User talk:Rjensen/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rjensen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

Trump as "Politician"

You added the term "politician" to describe Trump. However, that is only how he referred to himself, but does not reflect what he is, or does. As I noted, I could call myself a platypus, but that doesn't mean I actually am one. Until he earns the title, he cannot be referred to in that way. You're not a doctor or an astrophysicist, just because you call yourself one. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 00:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

does Trump walk, talk, act like the other 16 GOP politicians running for president?. he acts like a politician running for office: he's about the most famous candidate in the US these days--he organizes election rallies for himself, stumps the early primary states, makes promises that "if elected I will do this and that"; he debates the other candidates (this week in Cleveland), he officially registers with the election commission. Note the Wall Street Journal headline when he lost some deals because of his political remarks: "Donald Trump the Politician Burns Trump the Businessman" Rjensen (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Townshend Acts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edmund Morgan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad reference name in Sport in Canada

Hello Rjensen - this is to let you know that the edit you made most recently to Sport in Canada uses a reference name "fiskesuppe Sports of Canada Act" but it's not defined in the article. Please fix what needs to be repaired. Thanks in advance, PK T(alk) 15:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Irish sentiment

Hi Rjensen,

I noticed an edit you recently made on Anti-Irish sentiment looks to be regarding a disagreement that you are a core part of. I know you've been an editor here for a long time (and fondly remember your WMDC talk) but given your Conflict of Interest in this I'd like to ask that you revert yourself and take it to the talk page so that less involved users can review the request and make the changes if they see fit. This is especially true since the edits you made seem to be focused on trying to (rightly or wrongly) discredit the other side in the dispute. Thanks in advance and if you have an questions feel free to ping :). James of UR (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

well ok. Yopienso has already replaced all my text at issue. Rjensen (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry I was confused on "rising 9th-grader"; I've fixed that in the article.

I'm wondering where you found John Poole's song was written in England. Everything I've found says NYC. LOC. Johns Hopkins. Pages 19-21 of liner notes from New World Records.

Aside from the signage, it seems you want to show the Irish faced no great discrimination. I don't know how you get that. Even Joe Kennedy was famously denied entrance to the top clubs at Harvard because he was Irish Catholic. YoPienso (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Poole song is a based on O'Neill's version of an English song --dated London Feb 1862--at http://memory.loc.gov/rbc/amss/cw1/cw104040/001q.gif I think you should read my article http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm Kennedy did get into prestigious Harvard clubs (Delta Epsilon), but complained there were better ones. he was a mediocre athlete without high social connections. Rjensen (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That link doesn't show Poole's or O'Neill's versions were written or published in England. It shows O'Neill's published in Philadelphia. The epigraph is a NINA help-wanted ad from London, 1862.

I read most of your article--the wide format is difficult for me. Years ago at first knowledge of it I was unconvinced. This isn't the place to argue the merits of your thesis, but I agree with Rebecca Fried "that the earlier view of historians generally accepting the widespread reality of the NINA phenomenon is better supported by the currently available evidence."

Beyond dispute, Kennedy suffered discrimination at Harvard and elsewhere as an Irish Catholic. YoPienso (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Did ping work?

Hi Rjensen. I'm curious if my ping worked from the Perry talk page. I just did it wrong a minute ago, so re-did it and re-signed. Did it work okay? If not, I have to do something differently next time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No it did not work Rjensen (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that means I have to do it right the first time, in future. Thanks. Anyway, I responded to your !vote about Perry.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for a lot of your recent work

I've been watching your work recently and I'm pleased to see you are trying to add a bit of balance to some articles that looked very one sided in their presentation of material. Keep up the good work! Springee (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Took a look at the page Reagan Era for a cursory taste on the topic. It was well balanced and informative, and the citations point towards more treasure. Thanks for bringing that article to life! Airplaneman ✈ 00:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the Word Canada

Hi! I would like you to take a look at the ongoing debate on the origin of the word Canada in the article Canada. Your unbiased opinion would be appreciated J Pratas 18:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help. I'm traveling and have limited access to books or internet...and I am not familiar with the specialized topic. Rjensen (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hus revert

Hi, I see you reverted the citation needed on the Protestant Reformation article. I read the source indicated in the footnote and it says nothing about Hus' view of justification, and in fact notes that Hus and Luther were not on the same theological grounds. I am notifying you before I reinsert the citation markup, to see if we cannot come to a common understanding of what needs to be done. Thanks Mikeatnip (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I should add that I added the markup because I have done some study of Hus and the Bohemian reform, and justification by faith alone was NOT one of the issues, as far as I understand things. That issue did not arrive until Luther. So I feel the article is in error, but want to give some room for a good source before changing it. Mikeatnip (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

hmmm-- on 2nd thought if he did not influence Lutheran theology maybe we don't need anything on Hus's theology here. Rjensen (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

My point is specifically about "justification by faith," Luther's cornerstone theological idea. He was the first to propose the idea, not Hus. On a couple of other points Luther was in agreement with Hus. I would propose removing this sentence: "Hus rejected indulgences and adopted a doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone." First, the rejection of indulgences is already mentioned in the previous sentence, and second, the last part of the sentence is not historically accurate. But I will reinsert the citation needed markup to give others a chance to pull up some reference. ThanksMikeatnip (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Your biography accuracy

Is the date of birth (DOB) on Richard J. Jensen correct? 172.56.21.235 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

yes 10-24-41 :) Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What are RS that use this language?

