User talk:Rjensen/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Thurman Arnold

In this article, you wrote "He launched numerous studies but had no major successes by the time World War II came and anti-trust was deemphasized so corporations could concentrate on winning the war." In this context, the writing seemed vague and ambigous. Who is "He" -- Arnold or Roosevelt? What were these studies about? Why were they not successes?

the TNEC reports were massive studies designed to support a large-scale antitrust effort, that never happened. By 1938 the New Dealers had lost control of Congress and a pro-business mood was dominant, which grew stronger after 1940 (as FDR favored top businessmen and their lawyers, like Stimson, Stettinius, Knudsen) Rjensen 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Blunder or Forgery

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

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

american conservatism

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

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

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

Chemical Industry

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

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

Sockpuppetry case

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

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

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

Template:Catholic-link

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

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

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

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

Owsley

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

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

Al Smith

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

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

Hamilton article

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

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

Questia links

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

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

Reconstruction anger lingers

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

I've filed a Request for Comment

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

Robert P. Casey

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

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

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

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

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

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

Your edits to Henry Ford

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

Your edits to John Adams

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

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

History of coal mining

Thanks for continuting to work on this :-)

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

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

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

Links for American Revolution

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

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

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

Taft presidential ambitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

re: Democrat Party (United States)

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

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

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

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

Re: George III of the United Kingdom

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

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

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

US BOR

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

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

Lincoln intro

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

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

Happy Feb 12

Happy Lincoln's birthday Dear Rjensen/Archive 6 On this day 198 years ago, a boy was born in a log cabin to two indigent farmers. Nobody could predict one day the poor boy would become one of the greatest US President of all time, who had abolished slavery and preserved the Union during Civil War. The world may little note, nor long remember his birthday, but it can never forget what he did for the country. Thus to make February 12 not sink into the limbo, together we celebrate Lincoln's Birthday. Also, thanks for your contributions to Abraham Lincoln-related articles and I hope that you'll continue to improve them as a way to commemorate his monumental sacrifice. Best regards. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

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

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

Book Reviews

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

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

Edit & rvv summaries

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

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

== Kentucky is Southern ==

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

Misleading edit summary

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

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

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

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

Cold War Historiography

I'm feeling a little miffed about your removal of my edit to the Cold War page. I posted a suggestion about what I was about to do on the Talk page and received no comments for 5 months. I went ahead and added Shapiro's theories with the appropriate citation. You may not agree with Shapiro (and, I admit, his theories aren't popular or common). However, his book is masterly in its scope and directly cites numerous historians (e.g., Ambrose, Gaddis, Paterson) and politicians (Harriman, Stalin and Truman themselves) for the source of 80-90% of his material. In addition, this book is cited by Gore Vidal as a critical source of 20th century history. I strongly recommend that you find or offer some way to edit or improve this material rather than unilaterally removing it. 99th Percentile 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not see the Shapiro book sooner or i would have protested sooner. Wiki is only allowed to present reliable secondary sources and is explicitly not allowed to give play to offbeat theories. Shapiro has to be accepted by scholars BEFORE he can be accepted by Wiki. Has that happened? Gore Vidal is a very small step in that direction. The burden is on an editor to prove it is accepted mainstream history. Rjensen 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You raise a more valid point here then your more insipid comment on the Cold War page. However, Wikipedia is much more than Encyclopedia Britannica don't you think? If all we're doing is copying World Book then why bother? The point here is to (a) make this a community resource/project, and (b) make something that is ultimately better than existing references by incorporating more and more valid points of view. American history is already so massively whitewashed in textbooks that it's almost an imperative to fix it in online sources such as this one. Keep in mind that I don't care if Shapiro is right or wrong or if any of the other sources on the Cold War page are. I don't agree with many of them but don't feel the need to reject their inclusion. Remember also that Shapiro is only a glorified editor and adds content to the massive citations he presents, which are all from A-1 sources. Can you please reconsider this, especially considering that I already watered down Shapiro's viewpoints considerably. Thanks!. 99th Percentile 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I rechecked Shapiro yesterday. He died in 2002 and was known as a left-wing political activist and was not a specialist in the Cold War -- the book rambles over 200 years of history. As far as I can tell not a single scholarly article (in JSTOR) cites his book. In fact I could only find mention of one review in the history journals, so the editors as well as the scholars have not considered his book important. Why should Wiki consider him important? There are hundreds of off-beat polemics out there and they simply don't pass muster as reliable sources. Rjensen 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a more reasoned response, but your arrogance is still counterproductive. This isn't Encyclopedia Britannica and relying on JSTOR as the de facto litmus test for citations is unbelievable. First of all, I'm not a fan of Shapiro, so saying he's "left-wing" illuminates your biases more than mine. Second, where does Wikipedia say that you have to be a "specialist" to either write or be cited here? Obviously, we don't want to cite crap, but nobody here is doing that. Third, I'm sure that one of the driving forces for Wikipedia, whether intentional or not, is to capture important information outside of the mainstream. For "ivory tower" academic subjects, this seems even more crucial; thus, the importance of including contrary opinions AND voices. Lastly, you're right, there are countless polemics out there. However, isn't it important to include those that offer merit, and, even more importantly, for us to trust others' opinions about posting them just as much as they implicitly trust us? I disagree with megabytes of information on Wiki, but I don't feel the need to jump in unless its demonstrably false or wrong. I warned the community on this page that my edit was coming for 5 months; the sources in Shapiro are top-notch; Shapiro adds a relatively small percentage of editorializing to the sources he cites; for the most part; I did not include Shapiro's thoughts, just a high-level summary of the concepts he introduces; I have not read anything on the Internet or elsewhere that refutes Shapiro; Gore Vidal, one of the most competent writers (and writer/historians) of the 20th century (whether you like him or not is irrelevant) believes this is a vital resource. Again, I don't think you have justified anything, and have only demonstrated your personal biases against Shapiro, Vidal, left-wing(ers), and non-academic journals. Please try harder or I will re-post. 99th Percentile 19:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree: Wiki should start from the top and work down. It should rely on experts (in this case not Shapiro). He proudly claimed to be a left wing intellectual but did not claim any expertise on the Cold War. So why use him and his book that was (I think) self-published? JSTOR includes thousands of experts in peer-reviewed journals. It represents known quality. Rjensen 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Confederate States of America

