User talk:Rjensen/Archive 5

User talk:rjensen/Archive 5

Rjensen 17:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Rjensen

Cricket and Abe Lincoln

I am for leaving this. - It shows the real sporting interests of a American President and I think it's worth leaving. Mattabat 09:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

there is no evidence he ever had an interest. Source says it's possible he attended one game once. (politicians do that sort of thing a lot). No biographer mentions any sporting interest. Recommend you look at Lincoln & theatre instead Rjensen 09:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, There is no evidence that he had no interest. I ran across a reference of him playing a combo game of rounders and cricket when he was younger. A later interest in cricket isn't impossible. - We all know of his interest in the theatre. However, theatre is generally held at night and the President was a busy man most days.. Note: one can follow sport without attending many days of it, like cricket requires! Mattabat 11:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked the day-by-day book: zero mention of cricket. I also looked at several bios; no mention in index. The 1849 story seems not to be a reliable source--it's mentioned in passing, unfootnoted, by a popular writer (not a Lincoln expert) in a popular magazine. He is very unlikey to have done research in 1848 newspapers for that one-liner, so he got is somewhere unknown. = very weak source. Better sources (still mediocre) = [1] which dates the episode in 1859 and notes cricket was replaced by baseball after 1860. Rjensen 11:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Parenti aa reliable source'no expert seems to think so. it fails Wiki test that even trivia have to pass. rjensen

The Smithsonian Instutute magazine is *not* a popular magazine and has been clearly researched. Your BBC article seems to conflict date and cricket didn't just disappear after 1st January 1860 - people are playing it all over the US mainland today.

There are more references out there :) I think I added another one earlier but it got overwritten in the fraccas. http://members.aol.com/gpsn/chistory.htm - by the good people at Shoemaker Middle School - if you want further references I'm sure they're out there. Don't know how many you need to convince you though. A day-by-day book is for events, not trivial things like sports discussion. As for expertise in Lincoln, it is quite clear many experts are concentrating on his Presidential history and not what some would consider trivial. May I ask, why do you seem reticent to believe Abe Lincoln could be interested in cricket, however indistinctly? Mattabat 12:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

we need one of the 100 biographers of AL to say it was important. (like they talk about theatre) Rjensen 13:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by changing it to the popularity of cricket line to a link, the article I referenced was filled with information to that effect. Cricket did have a strong bearing on early US history, you could link to the History of Cricket article if you like. - It's all a matter of perception I suppose. It's getting late here, could you leave the article as is and do a bit of research, come back to it in about 8 hours? :) Good discussing this with you btw, thought the article was going unnoticed :) Mattabat 12:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

the history of cricket doesn't fit well with the Lincoln article. The single supposed connection is in some doubt--about half the web sources say 1849 and half say 1859 and none give any citation. Rjensen 12:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion. Highlighting Lincolns' attention to cricket is important. If you feel the work is not well researched, you're welcome to improve it through research. Confirm the date, for instance. I'll keep an eye on it in the ongoing future and make further additions myself. Mattabat 04:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ther way Wiki works is that people who put things in MUST provide reliable evidence--which has not been done. Lincolnia iss full of myths--more than anyone in American history I think. Rjensen 05:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been done - but you seem to doubt the references. I understand that figures like Lincoln attract "images" that people sometimes get mesmerised by, but this is just highlighting someones interest in sport. - What sort of evidence would work for you that wasn't already provided? Mattabat 12:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your right

I couldnt resist altering the Ford article. Your right however, Ive always been a Ford fan and find whats happening here a sad state of afairs. Ill leave the article alone. Ive had my fun randazzo56 02:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Republicanism in Australia

Thanks for putting up the extensive bio! I would like to expand the "History" section of this article, mainly for the 20th century.

Cheers,

--Lholden 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, more history is called for on this topic...stretching back 200 years. Rjensen 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

On democracy

Please continue the discussion on talk page. Otherwise I will revert to the NPOV version. Ultramarine 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Democracy article discussion page.Ultramarine 01:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Gilded Age

Could you please see my question at Talk:Gilded Age#The frontier? - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Class and trends

"no -- lots of people have masters degrees -- it's education that makes them trend setters" - Ture. But wouldn't you say that trend-setting is part of being influencial. In other words being a trend-setter results in high honor which results in higher class (Douglas M. Eicher). In other words its their education that causes them to be trendsetter (as you said) and it is both their education and their role of being trend-setter which gains them higher social status, with few exceptions. You see what I mean? BTW: Less than 10% of Americans over the age of 25 have graduate degrees (1.4% have Ph.Ds), so its quite a select group. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points! I was thinking for example of 3.8 million teachers with BA or MA degrees out there in K12 world. They make $45,ooo a year.[2] Add in lots of low-pay religion ministers. Dare I mention 1.6 million college profs?--they earn average $52,000 [3] Calling them well educated is true; calling them UPPER middle class on a $45ooo to 50,ooo salary seems to be a real stretch. The point is what makes you a trend-setter? I think it's the education, not the income or job power that does the trick. So where does the "upper" come from--that is the issue. Rjensen 07:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well here are two intersting statistics on income and educational attainment by the Census Bureau: [4] (Page 2) and [5]. Here the median personal incomes according to educational attainment with Masters degree holding men, emplyed full-time having a median income of $61k, compared to the overall median income for fullt-time employed men of $33k [6]. Many college profs are UMC becuase they do have influence and certain amounts of "Social honor" as well as life chances. Besdies, many college profs get married, $52 X 2 = $104k. Meaning that throught he marriage of a professional equal most college educators join the ranks of the top 16%. So I'd say, $52 as a personal salary is quite a bit above the average and can be seen as a UMC salary (the median for a full-time emoplyed American males is $33k.) One must also consider all the profs who work part time. But I think class is more than income, its the nature of once occupation, the social honor as well as influence that are the "tell-tell signs" of class. All three are true for the vast majority of graduate degree holders. I'd say most full-time college profs are UMC and so are many ministers. Besdies there is also the concept of life-chances, even a part-time assitant prof, can move into a better occupation quicker that someone without that background. I'd say they are UMC through influence (which shows in them being trendsetters), occupation, social honor and income as the majority of graduate degree holders have household incomes of more than $80,000. (Consider that the median income for a male with a PhD employed full-time ($73k) is higher than the median income for two-income households, which is $65k. So, if one person by themselves can outearn most of America's two-income household (Or can comes close to it, for people with Master's) they are in a way UMC. Let me know what you think. Best Regardsm Signature^brendel 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What is "upper"?? If the middle class is 50%, upper middle class should be maybe 10% of the population?? The problem of course is that $$, honor, status, and education are all jumbled together here. We can measure $$ and education, but we do not do a very good job of measuring honor. That makes for messy data analysis. If you add in the part time adjuncts (like myself) the pay of college teachers is MUCH lower than $52,000. Say $20,ooo. Not to mention rather lower status ratings on campus. Then add in the TA's and grad students who have very high education levels, but very low pay and low status. They are adults in their late 20s and count in the social structure too--but where? Their "future" prospects used to be OK but no longer....I note the Yale English department is placing only a third of its PhD.s and they are angry and trying to unionize with the Auto Workers Union. Signs of low status? :) Rjensen 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is not clear answer. Professionals including most full-time profs are UMC according to most publications on the subject. Most holders of graduate degrees also qualify financially. The thing is that there is no percentage cut-off. But with a median household income exceeding $80,000, and a personal median income exceeding $60,000, most persons who are educated to the graduate level are above the median or average. Consider that most PhDs do outearn the vast majority of two-income households by themselves. So that is clearly not middle-middle. I'd say whether or not a college prof is really UMC depends on the closer ciscumstances. Most full-time associate and some assistant profs at 4-year institutes are, however, UMC. Life chances do depend on majory, see this study for economists: [7]. Most graduate degree holders do make twice as much as the average (median) American, so they can't be average joes ;-) Consdider the stats once more. The median personal income for fullt-time employed male, age 25+: $33k overall, $61k w/ Masters, $73k w/ PhD, $88k with Professionals degree. For households: $45k overall median, $78k w/ Masters, $96k w/ docotrate, $100k w/ professionals degree. So where are the graduate degree holders on average if not in the UMC? And in issues regarding to something so subjective as the American social structure I think we have no other choice then to make generalizations based on "The Majority" of a given group. Did that make things clearer or more complicated ;-) Regards, Signature^brendel 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The problemn is that we cannot neglect the 4-10 year training period at low wage, low-prestige positions. Many of these folks drop out before getting their advanced degree. Others are unemployed--it's notoriously bad in many fields and has been for decades. So let's average them in. "full time emplyed" data is nice but lots (one third maybe??) are not full-time employed. Rjensen 22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ture, ture. But I made an error in presenting those stats. So, here they are correctly presented:

• Median for full-time employed males 25+ only:..............$33,000[8]
• Median for all holders of Masters degrees:..........$61,000 ($78,000 median household income)[9]
• Median for all holders of DonctoratesPhDs:......................$73,000 ($96,000 median household income)[10]
• Median for all holders of Professional degrees:......$88,000 ($100,000 median household income)[11]

I'm sorry for the mistake above. That said, most holders of graduate degrees qualify as UMC. As for the training period, Ehrenreich, my personal favorite, called them "An internal underclass of the professional middle class." Their life-chances are higher than that of those not undergoing the same training and their educational attainment even during training is higher. They are often UMCs in training. It also depends on birth; some are from UMC families and other's aren't. This affects pretige derived from standard of living and affects their life chances (one has more time to study than the other as his tuition is paid => more liekely to make it) certainly different socio-economic positions. They are however often all trend-setters. So that's hard one... The unemplyed are a minority depending on major. For economics majors it was 2.1% for example. Certainly the unemplyed and drop-outs do not have "social honor" nor do they posses UMC income/prestige. Again I'm sorry for misrepresenting those stats above, I hope this clears things up. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the highly educated people under age 30 or 35 are the main trend setters in society. Many of them are still "in training" and have low incomes--like MD interns and residents and graduate students and post-docs. Few make $100,000, I suggest. (No I have not looked at age/ed/income breakdowns.) They are "upper class" in terms of education and in terms of trend setting. Many of them live close to the poverty line. (Top universities offer $15ooo to $18ooo for brilliant graduate students. Lesser universities offer most of their grad students nothing at all. I think most law schools and med schools offer zip. That means they borrow very heavily and live very cheap. Rjensen 23:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

interesting discussion so I copied it to the Talk:Social structure of the United States talk page. Rjensen 23:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jan Smuts

As one who has previously contributed to the above article, you might be interested to know that the Early life of Jan Smuts (childhood and early adulthood, 1870-1895) is up for FA nomination at the moment. Any contribution, whether a vote for/against or a suggestion for improvement, would be very much appreciated. The eventual intention is to raise Jan Smuts and its detailed sub-articles to FAs - this is the first to be completed and to go forward for nomination.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 15:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Republican In Name Only

Please state why you believe all critics are right-wing. Also, these so-called right-wing groups are supporting candidates they believe best represent the conservative platform that the Republican party is known for while obviously opposing candidates they believe are not truly conservative and therefore are not an adequate representative for the Republicans.

Your statements come across as biased and based more on personal opinion rather than examination of the situations and facts.

So far all the anti-RINO folks I have seen are right wing conservatives. Did I miss one somewhere? that's certainly possible, but who did I miss? names, please. Note that the anti-RINO folks rather proudly admit that they are fighting all the leaders of the GOP nationally and in the major states. I have been looking and so far I have not found a single anti-RINO who could be called a GOP leader at the national level. Again, perhaps I missed someone--is there someone who can be named who is not right wing??? Let's name them, please.Rjensen 04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

By your tone, I take it that you believe anyone using the term RINO is right-wing, rather than someone that is conservative and wants the Republican party to stay that way. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage all use the term RINO. Some would argue they are right-wing, while others would argue they are only true to the conservative platform and are not extremists as the right-wing term implies. Of course you won't find a GOP leader using the term RINO as that would be a major PR blunder. I've looked over a number of your edits and they appear biased rather than entirely objective. Peer-review is a great thing as it keeps us on our toes and keeps us from slanting too far to one side or the other, perhaps your edits should be filled with more objective content rather than personal opinion.

Well I certainly consider Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage to be on the right. Now is that an oddball opinion of mine, or do most people call these folks "moderate" or something like that? The big group is the Club for Growth. Rjensen 05:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, they're on "the right" because they're surely not on "the left," but are they "right-wing" or are they represenative of conservatives and most Republicans? I would say most Republicans, and definitely most conservatives see things the way these guys do on most issues. Note that Michael Savage dislikes both Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh so it isn't as if the three most popular conservative talk radio hosts held a meeting and agreed to refer to several Republicans as RINOs to help sieze control of the Republican party as had been suggested in the RINO article.

is the word "wing" the trouble spot here? Rjensen 06:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that's the largest point of contention, yes.

