User talk:Rjensen

/Archive 5

Blunder or Forgery

In Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources you changed the phrase "OK (sometimes)!" written by Blueboar to "marginal", and the position of the change made it appear that "marginal" was written by Blueboar rather than yourself. I regard this as a confusing blunder at best, forgery at worst. --Gerry Ashton 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

well it was my blunder--sorry about that! Rjensen 22:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

american conservatism

If this procedure fails I suggest we take it up to Arbcom --Isolani 09:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, agreed. Rjensen 09:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom? They don't deal with trivial things matters like this. They'd never even consider your request. The name of this article means so little...it's really a waste of time to pursue it further. If you insist on taking further action, see WP:DR. WP:ARBCOM is the very last step. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Chemical Industry

The article is titled chemical industry, no chemical businesses. Therefore, it would seem logical that it relates to those terms and should cover such material. Oldsci 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

industry = business. there are already plenty of articles on chemistry itself. and please cite reliable sources. Rjensen 05:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rjensen for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

-- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Obow2003 and Jozil are real people and not me. They have an interest in American conservatism and I alerted them to the problems and encouraged them to join in the discussion. Rjensen 07:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Catholic-link

Given your remarks about older encyclopedias (1911 EB=Fun!), I thought you might be entertained by the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_18#Template:Catholic-link. Given recent charges, I understand perfectly if you prefer not to comment, but if you think I am wrong then please do comment. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the tip. CE is a good source about 80% of the time--esp for historical details. Those details are rarely changed by new research. Rjensen 04:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Owsley

Thank you for the article on Frank L. Owsley. I have put in a few "citations needed", for quotes that I feel really should be verifiable. nut-meg 08:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

the source requested (in both cases) is Walter Kirk Wood, "Before Republicanism: Frank Lawrence Owsley and the Search for Southern Identity, 1865-1965." Southern Studies (1995) 6(4): 65-77. ISSN 0735-8342 Rjensen 08:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Al Smith

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I'd added the OR tag on the Al Smith article, more because there wasn't any verification, not because I thought there was any actual OR. I just couldn't find a more appropriate tag.

Also, I changed the cite format - I find the current format saves more space, it's more organized, and it's more standard for Wikipedia articles I've worked on in the past, but I'd be happy to talk about what works better. Mosmof 14:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton article

My complements to you on your comments. I suggest you replace the reference to AH's anti-slavery position in the early paragraph discussing diffferences with T. Jefferson. If I do it, I suspect it will only be summarily removed.Shoreranger 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion, which I will follow up. Rjensen 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Questia links

Hello, I've noticed you prefer direct links to works at questia.com to ISBN links. Unfortunately, such links violate Wikipedia's guidelines on external links, which state that sites requiring registration (as questia.com does) should only be linked if they are the topic of the article itself, or provide relevant information unavailable elsewhere. Moreover, as a pay site, linking directly to questia.com also runs into problems with Wikipedia's guidelines on spam.

A much better set of links all around are ISBN links, automatically generated by Wikipedia's software. Even better, individual users can make ISBN links point to whatever site they want -- Amazon, Google books, LibraryThing or Questia -- by editing their monobook.js file accordingly. You can find more information about that at WP:ISBN. Using these links makes it possible for everybody to easily get to where they want to go, without running into WP:EL or WP:SPAM problems. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Questia has two levels--one is completely free (no registration)--and is therefore not NOT forbidden by Wiki rules, the other is a pay site. The Free Questia allows several powerful features: 1) complete information on a book; 2) table of contents; 3) first page of every chapter; 4) Boolean searches in the Questia Library; 5) listings of Questia research guides to specific topics (like the American Revolution). Users doing research need this information and can get it nowhere else. This is far more free information than available anywhere else. Questia claims the largest online library (although Google may now be larger). Questia is very valuable for users. In terms of Wiki rules Questia: "provides relevant information unavailable elsewhere" and is therefore allowed by wp:el. That is Questia links to their free services do NOT violate WP:EL I have no link whatsoever to Questia and there is no question of spamming for their pay site. I am trying to provide users with valuable information they need (especially if they are trying to assemble a bibliography or getting a book through a library). Rjensen 22:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction anger lingers

still today....why delete that? WillC 13:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a Request for Comment

