User talk:Rjensen

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

see previous talk at Archive 24

Dear Richard,

I didn't actually get a copy of your reply to my long note in my Talk box, but after a lot of searching I actually found a copy on your own User Talk box. Did I not get it because I clumsilly forgot to sign with tildes?

I'll forgive you for being a Yank. (That's an Aussie joke, of course!)

Thanks for your comments. I think I will restate the brief summary I made on Electrophone, etc, including the links to the three other sites. I really do think this is important as a predecessor to radio broadcasting. I hope that you and I won't have problems if I reinstate this.

I will also add the rest of the Voigt caption, and will add a brief mention of Fisk under "Sealed Set". I will take your advice and not add any mention of US public stations.

I will also add the 1950s onwards sections to you Australian page.

With best wishes,Albert Isaacs (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

well we very largely agree! Good. we disagree on the Electrophone: 1) it's point to point and is not broadcasting; 2) its leaders did not move to broadcasting; 3) the RS do not include it; 4) worst of all it's distracting--it tells students that they should pay attention because this somehow is connected to broadcasting. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

History of broadcasting / History of broadcasting in Australia.[edit]

Dear Richard,

Wow! You certainly have been busy over the last few days. I congratulate you on all your research, particularly as Australia is a foreign country to you. (I don't mean that to sound compromising.)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree re Electrophone, etc. However, I've made a compromise by braketing that section and reducing the text size. This way, I'll hope you'll agree that we've found middle ground.

You'll note that I have made a few other minor changes.

Regards, Albert Isaacs (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

great working together here! Rjensen (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

History of broadcasting / History of broadcasting in Australia.[edit]

Dear Richard,

Yes, I agree - it been a positive experience. I still haven't done a full proofread of the sections that you've added, and I will eventually get around to that. My next job (tomorrow?) will be to divide the list of personalities into sub-groups, such as:

  • Broadcasting pioneers
  • Management
  • Producers, back-room personel, etc
  • Announcer, DJs, etc
  • Sportscasters

However, it's now time to turn off the computer ...

Regards, Albert Isaacs (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Leo Strauss embedded links issue[edit]

Hello, You restored ALL the links I deleted including ones to Internet Archive that have been removed from the site most likely due to copyright issues!

There was a Wiki notice that indicated that the long lists following the article was too long etc...so I spent time on "clean up."

Link content guidelines include this statement:

"External links should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. Wikipedia is not an advertising opportunity."

Therefore I can't see the point of linking to numerous stubs to the old U Chicago Press books. Researchers can search Worldcat or Google Books and find them. One UCP link to a stub is enough as a pointer.

The guidelines for links also states:

"Non-free content—including all copyrighted content—can only be used in specific cases, and must be employed judiciously. Its usage must be considered fair use under U.S. copyright law, and comply with the non-free content criteria policy."

So I can see keeping one link to a pay article as a reminder for students to check that resource but I even question the need for one.

The size of the list is addressed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists Lists are to be as short as possible.

I think Wikipedia rules should be followed and that Leo deserves better than these messy lists and links to dead ends etc...

Thanks for you input however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmlmss44 (talkcontribs) 01:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You erased far too many good items --You erased not only the links but also the title of the articles or even the major books he wrote. I think the proper procedure is to put a citation needed tag rather than erasing it. As far as saying that Strauss wrote too much, and that Wikipedia and should not be interested in more than a few items, I think that is deliberately denying information to Wikipedia readers about Strauss--who gained influence and credibility by the enormous range of his scholarship. You are misreading the rules: titles and links are not copyright. As far as "old" University of Chicago books are concerned: they are essential to the study of Strauss. As far as "advertising" is concerned, there was zero advertising. As far as the guideline that you mentioned is concerned: "Minimal" does not mean zero--it means one link to an article/book will suffice rather than several (for example, we can skip translations and multiple reprints). "Meritable" means it was a serious work by Strauss (as opposed to a casual letter to the editor). "Directly relevant" means that Strauss actually wrote it & it is relevant to his career. You erased numerous items that meet these criteria and so I reverted. Rjensen (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan[edit]

This seems to be a thing with you. You can't let a well re-worked lead sit for very long without getting your hands on it, can you? I spent a great deal of time on that lead, and there wasn't anything wrong with it. I took a lead which was a slight evolution from the FA upgrade in 2009, and made it more descriptive. It was chronological, concise, and had good amounts of detail. If you look at other Presidents, i.e. Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, for example, you see a chronological ordering of sections done.

The mention of his alcoholic father was unnecessary in the lead (could be seen as a non-neutral narrative), and other way you structured it weren't as encyclopedia-like. You also had multiple typos. Your grammatical structure was rushed too, and the way you moved around sentences and clauses lead to some things not making sense. This isn't simple language Wikipedia, we can do things in chronological order, and it makes perfect sense; if they only read the first sentence, and they don't find 100% of what they're looking for, they could either A) keep reading B) give up or C) its their problem. I improved and updated a lead that was 6 years old, to keep FA consistency, since it had been slowly changed. Many of your sentences are nearing incomplete thoughts, and would be due for being part of a larger, semicoloned sentence. I undid your edits. Please, use the talk page if you want to completely change a well-structured edit. Just like you did with Theodore Roosevelt, you had to have it your way. Spartan7W § 03:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind that people use in encyclopedia to quickly find factual information, especially if they're on their cell phones. That means the key information has to be in the first few sentences rather than buried deeper. Rjensen (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The revised lead was not well worked out it is full of extraneous and useless information (readers are referred to "Americans"; the film industry is Hollywood, not Hollywood California), and lacks key factors (he was a conservative leader not just a "politician"). Your syntax is poorly done ("his family would settle in") and is full of passive voice references to unknown people ("he was quickly noticed"). You need a lot more writing experience. Rjensen (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
As for arrogance, I've made over 260 edits to the Reagan article since 2005. You made your only three edits in the last day-- not much experience to be so cocksure. Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you ever tried to do something called PROOFREADING? It is embarrassing how many typos you leave behind, gosh. I have no problem with you making some small revisions, that's the point of Wikipedia. However, you ought to proofread, you ought not to have so many typos, put a bit of thought into it before you click the save button six times in a few minutes. You don't have to be a "domesticated burro" about your editing; not everybody has the leisure to spend so much time as you doing editing, but that doesn't mean a person with lower quantity of edits cannot contribute a high quality of edits. Spartan7W § 13:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Finally you have an intelligent and useful comment to make – thank you. Rjensen (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Adam Matthew account check-in[edit]