Well if you divide the political world into right-wing, moderates, and left-wing, the anti-RINO are all right wing, I believe. Do some appear to be in the middle? Rjensen 06:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If there were only three divisions, but there isn't. RINOs are the left-wing of the Republican party. The other Republicans are moderates (conservatives) or right-wing (ultra conservatives). All of these terms are relative to the Republican party. DINOs are right-wing democrats, but they would not be considered right-wing in the Republican party, they would mostly be considered moderate Republicans. You can't apply the Democratic label to anti-RINOs since anti-RINOs and RINOs are both Republicans (at least in name). In the Democrats' world moderate Republicans are right-wing, whereas ultra conservatives (the right-wing of the Republican party) would be considered insane wackos. However, in the Republicans' world, moderate liberals are left-wing, whereas ultra liberals (the left-wing of the Democratic party) would be considered insane wackos. A RINO is a RINO by Republican standards, not Democratic standards, likewise a DINO is a DINO by Democratic standards not Republican standards.

a liberal is a person who votes liberal most of the time. As the table shows, (and the ACU table shows) there are no such Republicans in the House and only one (Chaffee) in the Senate. That is, there are practically no liberal Republicans. As for "Republian standards" -- surely those are set by the Republican leaders and voters--who supported Chaffee-- not by outside groups who are nonpartisan (like Dobson, Club for Growth, Hannity). Rjensen 19:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Republicanism and demcracy

Please see my questions on the talk page of the democracy article and give a response. Ultramarine 08:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's paradoxical to deal with an editor who are arrogant and despotic in efforts to control an article on democracy! Rjensen 08:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please follow wikipedia policies. Again, please continue discussion on the talk page of the democracy article. If you again make a personal attack, I will report you. Read Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Consider yourself warned. Only those without factual arguments use ad hominem.Ultramarine 08:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a personal attack to me.--Getaway 01:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy #1 is reliable sources--a dramatic failure in the democracy article. Rjensen 09:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 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 - 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Byrd article.

While I tend to agree with you on alot about the Robert Byrd article, there is one point in which I have to disagree. There were not really any "liberal" Southern Democrats in the Senate in the 1960s. Even after most of them began to speak of having more enlightened views on race realtions, they were still "conservative" on most other issues. Cheers and keep up the good work. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks... Lister Hill of Alabama was pretty liberal, I think. Add Gore of Tennessee. Yarborbough of Texas. Rjensen 12:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Touche on Gore. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Can they just delete the early Republican articles like that or is there a case to put them back in? I'm minded to begin changinge the first paragraph of Democratic-Republicans endlessly. Skyemoor 22:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR Rule Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. · ·--Getaway 14:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

More false charges. Rjensen 14:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not engage in personal attacks. You have personally attacked me two times now. You have attacked me on this last posting in the edit summary. You can review that personal attack here: Another False charge from highly partisan editor. Also, you can review the other personal attack here: Personal Attacks on Byrd Violate Wiki Policy. You stated and the edit history has recorded: "My personal opinions are not involved here at all. Wiki has strong rules against unsourced negative statements about living people. (statlments like Byrd was a floor leader of segregationists.) Getaway keeps inserting false statements, and has been repeatedly told they are false. He refuses to document them. Wiki has had real trouble recently about politicians changing their Wiki pages and we have to keep alert to signs like this one. One notes that Getaway is actively editing the article on the Maryland Senate race, as well as the one on the highly political issue of Stem cell research, which is also an election issue. (Need I mention his editing on a highly controversial race in Texas as well, and one in kansas.) The bottom line is that the pattern of edits may resemble a highly partisan POV editor trying to impact the November election--maybe not, maybe it's just a coincidence; maybe Getaway he will deny that he is POV." These are all personal attacks. Please stop engaging in behavior that violates Wikipedia policy.--Getaway 14:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

My criticism is that partisan political editing is a violation of Wiki rules. I will criticize anyone who does it, so it is not personal at all. I hope you will deny it, or at least stop it. Rjensen 14:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided any examples. I have asked for them and you refuse to provide examples.--Getaway 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

for example: 1) calling Byrd a segregationist 2) floor leader of segregationists 3) in league with Stevens to grab $$$ for West Va. Rjensen 01:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not erase material.

Do not erase material in the Hispanic article. If you want to discuss it do it in the discussion page. It is more than relevant, i fact it its a milestone in the understanding of both concepts, Hispanic/Spanish and Anglo. etc. Veritas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.140.143 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 October 2006

irrelevent claims about people who are not Hispanic and have no connection does not belong Rjensen 01:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Relative to your edit of "War in California" and comments you made in the discussion section..I wanted you to read my response..

Small battles, skirmishes, weakened US troups.... you call 18 US troops killed in San Pasqual and 14 US Marines killed in Dominguez Hills (Carson, CA) small battles and skirmishes? ..I think your references are an outdated attempt to ignore facts about the war in California...you even clear the defeated Capt William Melvine by not mentioning him at all. next, you will be calling the Californios "insurgents"

'Poorly done huh!!, It's too bad your history is so one dimentioned, as usual, being told from esoteric American / English accounts only...But you can't erase the factual, documented, heroic defending of old Southern California by a vastly undermanned, undertrained and under armed group of Californios' and Mexican regulars led by historical figures Jose Maria Flores and Jose Antonio Carrillo. Your intrinsic arrogance in the whitewash /vandalism of this article about the war in Caifornia only propagates the racist elements and anti-American sentements that are written in the discussion section of this article. If we are to further utilize proper citation for edited input to these articles, discussion should take place before a clearing edit as you did to my comments. This is Wiki, please follow the rules. DonDeigo 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fuller

Thanks for the additional info. Are you aware of any gaffes he made on principles? Or are they factual errors? Trekphiler 09:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Fuller gets a lot of the big picture right--he's just unreliable on details because he did not do the detailed research needed. Rjensen 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Republican Party (United States)

Rjensen, normally I respect your edits to this and other articles, but you're crossing the line into POVland with your edits regarding stem-cell research, as your latest edit summary makes painfully clear. Argyriou 08:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry you feel that way. I suggest the opponents of stem cell research do NOT support modern biological research--don't you agree these folks wants creationism taught? The point however is that their position is to be AGAINST something, and they do not propose massive new funding for the research they will tolerate. Rjensen 08:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing which really bothered me about some of your edits was that they were sloppy (for example), which indicated to me that you weren't really thinking through your edits.

I'm too lazy to go find the references to find Republicans who support teaching creationism or ID/IOT in schools and have also supported biomedical research, though I will point out that Reagan made noises about creationism, and also (eventually) supported lots more AIDS research. (Sure, it took until his friends in Hollywood started dying, but he did come around.) I'm not going to bother trying to restore that bit so long as the reason for conservative opposition to embryonic stem-cell research stays in.

Meanwhile, User:Nikpapag has gotten awfully obnoxious; I've put a warning on his Talk page about WP:3RR. If he reverts again, I'll list him on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Argyriou 17:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What did you mean by this edit summary?

this diff

I don't see them mentioned elsewhere in the references section, so what do you mean by deleting the later book? TransUtopian 10:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

the Bailyn books deal with an entirely different issue (the constitution in 1787), not the Declaration. Rjensen 11:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks! TransUtopian 23:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

us national debt

We seem to be on opposite sides of the Professor Kotlikoff paper. I thought we might come to some understanding. I simply can not understand why you would think it not worth mention. Can you explain?

sure. I read the Kotlikoff paper. first it's not about bankruptcy, which is mentioned in passing. It's more about taxes needed if federal spending gets too high. And it's polemical--denouncing Clinton for example. So it's a POV source and not a "reliable" source on bankruptcy. A serious article will get debated by serious economists in refereed journals. Rjensen 17:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Rock watch

Thanks for renewing my faith in Wikipedia. I hadn't been here in a while, and was quite disappointed in what I saw in the Rockefeller intro just before your changes. I left it alone, wondering if it was even worth it for me to bother since some clown could just come back and add more nonsense. Nevertheless, I came back today to try to clean it up, and was happy to see that you had already done so, and quite nicely.--DocGov 19:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks! :) Rjensen 20:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin's - Virtue, religion and personal beliefs

I have posted something similar to this on the Benjamin Franklin Talk page:

Rjensen, I have revised this section especially for you. Please don't blatantly remove my citations just because they don't line up to your political/philosophical agenda. Franklin was not a Deist (nor a Christian), but he was definitely a God-fearing man who realized the importance of morality in society. While many of the Founding Fathers were not specifically attached to a particular religion, they were all aware of the importance of religious precepts to the young country. With organized religion in their day so full of pointless dogma and dictator-like leaders, it is reasonable that Franklin and many of his contemporaries were staunchly against the ORGANIZED religions of the day. But this does not mean they were Athiests; they were actually very far from that as is clearly shown through Franklin's own words on religion (which I have added to the Franklin Wiki article).

Last time I edited this piece, I inserted Franklin's famous plea for daily prayer at the Constitutional Convention. You obviously did not appreciate this historical fact and promptly removed it. This is the icing on the cake that proves that while Franklin may have been a Deist as a youth he eventually became a very God-fearing man who sincerely believed in the power of prayer and respected all religions equally; again, this does not mean he was an Atheist. The critical point in his life that changed his view seems to have come about during the period where he realized that his "Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity" was erroneous. Soon after he wrote "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion" which clearly demonstrate his sincere respect and love of God.

Rjensen, if you are who I think you are, you are a highly educated man. Why then would you have deleted Franklin's factual and famous plea for daily prayer from this article? Why would you have neglected to adequately summarize Franklin's "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion"? I am sure that any history professor, especially one from a major university claiming to specialize in American History, knows that both of these pieces of history are critical pieces to the puzzle of Benjamin Fanklin's faith. You also conveneiently fail to point out that Franklin himself found his "Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity" to be fundamentally erroneous. What do you say for yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaytan (talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 October 2006

I think this is original resaecrh of the sort Wiki does not allow. I recommend reading up on what scholars say and using that. Rjensen 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oooooooh, Iiiiii seeeeee. So the illiterate masses out there shouldn't bother trying to get information DIRECTLY from the horse's mouth but rather we should get our information fed to us INDIRECTLY through some sort of accredited scholar who acts as a political filter of a particular persuasion for any opinion on a particular matter, huh? Sounds like the tactics dictators of history always employed... Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Kim II Sung quickly come to mind. Also reminds me of U.S. media. OK. Thanks for setting me straight on that. WE, the people, are simply too dumb to read and understand anything from primary sources. In order to do that, WE need to have some learned person with a doctorate from some Ivy League school to help us, is that right? You "scholars" should just have all primary sources outlawed so that we can relive the days when the Church had a strangle hold on the masses by keeping the Bible in the hands of the educated priestly class. That'll be just great, right Rjensen? A dictator's dream!

If you want references from scholars, I can easily do that. But why bother when the primary sources clearly state their position? (Gaytan 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

Any response, Rjensen? (Gaytan 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

Guess not. (Gaytan 15:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

Third Major Theme in George Washinton's Farewell Address - Religion and Morality necessary for Political Prosperity

Clearly, in his Farewell Address, Washington expounds on his belief that religion and morality are important to the young country. He argues "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." What is POV about quoting this from Washington's speech, Rjensen? Again, is the primary source the problem for you, again? George Washington said it, not me. If you don't like it, take that up with him. Rjensen, I believe Washington was speaking to you and those with your similar persuasions when he said regarding religion and morality, "In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity." Again, Rjensen, "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle" so don't ever forget it. No matter how much you labor to abolish religion from United States History, you will never get rid of it. So quit trying to rewrite history according to your POV.

Next time you try to impose you opinions on Wiki articles at least do it tactfully. In this case you simply deleted the third major theme, as it is currently referred to in the Farewell Address article, and neglected to edit the article to reflect your intent to show that the Address only had TWO (2) major themes. Blatantly POV as demonstrated through outright neglect of the article. Didn't even bother to try to keep the article up to some kind of standards. (Gaytan 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

Wiki is not the place to promote one editor's religious beliefs. Please read some of the scholarship fiorst then try to summarize it. Rjensen 00:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Same answer again.... So I will give you the same response I gave you regarding Benjamin Franklin's beliefs:

Oooooooh, Iiiiii seeeeee. So the illiterate masses out there shouldn't bother trying to get information DIRECTLY from the horse's mouth but rather we should get our information fed to us INDIRECTLY through some sort of accredited scholar who acts as a political filter of a particular persuasion for any opinion on a particular matter, huh? Sounds like the tactics dictators of history always employed... Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Kim II Sung quickly come to mind. Also reminds me of U.S. media. OK. Thanks for setting me straight on that. WE, the people, are simply too dumb to read and understand anything from primary sources. In order to do that, WE need to have some learned person with a doctorate from some Ivy League school to help us, is that right? You "scholars" should just have all primary sources outlawed so that we can relive the days when the Church had a strangle hold on the masses by keeping the Bible in the hands of the educated priestly class. That'll be just great, right Rjensen? A dictator's dream!

If you want references from scholars, I can easily do that. But why bother when the primary sources clearly state their position? (Gaytan 15:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Please note: no response from Rjensen. (Gaytan 15:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

Rjensen's Attack on Religion

By the way, just for anyone interested, Rjensen is infamous for erasing edits that disagree with his beliefs without explanation yet he charges any who oppose his beliefs of promoting their religious beliefs! Twisted and ubsurd, huh?. Last I checked, the secular humanistic beliefs pushed by Rjensen are a religion as well, just as John Dewey called it a "faith" and just as the Supreme Court defined it in the Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia case of 1957. So how is it that such a tolerant and diverse-loving secularist as yourself can behave in such an INTOLERANT manner?

