User talk:Rjensen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

09:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)see previous talk at Archive 22

Company town[edit]

Maybe you missed my talk section, you can find it here. Please take my edits in good faith. Wikipedia policy as I have read it dictates that my concerns should at least be addressed before you remove my template. --71.116.235.10 (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I had missed it. See my reply. Rjensen (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Whigs also. Thus, Queen Victoria asked the [Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby|Earl of Derby]] to form a minority government. It only lasted until December 1852.<ref>Prest, 2009</ref>
  • * Halevy, Elie. ''The Triumph of Reform 1830-1841'' ((History of the English People in the Nineteeth Century, Volume 3) (1950) detailed political

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Dodd (ambassador) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • <ref>C.C. Pearson, "Book Reviews," ''William and Mary Quarterly'', Second Series, vol. 18, no. 4), 517–9</ref>
  • * Bailey, Fred A. ''William Edward Dodd: The South's Yeoman Scholar'' (Charlottesville, VA: [[University of Virginia Press, 1997), the standard scholarly biography

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tea Party movement may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/tea-party-eric-cantor_n_5752924.html '' Huffington Post]] Sept. 3, 2014]</ref>
  • interpretation outside of the courts — to invoke originalism as interpretive method." (Zietlow, Rebecca E. [http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol64/iss2/5 "Popular Originalism? The Tea

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • strategy."<ref>Tom Cohen, "Obama outlines ISIS strategy: Airstrikes in Syria, more U.S. troops," [http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/isis-obama-speech/index.html CNN Sept. 10, 2014</ref> When
  • strategy."<ref>Tom Cohen, "Obama outlines ISIS strategy: Airstrikes in Syria, more U.S. troops," [http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/isis-obama-speech/index.html CNN Sept. 10, 2014</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • strategy."<ref>Tom Cohen, "Obama outlines ISIS strategy: Airstrikes in Syria, more U.S. troops," [http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/isis-obama-speech/index.html CNN Sept. 10, 2014</ref> When
  • strategy."<ref>Tom Cohen, "Obama outlines ISIS strategy: Airstrikes in Syria, more U.S. troops," [http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/isis-obama-speech/index.html CNN Sept. 10, 2014</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of ISIS aggression: December 2013-Present may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • strategy.<ref>Tom Cohen, "Obama outlines ISIS strategy: Airstrikes in Syria, more U.S. troops," [http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/isis-obama-speech/index.html CNN Sept. 10, 2014</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • <ref> Eric J. Evans, ''The Forging of the Modern State: Early Industrial Britain 1783-1870 '' (2nd ed. 1996, pp 280-81 </ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and Readings to Illustrate the Development of Educational Practice, Theory, and Organization'' (1920 [https://archive.org/details/readingsinhistor00cubb online]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to American Enlightenment may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{quote|By abandoning English constitutionalism and creating a new republic based on the rights of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson[edit]

Re your recent reversion of my two edits.

The first is simply grammatically incorrect. The word 'It's' (with the apostrophe) is short for 'It is' - clearly not the meaning intended in this sentence. I have re-reverted this.

The second one I have left alone. But I would contend that 'attractive' is POV, unless you would allow 'unattractive', in an obvious case like Eleanor Roosevelt. I think you would soon get reverted if you did. Valetude (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

. sorry about that pesky apostrophe...."attractive" is the consensus of the RS. The POV rules only apply to wiki editors, not to the RS. Rjensen (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 7 September[edit]

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) 00:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Fallen timbers?[edit]

Is there something obviously wrong with my edit? (Come to think of it, I suppose a comment at the 1794 battle would also be useful.) Reply here, I am watching. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

it's not likely anyone would mix these up Rjensen (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Two battles of the US Army with the same name? But on the other hand, a global search shows the older one, not the newer one. I appreciate your thoughts. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reversions should be discussed[edit]

You recently reverted an edit of mine on the presidential assassination attempt at the Taft-Diaz summit in the Texas Rangers article, followed shortly by a reverted edit of mine on the WW1 volunteer Army unit in the Theodore Roosevelt article a with essentially an edit summary of Thank you, but no thanks.... My edits contained relevant information that, so why did you delete this? First, I believe it is rather bad manners on WP to delete a whole sub-section which is well researched, informative, written in encyclopedic style and contains in-line citations without first entering into discussions on the Talk page. Second, the version you have reverted in the Texas Rangers article is not consistent with the references I cited, although you kept the citation. When I added back my text to the Texas Rangers article, you then deleted it again.