Please provide citations for embolden phrase In a single stroke. Claiming RS says so, then not provide RS is dubious work. Mitchumch (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

ok: 1) Doris Kearns Goodwin - Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (2006) - Page 464 "In a single stroke, it superseded legislation on slavery and property rights that had guided policy in eleven states"; 2) Harold Holzer - Lincoln seen and heard (2000) Page 91: "With a single stroke of his pen, Lincoln expanded the parameters"; 3) Joshua Zeitz - Lincoln's Boys: John Hay, John Nicolay, and the War (2014)"The nature and stakes of the war had changed with the single stroke of a pen." 4) Allen C. Guelzo - Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President (1999) Page 454 "He delivered, with the single stroke of the Emancipation Proclamation, a seismic shift in American social and economic relations"; 5) American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia p 1137 by Spencer C. Tucker (2013) - ‎"With this one stroke of a pen, he had changed the tenor of the war from a conflict over secession to a conflict to end slavery." 6) Take Up Your Pen: Unilateral Presidential Directives Page 96 by Graham Dodds: "unilateral directives enable presidents to enact policies by a mere stroke of a pen"; 7) With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power (2002) by Kenneth Mayer. Rjensen (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look

.. at Micael Bindefeld, Anna Bråkenhielm, Saga Becker, Lo Kauppi and Ester Claesson. If you find time for it., Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Diamond citations on History of Japan

Hey Rjensen. I forget whether we have collaborated anywhere in the past, but it seems likely we have worked together unknowingly on any number of articles given our common area of interest. So I guess I'll say お久しぶり！ :D

Anyway, sorry to bother you with a dispute from which you seem to have removed yourself, but CurtisNaito has recently started claiming that "almost half of the users who have commented agree with me, so I must be right". However, you are the only user who has a history of editing Japanese history articles (and who didn't follow me there as part of a hounding campaign or what looks a feeling of owing CurtisNaito a "favour" despite having no interest in or awareness of the topic) who has expressed any agreement with him whatsoever, and that before I had presented my argument in full, and before the other users weighed in with their own evidence.

Would it be possible for you to post some indication on the talk page or here as to whether

you have read the subsequent discussion and still agree the Diamond refs are awesome and need to stay even if better sources, or no other sources, can be found,
you have not read the subsequent discussion but still agree the Diamond refs are awesome and need to stay even if better sources, or no other sources, can be found,
you have read the subsequent discussion and have changed your mind on the issue and now support what Phoenix7777, Vivexdino, Sturmgwehr88, Nishidani and myself,
you have not read the subsequent discussion but have changed your mind on the issue now that the overwhelming majority (Phoenix7777, Vivexdino, Sturmgwehr88, Nishidani and myself) seem to be against your previous position,
you have read the subsequent discussion and you just don't care any more, so you should not be taken as "supporting" one POV or the other, or
you have not read the subsequent discussion but you just don't care any more, so you should not be taken as "supporting" one POV or the other?

Sorry for the long and rambling post (I'm trying to change, I really am...) and sorry if your actual reasoning is different from all six options above (I tried to guess as many possibilities as possible to avoid appearing to assume one or another without evidence).

If you just don't care any more and want me, or CurtisNaito, or both, to buzz off, that is also an acceptable response. ;-)

Cheers!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(By the way, I knew you were a Japanese history buff despite not remembering ever interacting you because when I made this edit I also checked the article linked to at the top of the section. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC))

Henry Ford mention

Thanks for accepting my restoration of Henry Ford's comments in his book here. You did revert my addition of a quote from that book, but that's OK with me. I don't believe that the article asserts that Ford intended his comments as "Anti-American" comments. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I overlooked that. To position Henry Ford as "anti-American" will require a strong reliable secondary source that you have not mentioned. Ford had the reading and writing skills at the fifth grade level. (Asked about it in court, he said he only read headlines.) Ford certainly did not write the International Jew, but he did sponsor its publication. He later claimed he had no knowledge of its detailed contents, but apologized for it and threw it from circulation. He knew nothing about jazz. Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the content which you removed asserted or implied that Henry Ford was "anti-American". I think that you are reading that into the article. Mention of Ford was in the context of the second paragraph of that section, which begins, "Anti-Semitism was another factor in these critiques." It speaks of the critiques themselves (and named Ford as the author of one which it exampled). It did not assert that the authors of these anti-Semitic critiques were anti-American. Perhaps you're taking "European fascists decried" from the first paragraph and the initial sentence of the second paragraph together to say that the one critic exampled in the second paragraph (Ford) is asserted to be a European Fascist and, therefore, anti-American. Anyhow, I won't push the point. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Mussolini