Hello Rjensen,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Adam Matthew through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Adam Matthew account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you, Wikipedia Library Adam Matthew account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Isaac Volpe Stone[edit]

I know The Lithograph is on the front cover of 'The Norton Anthology of American Literature' Volume B, but I will look for it on the wikimedia commons, thank you--Isaacvolpestone (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015[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) 23:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Baltimore and Ohio Railroad may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Neoconservatism and Poland: SDUSA[edit]

Poland is a case where SDUSA members with the AFL-CIO helped Solidarity with 300 thousand USD (and more USD later with the NED). Poland is a case where there were clear disagreements among the democracy-promotion social-democrats and the neocons (Kirkpatrick and Podhoretz), who were skeptical about reforming totalitarianism. Since Bush's War with Iraq, "neocons" are typically alleged to be promoting democracy willy nilly, so the Polish case seems significant.

There has been a 7000 character expansion of the SDUSA article, mainly about relations with neoconservatism. Perhaps you could take a look?

Dame Etna (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The Neocons were not especially involved with Poland, so I don't think there's much need for that section. Let me identify a few more problems: 1) It gets Kirkpatrick wrong. in 1982 she spoke out strongly in favor of Solidarity: see http://books.google.com/books?id=Gf7aaCPwa_UC&pg=PA164 for proof. 2) Did the opinions of Podhoretz reflect the neocons mainstream??? -- he did not reflect the views of Joshua Muravchik for example. 3) The section Is wrong about Kirkpatrick, deliberately ignores Muravchik and thus is badly done because of POV. 4) in general, encyclopedias are about things that happened – not about things that did not happen. 5) As far as Poland & SDUSA, I had the impression that Tom Kahn was working explicitly for the AFL-CIO under the direction of Kirkland. Rjensen (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply.
  1. The SDUSA article clarifies "initial position". You cite a 1982 speech, while the debate between Kahn and Podhoretz took place in 1981. Domber's thesis states that Kirkpatrick wanted to deny (not approve) credits to Poland, to force it into default, while the SDUSA people pushed for using it as leverage (as in Kahn's position in the debate).[1], with revision and typeset [2]. I should try to find more about her 1979-1980 position.
  2. Domber has a page discussing Podhoretz.[3]
  3. Domber ignores Muravchik, so I don't suppose his opinion is relevant (although I speak in considerable ignorance).
  4. Kahn reported directly to Kirkland, as you stated.
Dame Etna (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
In December 1981 The communist government in Warsaw declared martial law & the Reagan Administration had an intense debate about Poland. The focus was huge debt that it owed to Western banks. Kirkpatrick and the hardliners and the neocons argue that the United States should declare the debt in default and thereby dramatically weaken the communist government in Warsaw, and embarrass Moscow. The moderates rejected that advice saying it would seriously hurt Western banks. The moderates won, and Kirkpatrick lost that debate. My reading of it indicates she strongly supported Solidarity and was trying to bring down the communist regime in Warsaw. Take a look at the speeches he made at the time that I gave the link to. There is excellent coverage in the new biography by HW Brands, Reagan (2015) pp 336ff Rjensen (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful edit, which remains. The disagreement was earlier. Kahn's discussion of Kirkpatrick was moved closer to this material.
There has been an attempt to have the lede be short, calling it right-wing, Shachtmanite, and neoconservative in the first paragraphs, which is why I expanded the discussion of neoconservatism (using what I could find on Wikipedia) and quick Google searches.
I shall look at those references.
Dame Etna (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
OK I think we're generally agreed :) The consensus of RS (as represented by Lipset) is to reject the Trotskyite image--A couple of neocons in their undergraduate days did linkup with the Trotskyites, primarily to oppose Stalin. That connection was dead several decades before neoconservatism arrived, and the great majority of neocons never had any connection to Trotsky. Rjensen (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Justin Rainmondo was banned some years ago, apparently, but expect to see more of his work blossoming again on Wikipedia, because it was cited favorably by Jack Ross's new book, which (although originally not an academic book) had its publisher bought by a university press, so it is a WP:RS. :(
Dame Etna (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a pity that university presses are now publishing historical romances and alternative-history novels (and in the case of one French book) surrealism. Dame Etna (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Overt aid to Poland[edit]

I remember Domber giving 10 million as NED's aid to Poland, and given the mistreatment of Thiele by the article I wrongly inferred that the NED support was credited to the CIA (by whoever twisted Thiele noncooperatively and in extended form). Dame Etna (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ideology of the SS[edit]

I've revered your edit here and started a talk page discussion. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)