Wiki:BOLD states "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. Therefore, if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus." I opened the topic on the Texas Rangers talk page and I will do the same on the Theodore Roosevelt page. The next stage is to address objections and state your case.Ctatkinson (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not delete it I reduced its ridiculous excessive length. It never explains the plans or the motives of the man arrested or what happened at his trial (was there a trial or was he released when Taft left town?) . All books on Raft and Diaz ignore the episode because they do not consider it important (as the author cite admits). There was no "assassination ATTEMPT" -- just a man with a very small gun in the crowd, which he never pointed or tried to fire. Rjensen (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
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. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus -- see BRD for how this is done. In any case, a user Talk page is not the place to discuss this. I have raised the issue on the Talk:Texas Rangers Division and I will raise the issue on Talk:Theodore Roosevelt which is the proper place.Ctatkinson (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the role of an encyclopedia. It is not to include everything contained in books that run hundreds of pages. It is to summarize the most important events. If major books on the topic leave the episode out or minimize it, that is a clue that it does not deserve much attention. That is what happened here. Rjensen (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of Beverly Potts[edit]

Can you help me bring Disappearance of Beverly Potts up to Good Article or Featured Article? There's a book (Twilight of Innocence: The Disappearance of Beverly Potts) that we could cannibalise, and facts are not copyrighted. Paul Austin (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the invite--problem is I know zip about the case. Good luck with it. Rjensen (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

An invitation to join WikiProject Women writers[edit]

Marywollstonecraft.jpg

Hello Rjensen! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject Women writers, an outreach effort which aims at improving articles about women writers on Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thank you!

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks--yes I will sign up now. Rjensen (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Would Pauline Maier qualify for some help. I'm especially proud of the video link in the info box. About three years ago I took it from a stub to C-class, but I feel like it should somehow develop into a higher rating, B-class or even A-class as I understand the rating system. The main critique in a request for peer review was that there was not sufficient criticism of her professionally. But I am like a puppy in tall grass in article development, so I may just not get it. (See my struggles at Bombardment of Cherbourg or History of Virginia on stamps with their respective projects). Any comments would be appreciated to help along Pauline Maier. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The late Pauline Maier was a former student of mine and a dear friend. Yes I will help. Rjensen (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

andrew jackson[edit]

rfC (not "a"; typo, my bad) Lx 121 (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: September 2014[edit]

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe · MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay with dropping CSA rebellion[edit]

Okay, I agreed to cutting down the material on the secession run-up to the Confederacy, and I've crafted a replacement piece. I've had my say at Talk:CSA on rebellion, and it seems I'm not persuasive. I'd rather spend time perfecting Pauline Maier, or Battle of Fort Pulaski rather than pursue a dead-end wiki-fencing contest. I've done all I can see to do on those two articles, and still can't seem to advance their rating. I've subscribed to the Bugle and the Signpost to start to read the better articles to get some tips by learning from examples. But I am still much reliant on others, like the recent assist to locate Bombardment of Cherbourg with geographic coordinates. --- basic stuff. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

that's a good approach  :) Rjensen (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International relations of the Great Powers (1814–1919), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Windsor. 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) 09:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Pauline Maier, list sections[edit]

Rosiestep is helping out with a fresh set of eyes and copyediting at Pauline Maier. Her critique on the “sections with lists” is that they are too long, they should be limited to only the major ones (See Talk:Pauline Maier#Sections with lists). Your editorial judgment in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Rosiestep said, The "Books and scholarly articles" section: The list is too long. Rename it "Selected works" and then only include the major ones. If your wish, discuss some of the books/articles in prose form within the body of the article. "Texts, online courses, avatar gaming" and "Popular reviews and columns" sections: Instead of list form, switch to prose and mention within the article, or drop them altogether. "Further reading" section: It is way too long (Wikipedia:Further reading may be helpful). --- Would you have a look and do some culling? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

too long? no I don't think so. What's really valuable are the short annotations. This is an article for specialists and they will appreciate the detail, in my opinion.Rjensen (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)