"Mussolini thought of himself as an intellectual". Here you got the point. The "Duce" had a very great opinion of himself, and no doubt that he thought about himself as an "intellettuale". As soon as I will recover my De Felice (it is at my other home) I will add more info about his education. Alex2006 (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. he meets all the criteria that you want for a political activist as intellectual. He wrote novels, short stories, literary criticism, and a history book about Hus. The issue is not the quality, but I would argue his work demonstrates he had a mind and spirit of an intellectual. The problem is that before 1945, writers outside Italy always ridiculed and demeaned his credentials. Rjensen (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

History of medicine in the United States

In Feb 2013 as you were creating this article History of medicine in the United States, you added this sentence: "Pest houses aimed at newly arrived infected sailors were established in port cities, notably Boston (171), Philadelphia (174) Charleston (1752) and New York (1757)." Any ideas as to what the years should actually be? If so, please fix. Hmains (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

oops--Boston (1717), Philadelphia (1742), Morris Encyclopedia of American History (1976) p 806.. Rjensen (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Hmains (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit to Abolitionism in the United States

Hi, I wanted to thank you for that link you added to the abolitionism article. However "Sources of Abolitionist Income", was a JSTOR link. Some folks who have accounts at big libraries think that JSTOR is a great service, but my personal point of view I think that they charge $19.00 for what should be information freely loaned out to readers. I mean its not like we're going to use it commercially! Not to draw you into the forever disagreement about freedom of information at not for profit sources like Wikipedia, but do you happen to have a free lending library link for the article? Free lending library, you say? Yes, something like the Open Library project Benjamin Quarles page, which would allow us poor folk to borrow it to read. Thanks. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

ask your local librarian to get the article free. Rjensen (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, if I lived within 20 miles of a public library I would. If you ever find a free resource for this one please send the link to me. ;^) Trilobitealive (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page on Conservatism in the United States

Please see the article's talk page for responses to your post. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:6DE5:5086:EA68:1BDD (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment for History of Japan

History of Japan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Richard J. Jensen. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. If you are logging out and using the IP address 108.56.199.37, you need to stop and state that you have done so. Editing under an IP to avoid detection is considered socking and is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy. GregJackP Boomer! 01:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Richard J. Jensen shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I would recommend that you self-revert your last edit. GregJackP Boomer! 01:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Correcting BLP violations is not edit war. Rjensen (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing a page in which you are the BLP subject is strongly discouraged. Dr. Jensen, I strongly urge you to step away from the keyboard right now. Edit warring on your own article is a bad way to proceed, and not a method likely to succeed or draw support. Regardless of what is true and what is cited, you should step back. I strongly encourage you to trust disinterested wikipedians here to make neutral editing decisions based on policy and RS. I know you know this. Please stop now. BusterD (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No it is not "strongly discouraged". removing false info follows BLP rules. Rjensen (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

furthermore the rule regarding ^{[citation needed]} is this: "If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, please be bold and replace the "Citation needed" template with enough information to locate the source." there is no restriction and no edit warring. Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You are an involved party, and hardly in a position to judge neutrally the BLP issues involved. You are past 3RR and may be blocked at any time. Several reasonable editors disagree with your edits tonight. I implore you to stop editing the article about you. The page is not under your control. BusterD (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

3R does not apply to BLP. the BLP rule is: Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion....the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" Rjensen (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record

I am not Rjensen and Rjensen is not me. So please stop your nonsense about sockpuppets. On the other hand, if your hallucinations are more powerful than your common sense, please feel free to launch whatever investigation you want to. I won't be bullied. 108.56.199.37 (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

yeah, me neither! Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ebrary

The article Ebrary has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Witch-hunt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman Christianity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Rjensen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ammonia plants

What's important is the Haber-Bosch process was a much cheaper method to produce nitrogen through ammonia synthesis than anything previously developed. The Haber-Bosch process was only used in Germany until after WWI and was not that widely used in the U.S. until after WWII. {cite book |title= Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production|last=Smil|first=Vaclav authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2004 |publisher= MIT Press|location= |isbn= 0262693135 |pages= |url= }} Also see the Alexander Field reference.Phmoreno (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The US built giant nitrate plants in WWI -- that's where its explosives came from. The COST factor was not decisive in wartime. 1) Amatol "was a powerful, economical bursting charge, most valuable because 'ammonium nitrate was the only high explosive in adequate supply. It was made in 28 American plants, from April 1917 to November 1918." Williams Haynes, American Chemical Industry: The World War I period: 1912-1922 (1945). 2) "After the military realized early in the war that sufficient supplies of TNT could not be produced, the Americans switched to amatol, a British explosive innovation." [Randall Gabrielan - 2012]. 3) "Atlas was America's largest supplier of the material used in Amatol, the primary detonating chemical in munitions. When America entered World War I, Atlas had fifteen plants manufacturing explosives material for the U.S. government; in 1918." [Clint Richmond - 2014]. Rjensen (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Salazar