Rjensen would much rather remove every "religious belief" section from the U.S. Founding Father articles because there is simply too much primary source material to demonstrate that though these men may not have been orthodox Christians, their wirtings depict men who believed religion was necessary for national morality and that some of them even prayed to a Supreme Being. Every time I quote the primary sources, completely in context, Rjensen swiftly removes them and protests with such rubbish as "original research" that he claims is unauthorized in Wiki. In other words, we, the illiterate masses, shouldn't bother trying to get information DIRECTLY from the horse's mouth but rather we should get our information fed to us INDIRECTLY through some sort of political/religious filter (like an accredited scholar) for any opinion on a particular matter. Rjensen eerily promotes the tactics that the dictators of history always employed... Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Kim II Sung quickly come to mind. In conclusion (according to Rjensen), WE the people, are simply too dumb to read and understand anything from primary sources; only learned person with doctorates from the Ivy League schools can read primary sources. (Gaytan 15:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Please note: no response from Rjensen. (Gaytan 15:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

I'm not sure that if I were Dr. J that I would respond to POV pushing like this. I'll take the liberty of offering some general response to these straw-man assaults. I should state that IMHO these above comments border on personal attack. I often find myself disagreeing with Rjensen on the merits and sometimes on his methods, but I have the utmost repect for his qualifications and process. I do agree this user acts more boldly than some, but I have never doubted his motives. I would encourage User:Gaytan to assume good faith, and keep the discussion on the relevant talk pages. This sort of inflamatory neither impresses the reader, nor moves the discussion forward. BusterD 18:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My dispute is about the use of primary sources. I find it insulting and deceitful for anyone to argue against the use of primary source material. In the eyes of many historians, primary source material is extremely valuable in summarizing the history in general. Rjensen prefers and persuades Wikipedians to not use primary source material but recommends we use second-hand sources instead. I find this to be completely counter-productive and harmful to Wikipedia's image since it leaves history in the hands of biased POV writers. All second-hand source material is biased. While it may be used to add subtance to history, it should not be solely relied upon for historical purposes. Primary source material trumps second-hand sources. So please tell me, what encyclopedia would prefer second-hand source material over primary sources? Rjensen, BusterD? We all have POVs. Relying on second-hand sources alone is the most blatant form of POV pushing on Wikipedia today. BusterD, would you call my citing of primary source material POV as well? (Gaytan 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

If you'd made that exact case originally I wouldn't have posted. I stepped in because of use of red flag words like infamous, twisted, absurd, and comparing a wiki editor's behaviors to those of people like Hitler and Pol Pot. Maybe it's just me, but IMHO that seems over the line, and intended to provoke some visceral response, not a rational one. I interpreted your message as "baiting" behavior, and a message normally beneath the dignity of ANY user to respond. On the merits, Wikipedia policy on the subject of published primary sources is clear--they are welcome and desirable with some caveats. It is in the synthesis of original assertion that primary source use proves risky for many users; undue weight might be granted a primary source if some perspective is not developed. Further, the use of non-published and harder-to-find published primaries leads to the same ivory tower dangers you describe, where the gatekeepers prevent public viewing of knowledge. In most circumstances, secondary sources from recognized authorities might or might not prove better considered, but are invaluable nonetheless. Having a widely read expert on bibliography and historiography available in this community is just too valuable a resource to dismiss without due consideration. So while I sometimes share your deep frustration with Dr. Jensen's manner, tone, and gritty persistence I take this opportunity to ask you to re-read what you've written above, and consider that your manner and tone doesn't reflect so well on this discussion either. My apologies to Dr. Jensen if I'm being seen speaking for you in any way. I intended to speak for the pedia. BusterD 00:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that either primary or secondary sources can be used to push POV. But Rjensen has consistently deleted all of the primary source material I have added to an article citing that the primary source quotes I had used were not consistent with Wiki standards. My edits rarely interpret this primary source material; I try my best to simply provide the quote and allow the reader to interpret for himself. But Rjensen would not allow that. He prefers to keep readers in the dark about these primary sources and instead refer to blatantly POV secondary sources that rarely deal with the primary source material. For example, my edits to the George Washington and Benjamin Franklin articles have greatly balanced the articles with respect to the religious belief of these men. Prior to my edits, these Wiki articles clearly declared these men deists (argued by many today as being closer to Atheism than any major world religion). If one would only shed light on some of the speeches these men made during their lifetimes instead of relying soley on secondary sources, one would find that, although these men may have not claimed allegience to Christianity, they were men who were likely sincere, faithful, God-fearing, and prayerful. These men knew that religion in general was important for the sucess of the new republic, and they openly shared this belief in their speeches and writings. Rjensen's quotes rarely deal with the primary source material that I refer to or often make light of it. If ever, the primary source material I cited disagreed with his sacred secondary sources, he would quickly remove the primary quotes but leave the secondary. For any honest observer, Rjensen is clearly trying to rewrite history according to his own POV, and any thing that disagress with his POV, is simply covered up in hope that it will eventually be lost in obscurity. Contemporary historians are becoming famous for this type of behavior. Primary sources are exactly that, of 'primary' importance. Secondary sources are valuable as well, but they are of 'secondary' importance, and should be employed to shed light on the primary. Rjensen is not doing this. Instead he has thrown the primary source material out of the window, many times, in an attempt to make secondary sources take the place of the primary. Again, BusterD, I agree that either primary or secondary sources can be used to push POV, but the best way to minimize this type of writing on Wiki is to assure there is a balance of primary and secondary source material on all Wiki articles. Excluding either of these clearly biases an article in a particular direction. Balance is one of the goals of Wiki, is it not? POV, or biases, is what we are trying to avoid. Rjensen's behavior does not reflect this. So while my comments about Rjensen's behavior above may be harsh, they are accurate. And it does not matter how many degrees, prestigious awards, or experience anyone has, this does not make them impervious to bias.

Rjensen has yet to acknowledge his POV on the subject of the Founding Fathers religious views. I admit, I have my POV on this subject. We all have POV. But this view was not even mentioned before, almost as if it did not exist, as if no valid historian ever argued that the Founders were not deist. Rjensen would like to completely ignore this view. An encyclopedia should present the prevailing views on a topic, not obscure them. It seems to me that instead, Wiki writers are incorrectly molding this idea of 'POV edits' into political correctness. The two ideas are clearly not synonomous. History should not be subject to our personal ideas of political correctness. For NPOV to conquer in Wiki, the freedom to include valid, major views into an article is a must. (Gaytan 16:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

Now you've got me agreeing with you. BusterD 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My POV is this: I have a very strong interest in the history of American religion and have published extensively on the topic over the last 40 years. I am also strongly committed to the notion that Wiki should represent the best scholarship. I strongly resent people trying to insert their personal religious biliefs into articles or revising them to make it seem like some historic figure agreed with the editor's personal POV. In my opinion the religion of Franklin or Jefferson tells us a lot about Franklin and Jefferson, and therefore must be gotten right. So I added quotes from leading scholars. One clue to editor's POV is their use of original research or quotes from primary sources that were selected by the editor and not by established scholars. In the case of Franklin the people inserting their personbal views seem not to have read ANY of the extensive scholarship on the topic. That suggests to me they really do not care about history, they only want to parade historical figures to support their 2006 causes. Rjensen 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I again repeat, according to Rjensen "we, the illiterate masses, shouldn't bother trying to get information DIRECTLY from the horse's mouth but rather we should get our information fed to us INDIRECTLY through some sort of political/religious filter (like an accredited scholar) for any opinion on a particular matter." Scholars, like Rjensen, should interpret everything for us masses, so they say. It is akin to the days that the Roman Catholic Church despised all those who tried to translate the Bible in order to allow the masses to read it for themselves; in this way did the Church retain its power over the masses, by restricting the right to knowledge. These scholars nowadays, wish to filter everything for the masses, according to their own prejudices. So, Rjensen, if you really disagree with my primary source material, instead of deleting it, why not find some secondary source that deals with my quotes directly in order to show how I err? You know, why don't you take my primary source material, which shows how the Founders were God-fearing men that valued religion in general for America, and refute it by way of secondary source material? I won't have a problem with that, at least then, you will afford my feeble primary sources a fighting chance against your domineering secondary sources. This way your tactics will be clear; we will all be able to compare your second-hand scholars to the Founders' primary quotes directly (those which I, and others, provide). Let the reader decide whether they agree with the seconda hand sources or not. But, again, removing primary source material just because it doesn't agree with your own personal library of secondary sources is not cause for deletion. Much of the material you have relating to the Founder's religious background may not agree with my personal library of secondary sources, but that does not give me the right to delete all of your material either.

Don't get me wrong, not all scholars play unfair as does Rjensen. But when they begin to masquerade their prejudices behind secondary sources and then allow these secondary sources to ursurp authority over primary sources, then I ask, who needs or wants a scholar who is belligerently rewriting history through their own POV? What good is a scholar who distorts history in this manner? Give me someone from the masses who has thoughtfully read much of the Founding Fathers primary souce material (letters, speeches, journals, etc.) and him will I gladly accept over a "scholar" who claims that his secondary sources trump the primary.

Just read the Founders' own words, you will find, as did I, that they were God-fearing and prayerful men, not of any one particular religion, but privately religious in the manner they personally saw fit. But they were NOT clear deists, or almost athiests. These men publically asked Americans to thank God for his guidance through the revolution and for their new government, to beseech God in prayer, for continued blessing upon the country and the world, and even went as far as saying that morality was impossible without religious principles. How could anyone say that these men were near athiests and keep a straight face? These men proclaimed from their own mouths, that religion was important for the nation yet they never publically endorsed any one particular religion due to their strong belief in freedom of religion. (Gaytan 17:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

One more thing, Rjensen said, "I strongly resent people trying to insert their personal religious biliefs into articles." Yes I am a religious person and I am consistently afflicted by the prejudices of scholars such as those represented by Rjensen. But Rjensen asserts that I have "inserted [my own] personal religious beliefs into this article," so I ask him to demonstrate precisely where the particular tenets of my religion have been in any way inserted into this article? My religious background, as well as my personal POVs, are available for all of Wiki to investigate. I clearly lay these all out on my user page. If I have inserted a particular doctrine of my faith in the articles on the Founders, please highlight these for further discussion. As far as I can tell, I am not guilty of this charge. But I believe Rjensen cannot say likewise. (Gaytan 17:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

For what it is worth, Rjensen, you have my sympathies here. Some of these quotes look implausible; all of them are what we call original research. I have seen much of Rjensen's editing, and I have a firm idea what his views on eighteenth century politics are; some idea what his modern politics are - and no idea what his religion is. That's pretty good neutrality on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright. We need some clarification now. Let's take the Benjamin Franklin for example. What I added to that article was primarily inserted into the section dealing with Franklin's religious beliefs. Prior to my edits, Franklin was made out to be a complete Atheist (code word used today is Deist); which is ridiculous, the only reason for this is due to his statement made early in his life, to which he clearly disagreed with as can be shown through many of his statements and wirtings later in life. I quoted and referenced two primary sources on Franklin, (1) his 1728, outline of his personal beliefs in "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion" (what better primary source to reference for this topic!) and (2) Franklin's well-known speech at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Both of these quotes are appropriately referenced in the article. Commentary on these quotes is unnecessary in the article; the quotes speak for themselves in summarizing Franklin's non-deistic religious beliefs. Now the section displays Franklin not as an Atheist, but as a god-believing individual whose religious beliefs are not clearly associated with any the tenets of any one particular faith.

According to original research, primary sources are fine. It defines original research as "material that has not been published by a reliable source" such as "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." It also states, "Material that counts as original research within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you."