I've filed an RfC against BenBurch here. Your experiences have been mentioned and I would appreciate your description of your experiences with BenBurch, FAAFA and Travb. Thank you. Dino 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert P. Casey

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

Thanks for your hard work on improving Robert P. Casey. You deserve some tea. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 06:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

hey thatnks! I needed that. Rjensen 06:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Henry Ford

Greetings, it appears that you have disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point on Henry Ford. If this message is in error please accept my apologies but if not then please use an article or project's talk page to make your point. Thanks! From: --BenBurch 13:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to John Adams

I'm a little confused about this edit, specifically, the part where the text "In 1775 he was appointed the chief judge of the Massachusetts Superior Court." was taken out of the article text and placed inside ref tags with no other citation content. Was this intentional? --Fru1tbat 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re John Adams-- yes it was intentional. Minor items that break the flow of major items should go in footnotes so readers can see the big picture. (It's a minor item because there was no firther mention of what he did as judge). Rjensen 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

History of coal mining

Thanks for continuting to work on this :-)

The Rhur Basin stuff was something I was NOT aware of :-)

Keep going on it :-) ShakespeareFan00 00:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

hey thanks! Rjensen 03:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Links for American Revolution

Great links but they came out in text instead of hotlinks...can you retry? HJ 13:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the head's up-- I will fix it now. Rjensen 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The other ones work 4.0 and worthy addition to any article. HJ 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Taft presidential ambitions

My inclination was also to remove the sentence about Douglas MacArthur from Robert Taft's article (your edit). However, a Google search provided an apparently valid source for the info, which I instead added.

Did you check the source before your removal, and note its quote from a book by Pennsylvania State University historian Stanley Weintraub?

What associated event(s) do you believe did not happen? --Adavidb 08:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is threefold: 1) it mis-states what happened -- Taft asked MacArthur to be his VP, and MacArthur probably would have accepted if Taft won nomination. 2) It strongly suggests that MacArthur was a candfidate. he was not and Weintraub dioes not claim he was, which is entertaining but not enyclopedic. Rjensen 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While not a declared presidential candidate, MacArthur did receive ballots for nomination as the Republican candidate during the 1952 United States presidential election process. --Adavidb 09:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

delegates could vote for anyone they wanted to...but MacArthur had decided not to run. Rjensen 10:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I submit that Taft's promise/tentative decision to run with MacArthur is worthy of inclusion in Taft's article; it's already in MacArthur's, though it didn't 'happen'. --Adavidb 14:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

yes I agree. Taft's promise did happen. Rjensen 14:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Democrat Party (United States)

Please do not remove deletion tags from pages that are listed at WP:RFD (or any other deletion process page). The tags are needed to allow people to know the pages has been nominated for deletion and allow them to comment at the debate if the so wish. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 19:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that was decided months ago. Rjensen 23:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Successfully making it through a deletion debate does not make an article exempt from further deletion nominations. -- JLaTondre 01:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point but it's a different article. The problem was the name of the article, which was changed to indicate this is an article about language not about a political party. Rjensen 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: George III of the United Kingdom

I appreciate that some of the information you have been removing is not as relevant as other parts. But it is relevant, nonetheless, and there are readers who will want to know these things. I therefore am asking you, politely, to not revert it back, or remove information from that article on that basis. This is particularly important because of the FA status - first, the article had all that information in it when it was passed as an FA (meaning that nobody saw any problem with it), and second, its FA status may be jeopardised if it is removed. I thus suggest that you formally raise the issue on the article discussion page, and go through it point by point - try to get editorial support from other contributors. This issue needs careful consideration from all concerned, rather than our unilateral decisions. I hope you will not make any such major changes to the article for the time being, and will be willing to try to get support. I don't want an edit war - I do want to prevent the article being damaged. Michaelsanders 00:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to talk it over. Wiki editors have to select the 1% of the information available that makes for the best article. As for FA status, that is my goal: an article deserves FA status if it covers the most important topics. It for example needs a good bibliography (which I added). So let's try this: I will add new information and not remove any. But let's think about dropping names of people that had minimal connection with George III. Rjensen 01:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly open to talking it over - I simply think that there should be some input from other users before making such a big change. But add information, by all means. Michaelsanders 01:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