Hello. I have been doing some editing on Salazar’s article. Mostly cosmetics, trying to bring the article to higher standards. The article has been fairly stable over the last months. Could you please read the article and point out those areas where you think the article needs improvements? Or do some editing yourself? J Pratas (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

OK I will :) Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Kind reminder on Salazar and please comment also Operation Alacrity. Thanks J Pratas (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

the Salazar article is good. I made some changes to Operation Alacrity for clarity. Rjensen (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! If it is not too much trouble could you also take a quick look at:Raymond Henry Norweb and:Oswald von Hoyningen-Huene?J Pratas (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

World Wide Web

Regarding to your reversion to information on the World Wide Web page: Wikipedia asks for dependable sources, and surely none can be more dependable than the creator of the World Wide Web himself? I have reverted your change and will report the matter to admin as it seems that wholesale and puzzling changes are happening to the Web pages at the behest of a very few number of editors.

(Etheldavis (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC))

it's a primary source and really should have a reliable secondary source. people brag a lot, you know.

Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL! I appreciate your humour. Here's a CERN article from March 2014 celebrating the "Birth Of The Web" in 1989:

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2014/03/world-wide-web-born-cern-25-years-ago

It's a fascinating subject. Hard to imagine life without the Web now.

(Etheldavis (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC))

yes but Wikipedia has rules that give priority to reliable secondary sources. So laught to yourself but please try harder to learn & follow the rules WP:RS. Rjensen (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is clearly not "following the rules" to back un-cited wholesale changes to an article. The information about Tim Berners-Lee inventing the Web is widely available. However, I have informed admin so I daresay admin can decide. Wishing you a very pleasant day.

(Etheldavis (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC))

Talk:Tamil American

This RM discussion is ongoing. --George Ho (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey there

User:Obi2canibe seems to pushing their own agenda at Tamil population by cities and Tamil population by nation without using any logic. I think the articles should be deleted but I request that you must do something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filpro (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

what exactly is your objection? Rjensen (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Callinus has been removing all links to state atheism all over Wikipedia

Callinus has been removing all links to state atheism all over Wikipedia. You should look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Cuba&diff=prev&oldid=683337655

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIrreligion_sidebar&type=revision&diff=683922715&oldid=666934834

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_religion_in_China&diff=prev&oldid=684156805

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_North_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=684176371

Mr.strangerX (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Allow fifth paragraph of lede?

I started a discussion about ledes in general. I invite you to this. --George Ho (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up – I left a comment. Rjensen (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War Content Fork Article

Hello, Since your a regular editor on the page, i wanted to notify you of an ongoing discussion relating a content fork article of the American Revolutionary War page. See here Talk:American_Revolutionary_War#Merger_proposal XavierGreen (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

American Catholic journalism

It's not an article. Do you mena you want to create a redirect?
What is your source that Irish catholicism is the only one? I know the Polish one, Italian, Latinamaerican, maybe French.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

oops--i meant a Redirect for now--article to come later. there are lots of German, French, Italian, Polish etc. Catholic journalists. I will get to them, but I started with the Irish. Rjensen (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I want to know if you can help me settle a argument with the Anti-Iranian sentiment and Sinophobia articles? I and two other users keeps reverting my change to the Pew Research Center tables from the positive change from 2014 to the positive-negative difference. But from what I see, the positive-negative difference isn't useful. We took this to the Sinophobia's talk page, and it was first about how there weren't any cited references. So I added references, and again it got reverted now because one user says that because the other anti-sentiment articles have the positive-negative difference, it should be here to. But I've done the same thing to the Anti-Russian sentiment and Anti-Americanism articles, and no one complained. Seqqis (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

can you solve this by adding the pos-neg numbers? Rjensen (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:VPP#Titles of articles about ethnic groups of the United States

A central discussion on certain titles has started already. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Origins of WW1 page

Rjensen

Could we open a discussion about the "Causes of WWI" page? This remains one of the most controversial and complex historical events ever and I believe that the current page can be made more readable, and better reflect modern scholarship.