I noticed you have removed Lincoln's actions in Maryland from the Confederate States of America article, the reason being "Maryland traitors can thank Lincoln for not being hung". This is blatantly POV and please refrain from doing so. Thanks! Wooyi 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

what I removed was blatant POV and cannot be tolerated in an encyclopedia. Rjensen 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln indeed stripped habeas corpus in Maryland, and also his practice being unconstitutional is also true, see Ex parte Milligan, Supreme Court's ruling. Wooyi 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an article on the Confederacy. if the folks involved were loyal to the USA then they should not be mentioned in this article. If they were loyal to the CSA (which historians believe) they were traitors. Which was it? Rjensen 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The "traitor" label may be plausible, but not confirmed. The head of CSA Jefferson Davis was in fact never convicted of treason (we assume innocence before proven guilty), and those ones who fought for CSA were later mostly cleared their name. Davis, Robert Lee, among others who were loyal to CSA, were all given back their USA citizenship postumously in 1970s. These are historical facts. In my opinion, although I'm not a fan of slavery, CSA legitimately seceded from USA and USA annexed it again, the situation kinda resembled Ireland, East Timor, or Tibet. Wooyi 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

yes but the issue of the edit is Maryland -- it did NOT secede and anyone in the state who supported the CSA should have been arrested immediately--and was in fact arrested. Rjensen 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So you would have arrested them on mere suspecion, before they committed any overt acts? And would the hanging come before or after the trial? Nicholas F 04:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

yes arrest immediately. That's called war. That's what Lincoln (ie Ben Butler) did and in fact what Jefferson Davis did -- only in Texas they hung them without any trial, and in Maryland Lincoln locked them up for weeks then released them. Rjensen 04:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		WikiProject Illinois Barnstar
		For your work on Illinois related articles, especially the help you gave me on the Illinois article last year, your work on Lincoln's article and other Illinois articles. Keep up the good work! --Dual Freq 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

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

Delivered by grafikbot 16:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

George Washington's Presidency

Thanks for removing the link to the Paris treaty from George Washington's Presidency. It was obviously put there in good faith, and I'm too much of a newbie to trust my judgment to simply remove it (I raise the question in the talk page). Fordsfords 00:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Annexation Bill of 1866

Hi Rjensen. I have some questions about your edits (from last year) to this article; see Talk:Annexation Bill of 1866. Regards, --Saforrest 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just answered them! The offical congressional record shows the bill went to a House committee and never came to a vote in House or Senate. All bills that come to a final vote get listed and linked to the debates....there were no debates either. Rjensen 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up

Your reversion to William Howard Taft re-inserted some vandalism! I've tidied up after you, for no extra charge! Best wishes, Bencherlite 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make my proposal clear on the Molly Maguires talk page

Hello Professor Jensen,

It is not my personal intention to modify the Rhodes quote. My intention is to mark it clearly and distinctly as a quote from Rhodes, both as a service to Rhodes and to incautious readers.

My motivation arises from the experiences of a first time reader of the article — coming in cold, as it were. I was struck with the queasy feeling that some middle chunk of the article came from a distinct author writing under nineteenth century conventions. Glancing up, I belatedly saw the advisory about material being drawn from James Ford Rhodes. Still, it was not clear to me where the excerpted passage began or ended. Indeed, later investigations of article histories showed me that the marker is misplaced, grouping three paragraphs composed by various contemporary editors with the material you provided from Rhodes, with no other clear dividing line. Such uncertainty is a disservice to readers, in that they are given an incorrect impression of who is writing what, and to Rhodes, in that his contribution to the article is blurred with works of others. Properly blocking the quote off in a box, as I illustrated on the talk page, puts that ambiguity to rest, both to the benefit of Rhodes and the readers. To my mind, the application of this graphic device works to the advantage of a goal you hold dear: presenting a "standard scholarly source" clearly and without ambiguity. The device sets off the passage of text as originating from a scholar in the field, and is not possibly the writing of a contemporary wikipedia editor. At present, testifying as someone who has just read the article cold, it is not abundantly clear where the Rhodes text begins and where it ends. I cannot imagine that you would find such uncertainty a source of comfort either.

You well and truly observe that the use of Rhodes in this article is akin to Wikipedia's frequent use of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica; such material lend weight in discussions where editors might otherwise quote from memory or some web blog. In granting you that, I also note certain guidelines surrounding the use of material that from that edition, documented in the Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica guideline for editors. First off, this guideline advises us to mark extensive excerpts from the 1911 EB with the {{1911}} tag. This automatically inserts

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.

at the bottom of the article and places it in the Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. Such pain in marking work from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica is precisely in the spirit of my proposal: demark the passage as coming from James Ford Rhodes, citing his name, the source of his writing, and his publisher. The reader may then disagree with Rhodes, or find his prose antique, but he or she is in no doubt from where the words are coming from.

It is possible you may have been alarmed by my closing remark about (eventually) retiring the excerpt with a paraphrase, and thought, perhaps, that I would undertake that ambition next week. I grant you, that would be a hard row to hoe, given your (very correct!) observations concerning the passions some editors bring to this article. I plan not to undertake that particular adventure even though I recommend it, for reasons stated. No, I only intend to demark Rhodes as Rhodes, and nothing further, for reasons also just stated. I do believe that someone should, however, undertake a careful paraphrase because many of the cautionaries presented in the 1911 guidelines are also true for Rhodes: old references reflect old style of wording and attitudes that are no longer current, and some readers react to that rather than to the the underlying content.

Be good, be well; reply here or on my talk page if you care to. Gosgood 21:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're very persuasive and I now agree with your plan--with the proviso that the Rhodes article be kept permanently. The main reason is we need an anchor by a serious scholar that's heavily fact-oriented and has been vetted by professional editors of the American Historical Review, because of the intense POV that seems to surround this topic. Rjensen 22:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, he did research. Poor choice of a word on my part ;) On to another topic, I came across minor variation between the quote as transcribed in the article and the 1919 Macmillan passage; I followed the Macmillan. Mainly variations were in punctuation, but there were word and phrase differences in the paragraph describing that young men in the order carried out murder. In the 1919 Macmillian version, that paragraph and the following one merge together, and there are differences in phrasing. It seems that your page on the University of Illinois web site are also close to the 1919 Macmillian text. I suspect the variations found in the Wikipedia transcription stem from edit wars, but I haven't, at the moment, an inclination to go trolling through article histories. Take care. Gosgood 02:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I had OCR'd ascii version of both the book and article and do not remember now which I used. Rjensen 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Credible source of info i used for, Battle of New Orleans was My Social Studies textbook, made by Houghton Mifton, grade 7 chapter 10 about the battle

in my Social Studies textbook-a reliable source, in which-even if "Remini" is credible, that doesnt mean its right (or my textbook). by leaving it as a range of the lowest number (seven in my textbook, to twenty, you will be stating correct information (13 is in-between this range), and leaving the thought of the reader, unchanged. By using this range, a large number of historians can agree on it, rather than dispute the number they think it to be---Number2two2

P.S.: please take this into consideration.

