this prefix was accepted on Barack Obama. This would be considered a minor visual edit and I didn't believe it needed an entire discussion on all 44 talk pages with consensus. CatcherStorm talk 03:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC) ping when replying
Could you explain why you placed the McCabe information in the French Wars of Religion section? Judging from Grosrichard's book, which McCabe references, the time period would be more suited to Louis XIV's reign(The Sultan's Court: European Fantasies of the East, by Alain Grosrichard, page 68) & (Orientalism in Early Modern France, by Ina Baghdiantz McCabe, page 134;"What Saint Simon wrote about the Nights being a deformed mirror of Versailles is not remembered as a metaphor, but others have noticed the analogy between the court of Baghdad and Versailles."). -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 18:19, 23 December 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. |
the latest archive is User talk:Rjensen/Archive25 Rjensen ( talk) 09:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You added the term "politician" to describe Trump. However, that is only how he referred to himself, but does not reflect what he is, or does. As I noted, I could call myself a platypus, but that doesn't mean I actually am one. Until he earns the title, he cannot be referred to in that way. You're not a doctor or an astrophysicist, just because you call yourself one. Knowledge Battle 00:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Townshend Acts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edmund 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) 09:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen - this is to let you know that the edit you made most recently to Sport in Canada uses a reference name "fiskesuppe Sports of Canada Act" but it's not defined in the article. Please fix what needs to be repaired. Thanks in advance, PK T(alk) 15:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen,
I noticed an edit you recently made on Anti-Irish sentiment looks to be regarding a disagreement that you are a core part of. I know you've been an editor here for a long time (and fondly remember your WMDC talk) but given your Conflict of Interest in this I'd like to ask that you revert yourself and take it to the talk page so that less involved users can review the request and make the changes if they see fit. This is especially true since the edits you made seem to be focused on trying to (rightly or wrongly) discredit the other side in the dispute. Thanks in advance and if you have an questions feel free to ping :). James of UR ( talk) 20:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen. I'm curious if my ping worked from the Perry talk page. I just did it wrong a minute ago, so re-did it and re-signed. Did it work okay? If not, I have to do something differently next time. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been watching your work recently and I'm pleased to see you are trying to add a bit of balance to some articles that looked very one sided in their presentation of material. Keep up the good work! Springee ( talk) 02:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Took a look at the page Reagan Era for a cursory taste on the topic. It was well balanced and informative, and the citations point towards more treasure. Thanks for bringing that article to life! Airplaneman ✈ 00:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hi! I would like you to take a look at the ongoing debate on the origin of the word Canada in the article Canada. Your unbiased opinion would be appreciated J Pratas 18:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I see you reverted the citation needed on the Protestant Reformation article. I read the source indicated in the footnote and it says nothing about Hus' view of justification, and in fact notes that Hus and Luther were not on the same theological grounds. I am notifying you before I reinsert the citation markup, to see if we cannot come to a common understanding of what needs to be done. Thanks Mikeatnip ( talk) 19:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Is the date of birth (DOB) on Richard J. Jensen correct? 172.56.21.235 ( talk) 02:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please provide citations for embolden phrase In a single stroke. Claiming RS says so, then not provide RS is dubious work. Mitchumch ( talk) 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
.. at Micael Bindefeld, Anna Bråkenhielm, Saga Becker, Lo Kauppi and Ester Claesson. If you find time for it., Thanks.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 21:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey Rjensen. I forget whether we have collaborated anywhere in the past, but it seems likely we have worked together unknowingly on any number of articles given our common area of interest. So I guess I'll say お久しぶり! :D
Anyway, sorry to bother you with a dispute from which you seem to have removed yourself, but CurtisNaito has recently started claiming that "almost half of the users who have commented agree with me, so I must be right". However, you are the only user who has a history of editing Japanese history articles (and who didn't follow me there as part of a hounding campaign or what looks a feeling of owing CurtisNaito a "favour" despite having no interest in or awareness of the topic) who has expressed any agreement with him whatsoever, and that before I had presented my argument in full, and before the other users weighed in with their own evidence.
Would it be possible for you to post some indication on the talk page or here as to whether
Sorry for the long and rambling post (I'm trying to change, I really am...) and sorry if your actual reasoning is different from all six options above (I tried to guess as many possibilities as possible to avoid appearing to assume one or another without evidence).