Keith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Shanghai

Hi Rjensen, Any particular reason for this revert? This came from the Chronicle book listing which says that this book, "Draws on literary and other realms in a study of the social, cultural, and psychological impact of Shanghai's transformation in recent years." Thanks! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

sorry--my mistake. I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, sometimes there are good reasons for reverts, just wanted to understand. Thanks Rjensen! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Southern Strategy lead work

Rjensen, I recently added a bit to the lead and scholarship section of the Southern Strategy article. I would appreciate your take on the changes. Article history [1] and my new section in talk [2]

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Perhaps you'd like to join Outedexits (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I brought this issue there mostly because I wish more people would discuss. Don't take it so seriously. Cheers. Outedexits (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

then don't erase sourced material so aggressively. It degrades your credibility. Rjensen (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine, let's keep the material there. But hey, just because the material is sourced, it doesn't mean it can't be removed. Sometimes, it 'should. Anyway,care if I make small edits? I intend to redo this edit [3] in which I removed a sentence with a bad reference (that's not even a reference, actually) and I made the article a little less... dramatic. Cheers. Outedexits (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

1) The Random House Unabridged Dictionary (1998) says the term is "Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive" is exactly accurate and neutral. You think it is wrong??. 2) "believed to control disproportionate" two key points: "believed" -- the critics believe this not Wikipedia; "disproportionate" is the disparaging term the critics use. Dropping this is POV because it makes the attack come from Wikipedia. We just report that these attacks often made, we do not say they are true. Rjensen (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that the reference is bad. Where is the link? How can I verify the dictionary really says that? Second, I'm talking about copy editing. It is fine to make a changes so the article will sound better or be more fluid or more simple or more straightforward etc. Outedexits (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to copy everything we say here to the talk page for the article. We're talking about a different thing now. Anyway, now I'm curious to know about your political views. You seem to have an obsession with issues like power and social inequality. Outedexits (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

well yes I am a political historian and therefore do have an obsession with power. Take a look at my article on Wasps in Chicago history at http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1391.html Rjensen (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That definitely is well written. I like that. Outedexits (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed

[4] please stop inserting your personal analysis into the article . Any time you are framing material in a "see also" method you are not accurately presenting what the source is actually stating. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

well no-- citing a scholarly article in a leading journal that summarizes the scholarship on Strong (it says he was influential and "jingoistic") is what editors are supposed to do. In what way is this misleading: you have not explained yourself. Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that what he is trying to say is that even though the source is reliable, you've added in the article your interpretation of the cited material. Cheers. (Edit: Also, what he said doesn't necessarily refer to that specific edit you made. The "see also" thing he is talking about comes from this other [5] edit, among some few others. Again, cheers.) Outedexits (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Outedexits is very clear. The job of us editors is to find and reports what the RS actually say. Sources like "Vanity Fair" on fashion or the NY Times of the Journal of American History are reliable sources, I believe. the OR rule requires we search out and report the RS. Rjensen (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one who said that. I was just trying to interpret what TRPoD was trying to say. Oh and for the record: A source being a reliable source isn't enough. The cited source has to verify the content of the paragraph. The Vanity Fair source didn't confirm the information in that section. Understand it now? Cheers.Outedexits (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

We find the reliable sources and report what they say in the context of what they have said without our interpretations, without shoehorning their comments into contexts other than the original contexts and without stringing them together to create or imply claims / conclusions / analysis that is not present in the original, and without pretending that humor columns have been presented as scholarly claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: So, TRPoD, I think I've lost all hope in that article. I honestly think it should be WP:TNT'd or something, because I honestly don't know what else to do. Outedexits (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"The term applies to a group which controls more social, political, and financial power in the United States"

This sentence is just perfect. No need to change it. You don't need to say they supposedly have too much power: Just say they have more power. Now let's not fight over a simple sentence. Cheers. Outedexits (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not grammatical. More than who? More than the Federal Reserve? It misses the theme of dominance. WASP is not a synonym for "rich" The RS use "disproportionate" 1) Urban Dictionary: "a group that was believed to wield disproportionate" 2) Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society "exerted a disproportionate influence on U.S. economic institutions" 3) "Kagan and the triumph of WASP culture' (2010) "whose relatively small numbers have always had a disproportionate" 4) "The Late, Great American WASP - WSJ (2013) "So dominant was WASP culture" 5) Country Clubs, the Ivy League, and the Episcopal Church (2006)"once dominant presence of WASP culture" 6) Race and Ethnic Relations: American and Global Perspectives (2014) "The dominant group has a disproportionate influence on shaping" Rjensen (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to say more than who. It is evident that it means they have more power than other groups and minorities. Also, many of the sources you mention have a left-wing bias. It is not necessary to be dramatic and say they have disproportionate power. Just say they have more power – It's simple as that. Cheers. Outedexits (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It's very sloppy writing to silently referred to other groups that are not specified. That assumes that the reader already thoroughly understands the topic. For example, do wasps have more than Jews? More than corporation executives?? Better re-read the dictionary: "an American of Northern European and especially British ancestry and of Protestant background; especially a member of the dominant and the most privileged class of people in the United States." (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Rjensen (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, let's read the paragraph again together, shall we?