In the Franklin article, I have put forth no original theories as can be noted since all of my added material was clearly referenced directly to a primary source. Rjensen's problem is that he would like to require all Wikipedians to use secondary sources exclusively; something which I can never agree to. If Wiki fell to that level, then I say, "farawell fellow Wikis and have fun rewriting history through secondary and tertiary source material". Rjensen abhors primary sources unless they agree to his agenda, which is why he continually deleted all of my edits recently. Rjensen or Septentrionalis, I beg you to show how and why my edits should be considered original research. You may be correct, but I simply don't see how. Enlighten me, maybe I will concur. Not a chance though, as it stands now. (Gaytan 23:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

Septentrionalis, you stated, "I have seen much of Rjensen's editing, and I have a firm idea what his views on eighteenth century politics are; some idea what his modern politics are - and no idea what his religion is. That's pretty good neutrality on the subject.". Well I can tell you from my experience with him and by performing a simple review of his talk page, Rjensen is not as neutral as you may think. I have found him to push several left-wing agendas as can be noted by his labeling of people as "right-wing", his obvious resentment towards creationists, his antagonism towards pro-life proponents, and in my case, his deletions which clearly demonstrate his anti-religious POV. Neutral? I don't think so. Religion? I have a pretty good idea, probably that religion which espouses the type of views I have just listed and religion common to many other elitists. (Gaytan 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

No I have never attacked religion. But I insist that people who want to edit historical articles learn about the topic first and stop trying to insert their own 2006 theology into history. That's naughty. Rjensen 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight Rjensen. We should ignore the primary sources and get it from approved elite filters of history such as yourself, correct? History would be lost if we ignored primary sources, but I guess this doesn't matter to you. All of my edits reference primary sources. If you have a problem with them, explain why they should not be used and how they are biased; don't just delete them and generalize about how you believe I am inserting my beliefs into my edits. Show me one clear case of my alleged "original research" and I just may see the light. But from my current view of things, I do not see how I insert my "own 2006 theology into history". All I try to do is to highlight American Founders' own words to show that these men were not Atheists (2006 liberal code word - "deist"), as many 2006 left wing radical elitists, such as yourself, try to argue in your own rewritten atheist-friendly versions of history. So, to turn the table on you, "stop trying to insert [your] own 2006 theology into history. That's naughty." And yes, you have continually attacked religion in general by deleting any material that demonstrates that many of the Founders were privately religious men. My edits never tie a particular religion to any of the Founders, so your deletions amount to an attack on religion in general. (Gaytan 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Wiki rules REQUIRE editors to use secondary sources--the problem with primary sourcesis they are very hard for amateurs to interpret. The pros look at thousands of primary sources, and evaluate it with many many secondary sources. The amateurs look at a couple and impose their own 2006 readings (impelled by a proselytizing drive). That is forbidden Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources Rjensen 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have provided additional sources for my edits on Benjamin Franklin. Rjensen, please review. I also reviewed the Wikipedia:Reliable sources article which states that primary sources "typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources (expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion). And for your particular benefit, Rjensen, no, the Wikipedia:Reliable sources article never claims that "Wiki rules REQUIRE editors to use secondary sources." If Wiki rules actually specify this somewhere, it would be an outrage (since it limits Wiki editors free speech on the subject). But I do agree with you on the point that some may misinterpret primary source material. But that is why Wiki rules stated that original interpretations of primary source material (i.e. original research) is not allowed. This does not mean that primary sources are banned from Wikipedia. All it means is that primary sources may be used only for descriptive purposes; interpretations of primary source material is what is considered original research.

The disagreement between you and I, Rjensen, really comes down to whether or not I provide any original interpretations about the primary sources I've employed. If I do, then my edits are definitely original research according to Wikipedia and should therefore be deleted. If not, my edits stay. It should be that simple.

Before you delete any of my edits again, please have the decency to provide your reasoning for doing so, detailing exactly where and how my edits constitute original research (i.e., personal interpretation of primary sources). You have yet to demonstrate this in any of your previous deletions of my materials.

And enough with the generalizations already. If I am proselytizing some particular religion, then you are clearly proselytizing atheism on Wikipedia by your actions against me. I am simply trying to separate the faiths of the Founding Fathers from underneath the tons of rewritten historical garbage produced by the alleged "scholars" in this field. But it's a formidable task considering that all these elitist "scholars" are proselytizing atheism in all their work. On top of this, these clerics of atheism and antagonists of free speech insist that the masses should not have access to primary sources but that they should instead be forced to study history as seen through their warped and biased lenses. You know what I mean, don't you, Rjensen? Sure you do. (Gaytan 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

Do not vandalize talk pages

Wiki policy states, "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism." You deleted my comment. Don't do it again. -Psychohistorian 18:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with what I have to say in the Discussion-Section, please disagree openly, and do not simply erase my opinion. Jinmex 16:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not erase your opinions on the talk page. Rjensen 16:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen is at it again, huh? (Gaytan 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

Questia

Regarding Questia, it appears to require a fee to subscribe. WP:EL states, under the heading "Links normally to be avoided":

• Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.

So it was incorrect to say that user:Markles invents his own rules, or that he was engaged in vandalism. If you'd like to make a case for overriding the EL guideline in this matter then the article talk page would be an apporpriate place. -Will Beback 00:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

FALSE: there is no fee to read the basic highly useful info, It is open to everyone. Qustia gives away free a great deal of highly useful information--esp tables of contents and searches in texts--that are available nowhere else. That is what the users need and get free, until an obtrussive editor blocks their access. Rjensen 01:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Free? Perhaps we're looking at different websites. The Questia website that I see costs $100 a year to subscribe [12]. Perhaps you have a free subscription? Please explain how this website is free. -Will Beback 05:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: Our own article on Questia says that it charges:

• It charges a subscription for users to access the online books and reference materials.

Is our article wrong? -Will Beback 05:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It has a free part and a charge part. If the charge part did not exist there would be no controversy about our links to the valuable free part. Penalizing our users because Questia also has an optional premium $$ service seems unfair to them. Rjensen 11:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Where's the free part? Everytime I look at something still in copyright, such as the links you made in Reconstruction, it soon pops up and tells me to register. -Will Beback 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, not linking to a subscription service isn't the same as blocking access to it. -Will Beback 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

well they do have a lot of popups! if anyone goes to questia.com and enters say Arkansas reconstruction, you get 5700 books and 430 journal articles, sortred in order of usefulness; with full biblio information and a couple lines of text. Click on one of the books (like #2, the WPA Guide to Arkansas) and the click on the table of contents. You get the complete table of contents and the first page of each chapter. Try it, it works--all free. If a person is trying to decide what books to order interlibrary loan, it's invaluable. Rjensen 18:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So there are free teasers. To actually read the books you need to pay, so it's a pay site. We have a guideline that says not avoid linking to pay sites. It is clear that a user who removes links to a pay site is not committing vandalism or making up his own rules. You are well-aware that your linking to Questia is controversial. I suggest that you should not edit war over a situation where it is up to you to justify an exemption to a long-standing guideline. Since you are a big fan of the site you might start a discussion at WP:EL over treating Questia specially. Until that happens, users are acting properly by removing links to it. -Will Beback 18:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

NO. To read the essential information our users need is free. All I am doing is linking to the free information our users need. That part is not controversial. I take it there would be no objection at all if Questia did not offer its $ premium service. That extra offer makes it fatally flawed? I think not--many sites have ads and opportunities tyo buy premium services. That is how google works for example. Rjensen 18:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are linking to one commericial website in favor of others. Amazon and Google provide simialr services. Yes, if the website offered it's service for free there'd be less controversy. But we still don't link directly to Amazon. Perhaps you can have Questia added to the list of booksellers, so that users have the option of going there when they click on the ISBN of a book, just as they have the option of going to Amazon, etc. -Will Beback 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do like linking to books.google--is there an objection to that? Amazon.com is a bookseller. Questia does not sell books so the ISBN routine does not work. Amazon titles are all recent ones, and Questia has all these old titles that historians rely upon. The bottom line is helping or hurting Wiki users. Blanking information they need and can use--free--is a disservice. Rjensen 19:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take your arguments to WP:EL. In the meantime we have a guideline which tells editors to avoid linking to sites which charge a fee. Editors who enforce that guideline are not vandalizing articles. You are in the wrong for accusing them of doing so and for edit-warring over these commercial links. Editors may be blocked for repeatedly inserted links to commercial sites, and I would hate to see that happen to you. -Will Beback 00:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming the Civil War

You have worked on Naming the American Civil War within the last few months. I am stepping back from the article for a day or so to avoid an edit war. My request is that you consider stepping in to apply some peer pressure in the interest of civility, NPOV, assuming good faith, etc. It's up to you. -- Alarob 00:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Republic Compatable with Monarchy?

Hello. In Britain a republic is regarded as in opposition to a monarchy. Can you provide sources for your claim otherwise?

Efforts to establish an Australian (or British) republic involve replacing the Queen as head of state.

Can you provide evidence of any monarchy that considers itself a republic?

Are you sure you are not confusing a republic with a democracy?

I was writing about republicanISM which is a combination of values that do not depend on the nominal head of government. Rjensen 13:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism: Naming the American Civil War

I consider what you just did to constitute vandalsim. Please do not attempt to blank referenced sources, for which there is support by more than a few editors.--Fix Bayonets! 14:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey it's deception to leave out key words. Thus Lewis apologized for his poor history: It is with many misgivings that I offer to you this hurriedly written sketch, as I am not a writer, historian, nor even a paragrapher, and have given you, from memory alone, my military experience during the War for States Rights in South Carolina from 1861 to 1865. Please do not trick readers by leaving out key words. very baughty. What is the quote from Faust that I dropped--I did not see any quote at all. Rjensen 14:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:1832bank.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1832bank.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. - 68.39.174.238 05:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

If you have the time and inclination, I'd appreciate it if you would "weigh-in" on the current discussion at Talk:Hippolyte de Bouchard; it could use some objective, outside feedback. Regards, Lord Kinbote 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. It definitely helped bring the issue to a reasonable conclusion.--Lord Kinbote 05:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

glad to help out. Rjensen 07:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Social Structure ref and GA

Hi, I just saw you made several improvements to the Middle class squeeze section. As of now, however, we only have one, single reference for the entire section. I really would like to get this article up to GA in the near future, but first we need to take care of all that unreferenced content. So to the point- do you happen to have the references for the "Education," "Cost of living," and "Class ascendency" sub-sections? If so (and if you have the time) could you put in the in-line citations. I'm just asking becuase I thought you might be able to help get that text referenced. Best Regards and Happy Editing! Signature^brendel 06:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Gilded age, again

You seem to be one of very few non-IPs who have been active lately at Gilded Age, so perhaps you will have some insight into my question at Talk:Gilded Age#Massive deletions: why?. If you don't have insight either, a remark from you to that effect would be useful, because it would tend to indicate that these deletions were probably vandalistic. - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the tip--I reverted most of the blanking. Rjensen 19:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Panic of 1837

I don't know if you were aware, but text dumps of the sort you made there in June are frowned upon. While the information presented there is interesting, it would greatly help if you could incorporate it into the rest of the article, create proper sections, wikify, remove POV, update to 21st century usage, etc. Biruitorul 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

actually it's standard Wiki practice to use long text excerpts from EB1911. Rjensen 18:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but only if they're properly wikified, verified, etc. They need to be integrated with the rest of the article. See here for details. Phrases like "We were a chosen people delighting in reminders from our rulers of our prosperity" or "the country had cried itself, if not to sleep, at least to seeming quiet" sound nice, but clearly do not belong, unmodified, or Wikipedia. I'm not saying you personally need to be concerned with this, but you did, after all, insert that text in there, and eventually someone will have to clean it up or maybe even cut it. Biruitorul 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

IP user having a great time at American Civil War today

Just a heads up, I had to restore a change of yours made after the user had knocked off the bottom half of the article. They're pesky. Best regards. BusterD 21:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I will stand watch too. Rjensen 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I know you've stayed out of task force stuff directly

But I'm wondering if you wouldn't be interested in this. If we didn't have someone tough and deeply knowledgeable it would be a waste of time. You could marshal lots of allies if you were to consider running #3, including me. You have the gravitas. Might be too much like the day job, but you could do it with one eye closed. BusterD 03:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I just volunteered for historiography. (It's as prestigious and dangerous as digging up land mines.) Rjensen 04:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cromwell

Thanks for trimming the family section down, it looks good. I notice you've been doing a lot of work on the article alongside me - I do think it's looking a great deal better. Are you interested in trying to get it to GA status? I've been planning to go through and tidy up things like references, ISBN numbers and so on. Greycap 06:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

yes I'd be glad to help. I can add some inline refs. Rjensen 06:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

DR

Pmanderson is encouraging others to join in on his DR crusade, just so you know. Skyemoor 11:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 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 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop Deleting/Changing the Sherman Article Against Consensus and without Discussion