textbooks are not very credible--the authors have to cover thousands of topics. Remini spent years researching the Battle of New Orleans. What "other historians" are we talking about?? Rjensen 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Two points

1. The addition you made long ago to Panic of 1837 has finally been erased: [1]. I have mixed feelings about this: on the one hand, it had some valuable information, but on the other hand, its tone was quite inappropriate for here. Perhaps we can eventually work in some of the data it presented.
2. I recently enlarged John William McCormack from his obituary. Overall, I think the article is improved, but in some parts the tone may be a little informal. I think it would benefit from proofreading by someone else, like, if you wish, yourself. Biruitorul 02:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The tone of Wiki is always a problem. My theory is give people factual information and they can handle the tone--especially if they are interested in events in the 19th century when the rhetorical styles were so different from today. Rjensen 02:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As for McCormack, it's amazing that no one has written seriously about his career. There is one scholarly article I know and it's very recent: Green, Matthew N. "McCormack Versus Udall: Explaining Intraparty Challenges to the Speaker of the House." American Politics Research 2006 34(1): 3-21. ISSN: 1532-673X

Thanks, I'll take a look. As for the Panic extract - my own view is that it should stay as is, but with a view toward weaving it into a 21st-century text. I don't expect that'll happen tomorrow, though, and 19th C English isn't (yet) a foreign language, so interested readers may still find it useful even in its current form. Biruitorul 05:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fulltext in SwetsWise; Abstract: Introduces a theory to explain who will most likely support a challenge to an incumbent speaker of the House of Representatives and tests this theory for one such challenge in particular, that against Speaker John McCormack in 1969, using newly obtained archival data related to the contest. The results suggest that legislators are most likely to support a challenge when it promises to satisfy one or more "multiple goals." The findings also reveal that membership in the same entering class in Congress plays an important and previously unacknowledged causal role in determining support for a challenge to the speaker. Rjensen 02:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider your revert of my edits to American Revolution

You know, you could actually read what I had done rather than blindly reverting to the terrible text you did. Its not what you did, it is how you did it. Please read the text of the article and see that the version you reverted to mentions the Declaratory Acts, but does so a) in a really crappy way and b) without any reference. I understand that references to primary sources are deprecated and that references to experts are preferred. I also understand the importance of this article to Wikipedia, and want to see it improved. I did the best I could by fixing some TERRIBLE text and adding a reference. If you would prefer to delete the whole section about the Declaratory Acts, I AM OK WITH THAT, so please do not misunderstand my purpose in leaving this message for you. But it is bad taste to blindly revert an edit, especially when that edit clearly improved the language of what was already in the article, and provided a reference to boot. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please consider the dif: [2] of the edit I made. You can clearly see the problem with the text I was trying to fix. If you don't like what I did, fix it how you see fit, up to and including outright removal. That is fine. But please, do not assume that every edit to this article is automatically unworthy or or in some way in bad faith. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I removed the offending text entirely. See dif: [3]. Again, please be more careful and actually read the edits people make to articles you care deeply about. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayron32 is quite right: the original text was very poor quality and needs improvement. However Wiki rules say that all edits--even improvements-- have to be based on reliable sources, not on original research, so the improvement had to go. I'll try to fix the passage.Rjensen 05:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, since you talk about policy, you might want to see the relevent part of WP:ATT, which says of primary sources, and I quote, "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Which is what my edit did. It described the text of the declaratory acts, and the reference provided a link to the act in question. My edit was descriptive, not interpretative, and thus by wiki policies, should not have been reverted. Again, I have no problem with your removal of my text, and there can be many good reasons for the removal of it, but "not an expert historian" doesn't apply here, since the kind of edit I made did not make any claims of interpretation of the text. It only reported what the text said. Heck, it was 3/4 quotes of the text directly. My edit was not original research as defined by WP:ATT the relevent policy in question, so please do not claim it was. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

the question is whether or not the decision to include the Declaratory Act was based on reliable scholarship; none was cited. There were thousands of pages of parliamentary text available--who chose that selection and why? Rjensen 01:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. That is a quite reasonable reason to remove the text in question. Thank you for explaining that, as it was unclear from your original terse edit summary. I agree 100% with you that there was no citation to a secondary source showing the importance of said act, and yes, while it patently did refer to the American colonies, whether or not such act is significant enough historically to include in the article is not a decision you or I should make, but it should be up to published historians, whose work we should cite. Thanks again for clearing up your reasoning. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy, McCarthyism

I am inviting all recent editors of Joseph McCarthy to comment on a current dispute. Although you do not qualify, you have commented at McCarthyism and I have some experience with you as an editor - we haven't always agreed but I am looking for a broader commentary. IMO User:KarlBunker, in his stated view out of concern for WP:NPOV#Undue weight, has reverted, deleted, and selectively reinstated factually accurate sourced information that I have added. I contend he is in error. Please see the discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Thank you. Kaisershatner 17:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added my 2 cents worth re Kennedy connection. Rjensen 20:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued input. Can you look at the 1952 Senate section at talk. Is is not clear that McCarthy made a specific point of not campaigning against Kennedy?Kaisershatner 18:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I worked on it. There is no doubt that McCarthy rejected GOP please for him to campaign in Mass. in 1952. Rjensen 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bimetallism globalize/USA tag

Hi, you removed the globalize/USA tag I added to Bimetallism, saying "the debate happened inside USA" as a comment to the edit, but you didn't respond to my rationale for adding it at Talk:Bimetallism. I've added the tag back as I think there should be some time to debate this before it is removed (you removed it the day after I put it up).--Eloil 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again you've removed the tag without discussion (save saying "Explain why US" in a comment). I think it's fair to leave the tag up for a while so this can be discussed. Evidently you don't think so. I've explained the rationale for my actions; why do you insist on reverting my edits without even explaining your own rationale on the article's talk page? Clearly no consensus currently exists to remove the tag. --Eloil 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

who does the tag help? put it on the talk page if you want to reach editors. Better yet do some research--as the article now explains only the US was in a position to debate the issue. Rjensen 21:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I am doing research on the topic, but likely won't add material until I have learned more. I added the tag to encourage others to do research of their own. Not all editors look at the talk, and I think the tag would encourage some of these editors to do their own research on bimetallism and widen the article's scope beyond US borders. In the meantime, I believe the article doesn't present a worldwide view on bimetallism, although the ample material on US bimetallism appears to be well written and researched. I also think your quick reverts of my good-faith edits can be seen as antagonistic, but I'm willing to compromise by having the tag on the talk page only as you suggested. --Eloil 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

agreed. my problem is that the tag on the main page demeans and ridicules the article in the minds of users. Rjensen 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources: forgeries