US BOR

Hi! I recognized your username but for a sec there I thought it was vandalism, with so many characters cut. I agree it was wordy, but the point of that intro section was to set up the debate over having a BOR, which was in part a result of the powerful central government designed at the Philadelphia Convention. I reverted your changes, but am more than willing to hash it out at talk, so please don't be insulted by the reversion. I see where you're coming from, I just think you went farther than I would have. Thanks, Kaisershatner 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The material I dropped does not bear directly on BOR debate. For example, revenue and currency issues are totally irrelevant to BOR (though they are important and belong in other articles). Likewise NJ Plan, Va Plan, jidiciary do not bear on issue. That's what I deleted. Rjensen 03:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln intro

If someone doesn't read past the intro, too bad for them. We don't have to write for the ADHD set. Gazpacho 04:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The people who read the introduction will learn more than those who don't read it. Keep the Wiki mission in mind: education. A sophisticated, short summary of Lincoln is needed for people to understand his major role Rjensen 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy Feb 12

File:MtRushmore Abe close.JPG

Happy Lincoln's birthday Dear Rjensen On this day 198 years ago, a boy was born in a log cabin to two indigent farmers. Nobody could predict one day the poor boy would become one of the greatest US President of all time, who had abolished slavery and preserved the Union during Civil War. The world may little note, nor long remember his birthday, but it can never forget what he did for the country. Thus to make February 12 not sink into the limbo, together we celebrate Lincoln's Birthday. Also, thanks for your contributions to Abraham Lincoln-related articles and I hope that you'll continue to improve them as a way to commemorate his monumental sacrifice. Best regards. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Book Reviews

I'm curious why you think links to book reviews should be included in external links. This seems to run contrary to both #1 of important points to remember and #15 of links normally to be avoided. I would agree on including reviews on an article about a book or an author, but not on the topic of the book. Some reviews do include a discussion of the topic, but the main focus of a review is on the book. I could see perhaps including a review on a book that was considered the authoritative source on a topic, but none of the removals you reverted seem to fall in that category. There are a significant number of books on these topics & probably a large number of reviews on each book. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not add the link but I did read it and found it relevant, useful and authoritative--just the sort of item we should link to. What we have is a serious, recent essay on John Brown that discusses many important issues. Rjensen 20:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit & rvv summaries

Just a little style/etiquette note — when you combine an edit and a revert, it'd be nice to mention that you reverted vandalism too in your edit summary. I had a brief moment of "oh no! someone vandalized, and the next editor didn't notice! I can't use my simple rollback!" before I checked your edit and saw you'd done both at one go. Thanks for cleaning up the mess, though. --John Owens | (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

yes good point and I will try to follow the advice. Rjensen 10:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

== Kentucky is Southern ==

Hey I was wondering if you would form a concensus with me on the Southern talk page involving Kentucky's cultural variation section. If you can remember back on the old talk page user 70-68/Gator was ingorantly arguing that Kentucky is a boarder/Midwestern state, and now he is going against the SOuthern Focus Study's findings to incorporate his opinion in the Article. Please form this concensus with me. Louisvillian 17:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

Hi Rjensen. Sorry about that dust up about the WWII industrial production table. In retrospect it all seems a little silly. I've been encountering some of your edits in other areas and usually agree with what you're trying to do and appreciate the contribution you're making.

Of course I wouldn't be writing unless I had a little problem. I'm a little concerned about this edit. You deleted a section on Ottoman treatment of POWs, but described "(small fixes; terser language)" in the edit summary. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but I would appreciate it if you were a little more careful. WWI is one of the articles I like to watch and it makes it much easier for me to keep an eye on things if edit summaries are accurate.

Anyway good luck with your editing and I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Haber 01:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly note. I was trying to shorten some paragraphs and somehow accidentally deleted that paragraph. My mistake and I will go back now. Rjensen 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)