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) is an informal, sometimes disparaging term used to describe a closed circle of high-status and highly influential White Americans of English Protestant ancestry. The term applies to a group which controls more social, political, and financial power in the United States.

There is literally nothing wrong with this paragraph. Nobody needs to thoroughly understand the topic to understand that sentence at all. Perhaps you'd agree to change the word "more" to "most". That would answer your question regarding the Jews and would be consistent with the bold definition you mentioned (... dominant and the most privileged class...). Besides that, I will continue to strongly oppose any other change. Outedexits (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait...

The Dutch aren't Anglo-Saxons? Pardon my ignorance Outedexits (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

nope. TR was very keen on this point. Rjensen (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed detail

In White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, I removed a mention of Irving Lewis Allen, which I suppose you added. That is not necessary because he is mentioned in the reference. Second, he is not famous enough to be mentioned. Third, the lead section is not supposed to contain such details. Cheers, Outedexits (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. I dropped "more" as unnecessary & added "supposedly" to make clear that it is not an assertion in Wikipedia's voice. Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen your message before I reverted you. The thing is that the sentence is misleading when you say supposedly. Every race and minority controls at least some power. The thing is: how much? Your edit made the sentence meaningless. Cheers. Outedexits (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

the answer is "disproportionate" which works very well. -- and there is an excellent online source which I have now cited: Richard T. Schaefer, ed. (2008). Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. SAGE Publications. pp. 1503–4. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help) Rjensen (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but look. Don't you think the word "disproportionate" is too aggressive? I know there are sources using that word, but I'm suspicious that all these books you mention are all written by liberals and those on the left. As a WASP (I'm not actually protestant, but my parents are anyway) I feel kind of offended by such terms, actually, and that's what led me into editing that article. I think that using the word "more" is much simpler, elegant and not agressive. Let me know what you think Outedexits (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Idea: Instead of using disproportionate, is it ok to say "proportionally more"? It is a more positive way to put it and doesn't sound so negative. Outedexits (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"disproportionate" is too aggressive? No I don't think so. Scholars use the term And our mission as editors is to report what the scholars say. The people who use the term really believe that the WASPS did hold a difference that is "not fair, reasonable, or expected" (The dictionary definition of "disproportionate")) --not just a little more. Nobody says that they held 100% of the power. As the cites show pretty clearly, the consensus is that WASP power has dramatically faded. As far as you being offended on behalf of your parents, well yes as the dictionaries point out the term is often used in a hostile fashion. Keep in mind that the article is about a closed circle of maybe 1% Of the population, and excludes the great majority of families who are white, English, , Protestant, and not rich. The problem with "proportionally more" is that it is too vague: do you mean 10% more? 100% more The main problem with "more" is that it leaves completely unstated ambiguous and confusing who the "others" are-- Do they have more power than the Jews? the corporate CEO's? The media? the bankers? The British handle the problem by talking about the Establishment, and perhaps this articles should bring that up. Rjensen (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait. The article is about WASPs. Being rich is not in the definition of WASP. Members of the group can be poor. Yes, we have to report what scholars say, but it doesn't necessarily have to be in the same terms. Also, I really wonder if those "scholars" you keep citing are all radical liberals, which would be too much biased information to put in the article. But anyway, I don't see how proportionally more is vague. When you say "disproportionate", it doesn't necessarily mean it is proportionally more. It could be less. Lastly, there is nothing wrong with saying "more". It is not confusing because the article is about a group in society. When you say WASPs have more power, they have more power than other groups. It is implicit.

And still, there is the alternative of using the word "most".

"The term applies to a group which historically has controlled proportionally more social, political, and financial power in the United States than other groups in society"

Does this sound ok to you? It uses proportionally more because if you say "disproportionate", it is vague to whether it is proportionally more or less. Outedexits (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No -- no RS supports this and editors MUST follow the RS. Poor people don't make the dictionary definition: Merriam Webster: "an American of Northern European and especially British ancestry and of Protestant background; especially : a member of the dominant and the most privileged class of people in the United States" As for "radical liberals" ??? who did you have in mind??? How about Carly Fiorina from the GOPO debate the other night: "75 percent of the American people think the federal government is corrupt. I agree with them. And this big powerful, corrupt bureaucracy works now only for the big, the powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected." Rjensen (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The sentence means literally the same thing your "RS" says. The sentence is just perfect. It is ok to copy edit. You don't have to use the exact same words Outedexits (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

you dropped the "disproportionate" terminology used by the RS and substituted your own POV --seemingly in order to make the Rockefellers look not so bad. That POV is not allowed in Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, I just used different words to say literally the same thing. The meaning is exactly the same, and it has absolutely nothing to do with pov. Also, who said the Rockefellers are "bad"? To me, they have been very important people to society. Perhaps you are the one who has a left wing bias. But you know what? Maybe I'll consider adding the word "disproportionate". If the merrian webster definition says that the wasp are the wealthiest and doesn't include the poor wasp, perhaps saying disproportionate is fine? I'm not fully convinced yet, since saying "more" is clearer and less aggressive. Let me think. Outedexits (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I've re-read the sentence many times and I came to the conclusion it is perfect the way it is. Let's not make a big deal out of this Outedexits (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

it's deeply flawed because it violates Wiki rules against OR. You have read the sentence over and over but you have not read the RS nor the WIki rules. Rjensen (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Relative weight, Southern Strategy