I've made a suggestion on the primary sources talk page. Rjm at sleepers 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert of edits to United States presidential election, 1856

I think we had some bad timing of edits to the above article--I had reverted to a previous revision to get the format right, and then about 25 minutes later pulled back the new text Epignosis had added, keeping that format--but less then a minute later, you reverted back to before I had fixed the format. I believe my most recent edit is preferable, and more in line with Wikipedia:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy. Do you agree? --Cjohnsonmn 14:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

the timing was funny--we made our edits at the same minute but mine came a few seconds later (and I did not notice your changes). Your edit is better so I replaced mine with yours. Rjensen 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

George Washington

Wikipedia recommends compromise and revision of edits, not unilateral deletion. The material is referenced (see Samuel Huntington wikipedia article). I think it's well explained and doesn't confuse the reader but I'll make it even more clear. Washington was the first president but there was also another first president, too. Dereks1x 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

washington was the ONLY first president of the united states. No reliable source claims otherwise. What we have is a simple confusion of sound-alike titles Rjensen 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not engage in edit waring. I keep modifying the language as a compromise and take the other guy (johnwae or whatever the name) suggestion. Do not keep deleting it. If you have a helpful suggestion, by all means say it. I ask you then "Who was the Head of State for the US between the Articles of Confederation in 1781 and 1789?" It was the President Huntington then 10 other guys. If there's an adequate explanation, nobody is confused. Having others as the head of state before Washington does NOT make Washington an evil man!!!

I even compromised and moved it to the end under myths and misconceptions.

The Articles of Confederation is relevant because it used the term United States and the British had been effectively kicked out by then.

If you don't like it, why not suggest compromise language?Dereks1x 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

compromise? ok, How's this: "George Washington was the first President of the United States of America. Samuel Huntington was never president of the United States of America." Rjensen 01:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the reversion of text,

I by no means wish to challenge the established model for Presidential Election Pages but instead would like to offer some suggestions for possible modifications to the current format up for debate amongst the contributors to Wikipedia. The easiest and hopefully the least obtrusive of these would be to include the platforms of the parties who nominated canidates in the campaign as I have tried to do in this article. I believe there inclusion within the general election section of the page, due to the platforms inclusion of major sources of debate between parties within them, is a proper location but would be willing to listen to any other suggestions for their possible location. Many of these platforms can be found posted online and can be easily linked to these articles because they were creation was for dissemination into the public domain and therefore have no copyrights to be infringed. Including the platforms written by the party at the time of the campaign will not only offer a chance to verify the information on the article but will also increase the validity ofthe article through the inclusion of a primary source. The decision is up to a vote of course but I am going to stand up and complain about the deletion of the Know-Nothing Campaign info. If a party wins a state in the electoral college or at least a significant portion of the popular vote I believe we should include the party platform to explain what these people were voting for the sake of better understanding history and the people who lived during this time period.

Respectfully Epignosis

the actual platforms are pretty long, and not usually considered important. A short summary should do the job, with a link to the online version (Sanata Barabara has the texts, I recall). Rjensen 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Bagdad Railway

Please engage in discussion on the talk page if you wish to continue to place contested material such as 'historians agree' - see my comment on the talk page, regards sbandrews (t) 11:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

well I did put extensive comments on the talk page. I looked around and all historians seem to agree--have you found one otherwise since 1930? Rjensen 12:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Baghdad? I'm suspicious of the claim that "all historians agree" about anything. Historians have a notorious disposition for disagreeing. Wjhonson 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All that I found in the last 60 years. Rjensen 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Lend-lease

Rather than simply deleting well-sourced text in the article, please take whatever issue you have with it to the talk page. Thanks. WLD^talk|edits 09:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I did take it to talk page. we need to remove trivia (do Wiki readers need to know how many locomotives were sent, yes; what day was the cheque signed--no) and long quote from Hansard is unnecessary--try to reduce to 2 sentences. This article could be 2000 pages long if low-level details are stuffed in Rjensen 09:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Meta:Wiki is not paper - 'low level' details are appropriate for inclusion. If the article gets too large, we can then debate splitting it. Please continue this on the article's talk page. Thanks. WLD^talk|edits 10:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

New Deal

For your information, the Great Depression lasted 10 years. So, obviously the economy did not recover during the New Deal. You shouldn't be removing something that is sourced and replacing it with something that is unsourced. Instantiayion 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

look at the numbers and please use reliable sources, such as those in bibliog. Rjensen 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes look at the numbers. By the time the New Deal was officially over in 1938, GDP was still below 1929 level and unemployment was very high. Please don't tell me that you think the New Deal was successful. It was supposed to provide recovery and relief but what ended up happening is the depression continued until 1939/1940 and the people suffered. By what standard could it be deemed successful? Instantiayion 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Success = reverse terrible effects of 1929-33, which was done by 1936 (except unemployment, which took longer to cure. You have to realize New Deal was NOT responsible for causing collapse of 1929-33, and that it first had to repair the damage.Rjensen 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How is continued low GDP and high unemployment repairing the damage? Instantiayion 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The GDP was not low. that damage was repaired. As for unemployment, the New Deal cut it in half. The problem was that companies were not hiring people. Rjensen 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

GDP was indeed low until 1940. Of course the problem is that companies were not hiring people but guess why? The New Deal. Increasing taxes, price-fixing, and what not, is not the way to encourage hiring and investment. Instantiayion 02:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

actually as soon as New Deal arrived companies started hiring people again. Should we have a chart for that? I'll look for one. The GDP data seems pretty important and NPOV. Rjensen 02:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The GDP chart may be NPOV but I challenge your trendline. The reason I deleted the chart is because it's POV to just put that one chart there. GDP is not the only part of the economy that is important. There should be an unemployment chart there as well. Instantiayion 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think drawing your own trendline goes into original research territory. Instantiayion 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right that GDP is only one indicator. As for unemployment I already put in an elaborate annual table-- it has 3-digit accuracy that gets obscured in a graphics chart. I'll add some more charts. Manufacturing employment (private sector) is about ready. The Excel spreadsheet adds the trendline, which is just an average over time. Rjensen 03:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To have a manufacturing employment chart is POV as well if you don't have a similar chart for all other types of employment. If you're going to do an employment chart it needs to be overall. Instantiayion 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a goose. Why don't you do some work and make some charts. Rjensen 03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about computers. Instantiayion 03:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

They please don't complain about informative graphs that other people work hard to create. Rjensen 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't POV push and I won't complain. You're cherry picking things because you're pro central planning. You selected manufacturing employment because that looks the best. How about all the other kinds of employment? Either put an overall unemployment chart or take that one out. Instantiayion 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

which data would you like to see graphed? Rjensen 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The overall unemployment picture. Also you're stopping at 1940 so that the recovery can't be seen. Instantiayion 03:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The overall unemployment data is already in a very detailed table. The war starts in 1941 and New Deal ends. Rjensen 03:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a long enough time horizon. You can't look at something in isolation like that. You have to look at the bigger picture. It's still POV. It's easy to lie with statistics when you don't show the bigger picture. Instantiayion 03:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read a book. start with Chandler. Better yet, take an economics course at a local community college Rjensen 03:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to you the book "How to Lie With Statistics" by Darrel Huff, but it looks like you've already read it. Instantiayion 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Huff explains that people who don't understand statistcs get befuddled easily and fall for all sorts of frauds. They can't tell truth from falsity. Rjensen 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

True variance

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to True variance. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. In addition, claiming to "rv vandalism" while adding new material from a copyrighted book is, itself, vandalism.