Rjensen I have asked you as nicely as I could to work within the wikipedia system of consensus and discussion before changes. Last night you again altered the Sherman article in violation of consensus. If you continue, I will ask the other military coordinators to see if we can suspend any work you do in the military task force. I am sorry it has come to this, but you cannot simply suspend the rules. old windy bear 10:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did reach a consensus before editing--see the talk page where I explained in detail with citations what was involved. Rjensen 19:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen You do NOT have a consensus, which is a majority of the involved editors. It does not matter if you explain, with citations, if the majority, also with counter citations, votes another way. If you continue I will ask that you be suspended from any activity with the military project. I cannot stress to you enough that right or wrong, you simply cannot delete material, or put in your "false camp rumor" claim when the majority has sourced material against it, and you are outvoted. You can ask for a peer review, but if you attempt one more time to revise this against consensus, I will ask the military project coordinator to get an admin to suspend you from any work on the project. I personally will edit out your changes every time you put them in. You cannot be allowed to openly defy wikipedia policy at your whim. If this continues, you need to be off wikipedia. That would be unfortunate - you are a bright and talented editor. Please accept, as I and every other editor have had too, that every vote does not go your way, and go work on something else. You are forcing people to ask for your suspension. old windy bear 12:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

the majority has not said a peep....what sources are they depending upon one wonders? and please stop threatening. Try to be collegial here. Rjensen 15:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen I apologize if anything I said seems threatening - my intent is quite the contrary! I want to avoid what we presently have, an edit war, and avoid possibly losing a very talented editor, yourself. I honestly have no dog in this fight - I have begun to read up on Sherman; like most historians I knew of him, but not to the detail necessary to be involved extensively in this dispute. What we cannot have, must not have, is what we currently are having - you post the fact the alleged attempt to pass the bill was a rumour, they edit it back, you edit it back to your position - whoever is right, this is not the way to handle it. You are a very talented and knowledgable writer. I am trying to urge you to put it to a vote on the talk page, once all sources are listed, and abide by the result, or, ask for a peer review, and let us settle this issue by referring to the best available historical sources. Or, let me try to resolve it. I am catching up on this as swiftly as I can - what I am urging you to do, again, is stop the edit war which has you adding it, others deleting - that is totally against policy and must stop. I humbly ask you to give me 72 hours to research the topic, and I promise to take my findings - which you will certainly have - to Kirill, who as head of the military history project can at least make a recommendation. Please give me 72 hours without editing back and forth, and I promise to extensively read all the sources, and attempt to get Kirill to resolve this without what we presently have, one editor editing it one way, and several reverting him immediately. Give me just a little time to read the sources, and I will try to get this resolved to everyone's satisfaction. old windy bear 16:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

yes lets lower the rhetoric. I gave a series of sources and showed that somebody misread the document (there never was a bill--it was a rumor Sherman heard and he got very upset). The point of the story is NOT that Congress planned to replace Grant but that Grant and Sherman profoundly trusted each other and that Sherman did NOT want a top job. (If nominated I will not serve---my adding that was reverted too) No one else seems to have offered any evidence at all in the matter, so there's not really a "dispute" -- it's a matter of correcting errors. My other point is that the article has too much trivia that has to go (the baprism story for example--and when I tried to say that the whole point was Sherman needed a Christian name people reverted that!) At a deeper level we can see some editors have an intense proprietary interest in the article. Rjensen 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen I deeply appreciate your working with me to give me some time to go through the sources you have listed, and famliarize myself with the issues in debate, before taking this to Kirill and his other assistant military coordinators, and seeing if we can find a way to resolve this without anyone being allowed to have a proprietary interest in the article. I don't have to tell you this type of thing has happened before! I am going to the library, and on to a used book store with Basil L. Hart's works, and will have a much better grip on this shortly. (I have "Memoirs of General William T. Sherman" and I need to reread that also). I ordered "The Destructive War: William Tecumseh, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans" by Charles Royster, which should be here tomorrow, I hope. I am doing my best to really research this, so we can get a fair resolution. Again, I appreciate your working with me, and ending the edit war - I need to really research this, and then take it up with Kirill, and then sit everyone down, and make changes as appropriate. Thanks for understanding, and working with me to get this resolved in a positive way. Please believe me, I am going to do my best to address every issue you have raised. old windy bear 18:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

hey, thanks! Rjensen 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fugitive Slave act

I saw that you removed a good deal of text from Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, particularly the section that the law's historical context. I have re-added it, and do not believe that it should be removed without justification. Thank you. --Zantastik talk 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted material about a DIFFERENT law. If it's important it goes to a separate article. And I corrected false info about Methodists. Unsourced info is highly suspect and will get deleted. Rjensen 22:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I am sorry for the immense delay involved in beginning your mediation about Richard Nixon. The Mediation Committee has been under some disarray recently, and we are trying to get the ball rolling again. Provided this conflict still needs mediation, I am more than happy to help with your dispute. Please respond on the talk page for the mediation if you are ready and willing to begin.

For the Mediation Committee, -^demon^{[yell at me]} 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am disappointed

Re: [13]

I still sing your praises, in fact I mentioned you today again.

But I am sad to see that you still delete referenced material that doesn't match your own POV.

I was just ready to go on a wikivacation. You can revert my revert and remove the quote, but I really don't want to have another edit war with you--the last time was tramatic and taxing for both of us.

Why not just delete the quote, and then not delete any other referenced material on the page? Is that okay?

I welcome your addition to this article, I wrote the entire Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States#History_of_exporting_democracy section, but I don't think I wrote anything else.

I think the rest of the page needs to be cleaned up and referenced, but I worry about you doing it, how much will you delete in the process? Will this article go from one political ideology (leftist) to another (rightist) after you get done? Can both views coexist equally? I think they can, by your edit history before, and your edit today, I dont think you do.

I welcome your contributions to the section I originally wrote too. This section has a tramatic history, like most of the controversial sections I write.

I am well aware of WP:OWN but I am understandably protective of well researched material being deleted. I really hope you can understand.

I hope all is well. I haven't heard from you since our USSR work together.

I really wish you would have changed and grown from our edit wars before, but oh well. I see this heading:

• #Stop Deleting/Changing the Sherman Article Against Consensus and without Discussion
• By the way, just for anyone interested, Rjensen is infamous for erasing edits that disagree with his beliefs without explanation...

...and am disappointed. As I have argued with a user several times without avail, the article is stronger and your POV is more forcefully, with both viewpoints on a wikipage. Recently I chastized Talk:Lenin wikiusers for the same POV warrior behavior...

I just wrote today that behavioral changes happen glacially. Travb (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious reference work, not a plaything for oddball quotes that are given no context at all. We need to use solid secondary sources--that is the Wiki policy. Rjensen 10:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh Rjensen, I am getting nostalgic. Who decides what is "oddball", who decides what is "solid secondary sources"? If it doesn't meet your standards, (because that is what we are really talking about, isn't it) you delete it. But as the user wrote above, you "are infamous for erasing edits that disagree with his beliefs without explanation yet he charges any who oppose his beliefs of promoting their religious beliefs!" Your deletions are "mainstream", and your sources are solid, but other wikiusers (who happen to have opposite viewpoints then you), are "oddball". How can you be so incredibly intellegent yet so ideologically inflexible? It just blows my mind. You are obviously making a lot of users pissed off, and your edits are less effective because you have to spend so much time defending your deletions, when you could be pushing your POV much more effectively, by allowing other peoples views to stand next to your own. So keep edit warring Rjesen. As I mentioned, I just wrote today that behavioral changes happen glacially. It appears like you are going to push it to far and get into a Afd with some of these users, then you will be forced to comprimise and allow opposing views on the pages you edit.

Please don't use wikipolicy as a weapon to push you POV, or as a shield to mask your POV, I have spent the last two months arguing with the best wikipolicy POV warrior on wikipedia. I know all of the tricks now. He was not as intellegent as you are, but he was much more tenacious and stubborn. For example: Please remember in your edits these policy pages: WP:V WP:OWN WP:OR Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Wikipedia:Disruptive editing or I will have to report you to ANI, and eventually Arbcom. Disclaimer and Caveat: I am only joking about all of these wikipolicy pages, I am not threating you, I am simply using it as an example of the complete and utter nonsense I have had to endure with another POV warrior, who simply uses a different tactic to push his POV. So your "wikipolicy" argument sounds rather weak in comparison. Travb (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you read some serious books. Rjensen 10:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Again Rjensen, what is "serious". What matches your own viewpoint? Please don't talk down to me sir. I deeply respect your intellegence, please respect mine, even though we share radically different views.

Go ahead and delete portions of the page that you don't personally agree with. I am going on wikivacation for a bit, and I won't be there to stop you. But other wikiusers probably will, and you will have to get in another edit war, wasting valuable time and energy when you could be working on other articles to match your views.

It is a losing strategy. Deleting referenced material is damaging to wikipedia, and it makes your finished product look like a propaganda page, which doesn't convince most neutral users of anything, because I would like to believe that the average person can easily pick up propogranda. Again, it is a losing strategy to push you POV. Instead, why not comprimise and allow everyones views on the page, thats what I do, and I am much more effective pushing my POV....and my partisan message is actually stronger....sigh....behavioral changes happen glacially.

You are obviously dismissing every word I say, which is unfortunatly, very typical. Most recently the wikiusers on the Lenin page did the same thing.

Anyway, when you get into an AfD, and have your editing priveleges curtailed, don't shoot the messenger when I smuggly say "I told you so". Travb (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

you can find reviews of serious books in each issue of the Journal of American History. see [14] I'm no longer on the editorial board so it does not necessarily reflect my views. Rjensen 10:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see I am not the only smug person on wikipedia. I get accused of this a lot when I throw around I am a law student, etc....I am not questioning your intellegence or knowledge, so why do you continue to belittle me Rjensen, is this your diplomatic way of saying "I don't care what you think" If so nice job. You were always a better diplomat and more civil than me, I appreciate it, but at times it was maddening, because I never seemed to make you the least bit angry. Nice. I learned a lot from you, and I still need to learn much more.

If you could learn wikipolicy like the other user I have edit warred with for the past two months, you would be unstoppable. Within 5 years the Republican National Convention would endorse wikipedia as the single best source of information in the entire universe. I am only being facious about the RNC encorsement, by the way....

• Do NOT click any links! and
• Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose.

My problem is that I give those who are ideologically my opposites wonderful ammunition to later use against me.

Its like playing Starcraft. Ever played Starcraft? When I was in college I played with this Chinese guy all the time. I kicked his ass every single day, but I taught him how to play. By the end of the year, i could not beat him.

What is wonderful is most wikieditors are too damn stubborn and arrogant (usually in a juvenile sort of way) to learn anything new, so they rarely listen to me.

I am rambling again, sorry. Another weakness of mine I need to work on to become a better editor here on wikipedia.Travb (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You don´t need revert this time

Look please.

Your Mediation

Well, I am sorry to say that it appears your mediation isn't going to get off the ground. I've left repeated notices to Idleguy that we wish to begin, and he has continued to edit Wikipedia without giving any response or indication of regards to them. At this point I feel that it will be best to close the mediation. I cannot force anyone into mediation, it is an entirely voluntary process, and if Idleguy is not willing to participate, then I cannot proceed. If you still have unsettled issues about this, your other course of action (seeing as mediation failed) would be to take it to the ArbCom although they would most likely refer the case back to MedCom, and we'd be back where we started. Sorry I couldn't help with your mediation, but if I can be of any other help, don't hesitate to ask. Have a great day.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 16:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

User conduct rfc

Hi Rjensen. I noted that you have had some conflict with User:Fix Bayonets! in the past. I invite you to comment on Fix Bayonets! user conduct rfc, which I started today. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!. Thanks for any input you have. · j e r s y k o talk · 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I did leave a comment about his bad behavior. Rjensen 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:~aj.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:~aj.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:~taylor.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:~taylor.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:~vb2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:~vb2.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

States, Colonies, and the Flag of Buffalo

Would you mind explaining why you so strongly object to my edits, that I've done my best to support with actual published sources? Please discuss on the talk page.[15] Thanks, --ScottMainwaring 20:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• You've been making edits on numerous articles about the distinction between Colonies and States, and when the "United States" was founded. Perhaps you should discuss your views somewhere before making such changes. The DOI mentions the "the thirteen united States of America", but does not actually create a new nation or government (even though most people probably would probably say the US was founded on July 4). It says "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do."

I think you are also making a distinction between "colonies" and "states" based on the July 2nd Lee Resolution. I think you are saying that is the cut-off point between when they became "states". This is a bit pedantic I think. Since the DOI restates the Lee Resolution, and was the first public notice of independence, it is usually considered the dividing line. Of course, some individual colonies (like SC) actually declared independence before the DOI. And New York didn't even vote for the Lee Resolution.

We have to be clear the precise about things. Implying that the United States was founded on July 2, 1776 is imprecise and confusing. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

well let me ask the date when JW1805 thinks the USA was born. Lots of people say the 4th of July is the nation's birthday (and of course a case can also be made for July 2)....is there some OTHER day it happened? When exactly does JW1895 believe the 13 entities switched from colonies to states? (I think July 2 1776). Rjensen 21:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• That depends on what you mean by the "united states". July 2th (and July 4nd) is when the Continential Congress declared the colonies to be independent of GB. The DOI uses the term "thirteen united States", it is clear that this is an adjective and not the name of a new government. Also, there may not actually be such a fine line that you are drawing between "colony" and "state". As you well know:
  • Some colonies declared independence before July 1776.
  • The July 2nd resolution was not unaminious.
  • No foreign power recognized them as independence states until 1778.
  • From the point of view of Britain, they were still colonies right up until the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
  • Delaware calls itself the "First State" because it ratified the Constitution first in 1787, long after the DOI and the Revolution. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

try "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America" signed July 4, 1776. That country sent out ambassadors in the name of the USA -- it did not send out 13 ambassadors. It set up one army under one commander in chief (Washington). It sent a delegation to negotiate one peace treaty (not 13). Sounds like a country to me. Royal colonies: NO the British did not send in royal governors or set up a colonial administration when they took over New York City say (1776-1783 under military rule, no royal governor) All colonial rule vanished after July 1776 (except: Georgia for part of the time). The point there really was a new country whose birthday is July 4. Here in the USA we have fireworks every year on that date and people say it's the nation's birthday. even the British textbooks agree on that (Jeremy Black p 94 talks about the "new government" in 1776. see also p 114 Rjensen 02:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

HRC subarticle deletion

As a sometime contributor to the Hillary Rodham Clinton articles, you may want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural matters related to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R 13:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up....I made some comments. Rjensen 17:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. NCurse _work 10:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added content to the Kennedy page--there was a request for ebidence and I cited the ref, without deleting any content. Rjensen 10:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. birthplace

If you really want the category out, that's fine. It is information, and information which people disagree over, despite clear evidence. I don't see how its inclusion hurts, but as I've said, it's not that big of a deal. Rkevins82 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm a crusader against clutter. Eventually Schlesinger will get 199 categies ("presidential speechwriter" "stevenson supporter in 1952" "residents of Cambridge" "CUNY faculty" etc etc) so we should go light. Someone interested in Columbus people will not find him of interest--his FATHER fits the category as does his mother. Rjensen 19:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did he growup? There was some disagreement about his birthplace, but it was settled that he was born in Columbus and spent significant time in Xenia. Rkevins82 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He was in Cambridge Mass by age 6 or so. Rjensen 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Reconstruction vandalism

Good hello. There has been a great deal of vandalism to Reconstruction over the past couple of days. I think I've managed to clean it out but if you have a minute or two would you be so kind as to give it a once over and see if I've missed anything? Thanks and cheers. L0b0t 18:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

General Smedley Darlington Butler and The Liberty League

Sir,

You are dead wrong.