If you just don't care any more and want me, or CurtisNaito, or both, to buzz off, that is also an acceptable response. ;-)
Cheers!
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting my restoration of Henry Ford's comments in his book here. You did revert my addition of a quote from that book, but that's OK with me. I don't believe that the article asserts that Ford intended his comments as "Anti-American" comments. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
"Mussolini thought of himself as an intellectual". Here you got the point. The "Duce" had a very great opinion of himself, and no doubt that he thought about himself as an "intellettuale". As soon as I will recover my De Felice (it is at my other home) I will add more info about his education. Alex2006 ( talk) 07:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In Feb 2013 as you were creating this article History of medicine in the United States, you added this sentence: "Pest houses aimed at newly arrived infected sailors were established in port cities, notably Boston (171), Philadelphia (174) Charleston (1752) and New York (1757)." Any ideas as to what the years should actually be? If so, please fix. Hmains ( talk) 22:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to thank you for that link you added to the abolitionism article. However "Sources of Abolitionist Income", was a JSTOR link. Some folks who have accounts at big libraries think that JSTOR is a great service, but my personal point of view I think that they charge $19.00 for what should be information freely loaned out to readers. I mean its not like we're going to use it commercially! Not to draw you into the forever disagreement about freedom of information at not for profit sources like Wikipedia, but do you happen to have a free lending library link for the article? Free lending library, you say? Yes, something like the Open Library project Benjamin Quarles page, which would allow us poor folk to borrow it to read. Thanks. Trilobitealive ( talk) 01:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, if I lived within 20 miles of a public library I would. If you ever find a free resource for this one please send the link to me. ;^) Trilobitealive ( talk) 13:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see the article's talk page for responses to your post. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:6DE5:5086:EA68:1BDD ( talk) 11:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
History of Japan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Richard J. Jensen. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. If you are logging out and using the IP address 108.56.199.37, you need to stop and state that you have done so. Editing under an IP to avoid detection is considered socking and is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy. GregJackP Boomer! 01:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Richard J. Jensen shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I would recommend that you self-revert your last edit.
GregJackP
Boomer! 01:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not Rjensen and Rjensen is not me. So please stop your nonsense about sockpuppets. On the other hand, if your hallucinations are more powerful than your common sense, please feel free to launch whatever investigation you want to. I won't be bullied. 108.56.199.37 ( talk) 03:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The article Ebrary has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Witch-hunt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman Christianity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
HazelAB ( talk) 18:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
What's important is the Haber-Bosch process was a much cheaper method to produce nitrogen through ammonia synthesis than anything previously developed. The Haber-Bosch process was only used in Germany until after WWI and was not that widely used in the U.S. until after WWII. {cite book |title= Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production|last=Smil|first=Vaclav authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2004 |publisher= MIT Press|location= |isbn= 0262693135 |pages= |url= }} Also see the Alexander Field reference. Phmoreno ( talk) 16:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I have been doing some editing on Salazar’s article. Mostly cosmetics, trying to bring the article to higher standards. The article has been fairly stable over the last months. Could you please read the article and point out those areas where you think the article needs improvements? Or do some editing yourself? J Pratas ( talk) 08:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding to your reversion to information on the World Wide Web page: Wikipedia asks for dependable sources, and surely none can be more dependable than the creator of the World Wide Web himself? I have reverted your change and will report the matter to admin as it seems that wholesale and puzzling changes are happening to the Web pages at the behest of a very few number of editors.
( Etheldavis ( talk) 03:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC))
Rjensen ( talk) 03:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
LOL! I appreciate your humour. Here's a CERN article from March 2014 celebrating the "Birth Of The Web" in 1989:
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2014/03/world-wide-web-born-cern-25-years-ago
It's a fascinating subject. Hard to imagine life without the Web now.
( Etheldavis ( talk) 04:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC))
It is clearly not "following the rules" to back un-cited wholesale changes to an article. The information about Tim Berners-Lee inventing the Web is widely available. However, I have informed admin so I daresay admin can decide. Wishing you a very pleasant day.