Since you were previously involved in this discussion would you mind adding your take to this No OR discussion [6]. The short version is I'm arguing that the bottom up version of the Southern Realignment theory should be given weight equal to that of the top down theory. Scoobydunk disagrees. His argument is that the proponents of bottom up acknowledged they were the minority opinion at the time they published their theories. My counter argument is of course they were the minority at the time of publication but that was 10 years back, 4 years after publication another scholar said the bottom up theory was rapidly gaining acceptance. Finally, a quick Google Scholar search of citation counts shows the primary bottom up sources have almost 2x as many citations as the top down works even though they are half as old. Hence the "gaining rapidly" should be seen as at least close enough to equal to be given equal weight. Anyway, since you have been involved with this discussion in the past I would like to ask you to weigh in. Thanks Springee (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Contemporary Muckrakers

Thanks for all your helpful input and edits. I was making the Palast move when I discovered it conflicted with another edit. It was you making the same change. I was going to add NY-based and "video" reporter for the BBC, but it's not necessary. Activist (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the note :) Rjensen (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

On Commonwealth realm and related.

RJensen: Given your expertise, I think you might have needed mainstream historical insights/references relative to the trade/tariff issues as discussed in Commonwealth realm (Proposed arrangements) as well as related links: Commonwealth free trade and Imperial Federation. I understand you may not have the time. Though a niche subject, I think it is interesting and the current treatment I suspect is at least somewhat fringy. By the way, thanks for all the content you have added. Juan Riley (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. I'll take a pass on trade issues for now. Rjensen (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Results of RFC discussion at WP:VPP

I have no choice but to pluralize "xxx-Americans" right away (except ones requested in the past). The consensus says so. --George Ho (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Machiavelli

Hi there. On this edit, I will post on the article talk page. I do not disagree with what you say, but... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's about how most readers responded to M's rhetoric. How do you disagree? Rjensen (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Have tried to explain on article talk page. I guess part of the concern is about leaving some options open where evidence is known to be weak and debatable, and also, concerning the readers, about not conflating different periods. How people read Machiavelli in different periods is of course a complex subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge
Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I
Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Great Awakening

Hello! I am a student writing a research paper on the Third Great Awakening, trying to determine an exact period for when it occurred, as well as if one even occurred. For this, I'd like to use your definition of a Great Awakening ("Each of these "Great Awakenings" was characterized by widespread revivals led by evangelical Protestant ministers, a sharp increase of interest in religion, a profound sense of conviction and redemption on the part of those affected, an increase in evangelical church membership, and the formation of new religious movements and denominations.") as it seems to be a sufficient definition, including nearly all the aspects of a Great Awakening. Of course credit would be awarded to you in the form of a footnote, but I would like to know how you derived this definition before I apply it. I know its been years, but do you remember where it came from? Thanks for any information,

sincerely,

mnkewicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnkewicz (talk • contribs) 19:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks. please cite Wikipedia not me. I relied chiefly on Sydney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (1972) as well as the Butler Hatch and Stout sources cited in the notes. Rjensen (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Gilded Age vandalism, can IP address editor be blocked?

Hello Rjensen One IP address user continues to alter the same text about per capita income in the US compared to other countries in the article on the Gilded Age with no reason or source given. Is it possible to block that user? I left a message on the talk page advising that the changes are not productive, but it has had no positive effect. I do not know how to block someone; do you? You can see the recent history to see actions from 2602:306:BD4F:A130:A4EE:A074:463A:B959 . You reverted him/her the first time, and I did it the next two times. Sorry to bother you with this. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

he certainly is nuisance. I suggest you bring the matter up at WP:ANI -- it's were administrators gathered to look over troublesome cases. Rjensen (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that is done, and the notices placed on both IP address talk pages that there is a discussion on the noticeboard that may affect the IP editor. This is new for me, to ask for a block because the person doing it makes no reply, just repeats the unconstructive edit, thanks for the advice. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree and I left a comment there. Rjensen (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

They acted quickly! Editing is limited to autoconfirmed users for one week, today until Nov 28. I thanked the editor who did it, and I thank you for adding your support. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

good: the system works well here. :) Rjensen (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Historiography of the British Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Armitage. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the World War I memorials page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ypres

