This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is a subpage of Rjensen's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
/Archive 28.
the latest archive is Archive28 as of 14 Feb 2017
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, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
a polite warning:
you are tread a very fine line on "wiki-stalking", not to mention "pointy" editing.
consider this a friendly suggestion that you back off', & find work to do, that doesn't involve lurking my contribs list & reverting my edits on articles you have little or no other history on.
next step is to file a complaint, fair notice.
Lx 121 ( talk) 15:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
& there is now a talk-page section on mckinley, so you can repeat your same thesis all over again, & i can c&p & link the responses to it, by me & other users, from the last 4+ times we've done this.
but you might want to think about fighting this battle when every other presidential bio for 50+ years back & 100= years forward uses a photograph of the person as lede Lx 121 ( talk) 15:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
|
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
Greetings Rjensen. Thanks for the notice on my talk page:
I deleted "racial" from "hostility against the French" because French is not a race. Perhaps you will revise it to clear this up?
Avocats ( talk) 09:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)±
Rjensen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (
talk) 03:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
I've started a thread at the BLP-notice board. I'm probably "required" to notify you, so here you go. Hope this is nice and "civil" enough for you. Joefromrandb ( talk) 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I had to revert your edit here because it resulted in newlines being removed. Figured I'd let you know so that you can go back and re-vote. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi; I'm the guy whose edit to the article on WASPs you just reverted. Judging by your bio, you seem to be an authority on the subject, so I thought I'd ask: might it be true that general WASP allegiances are shifting? I ask because of the socially liberal and economically moderate-right views discussed in the article, which would put them strongly at odds with the Republican Party of late; and because, as I mentioned in my edit, many famous WASP areas (coastal New England, the Chicago North Shore, large West Coast cities, etc.) have become near-unassailable Democratic bastions in the past thirty years or so. If you don't have the time to discuss it here, could you point me toward a good history book or two that would help shed light on the matter? I'm quite interested in the subject. 205.175.98.121 ( talk) 08:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
To sum up a bold question briefly, Can the free trade movement of the 1980s & 90s (such as NAFTA) be considered an outdated Cold War strategy?
Marshall Plan for instance says, The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous again, and prevent the spread of communism.
In the early 1980s, when NAFTA was being proposed, the USSR & Cuba were fomenting revolution in El Salvador and Nicaragua, but everyone on both sides 'eyes on the prize' was Mexico. NAFTA was proposed to make the US-Mexico competative with the EU which had already done away with trade barriers. The Soviet Union collapsed too suddenly, and the wheels of NAFTA were in motion.
Main point: many in the EU and US are now discovering it was a mistake to view free trade as an end itself and a permanent so!ution. Nobs01 ( talk) 16:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Post-war Britain is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-war Britain until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Nevé – selbert 02:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Your independent views on the ongoing discussing on the article Portugal during World War II would be appreciated. J Pratas ( talk) 07:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Please J Pratas ( talk) 11:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, you might have missed my talk page post about whether responses to economic change should be included in the article. It can be found here. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 16:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you about removing that line from Rutherford B. Hayes about him being a Georgist. It's certainly not indicated by anything he did as President. But I thought you'd be interested to know that Georgists claim Hayes as one of them based on a source, if a weak one: there's one line in his post-presidential diary where he says Henry George has some good ideas. Clearly, that's not enough to call the man a Georgist, but I think it's interesting and sheds some light on his thinking. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 14:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
If you don't understand mathematics, ask. Xx236 ( talk) 07:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I see that you say that my self-published book on Kay's relationship with Ike is "not a reliable source". I'd therefore be grateful if you'd suggest a publisher to me!
Yours
Kieron Wood http://irishbarrister.com/book.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6AA2:D500:74AF:2417:8D66:506C ( talk) 11:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've never heard "old line" used to describe socialists, and its meaning is unclear. Is there another way of expressing what you mean? DuncanHill ( talk) 19:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that extra clarification after you reverted the change; it needed that context. Have a good one! TrackZero ( talk) 20:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure you haven't just got half of The Chancellors? Mine starts with Randolph Churchill in the 1880s and HHA gets the whole of pages 158-164. I've put it back in. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 22:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
You might want to avoid making edits like this [1] per the terms of your editing restriction. Most if not all of your recent blankings were theoretically justifiable on their merits, but in those cases you should notify someone else who can make the choice to blank them. The Talk:African Americans one, though, was a comment in a language that I have to assume you don't read and another comment by someone saying that Google Translate had not been able to tell them whether or not the comment was constructive or not. If another editor has already said they are unsure if a comment should be blanked, you really shouldn't be making the decision for them, and especially not blanking their comment.
I actually didn't want your editing restriction to prevent you from making edits like these, and if you want to make a request for it to be amended to cover only edits where you cite BLP I will support you (heck, I'll make the request myself if you want), but you can't make edits like this under the current terms of your restriction. If nothing else, it's not fair to the rest of us who know we could probably "get away with" making constructive edits in violation of editing restrictions but choose to abide by the restrictions nonetheless.
Note that this edit [2], as unambiguous vandalism, is covered under BANEX and is therefore fine. These edits [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] are mostly borderline as your restriction allows for "non-controversial" changes, which I think is meant to be interpreted as correcting typos but I might be wrong.