Thank you for making a report about 24.213.182.10 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Generally, final warnings are good for 48 hours on an IP address. Otherwise, we must consider them as expired because someone else may be using that address (e.g. a dialup user or someone in a school computing lab). Jesse Viviano 15:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Women's Army Corps‎

In reference to the Women's Army Corps‎ article, thank you for adding information and expanding the article but cite the source of your information. --Signaleer 13:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, willdo. 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on "Mugwumps"

This paragraph and the one that follows should both be sourced to the Blodgett book and the McFarland book of essays. I'm afraid I am miles away from a good academic library now. Since the 1970s, when I was a student, academic libraries in the USA have put armed guards and barriers around to keep the homeless out, including me (ha ha):

Several historians of the 1960s and 1970s portrayed the Mugwumps as members of an insecure elite, one that felt threatened by changes in American society. These historians often focused on the social background and status of their subjects, and the narratives they have written share a common outlook.

Seriously, I just don't have a student ID anymore that lets me in to find an older book that is not online. Looks like you probably do. --Metzenberg 22:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the tip. I'll try to fix it. Rjensen 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Lead

Hi there. I noticed you added quite a bit of info to Reagan's lead paragraph. THE LEAD SHOULD NOT BE THAT LONG. As I've stated on the talk page, please, please read WP:LEAD. There is too much info. Happyme22 04:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Reagan lede is too short right now, according to WP:LEAD. Remember most people only read the opening and we need to help them . Rjensen 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed at WP:FAC candidate Plymouth Colony

I noticed that you have been a frequent contributor at several articles dealing with American History. I have been a major contributor to the article Plymouth Colony which I also nominated for featured status at WP:FAC. Several reviewers have requested that I get some other editors with similar interests to look over the article, make any changes they see fit, and make any additional comments at WP:FAC. If you could look over the article, I would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance for your help. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. I reduced the coverage of Indians (the article is not about them), and would strongly recommend more on the social history, as in the Demos book. Rjensen 17:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! It looks like you made some changes I would have never made, but that's why I asked for your help. The article seems much improved. I give a cursory introduction to the social history in various parts ("Relations with Indians", "English"). What sort of additional coverage did you have in mind? Do you think it needs more on the details of daily life? Relationship between Pilgrims and Strangers? Relationship with the Indians (probably not, since you deleted a bunch of this). Power and class? There are lots of ways that we can go on that, and I would think that we want to avoid getting TOO big here... If you have access to the Demos book currently (I'd have to go to the Library to get it), could you add any additional information, with refs, as you see fit? I will probably get the book myself in the next week or so, but don't let that stop you from further improving the article. Your fixes so far have been great, and I would appreciate any additional help. Thanks again! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wallace '44

Hello. I wonder if we could shed a little more light on the decision to drop Henry A. Wallace from the ticket in 1944. Was it a decision made out of purely domestic considerations, or was there also an international dimension to it - perhaps a fear he would be too accomodating toward the Soviet Union? Thanks for any help you can offer. Biruitorul 22:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wallace got in big trouble in 1942 when he went public denouncing Jesse Jones. FDR decided Wallace was irresponsible and incompetent and fired him from non-VP roles as head of Bureau Economic Warfare. ideology played a minor role. So Wallace was hopeless in 1944. Rjensen 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I will try to amplify that section of his biography. Biruitorul 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Your input is welcome

It's essentially been decided to merge Democratic Party history section into the main History of the United States Democratic Party article to reduce the article's size (leaving behind a summary). I've produced a very rough chopping down of the existing prose into a draft summary, consisting of almost-but-not-quite 50 year intervals in paragraphs. Your input into polishing this rough cut draft but not really bloating the text much any further is welcome. Settler 01:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. Go right ahead, but keep the party-systems model because that's how it's taught in AP government courses. Rjensen 03:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Political Interpretations of the Wonderful Wizard of Oz

Perhaps you might be interested in this explanation of Oz as China during the Boxer Uprising of 1898-1899? As a link to my site perhaps? http://www.sexualfables.com/OzisChina.php

thanks for the tip and the wonderful web site. Yes a link is in order Rjensen 03:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Plymouth Colony

Hey, I want to thank you for the copyedit you gave to the article Plymouth Colony a few weeks ago. You made some good suggestions about additional sources of information. I went and got the John Demos book A Little Commonwealth based on your suggestion (I had actually read other works by Demos in Grad School; specifically Entertaining Satan, but I had not made the connection until you brought him up); I also made use of the James and Patricia Deetz's The Times of Their Lives. I have made some more extensive revisions and additions to the article, and I was wondering if you would be so kind as to look over the article again and give it some work? I have added sections on prior settlements, Social history, and economy and expanded the government section some. Your work has been very beneficial to the article, and I plan to take this to peer review soon, and would like to have your help in prepping it for that, and possibly reaching Featured status sometime down the road. Thanks again for your prior work, and thanks in advance for any help you can give in the near future! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayron32 did a great job! for addition info look at the article at Citizendium. Rjensen 10:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

hearst image

The Hearst Ad from 1922... where is that from? How do we know it was from 1922? Many thanks... email lukashauser (AT) gmail.com if you can. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.42.195 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding History of Texas

The infomation I added is 100% supported by the Texas Historical Society and in their publication "Texas Handbook Online." Additionally having grown up in the state. What I added is what I was taught prior to the sanitation of Texas history in Texas school textbooks, that I am guessing happened in the 1980s.

You embarrass yourself by stating what is written as fact by the Texas Historical Society, a keeper of a large selection of historical documents from Texas settlers, Mexico and the USA regarding Texas is merely unsubstantiated POV.

Where did you do your research? Where is the backup for your belief that my information is false?

What I wrote comes directly from their historically factual resources.

It is THEIR information. I only summerized. If cutting and pasting were permitted I would have done that.

What I put in is far LESS damning than the total sum of what they say.