The comments that this is anti-Nazi propaganda are complete false. General Butler was a relative. Our family has long known the Coup history directly from General Butler. He was recruited by the Morgan Bank through John Davis' office with the intent of overthrowing the Roosevelt Administration and running the country as a "french" style fascist government. General Butler was never a socialist, communist, or even a liberal. He was born a rock solid Delaware Country Republican who's personal hatred of Hoover (Hoover was a fellow officer in China in 1898) lead him to support Roosvelt in 1932. He died a rock solid Delaware Country Republican. He spoke (never paid) before many veterans groups including the bonus marchers. He had one all consuming passion - the welfare of the troops.

A 1978 Book details the Coup and the Liberty League's true purpose. The 1934 Congressional Investigating Committee record confirms that it happenned.

• • General Butler testified to COngress that he helped plan a coup to make himself dictator. He also said in public that he was a villain who overthrew several governements in Latin America. if he was a relative of yours that does not make him at all innocent. Rjensen 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

republican

You may wish to join the discussion at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States under the subsections The Democratic Party is improperly labelled "Democrat" and Color Legend. Skyemoor 00:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Chicago School of Economics

Work with me on this, please. I don't know much about Friedman, the Chicago "school" or Chile - but I'd like to know more.

What I do know a lot about is the clash between advocates and opponents of free market economics. --Uncle Ed 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Chicago's free market theme is quite important in macroeconomics, but there are also many micro theories involved--esp regarding human capital and use of price theory in decisions re fertility and behavior. (eg Gary Becker, Robert Fogel) Rjensen 03:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You may actually need to go over to requests yourself

Very strange, coming from many different ips. Always glad to help if I can. BusterD 05:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User / User Talk Pages Protected

I have semi-protected your user and user talk pages, as requested. -- tariqabjotu 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Who ever it is just hit me too. Admin MONGO has blocked the ip doing the vandalism, but this is pretty weird. We've been fairly immune to this sort of vandalism before... Oh well. BusterD 20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Source for percentages of religions

Thanks for adding the cite for Brett E. Carroll, The Routledge Historical Atlas of Religion in America (2000) to Wisconsin. But my primary concern in marking the section as unreferenced was that there is no easy way to verify the percentages listed there. Are you implying that the percentages are supported by that source? older ≠ wiser 15:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the source the editor used. There are elaborate details for each denom in Wisconsin at [16] Rjensen 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nelson Rockefeller

Before we get into a revert war, I'll just state my case. This is from Wikipedia's Verifiable Sources entry: It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

The citation on Nelson Rockefeller's death is from the transcript of a PBS documentary on the Rockfellers which, as far as I know, has never been challenged for its veracity or authenticity. This is not gossip: Rockefeller's death was incorrectly reported at the time, and no one has ever come forward to challenge the fact that he was with a 27-year-old at the time. If there is a source that will criticize the PBS documentary manuscript -- which I have not seen -- I will avoid the discussion. But that documentary is frequently rerun on PBS stations

Moreover, I note that [FDR entry] and the [Gladstone entry] report, respectively, on FDR's presence with Lucy Mercer on his death, and the rumors that Gladstone took advantage of the prostitutes he attempted to save. These assertions are sourced, like the Rockefeller one. However, if we insist on removing the Rockefeller assertion, I would suggest we then remove these assertions, as they would fall under the same category.--Idols of Mud 17:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Rockefeller was in retirement at the time of his death and not a public figure like President or Prime Minister--and we don't know what happened. To say an aide may have been present when he died does not say much. To say the aide was 27 is ridiculous in an encyclopedia. Salacious gossip lowers the quality of an encyclopedia. Rjensen 19:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this relentless practice of insinuating things by innuendo and nuance needs to stop. If someone wants to create a celebrity gossip wiki, they are welcome to do so. They can even free-license it; but that will not make it an encyclopedia.

Information should be here because it's useful, not because we have room for it. "The that he was with a 27-year-old at the time" sounds like the horny black man in a Robin Williams comedy routine: "Don't even call me when I'm with someone!" (using with to mean "in bed"). --Uncle Ed 20:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Not a public figure?" Rockefeller was a former vice-president, governor of New York and heir to one of the largest private fortunes in the United States. According to New York Times v. Sullivan, that very much makes him a public figure. The entry, as I wrote it, was quick to note the speculation surrounding the death -- but the speculation is out there, and to willfully ignore it seems a bit specious.

Let me say this again: This is not innuendo, this is documented fact, and it's something that's out in the popular culture. To say it must be removed becuase it's salacious is to say we should remove the murder accusations from the Lizzie Borden entry, which have even less grounding in fact. The ugly elements are part of the larger story.--Idols of Mud 14:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: If I lose this argument (and I have a habit of doing that) at least let's come up with something clarifying the use of information about public figures. The Rockfeller accusation is sourced -- no one has yet challenged the veracity of the PBS transcript -- and as far as I can tell, I was following Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing. If not, I apologize, but I can't see that I did anything wrong. Still, if we're concerned about this, we ought to make that clear in the guidelines. A "Rockefeller Rule," perhaps?--Idols of Mud 14:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

TJ

On the TJ talk page, Pmanderson speaks for you with, "Rjensen had originally wanted to move it to Jeffersonian Republicans, because he knows history texts that say "Republicans" (after explaining fully); but he is no longer requesting that, after finding political-science texts saying "Democratic Republican"

Is this accurate? Skyemoor 03:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

yes. for TITLE my first choice still is Jeffersonian Republican, #2 is Republican and #3 D-R. Historians have largely switched to 1 or 2, but indeed political science college and AP US Govt texts prefer #3, so it's ok with me. INSIDE the article I strongly prefer #1 or #2. Rjensen 06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Republican Party (United States) page

You modified the changes I made in the wording regarding the recent midterm election results. In truth, neither party will hold a majority in the Senate of the 110th Congress. This is an issue because (as you yourself point out) the majority party gets to head up the committees. With no majority party, it's not a given that the Democrats will wind up heading up all the committees. Granted, they probably will, since the two independents do identify strongly with the Democratic party, but I still think it's a technical distinction but an important one to make. Saying the Democrats have a majority in the Senate in the next Congress simply isn't true. Middlenamefrank 00:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

But is it not accurate to say: the Republican Party will hold minority status in both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. The two independents in the Senate have announced they will caucus with the Democrats giving them a 51-49 majority. It does not predict or asssume anything, it says that the two independents have in fact announced their intentions. Rjensen 00:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 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 23:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

War of 1812

Hello, if you want to improve the article with new information that is relevant and cited from reliable sources that is fine. Deleting information that is cited from well known and reliable sources as you have done is not acceptable. Please change it back, or I will request an administrator get involved. Thank you Octopus-Hands 03:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am working on it now. I did not delete anythying except duplications. The article was based on old encyclopedias, which violates Wiki rules about reliable sources. Rjensen 03:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

They are not old encyclopedias, the information is accurate, if you want to replace cited information with new and updated information WITH citations, that is fine, you did not do that, you deleted cited information. Encyclopedias like "Britannica" are kept up-to-date, which is the citation that you deleted, the other encyclopedias cited are also recently published. I encourage you to make the article better, but your methods, leave something to be desired. Thank you. Octopus-Hands 03:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Alas the encyclopedia are old in text and spirit. We can do better by using the scholars directly. The encyclopedia information is accurate in terms of names and dates, but does not take into account the ongoing debates about, for example, the relative importance of different causes. There is also outrisght plagiarism of the sort students get punished for--people will spot it and it lower's Wiki's reputation for quality and honesty. Rjensen 03:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the encyclopedias are more up-to-date than the books you are citing, Hickey etc. are old now, but are definitely classics, I own them myself. The +cat additions you made are not correct, a subcat does not get doubled to the main +cat. Please remove Category:War of 1812 from them . thank you. Octopus-Hands 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The people category was buried so deep I missed it for days and I was working on the articles! Let's keep the people in the main 1812 category (which is pretty short anyway) so people can find the names they need. Lots of old books are pretty good. People with access to limited libraries use our bibl as a checklist to be able to find titles. Rjensen 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The people +cat is right in the main +cat it is not buried. Octopus-Hands 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

what I meant is that subcategories (American, British etc) are busied three deep and that is quite unnecessary since there are not a lot of categories. People who want to study the Canadian effort in general, say, will not notice the sub-sub category that will help them most. it happened to me. Rjensen 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Indiana Changes

yes, wiki does do history. however, in the demographics section on religion there are no current statistics but a very detailed section on 1906. what is so special about 1906? why not stats from every other census? why nothing current? detailed information from a specific year that far back should not be included unless you are making a point about changing demographics over time. in regards to famous hoosiers i believe the state version should be filtered down to only truly famous hoosiers -- those with outstanding accomplisments and achievements. you can't list everyone so a limit has to be decided upon. note that the current version has david letterman listed twice... is that also suggested in the wiki guide? =) Just trying to make improvements to an article in desperate need. Please take the time to review things before you revert. Randella 05:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

On famous Hoosiers, I agree with you. On religion--we indeed should have some recent religious data and I will look for some. (alas the Census of Religion stopped in 1936.) However we need a long-term base for comparing change and 1906 seems about right (ie 100 years). Rjensen 10:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the War of 1812

Hi. I stumbled into this article, and found the following garbled sentence. I think I know what it's meant to mean, but I'll let you fix it, as it's part of your edits from yesterday:

The idea that American expansionism or desire for Canadian land was much discussed among historians in the 1920s-1940s,[3] but is rarely cited any more. Rocksong 06:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up! I'll fix it now. Rjensen 07:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Due to the consistently high quality of your contributions to this project, especially in the field of American history, I nail up this barnstar on behalf of the Wikipedia community. Will Beback · † · 07:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving articles

Further to your move of List of War of 1812 books, please do not move articles without first discussing on the articles discussion page. Thank you Octopus-Hands 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I renamed it in proper fashion (it is not a "list" but a bibliography). Someone else MOVED it out of War of 1812 without discussion. Rjensen 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits of article on the Midwestern United States

Dear sir,

I was responsible for removing a comment on the article regarding the Midwestern United States that I believe constitutes an opinion, not research or fact, and was in contradiction to information listed regarding the regional map; this information pertained specifically to the border states of Kentucky and West Virginia. I have already written an explanation of the reasoning behind my actions on the discussion page, entry 19, "Border states."

You are partially correct in your assumption; the ENTIRETY of the states of Kentucky and West Virginia are "rarely" considered Midwestern - I don't think this is ever the case for any of the border states, as their unique cultures are derivatives of the cultures of both North and South. However, WV and KY are currently both shaded states on the regional map, and the text currently under the regional map clearly states that "regional defintions vary from source to source...all OR portion of the striped states may or may not be considered part of the Midwestern United States." In their linguistic influences, agriculture, social customs, and general aspects there are parts of both KY and WV that are clearly far, far more Midwestern than Southern or Appalachian. In terms of climate, KY and WV will almost always be listed in the "Midwest" or "Northern" regions on weather charts; this is the case for the Weather Channel. (KY, in fact, sits right at the point where humid subtropical transitions into humid continental, and both of these climates are experienced in different parts of the state.) Simply search the picture function of any major search engine (Google, Yahoo, etc.) and you will find maps - many from private companies, educational and government bodies - that include KY as part of the Midwest. Remember, even border state Missouri is not universally accepted as Midwestern; I have read articles in which Missourians state disgust at having been regarded as "Southerners" in states such as Iowa and Illinois. The North Midland dialect of American English - considered "standard" American English and highly typical of the Midwest - dips into parts of both KY and WV. Numerous schools in KY participate in Midwestern athletic conferences - WKU in Bowling Green is in the Gateway Football Conference (member states Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kentucky, Iowa, and Ohio) and Northern Kentucky University in Highlands Heights is in the Great Lakes Valley Conference (member states Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Kentucky.)