( Etheldavis ( talk) 04:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC))
This RM discussion is ongoing. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Obi2canibe seems to pushing their own agenda at Tamil population by cities and Tamil population by nation without using any logic. I think the articles should be deleted but I request that you must do something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filpro ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Callinus has been removing all links to state atheism all over Wikipedia. You should look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Religion_in_Cuba&diff=prev&oldid=683337655
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Freedom_of_religion_in_China&diff=prev&oldid=684156805
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Religion_in_North_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=684176371
Mr.strangerX ( talk) 14:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I started a discussion about ledes in general. I invite you to this. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Since your a regular editor on the page, i wanted to notify you of an ongoing discussion relating a content fork article of the American Revolutionary War page. See here Talk:American_Revolutionary_War#Merger_proposal XavierGreen ( talk) 18:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I want to know if you can help me settle a argument with the Anti-Iranian sentiment and Sinophobia articles? I and two other users keeps reverting my change to the Pew Research Center tables from the positive change from 2014 to the positive-negative difference. But from what I see, the positive-negative difference isn't useful. We took this to the Sinophobia's talk page, and it was first about how there weren't any cited references. So I added references, and again it got reverted now because one user says that because the other anti-sentiment articles have the positive-negative difference, it should be here to. But I've done the same thing to the Anti-Russian sentiment and Anti-Americanism articles, and no one complained. Seqqis ( talk) 16:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
A central discussion on certain titles has started already. I invite you to comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen
Could we open a discussion about the "Causes of WWI" page? This remains one of the most controversial and complex historical events ever and I believe that the current page can be made more readable, and better reflect modern scholarship.
Keith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, Any particular reason for this revert? This came from the Chronicle book listing which says that this book, "Draws on literary and other realms in a study of the social, cultural, and psychological impact of Shanghai's transformation in recent years." Thanks! Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 20:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen, I recently added a bit to the lead and scholarship section of the Southern Strategy article. I would appreciate your take on the changes. Article history [1] and my new section in talk [2]
Perhaps you'd like to join Outedexits ( talk) 05:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I brought this issue there mostly because I wish more people would discuss. Don't take it so seriously. Cheers. Outedexits ( talk) 05:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to copy everything we say here to the talk page for the article. We're talking about a different thing now. Anyway, now I'm curious to know about your political views. You seem to have an obsession with issues like power and social inequality. Outedexits ( talk) 06:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
[4] please stop inserting your personal analysis into the article . Any time you are framing material in a "see also" method you are not accurately presenting what the source is actually stating. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This sentence is just perfect. No need to change it. You don't need to say they supposedly have too much power: Just say they have more power. Now let's not fight over a simple sentence. Cheers. Outedexits ( talk) 04:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The Dutch aren't Anglo-Saxons? Pardon my ignorance Outedexits ( talk) 06:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
In White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, I removed a mention of Irving Lewis Allen, which I suppose you added. That is not necessary because he is mentioned in the reference. Second, he is not famous enough to be mentioned. Third, the lead section is not supposed to contain such details. Cheers, Outedexits ( talk) 20:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
Rjensen (
talk) 22:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Idea: Instead of using disproportionate, is it ok to say "proportionally more"? It is a more positive way to put it and doesn't sound so negative. Outedexits ( talk) 22:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Does this sound ok to you? It uses proportionally more because if you say "disproportionate", it is vague to whether it is proportionally more or less. Outedexits ( talk) 23:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Since you were previously involved in this discussion would you mind adding your take to this No OR discussion [6]. The short version is I'm arguing that the bottom up version of the Southern Realignment theory should be given weight equal to that of the top down theory. Scoobydunk disagrees. His argument is that the proponents of bottom up acknowledged they were the minority opinion at the time they published their theories. My counter argument is of course they were the minority at the time of publication but that was 10 years back, 4 years after publication another scholar said the bottom up theory was rapidly gaining acceptance. Finally, a quick Google Scholar search of citation counts shows the primary bottom up sources have almost 2x as many citations as the top down works even though they are half as old. Hence the "gaining rapidly" should be seen as at least close enough to equal to be given equal weight. Anyway, since you have been involved with this discussion in the past I would like to ask you to weigh in. Thanks Springee ( talk) 00:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all your helpful input and edits. I was making the Palast move when I discovered it conflicted with another edit. It was you making the same change. I was going to add NY-based and "video" reporter for the BBC, but it's not necessary. Activist ( talk) 09:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