Your own feelings and opinions are NOT valid grounds for deleting an improvement.

You need proof.

The Historical Association mentions many times the problems that arose with the settlers when Mexico tried to enforce the ban on slavery.

Eventually Mexico tried one too many times, and the settlers had it, and rebelled.

The difficulty Mexico had in putting down one rebellion (Fredonia) was all the rest of the settlers needed to press for independence, which the got a few years later.

If you find it impossible to find this information, or understand how I found it. I will be happy to find it for you, and highlight it. It is NOT opinion. It is NOT POV.

You abuse the rights of Wiki editors to attempt to dismiss what I added based on your clearly spurious opinion, based on your personal dislike of the history that is factually recorded.

What surprises me is you are quite familiar with the "The Texas Handbook Online." You use it as one of your references. Yet your article is devoid of any history regarding the origins/reasons for the settlers rebellion? Did you decide that the Texas Historical Collection was not a valid source of historical information, or maybe in your effort to write an article on the history of Texas, you didn't read theirs?

Perhaps you might want to spare a moment or two and take a gander at the fascinating "History" section, where I found all that neat stuff about what Texas independence was all about.

It is NOT a point of view, it is historical fact.

The fact that you dislike what happened historically, does not mean it's false, does not mean it's opinion.

It's reality of what happened back then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnmorales@hot.rr.com (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I re-read the Handbook articles cited and they explicity state that slavery was NOT one of the main reasons. Rjensen 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Southern opposition to Reconstruction

I moved the annonymous essay from Redemption (United States history) to Southern opposition to Reconstruction. This text may have been WP:POV as a description the Redemption, but I certainly is a accurate description of the Southern opposition to Reconstruction. I do not see any reason to merge this with Redemption. Unless you are able to improve it, please stop the POV pushing and leave the article alone! -- Petri Krohn 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

the essay is bad history loaded with false statements and heavy handed POV. It is not referenced and is anonymous. It never mentions the 25% of white southerners who supported Reconstruction! (the Scalawags). (The four "sources" listed were ones I added long ago and contradict every paragraph so they are not the source used.) Net result = not based on reliable sources and fails Wiki criteria.Rjensen 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in psychoceramics, but my familiarity with propaganda of the Reconstruction era USA is limited. Can you, please, give me a brief overview of the POVvishness of the essay in relation with the matching events on North American ideosphere on the time?

Furthermore, if you should decide to nominate the article for deletion, please let me know. Digwuren 12:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think every paragraph is full of serious mistakes. But Wiki requires FIRST that there be reliable sources--none are given. The author used sources but he keeps them secret. The main Reconstruction articles covers the topic pretty well. Rjensen 04:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read up on the matter and I now understand why this essay is not only unsourced but irrepairably POV, as well as unfactual. If it ever goes to AFD, I intend to support the deletion. Digwuren 10:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Us-grows.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Us-grows.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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mexican American War

The Mexican government working harder to send its citizens to its northern territories after the Mexican-American war is not a "folk myth." Where do you get that from? This is common knowledge to anyone who has studied Mexican history. The United States government encourage its citizens to move west through land grants and various other means. Is that a folk myth too? Griot 21:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

citation to reliable source is needed according to Wiki rules. The standard histories do not mention any such porogram--look for example at Mark Wasserman, Capitalists, Caciques, and Revolution: The Native Elite and Foreign Enterprise in Chihuahua, Mexico, 1854-1911. University of North Carolina Press. 1984. Rjensen 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Newfoundland referendums, 1948

Well, you taught me something new! I guess that answers the question of why there was an Economic Union Party during the referendums. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to History of women in the military

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Rjensen! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 04:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Real$1947-2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Real$1947-2006.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 04:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

midwest map again

There is discussion concerning the creation of another midwestern map. I saw you gave a comment in the previous discussion. I think your input would be valued. Perhaps there is a chane for a little civility in this discussion.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1980Anderson.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:1980Anderson.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rlest 11:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:1944barkley.jpg

I have tagged Image:1944barkley.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rlest 12:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Political history of the United States

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Political history of the United States, by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Political history of the United States is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Political history of the United States, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Generations

Thanks for work on killing the GENERATIONS template... it's been deleted now after discussion. Any help you can give in merging all of the Strauss and Howe crap into one idiotic page will be very much appreciated! :)--Dylanfly 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

glad to see that--and thanks for your work :) Rjensen 22:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Wandalstouring 10:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Graph removed

Hi,

I removed 3 of your graphs at New Deal because they were misleading. The origins of the graphs should have been at zero, and since they weren't, the graphs exaggerated the volatility being represented. I'd love to see the graphics back if you could correct this. Thanks for your contributions to the article, btw. Tempshill 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I restored the graphs., Removing accurate and relevant information is vandalism. There is no one known to have been mislead in any way by this accurate and relevant information. The graphs do not "exaggerate" anything, they focus on the main issues of interest. Volatility is not even discuseed in the article, let alone "exaggerated". Rjensen 22:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so quick in calling vandalism. Sometimes information should not be in an article even if it's not wrong or irrelevant. Those graphs seem ok to me though. --Apoc2400 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Attack

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. CSDWarnBot 00:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

American School (economics)

Hi, Rjensen, been sometime since we worked together on any article. You've helped out in the past with the American System page - much of the material was moved to the American School page leaving American System to American System (economic plan) covering Clay's program alone. Was wondering if I could have your honest perusal of the material at the American School, and any advice, help, or improvements you could offer to make the article more Wikipedia reliable. Further, your input at the Progressivism page might also be needed if your willing to help out, in the near future to format that page correctly. Thanks. --Northmeister 01:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the invite. I'm working more on Citizendium.org these days which has a better editorial policy for serious articles and I encourage you to come one over. Rjensen 01:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Thanks. --Northmeister 01:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Please stop implying Walter Reuther was a Communist or a supporter of "the Stalinist Regime" in the Soviet Union. It is slander and dishonest. Walter Reuther spent his life rooting communist elements out of the UAW and was villified in the Soviet Union for his criticisms of the Communist regime. He also fought to lower the prices of automobiles, as Victor Reuther made clear in his memoir, which I cited in my edit. As for Union contracts forcing consumers to pay high automobile costs, as you have implied, I'll need some evidence. It is clear to me based on the other Wikipedia pages that you have edited that you have an agenda. That is fine, but slander and dishonest implications serve no one. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nighttrain38 (talk • contribs) 02:46, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