We all tend to jump to conclusions at times, but the regional map on the page was correct as it was - parts of KY and WV are Midwestern, and parts aren't; this is exactly why they are striped instead of shaded, with adequate information provided to clarify the symbolism of that distinction. I will continue to monitor the page to assure that it stays that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gator87 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I have never seen a reliable source that calls them Midwestern. Please provide citations. Rjensen 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Someone is up for an RfA Skyemoor 05:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[17] made on December 9 and 10 to Nelson Rockefeller

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 31 hours. Khoikhoi 10:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nelson Rockefeller

I have left some comments on the talk page of this article in an attempt to reach consensus. Please review and respond. -- Merope 15:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Nil Einne 20:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Give your block, I copied your comment to the above location. Hope you don't mind Nil Einne 20:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Zachary Taylor, Death

Glad to see that under your vigilant watch any mention of Zachary Taylor's death whatsoever has been removed. Nice that the only notable thing about his presidency is gone. What happened to that article? It sucks now. I'm pretty sure you're to blame, although I'm too lazy to really care or do anything about it.Nick 21:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rjensen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

WP:Living = no 3R when reverting violations

Decline reason:

Not reviewed. Expired block.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have forwarded your unblock request to the blocking admin. --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As somebody else has already commented above, I'm not going to "officially" close the request as reviewed and declined, but I'll add my 2c by saying that I'd endorse the block. I'm all for strict application of BLP, but discussion on the article talk page has assessed the BLP concerns and established as a predominant opinion that they were unfounded, as the contentious material was decently sourced and relevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence was called "gossip" by the one government official most involved (The Neew York City Medical Examiner, who refused to do an autopsy.) "Gossip" is not verifiable facts.

Rjensen 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

==Hi==

Hi R,

I created New York Manumission Society. I haven't read the book you source for the quote on the talk page of John Jay. Could you add the quote for me? It seems strange for me to do it.

Thank you, NinaEliza 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

happy to do so and to discover another editor interested in topic!. Rjensen 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow - thanks so much. I actually discovered this topic in doing some editing of James McCune Smith. Note all the red links - I have my work cut out for me!

I'm going to edit your section, and it's going to look brutal. This is my rationale. First, I'm going to simplify the paragraphs and sentences because the audience that I most want to visit this page is schoolchildren.

Second, I think I'm going to remove a couple of paragraphs, but keep them on my user page (or maybe on the article's talk page) for future use and reference on this and other articles.

I have a couple of questions about the Gellman report - is this a contemporary examination of 19th century social stratification? I just wanted to clarify.

Again, thank you. This is in the top five most wonderful things I've experienced on Wikipedia.NinaEliza 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing Wiki is a lot of fun. It's probably the #1 source used by college students (se we have to keep their needs in mind as well, which is why I included some summaries of Gellman's scholarly articles). So I recommend we not drop material that may be too hard for elementary school kids--it may be exactly what the junior college student needs. Rjensen 06:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly - I was think more along the lines of a teacher who might want to create a lesson plan from this material, and the more gifted students. My main concern is interest and readability. I'm afraid that a lot of the more colorful aspects of the Society are being buried.

If you look at the sources I cite, there are some activities (such as the orphanage) that aren't even on the page yet. I'm personally feeling a bit overwhelmed with this new volume of information that's apparently sourced from books that I don't have the time or desire to read right now.

On a side note, our fellow editor and I had a discussion on the my talk page that more clearly describes what my aim is. I really don't want to start (or get involved in) a crap-storm, I just want you to consider what I have to say. This article is just one of about 5 or 6 I'm trying to work on, and I have limited time.

Thanks for your comments, and your efforts, NinaEliza 06:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're doing a service and I hope you will add material on the orphanage as well. My interest is putting the society's role in the larger context of how slavery was aboished in the north. Rjensen 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. To be frank, the material you're putting doesn't make sense to me, and I'm a fairly intelligent person. What time period is Gellman talking about? I honestly think this material goes in another article, and in fact that article probably hasn't (and should be) written. Please see this:[[18]]. There is an incredible dearth of African-American history on Wikipedia right now. I'm telling you, this could be it's own article. I still doubt how germaine it is to this one. Sincerely, NinaEliza 06:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Gellman is a top authority on the topic. His argument is that Society was the leading edge of a far-ranging debate among intellectuals, politicians, religious leaders, businessmen etc that finally swung behind the Society's position and made it a success. That is he is trying to see how much influence the Society and its allies actually had in the 1780-1800 time period, which seems to be pretty important. Rjensen 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is important, but is Gellman a top authority on the New York Manumission Society? That's what the article is about, so what does he have to say about that? I'm just trying to keep focus here. Look at the article on James McCune Smith. It almost reached GA status with half of it's information missing. The notice is on the talk page.

Did you look at the link? There could be a whole article about New York in the Antebellum era. That's what I'm saying - all anyone needs to do is start it, as I did with this article and the article on African Free School. African Free School is skimpy, but it's enough for right now. The important thing is to have these articles grow organically from the listed soures, grow well, and grow with consensus. NinaEliza 07:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that Gellman is a leading authority on the Society. As for NY in the antebellum era, the recent Ency of the state gived several hundred topics. In our case we should focus on issues of slavery and abolition, which is Gellman's main theme. His question is, "did the Society make a difference -- he tried to explain how it was important. Rjensen 07:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

History of coal mining

Thanks :-)

The article still needs a lot of expansion, After all there massive biblogrpahy shows there is a lot that can be written on the subject..

It might also be worht mentioning in passing things like

Davey lamp,Geordie lamp. School of the Mines, the discover of coke, role of coal in gas production etc (gas works were a major coal user in the UK until natural gas was found in the North Sea), Role of coilers in labour relations (like for example the General Strike in 1926) etc etc...

ShakespeareFan00 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I will keep digging into the US materials and add something on Canada. Maybe Germany too. Rjensen 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jeffersonian democracy: a response to your response

please see my response on the talk page Talk:Jacksonian_democracy. i have had this type of disagreement with other users before, and would like to hear back from you if you agree/disagree with my response.

i think academic honesty/verifiability are the biggest problems with wikipedia right now. i think templates like the one i used promote reform in these areas. please let me know what you think (via direct response and/or a comment on my talk page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yatta! (talk • contribs) 06:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

In the world of print enyclopedias (including general ones like Britannica and World Book & the hundreds of specialized encyclopedias), the standard practice is to have a bibliography at the end of the article and NOT have footnotes for specific sentences. This practice is universally accepted in the reference world. If someone thinks a specific statement in Wiki is incorrect they can challenge it and ask for a ref. Otherwise a reference every sentence or two becomes messy and bewildering. Rjensen 08:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello from WikiCast...

Hi,

I note your enthusiasm for the History of Coal mining item. Any chance of looking into doing some research for possible programmes on the topic on WikiCast?

For further information on WikiCast see Wikicast wiki or leave a note on my talk page. ShakespeareFan00 14:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea but History Coal Mining needs LOTS of work first. Rjensen 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen

We must understand that this is an international Encyclopedia. The word "white" doesn't have the same meaning around the globe.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

really--what does "white" mean in other countries? Rjensen 02:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could read the Wikipedia article...NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

if people from other countries don't know what "white" means in USA they certainly should not be reading this article. Let's not assume people are stupid just because they live elsewhere. Rjensen 02:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, all Americans should learn Spanish too, but I could never finish the class. In other words, anyone around the world who reads English will read this article. That is a LOT of people that we're supposed to assume understand the term.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

we have to assume people have a basic understanding of US history before they read this very specialized topic--and that they have a dictionary if needed. Rjensen 02:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would we do that? Is that what Wikipedia is about? Why have wiki-links at all then?NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Those questions are irrelevant, I'm sorry. Here's the point, I tend to wikify words or phrases that are either controversial or ambiguous (among other more obvious reasons). I find the term "white" to be both. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should only Wikify words when readers need help AND when the link will actually help them. In this case, neither applies. The link says nothing about what "white" meant in New York in 1780s (which is an interesting issue itself). What is the source that all members were white? Rjensen 03:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh...fair enough. That would be a good article...something like The History of the Phrase White People...NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've GOT to stop over-capitalizing:).NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 03:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

yes there are influential books (badly flawed) on the topic like How the Irish Became White (1995) by Noel Ignatiev Rjensen 03:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that one. I've read a bit of it, but more about the book than the book itself. I wish I had it.

In any event, we've reached consensus on that point. However, I still feel that the phrase is controversial, for pretty much the same reason that you mention. In this case it's more of a "cover our butt" sort of thing to prevent vandalism and edit wars in the future.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 04:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

FDR and Unemploment

I noticed several of your edits to the article on FDR. Just as an FYI, unemployment was not eliminated in 1943 as you have stated. The unemployment rate was 1.9%. It was even lower in 1944 at 1.2% but it was still present. I have reverted your change back to stating it was reduced. If you have a problem with this, please contact me. Cheers! --Daysleeper47 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

involuntary unemployment was eliminated as a problem by 43. Rjensen 18:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your references

I removed a bunch of books and papers from New York Manumission Society. I didn't do this because I disagree with them or don't want them added. I did it because one of the criteria for the peer review process is the use of citation templates for all references, which I had done with all the URLs I cited. I started to do this for these sources, but it was extremely tedious and I started to get frustrated and feel it was not my responsibility. I had used a specific format, and in my opinion it would have been courteous and consistent to follow suit. Please add back the relevant books, or tell me what they are. You don't have to cite everything, just give me the title and I'll look up the author and ISBN. If you choose to add them yourself, please use citation templates. Thank you. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I reverted my edit. Did you cut and paste a chunk of your references[[19]]?NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 05:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I found most of those sources myself and checked them out. Rjensen 08:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Prohibition

Prohibition in the United States is the article about prohibition in the USA. The general article Prohibition contains only summaries of local prohibitions. `'mikkanarxi

Serious Followups

The summary of your recent edit to Federal Reserve System here, I was wondering what sort of serious followups you were looking for. Umeboshi 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

like articles by experts in economics or history journals that take the theories seriously. Otherwise Wiki should not take them seriously either. Rjensen 00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall find publications by historians that take the theories seriously, and then start following up on the section. Umeboshi 00:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. try scholar.google.com first Rjensen 01:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I didn't know google did anything like that. I was wondering, what is your take on referencing a document found there? It seems, according to their about page, that citing a document found there would at least pass the WP:RS requirement. I haven't found anything on what we were originally discussing, but I have been browsing around. Some of what I have found seems useful for other articles that I am interested in. In the case where the "mother site" for the document may be obscure or unknown, should I make an external link to the scholar.google.com url of that document? Should I link directly to the document and say it came from scholar.google.com in the edit summary? Again, thanks for pointing this site out to me. :) Umeboshi 02:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more question. I can see why you don't take Eustace Mullins very seriously, as he seems to be widely discredited. But, what is wrong with G. E. Griffin? Umeboshi 02:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

you raise some good questions. I see the different google links as a way to find things which have their own URL. I would cite their own URL. Don't miss books.google.com Griffith does not have much to say when you come down to it. I think the key people were Aldrich and Woodrow Wilson, and hundreds of meetings took place setting up the Fed, with many people "claiming" authorship. Rjensen 11:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What's up with this?

Hello,

I was just wondering why you made this questionable edit on the Patriots page. Kinda frustrated or something? Not that I'm encouraging you to do more <laughs>, but I'm just letting you know that I reverted it. It was quite funny, actually. Well, have a good and godly day.

JDitto 19:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit I made was this comment: "No there was never a move to make GW king. (Nicola suggested it on his own behalf and said that the idea would be very unpopular. GW angily rejected it.Rjensen 02:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)" Rjensen 19:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, looking back I see that it was this edit, not yours that mixed up GW's name. Ooops, I must've seen your name when I clicked "last" on the history because you were the last one to edit it before that whacko made his...wow, I haven't made a mistake like this since the last time I've edited when I'm half asleep <lol> ...I thank you and I apologize. --JDitto 03:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) Rjensen 05:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked-3RR Violation on History of the United States Congress

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. Here are the reverts in question. alphachimp 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Massive edit of Shakers with no warning and no comment

[[20]] Folks would like to know what on Earth you're doing. As a member of WikiProject Religion, I would as well. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 22:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Midwestern edits = consistent behavior

I must say that I have not been surprised (but quite encouraged) in regarding the discussion on Rjensen’s talk page. According to the comments by dozens of editors, Rjensen’s recent irrational, POV behavior on the Midwestern page simply reflects the overall nature of his edits on Wikipedia.

I am also not surprised that he recently partially protected his talk page. In editing, I typically use an IP as the vast majority of my edits are minor and relatively inconsequential. In reality, I am an established Wiki editor and I am well-versed in the policies of this encyclopedia. Your attempt to prevent my comments on your page, and thus to prevent debate, will not stand.

It does appear, as another editor suggested, that Rjensen believes that we, the illiterate masses, are incapable of making rational decisions or categorizations. In terms of culture, Rjensen believes that geographical boundaries equate to regional identity, and that government Census bureaucrats or editors of published encyclopedias are the final arbiters of cultural boundaries. Anything other than the sources that he considers valid constitute original research.