Hijiri 88 ( ? ??) 10:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is a subpage of Rjensen's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
/Archive 28.
the latest archive is Archive28 as of 14 Feb 2017
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, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
a polite warning:
you are tread a very fine line on "wiki-stalking", not to mention "pointy" editing.
consider this a friendly suggestion that you back off', & find work to do, that doesn't involve lurking my contribs list & reverting my edits on articles you have little or no other history on.
next step is to file a complaint, fair notice.
Lx 121 ( talk) 15:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
& there is now a talk-page section on mckinley, so you can repeat your same thesis all over again, & i can c&p & link the responses to it, by me & other users, from the last 4+ times we've done this.
but you might want to think about fighting this battle when every other presidential bio for 50+ years back & 100= years forward uses a photograph of the person as lede Lx 121 ( talk) 15:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
|
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
Greetings Rjensen. Thanks for the notice on my talk page:
I deleted "racial" from "hostility against the French" because French is not a race. Perhaps you will revise it to clear this up?
Avocats ( talk) 09:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)±
Rjensen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (
talk) 03:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
I've started a thread at the BLP-notice board. I'm probably "required" to notify you, so here you go. Hope this is nice and "civil" enough for you. Joefromrandb ( talk) 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I had to revert your edit here because it resulted in newlines being removed. Figured I'd let you know so that you can go back and re-vote. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi; I'm the guy whose edit to the article on WASPs you just reverted. Judging by your bio, you seem to be an authority on the subject, so I thought I'd ask: might it be true that general WASP allegiances are shifting? I ask because of the socially liberal and economically moderate-right views discussed in the article, which would put them strongly at odds with the Republican Party of late; and because, as I mentioned in my edit, many famous WASP areas (coastal New England, the Chicago North Shore, large West Coast cities, etc.) have become near-unassailable Democratic bastions in the past thirty years or so. If you don't have the time to discuss it here, could you point me toward a good history book or two that would help shed light on the matter? I'm quite interested in the subject. 205.175.98.121 ( talk) 08:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
To sum up a bold question briefly, Can the free trade movement of the 1980s & 90s (such as NAFTA) be considered an outdated Cold War strategy?
Marshall Plan for instance says, The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous again, and prevent the spread of communism.
In the early 1980s, when NAFTA was being proposed, the USSR & Cuba were fomenting revolution in El Salvador and Nicaragua, but everyone on both sides 'eyes on the prize' was Mexico. NAFTA was proposed to make the US-Mexico competative with the EU which had already done away with trade barriers. The Soviet Union collapsed too suddenly, and the wheels of NAFTA were in motion.
Main point: many in the EU and US are now discovering it was a mistake to view free trade as an end itself and a permanent so!ution. Nobs01 ( talk) 16:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Post-war Britain is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-war Britain until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Nevé – selbert 02:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Your independent views on the ongoing discussing on the article Portugal during World War II would be appreciated. J Pratas ( talk) 07:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Please J Pratas ( talk) 11:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rjensen, you might have missed my talk page post about whether responses to economic change should be included in the article. It can be found here. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 16:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you about removing that line from Rutherford B. Hayes about him being a Georgist. It's certainly not indicated by anything he did as President. But I thought you'd be interested to know that Georgists claim Hayes as one of them based on a source, if a weak one: there's one line in his post-presidential diary where he says Henry George has some good ideas. Clearly, that's not enough to call the man a Georgist, but I think it's interesting and sheds some light on his thinking. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 14:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
If you don't understand mathematics, ask. Xx236 ( talk) 07:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I see that you say that my self-published book on Kay's relationship with Ike is "not a reliable source". I'd therefore be grateful if you'd suggest a publisher to me!
Yours
Kieron Wood http://irishbarrister.com/book.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6AA2:D500:74AF:2417:8D66:506C ( talk) 11:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've never heard "old line" used to describe socialists, and its meaning is unclear. Is there another way of expressing what you mean? DuncanHill ( talk) 19:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that extra clarification after you reverted the change; it needed that context. Have a good one! TrackZero ( talk) 20:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure you haven't just got half of The Chancellors? Mine starts with Randolph Churchill in the 1880s and HHA gets the whole of pages 158-164. I've put it back in. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 22:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
You might want to avoid making edits like this [1] per the terms of your editing restriction. Most if not all of your recent blankings were theoretically justifiable on their merits, but in those cases you should notify someone else who can make the choice to blank them. The Talk:African Americans one, though, was a comment in a language that I have to assume you don't read and another comment by someone saying that Google Translate had not been able to tell them whether or not the comment was constructive or not. If another editor has already said they are unsure if a comment should be blanked, you really shouldn't be making the decision for them, and especially not blanking their comment.
I actually didn't want your editing restriction to prevent you from making edits like these, and if you want to make a request for it to be amended to cover only edits where you cite BLP I will support you (heck, I'll make the request myself if you want), but you can't make edits like this under the current terms of your restriction. If nothing else, it's not fair to the rest of us who know we could probably "get away with" making constructive edits in violation of editing restrictions but choose to abide by the restrictions nonetheless.
Note that this edit [2], as unambiguous vandalism, is covered under BANEX and is therefore fine. These edits [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] are mostly borderline as your restriction allows for "non-controversial" changes, which I think is meant to be interpreted as correcting typos but I might be wrong.
Hijiri 88 ( ? ??) 10:34, 15 February 2017 (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. |