alas it's true that Reuther worked closely with the communists in the 1930s -- please read the books cited. He changed in the 1940s and indeed became anti-communist. Losts of former leftists made that change. But the section in question deals with the 1930s following his years in Russia. Was he ever a Communist party member? probably not says Lichtenstein, but some historians think so. The point is that he was indeed a fellow traveler. I'm getting my information from Nelson Lichtenstein, The Most Dangerous Man in Detroit: Walter Reuther and the Fate of American Labor (1995) -- what source are you using, please tell? Rjensen 06:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My sources: "The Brothers Reuther and the story of the UAW/ a Memoir" by Victor Reuther and an artilce by Lichtenstein himself. Here is a link to the article: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/51/lichtenstein.html It doesn't matter if Walter worked closely with Communists, the same comment is true of President Ronald Reagan, what matters is the implication that he was a member of the Communist Party and a supporter of Stalin. Please read the book you have cited and you will see that no one has ever proven that he was and, if you read Lichtenstein's article that I just gave you a link to, you will see that Reuther was expelling Communists in the thirties as well as the forties. Lichtenstein also disagrees with Devinatz' assesment that Reuther was a member of the Communists in 1939. Alas, Reuther wasn't a member of the Communist party and your very source agrees. You have tried to imply otherwise and that is the point. There were also other falsities at issue that you wisely did not decide to rehash. Stick to the propaganda, facts are obviously not your forte'. Also, please define "former leftist." Walter Reuther remained committed to his ideals until his untimely death. Did you even read your own source, or were you merely copying propaganda of a far right website, please tell?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nighttrain38 (talk • contribs) 18:34, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Forgery of primary documents

Following some discussion on the talk page, I added "Historians dealing with recent centuries rarely encounter forgeries of any importance" to the forgery section of primary sources. Dhaluza is asking for a citation for this. Any suggestions? Rjm at sleepers 18:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Handlin et al, Harvard Guide to American History (1954) p 22-25, notes how rare is the forgery of a modern document. Rjensen 22:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I have added this citation to the article. Rjm at sleepers 06:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 10:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

The Douglas MacArthur article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you think your efforts to improve that article would be aided if new and unregistered users were blocked from editing that article, please let me know and I will protect the article. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up! in this case I think the edits by 67.180.174.112 improved the article, so I don't see a need for ptotection. Rjensen 10:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:1947Berryman.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:1947Berryman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New Hampshire open primary?

This recent news article writes

"Now, I am certainly not vouching for Wikipedia's accuracy, but on their website, a website used by many, they falsely claim that NH is an open primary. I did not even see this entry until I began writing this current article, and I did not in any way shape or form rely on Wikipedia in writing the previous article, I only bring it up because clearly, misinformation abounds about the rules for voting in many states."

I don't know what article(s) he is talking about, but some of them might be found via this Google search and this Google search. Would you please look into this. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 13:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked but did not spot any mistakes in Wiki on this matter.Rjensen 21:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 10:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman

There is a discussion that you might want to weigh in on, Talk:Harry_S._Truman#The_.22Roswell_Incident.22, thanks. WikiDon 05:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the tip--what a hilarious debate! (which seems to have virtually no connection with HST). Rjensen 13:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Halleck/Sherman

I was curious to know if H.W. Halleck and W.T. Sherman ever reconciled after their spat in April 1865. Judging by the fact that Sherman barely makes mention of Halleck in his Memoirs after retelling that episode, I suspect not. Do you know much about the incident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan singh (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

that's an interesting question! if I find some info I will pass it along.Rjensen 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Standard Oil Charts

Where did you get the data for the Standard Oil graphs on the Standard Oil page?

Thanks,

Technogenius —Preceding unsigned comment added by Technogenius (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

the data was from court testimony in the 1910 trial and is in the Jone (1922) book. Rjensen 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to Appletons discussion on WP:AN

Do you have any input for this discussion on WP:AN? You were involved back in March 2007. --Versageek 01:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

famousamericans.net

FYI:
In March 2007, you'd expressed concern about removing these links:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_U.S. Presidents#External links

There have been many more added since then by accounts associated with the site owner and their proposed removal and possible blacklisting are being discussed at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam?

--A. B. ^(talk) 13:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, I see Versageek just left a similar note. Sorry for the redundant redundancy. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I made my comments a long time ago. The Appleton Cyclopedia is a good (but old-fashioned) biographical source that is used and recommended by standard reference books like the Harvard Guide to American History.Rjensen (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Republican In Name Only

An article that you have been involved in editing, Republican In Name Only, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican In Name Only (second nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alphabet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alphabet.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

US real compensation per hour

I am interested in seeing that data showing the real compensation per hour in the US. I've searched and searched the BLS website for employee compensation data, but I can only find it back to the year 1986. I'll like to find the data going back to the '60s, at least. A few months back, I saw an chart in Economic history of the United States that showed the real compensation per hour from 1947 to 2005. The chart has now been deleted from Wikipedia (apparently due to license issues), but I tracked you down as the person who originally uploaded it. Can you tell me where I can find the data? --SirEditALot (talk • contribs) 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

you can find it at Citizendium, an encyclopedia for adults, written by scholars not teenagers. :) The chart was prepared by the Federal Reserve and is not copyright. Rjensen (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw you marked that image as public domain over there but I belive this is not the case, I'll be leaving on a trip today so I cant follow up on this but I'll leave you a couple of links: [[4]] [5] [6]

The WP article states that the fed banks are mixed insitutions so the standard copyright clause that deals with US agencies might not apply to them and as you can see, both the St. Louis and the NY branches limit the reuse of their content to non-comercial uses, which implies that the content is not in the public domain since PD has no restrictions... In any case I leave this to your better judgment, Cheers! RIP-Acer (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

John Morton Blum's Little Book on the Republican Roosevelt

Thanks for adding it as a reference in the article on the TR presidency. Often overlooked but quite good for as small as it is! SimonATL (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks. Blum was my teacher and I almost did a dissertation on TR. (I worked on McKinley instead!) Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation for tax burden statistic in New Deal

Hi. Can you help me find a source to cite for the statistic "only the richest 3% paid any income tax before 1942." that you added to New Deal on 2 April 2006? Thanks. Chkno (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In 1940, 4.0 million people paid any federal income taxes (for calendar year 1939), out of 130 million population. By 1943 (tax year 1942) there were 37 million returns (of which 28 million paid any taxes) Statistical Abstract 1946 p 321. Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! But, for 1918-1924, this table shows rates greater than 3%, peaking at 5.18% in 1920. Only 1925-1939 are at or below 3%. Chkno (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

the article is only about the New Deal. Rjensen (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 16:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lbj1964.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lbj1964.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gop-plank.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Gop-plank.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I-95

On the speeders listening to Illegal Immigration radio talk shows... That was a great analogy !!! A Thumbs up !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CallmeDrNo (talk • contribs) 05:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks :) Rjensen (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

American Revolution GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed American Revolution and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding loan talks (germany post war)

I have a question that perhaps you as a former historian can answer. Some background: The best research on the Morgenthau plan I've found so-far is this paper: Frederick H. Gareau "Morgenthau's Plan for Industrial Disarmament in Germany" The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Jun., 1961), pp. 517–534 Here Gareau explains how the plan was longterm policy, it won the day at the Potsdam conference thanks to the political bent of the U.S. delegation, and then gradually was watered out, although its effects lasted well into the 50's.