In reality, of course, cultural boundaries almost never correspond precisely to geopolitical boundaries, and definitions of cultural regions vary from source to source – quite significantly, in some cases. This matter is even more greatly complicated by the fact that culture is a living entity and can shift over time, often leaving historians and cultural researchers in disagreements as to where boundaries should be drawn. The Wikipedia project on US regions, in which I participated, faced this dilemma when attempting to create maps of the different US regions. A simple Google search of a term such as “Midwest” will reveal dozens of varying maps and descriptions, revealing the difficulty of defining a region (this problem is even greater with vaguer terms such as “Northern United States” and “Southern United States.”) In creating the regional maps, a nomenclature was decided upon in which solid-colored and striped states would be used. For a region such as the North, some states – i.e., Illinois – are accepted culturally, historically, and geopolitically with “virtually no debate” in the region, and those states became solid on the map. Other states tend to have a more divided history or culture, or may be of a transitional nature – the best examples in the US of states such as these are the Border States (Civil War) of Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Some sources include these states, or portions of these states, into one region, and some do otherwise. States with divided cultures such as these became striped on the map. These striped/solid maps are now used on the majority of the US regional pages, along with a caption explaining the aforementioned nomenclature. These maps took weeks to create and reflected a vigorous debate; they are truly the consensus of the Wikipedia community and have served their purposes well of reflecting varying, verifiable sources of regional identification and preventing pointless squabble regarding which sources are valid, and which are not. If you’d like to review the creation of these maps, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._regions .

Rjensen, in his infinite wisdom, decided to ignore this collaborative effort and has been attempting to single-handedly remove the regional map from the Midwestern page (as of late, another misinformed editor has joined him.) I have found that constructive debate with him is impossible because he will either 1. Simply ignore your argumentation and do as he so wishes 2. Label your argumentation as original research/POV and continue to do as he so wishes or 3. Refuse to acknowledge the nature of the debate, as he has done consistently by ignoring the nomenclature (striped=portion, solid=entirety) used on the regional maps, and continue to do as he so wishes. I have reverted his edits on at least a dozen separate occasions and provided pages upon pages of verifiable evidence to support the maps, but all in vain. His treatment of other editors that provide evidence supporting the map is the same. He’ll likely either ignore what I’ve written here, or simply erase it. In any event, it can be easily re-inserted.

I am pleased to join in with other Wiki editors in condemning Rjensen’s POV, personally motivated editing behavior that does nothing to ameliorate the content of Wikipedia articles. It should not be tolerated. --Gator87 09:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 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 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Taylor death

Rjensen -- I noticed that you removed this item from the trivia section:

• Michael Parenti devoted a chapter in his controversial 1999 book History as Mystery to what he called "The Strange Death of Zachary Taylor." In it he speculates that Taylor was assassinated and that his autopsy was botched.

I thought that mentioning this in the trivia section rather than the death section would be uncontroversial enough. Also, the language here is perfectly unbiased. The statement itself is true and relevant. Parenti's conclusion is called "speculation." I'm afraid that negotiating with you has been unsuccessful and frustrating. Since you are an admin, and I am somewhat unfamiliar with protocol, can you tell me how we can settle this? I'd like someone else to take a look at the issue. I feel that the controversy circulating Taylor's death is significant and worthy of mention.

• • tell you what ,,,,find some OTHER reliable sourcee that agrees with Parenti. we are allowed only to post reliable information and speculation does not count. EVERY famous person has thousands of myths and misunderstandings that encycloperdia have to reject. Parenti is not an expert in forensics or autopsies or poisons and he never actaully saw the body...so why consider him reliable

Your edit to Jo Anne Paul

Your recent edit to Jo Anne Paul (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 13:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Terry Stanton AFD

You need to complete all of the steps on the AFD page in order for it to be considered for deletion. You need to create the subpage Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Stanton and then add that page to the log on AFD so that other editors can see that it hs been nominated for deletion.

Also, rather than blanking content and replacing with snide comments, as on Jo Anne Paul, I'd suggest simply removing any content that cannot be verified and leaving as neutral a stub as possible. Then nominate for deletion or tag for notability or whatever. older ≠ wiser 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a non-notable article, I finished up the AfD subpage for you. --Dual Freq 15:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Berlin-Bagdad Railway in WWI

How do you know that Jastrow was just a British propagandist, and that the Bagdad Railway had no influence in British policy leading to WWI?Bcameron54 05:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC) I do RR history and Ive read some of Jastrow and read the major books on causes like Stevenson. They downplay RR idea. Rjensen 15:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Other (non-anglo-US) historians do not play it down. why delete that perspective, after all, you're a historian.Bcameron54 01:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

in last 50 years or so historians are agreed the major powers SETTLED the Baghdad RR issue before the war started, therefore it was not a cause. THus by French historian--The Causes of the World War: An Historical Summary. by Camille Bloch translator Jane Soames 1935 makes no mention of the RR in 224 pages. Specific mention - "Some of the optimism should be attributed to the willingness of the German government to compose long-standing differences. ...and in June 1914 a settlement was achieved over the Baghdad railway." from The Coming of the First World War. by R. J. W. Evans (british) and Hartmut Pogge Von Strandman (German) - Oxford UP 1990. Page 166. Likewise this recent quote "Furthermore, many economic and colonial issues which had been causing friction between French, German and British governments before 1914, such as the financing of the Berlin-Baghdad railway and the future disposition of the Portuguese colonies, had been resolved by the summer of 1914." from The Origins of the First World War. by Ruth Henig - Routledge. 2002. Page Number: 39. Rjensen 23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Edward Beecher

I think you added Edward Beecher to the List of people from Illinois. His article was red-linked and I just threw together a stub about him. Maybe if you get bored sometime you help make it into a decent article. Thanks. --Dual Freq 01:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, very good idea.

Warren G. Harding edit, trivia section

I have reinserted the fact involving Norman Thomas and his role in founding the ACLU into trivia section of the Harding article. I would point out that it is factual; and it is not too trivial, in fact its one of the lesser know facts on Thomas.

What you consider too trivial may infact prove of interest in another user and may engage them to learn about Thomas, and Harding - two very different men from the same community. Stude62 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

it's info on Thomas but not especially releveant to Harding. He crossed paths with many thousand of people.Rjensen 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. Deathplace Hoax

Thank you for removing that hoax regarding Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. allegedly dying in England. I was fairly certain it was inaccurate, but could not find anything to prove or refute the information during a quick Internet search. --TommyBoy 03:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for adding the requested cite for the horse quote in William Howard Taft. I guess I searched for the wrong phrase, the first one instead of the second. (Or you were just familiar with it to begin with.) Gotyear 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

it was a lucky guess on my part :) Rjensen 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ford

Fair enough! --BenBurch 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I take it back. Stop reverting this article. You are ALREADY subject to a 3RR sanction, but I will not report it IF you stop reverting NOW. --BenBurch 06:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to explain my position. What's your position? Rjensen 06:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My position is that you have not cited sources to support your position that the current citations are not RS. Cite those and achieve consensus among the other editors in the talk page and only when you have that consensus can you make the proposed change. --BenBurch 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality of AL

Thank you for removing speculation about Abraham Lincoln in that article. I totally agree with you about your edit but someone constantly reverts it and both of us don't have time to argue with him. Do you think that we should nominate this article to AfD, since it's original research? Reply me for comment. _AbelinCAusesobad 06:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

yes I agree on AfD we need to avoid the supermarket tabloid stuff on Wiki. Rjensen 06:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

See this one and give your vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (2nd nomination). _AbelinCAusesobad 07:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)‎

Afd is a wasted effort as you can see from the results so far. Why did you more your resources to ELs? I don't understand what that's about. Did you not use them as resources? Wjhonson 07:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Miller Center links

Well I can't judge their merits (I reviewed one of them, and wasn't sure that it added much to the article). In any case, when a user's contributions only consists of addition of links to Miller Center materials, his username is MillerCenter, and ignores both my notification and the 5-minute block to get his attention, then logs out and continues adding links anonymously, it's hard to reach any conclusion but that he's here to promote his organization. - Mike Rosoft 19:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

first of all it's not spam: (spam is identical stuff sent wholesale.) The Miller people sent individualized links pertaining to a specific president and posted DIFFERENT links to each presidential page. They posted the links all at once and probably that made it seem like spam, but it ceratinly was not. They did the right thing. Secondly it's very good quality, The Miller center is one of the top 3 or 4 research centers in presidential history and their essays were written by top scholars. So this is a very good resource for Wiki. Rjensen 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to review the edits made by 137.54.140.194 (talk · contribs) and MillerCenter (talk · contribs) and re-add the links; I won't remove them any more. - Mike Rosoft 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The United States of America

I opposed and still oppose this title change, but let's not pretend that Liberalism in the United States and American Liberalism mean two different things. The only issue is the best way to abbreviate the name of the country, which is a temptest in a teapot, and not worth a lengthy revert war. Rick Norwood 20:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I think it's like "football" the word means entirely different games inside USA and outside (soccer). Avoiding confusion (and POV onver "American") should be a high priority, in my opinion. Rjensen 21:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The two (liberalism in the US and American liberalism) do not have different meanings. The comparison to football is NOT a valid comparison, as American football is an entirely different sport from soccer. I don't know why you are drawing this distinction, but it doesn't exist to anyone else, and the article does not need an overhaul like you're suggesting. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Conservatism in the United States

While I do not have any position on how this article should be named, what you have done has made it many times harder to get your way. You do not move articles by copying and pasting their contents. You move them by using the move tab up top. Now an admin has to force the move for it to work properly. You'll have to go to requested moves, add a request, and start up a poll to sort it out now. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was moved without getting consensus --that is vandalism. Rjensen 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put this bluntly: I do not give a shit. You have compounded their error. You do not move pages by copying and pasting their contents. Period. Do what I have told you to get the page moved back, because you have made it impossible for regular editors to do. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism to make a major change without discussion. Do you have a proposal for fixing that vandalism or not?? Rjensen 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, read what I wrote in the first comment. You make a move request, start up a poll, and see which name people prefer. Second, being bold is not vandalism. It can be annoying, no doubt about that, and not always appreciated, but never vandalism. It'll take at least five days for the poll to complete, so you should start up the move request now. I honestly don't see the difference, but that matters not. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your revert war. Rjensen, Someguy0830 doesn't need a permission to move article to the different name if he has good reason, which I believe he has. Argument that you disagree with it is no reason for claim Someguy0830 as vandal. I shall agree that Conservatism in the United States is much better name then American conservatism which might be very misleading. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't move it at all, just so we're clear. I've only been undoing improper moves. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A agree with Someguy that the proper procedure with American Conservatiusm was You make a move request, start up a poll, and see which name people prefer. That procedure was NOT followed. There was no poll or dfiscussion. The question is how to reverse the error in one editor's moving the entire article without discussion. Rjensen 21:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Though the proper procedure, that's how. It can't be fixed normally, now. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How can a violation of rules be remedied? Rjensen 21:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right it should be better, but it is not a strict policy. Editor can do this without discussion. For example under American Conservatism I can easily want to find a conservatism in Paraguay or in Mexico. Conservatism in the United States refers to the topic better I think. Why do you insist on the old name American Conservatism please ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

why insist on the common name used in hundreds of books and articles and newspaper stories? There are 400,000 google matches on "American conservatism" and 14,000 on "conservatism in the united states"-- a 30-1 ratio! Rjensen 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But it refers to the whole continent which might be misleading. See this Conservatism in Colombia, Conservatism in Canada, Conservatism in Germany - main articles. Word American Conservatism will bring you by redirect there now. Also Someguy0830 is innocent, as you can see on the talk page he moved it because of there was a problem with talk page. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:American_liberalism 7:3 support to move related pages to the form we see now. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand if you disagree with it, you should initiate dispution on the talk page and finally find the consensus, 7:3 only is not a hard-consensus. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen, I started a request at WP:RM to move American liberalism to Liberalism in the United States and posted on the talk pages of Modern American liberalism and American conservativism asking editors to give their thoughts on the talk page for American liberalism, as the change would affect all the associated articles. I did follow the proper procedure. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

did you move American Conservatism with a consensus or without one??? what was the vote? Rjensen 02:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page for American conservatism informing editors that a discussion would be taking place at Talk:American liberalism, see Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Move_to_Conservatism_in_the_United_States. So yes, there was consensus. According to WP:RM, you do not need to have a seperate discussion for each article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest there is no support or consensus here. Rjensen 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR violation

I have reported you for violating the 3RR on the article Liberalism in the United States. You've already been blocked seven times for violating the 3RR; if you wish not to be blocked permanently, I urge you to stop engaging in edit wars. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[21] made on January 16 2007 to Liberalism in the United States

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 09:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Washington and Bermuda

Hallo

Before I do something intemperate, I thought I'd be reasonable and asked why you removed my addition to the George Washington page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Washington&diff=100597962&oldid=100595721

a charaid, Sean —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aodhdubh (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Washington sent a ship but it did not find gunpowder. rjensen