So we've both violated WP:3RR several times, let's cool things down. My reason for deleting the "holy aura in their minds" bit is that it's WP:PEACOCK. The quote is enough, we shouldn't invoke religious connotations because it's a violation of WP:NPOV. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

it's not peacock it's from a RS and please use the talk page. wp:peacock says "Words such as legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms". The vets in 1920s really did seek a holy site and we report that. Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll go to talk. I thought I'd go here first though. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

I was rather confused by your recent reversion of my edit to the "Anti-Americanism" page. Please see the talk page of that article for an explanation. History2222 (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Orville E Babcock historical reputation

Hello Rjensen. I added a section on Orville E. Babcock's historical reputation. Could you look at the section or article ? Any edits or added references or sources to make the article better is appreciated. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

nice job! -- good work. Rjensen (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen ! I believe Babcock was appointed to Keeper of Lighthouses by President Rutherford B. Hayes. I wonder if that may have been a favor to Grant for his presidential support during the 1876 Election crisis. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Brendan Simms, ''Three victories and a defeat: the rise and fall of the first British Empire'' 2008)</ref> [[Ashley Jackson (historian)|Ashley Jackson]] writes:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* McDonald, Christie. "Changing the Facts of Life: The Case of Baby M." ''[SubStance'' (1991): 31-48. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3684881 in JSTOR]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

into the future, he prepared the way for the future extension and growth of New France.<ref>Black (2014 pp 66-69</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Education Newsletter: December 2015

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

Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

<clear>

Request for source about Juarez Community HS

Rjensen,

Do you have a copy of this source?

Alvarez, René Luis. "A Community that Would Not Take 'No' for an Answer: Mexican Americans, the Chicago Public Schools, and the Founding of Benito Juarez High School," Journal of Illinois History (2014) 17:1 pp 78-98

I'd like to make a Spanish article about this school, so I would like to use this source.

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I did not have an electronic copy. I recommend you contact/email the author Professor René Luis Alvarez r-alverez@neiu.edu tel 773-442-5622

dept Educational Inquiry and Curriculum Studies College of Education Office: Northeastern Illinois University, LWH 4007 Mailing Address: 5500 N. Saint Louis Avenue Chicago, IL, 60653 Rjensen (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip! I went ahead and sent him an e-mail WhisperToMe (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I got the electronic copy. If you want I can send it to you WhisperToMe (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

yes thanks -- send to rjensen@uic.edu Rjensen (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok! Please check your e-mail! It's all thanks to User:Czar WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

India

I can only see a snippet of the section about India. I can see the opinion is attributed to John Bosanquet. Do you know what case he was commenting on? TFD (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not do the OR..-the text says "In that opinion, Bosanquet narrowly construed the term “British subject” to mean not only that an individual's legal standing was determined solely by the father but also that the male parent had to be British-born to be a “British subject." The topic of "British subject" was a big deal regarding impressment of "American" sailors before 1812. Rjensen (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Baluchistan Agency

added a link pointing to North West Frontier

Historiography of the British Empire

added a link pointing to North West Frontier

History of Balochistan

added a link pointing to North West Frontier

Robert Groves Sandeman

added a link pointing to North West Frontier

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Your reverting of my edits

I'm confused as to why you reverted most of my additions of an honorific prefix to the US presidents. "The Honorable" is the formal honorific prefix for a US president, and my addition of this prefix was accepted on Barack Obama. This would be considered a minor visual edit and I didn't believe it needed an entire discussion on all 44 talk pages with consensus. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC) ping when replying

It's not used and not needed and does not help users. other editors agree with me. Please cover it on the talk page first. Rjensen (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Helping him with the RFC will bring this point home. Remember, education often involves being completely wrong. It's important for him to see this with the RFC. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed and I made this addition: "the Honorable" is NEVER used for dead people so all the dead presidents involve a misuse. Source: " The courtesy title the Honorable is used when addressing or listing the name of a living person. When the name of a deceased person is listed it's just (Full Name) + Office Held that is pertinent to the story being told for which the photo is included.....it would never be The Honorable John F. Kennedy. Robert Hickey Rjensen (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Restoring McCabe information

Could you explain why you placed the McCabe information in the French Wars of Religion section? Judging from Grosrichard's book, which McCabe references, the time period would be more suited to Louis XIV's reign(The Sultan's Court: European Fantasies of the East, by Alain Grosrichard, page 68) & (Orientalism in Early Modern France, by Ina Baghdiantz McCabe, page 134;"What Saint Simon wrote about the Nights being a deformed mirror of Versailles is not remembered as a metaphor, but others have noticed the analogy between the court of Baghdad and Versailles."). --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

yes i think you're right. you can move it or should I? Rjensen (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You can move it. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)