There were two main turning points, one was the September 1946 speech which most reputable historians have rightly labeled as the primary turning point, see also John Gimbel "On the Implementation of the Potsdam Agreement: An Essay on U.S. Postwar German Policy" Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 87, No. 2. (Jun., 1972), pp. 242-269.

The second main turning point was Hoovers March 1947 report where he candidly stated "There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It can not be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it.", as for example used here. This report in a convoluted way led to the occupation directive being rescinded.

I found this paper, released in 2006 on the UK government secret discussions from 21 October 1946, where they pretty much prove that the historians who saw the Byrnes speech as one of the pivotal point were right. I.e. "b) U.S. policy was pastoralising (Morgenthan) until Stuttgart speech. They supported R. & Fr. case - to point of reducing steel prodn to 5.8 m. tons. And during Loan talks, cdn´t oppose them too strongly." "...They forced us to 5.8 m. - but all experience has shown we were right on APW Cttee in our figure of 11 m. " "Before this was completed I had seen Byrnes (before Stuttgart speech) & asked wtr. this meant he wd. overthrow Morgenthau policy. He said yes - with Truman´s authy."

What buggs me is that I would like to know more about the "And during Loan talks, cdn´t oppose them too strongly." Which loans was it that the U.S. so strongly opposed? Any ideas on this? i presume they were some sort of reconstruction loans for Germany that the Morgenthauers in the U.S. administration wanted no part of? Regards--Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:1980Anderson.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:1980Anderson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 15:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Loyalists

== Headline text ==I have to know more about Loyalists for my school project itf you can but more up or i can go to ask.com and then fact monster._{Subscript text} °° … —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.84.166 (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt FAR

Theodore Roosevelt has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:1980Anderson.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1980Anderson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:GROWTH1850.JPG

You created this chart which is now used in four Wikipedia pages. However, the iamge page gives no indication of where you obtained the data from to create the image. Could you update that page with source/s? Thanks. Rmhermen (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of article on Clay Blair questioned

This is to inform you that I have added a tag disputing the neutrality of article Clay Blair that you largely wrote. It's apparent that you have strong opinions about the Korean War that differ from the author. However, rather than addessing historical issues, what has been created is a bio treatment that is unsubstantiated slurs about his formal education and his scholarship, while, for example, omitting highly laudatory quotes about his work from respected sources. Moreover, half the article focuses on a single one of his couple dozen books and hundreds of articles, so, in any case, it represents only a fraction of what he accomplished.

67.169.126.47 (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Illinois History lists

I seem to remember that you had a role in creating the list at History of Illinois#Famous Illinois People which formed the basis of List of people from Illinois. I was trying to de-redlink some of them, but I haven't found much information on William Kohlsaat, newspapers or Benjamin Rusk, medicine. Could you elaborate on the "newspapers" and "medicine" descriptions for those to help narrow down their role in the History of Illinois? People don't like to see redlinks in those lists because anons like to add themselves or other non-notables to them. Could you please clarify those two before they are deleted again? I'd like to keep them if they are notable since the list seems to be trending towards recent musicians and actors. Thanks. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE.

HI; I JUST WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF SOME HOW I CAN GET A COPY OF THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE NEWS PAPER DATED TUESDAY APRIL 16/1912 AND IF SO FOR HOW MUCH ETC.ETC. ALSO,IF BY ANY CHANCE YOU CAN RPOVIDE ME WITH ANY INFORMATION ON HOW TO GET A COPY OF THE BOSTON POST DATE;THURSDAY APRIL 19/1906,THE EVENING STAR,APRIL 12/1945 AND THE HERALD CHICAGO WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 6/1933. I REALLY APRECIATE VEERY MUCH ANY INFORMATION YOU CAN PROVIDE ME WITH REGARDLESS TO THIS INQUIER SINCE I DON'T KNOW WHERE ELSE TO GO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH IN ADVANCE.

                                 ORIAJ22@AOL.COM  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.126.5 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 

paper copies are hard to find, Big libraries in New York have microfilm copies. Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting Changes to Milton Friedman Article

I've requested a reassessment of the good article status of the Milton Friedman article based on lack of neutrality, and have added a POV tag to the article. Please join the discussion, if you are interested. Thanks. Jdstany (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Mexican - american war

In regard to the intro on this article. First of all, the fact that the desertion rate was the highest in U.S. history for a foreign war is actually just that, a fact. It is statistically accurate and it really isnt any editor on wikipedias place to make arbitrary assessments based on numbers for other wars. Also I'd like to point out that the figure of up to 4,000 U.S. military defectors is in the reference given(I think I made that clearer in my latest edit). ʄ!•¿talk? 03:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

there are a million facts about the war and Wiki can only handle the most important ones. This "fact" is a constructed one that misleads readers into thinking it was high (it was actually a below average rate) and may have been included as POV. For example it does not compare wars fought in North America (where desertion to home was possible) -- in WWi, WWii, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq etc desertion did not allow a soldier to come home. As for the 4000 figure, let's see the exact quote from the source. Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Rjensen, seriously. If you want to talk about POV there is only one person pushing one here — you(a misguided pro-american one). It's a very well etablished fact, and whats more you are even trying to say I am being misleading about something I have actually included in my edits! I made it clear it was a figure for foreign wars, not including civil wars, etc. And whats more it is high, the highest ever in fact, that's why its notable enough to be included in the intro. As for giving you the "exact quote", that would be an infringment of copyright. I can easily find other idential references. There are a million other things to edit war over, don't do it over known and easily verifiable facts. ʄ!•¿talk? 05:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

exact quotes are not an infringement of copyright. can you paraphrase what the author says, and what his evidence is?Rjensen (talk) 00

18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman radical

Hello--I appreciate your tweaking the Milton Friedman lead. I was really just giving that as an example, not meaning to put too much weight on the one sentence. In any case, I think your tweak still leaves the wrong impression. Much of what Friedman supported is still considered radical (legalizing recreational drugs, eliminating the FDA...), and recognizing that kind of thing is what's missing from the article.

It's not a big deal to me right now, if I find a good source I'll likely implement such a change myself. I was just trying to clarify why the article could be considered to have an overall POV problem. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

good points. but "radical" has problems (it often means "left-wing"). Rjensen (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10