RJensen: Given your expertise, I think you might have needed mainstream historical insights/references relative to the trade/tariff issues as discussed in Commonwealth realm (Proposed arrangements) as well as related links: Commonwealth free trade and Imperial Federation. I understand you may not have the time. Though a niche subject, I think it is interesting and the current treatment I suspect is at least somewhat fringy. By the way, thanks for all the content you have added. Juan Riley ( talk) 21:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no choice but to pluralize "xxx-Americans" right away (except ones requested in the past). The consensus says so. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. On this edit, I will post on the article talk page. I do not disagree with what you say, but... -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I am a student writing a research paper on the Third Great Awakening, trying to determine an exact period for when it occurred, as well as if one even occurred. For this, I'd like to use your definition of a Great Awakening ("Each of these "Great Awakenings" was characterized by widespread revivals led by evangelical Protestant ministers, a sharp increase of interest in religion, a profound sense of conviction and redemption on the part of those affected, an increase in evangelical church membership, and the formation of new religious movements and denominations.") as it seems to be a sufficient definition, including nearly all the aspects of a Great Awakening. Of course credit would be awarded to you in the form of a footnote, but I would like to know how you derived this definition before I apply it. I know its been years, but do you remember where it came from? Thanks for any information,
sincerely,
mnkewicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnkewicz ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen One IP address user continues to alter the same text about per capita income in the US compared to other countries in the article on the Gilded Age with no reason or source given. Is it possible to block that user? I left a message on the talk page advising that the changes are not productive, but it has had no positive effect. I do not know how to block someone; do you? You can see the recent history to see actions from 2602:306:BD4F:A130:A4EE:A074:463A:B959 . You reverted him/her the first time, and I did it the next two times. Sorry to bother you with this. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 22:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
They acted quickly! Editing is limited to autoconfirmed users for one week, today until Nov 28. I thanked the editor who did it, and I thank you for adding your support. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 17:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Historiography of the British Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Armitage. 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) 10:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
So we've both violated WP:3RR several times, let's cool things down. My reason for deleting the "holy aura in their minds" bit is that it's WP:PEACOCK. The quote is enough, we shouldn't invoke religious connotations because it's a violation of WP:NPOV. -- Monochrome_ Monitor 01:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I was rather confused by your recent reversion of my edit to the "Anti-Americanism" page. Please see the talk page of that article for an explanation. History2222 ( talk) 04:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I added a section on Orville E. Babcock's historical reputation. Could you look at the section or article ? Any edits or added references or sources to make the article better is appreciated. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thirteen Colonies 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 07:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Baby M 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 10:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Jean Talon 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
<clear>
Rjensen,
Do you have a copy of this source?
I'd like to make a Spanish article about this school, so I would like to use this source.
Thank you! WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
dept Educational Inquiry and Curriculum Studies College of Education Office: Northeastern Illinois University, LWH 4007 Mailing Address: 5500 N. Saint Louis Avenue Chicago, IL, 60653 Rjensen ( talk) 05:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I got the electronic copy. If you want I can send it to you WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I can only see a snippet of the section about India. I can see the opinion is attributed to John Bosanquet. Do you know what case he was commenting on? TFD ( talk) 22:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why you reverted most of my additions of an honorific prefix to the US presidents. "The Honorable" is the formal honorific prefix for a US president, and my addition of this prefix was accepted on Barack Obama. This would be considered a minor visual edit and I didn't believe it needed an entire discussion on all 44 talk pages with consensus. CatcherStorm talk 03:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC) ping when replying
Could you explain why you placed the McCabe information in the French Wars of Religion section? Judging from Grosrichard's book, which McCabe references, the time period would be more suited to Louis XIV's reign(The Sultan's Court: European Fantasies of the East, by Alain Grosrichard, page 68) & (Orientalism in Early Modern France, by Ina Baghdiantz McCabe, page 134;"What Saint Simon wrote about the Nights being a deformed mirror of Versailles is not remembered as a metaphor, but others have noticed the analogy between the court of Baghdad and Versailles."). -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 18:19, 23 December 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. |