User talk:Rjensen/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

/Archive 28.

the latest archive is Archive28 as of 14 Feb 2017

Reference errors on 25 December

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

• On the Presidency of Harry S. Truman page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

your recent actions

a polite warning:

you are tread a very fine line on "wiki-stalking", not to mention "pointy" editing.

consider this a friendly suggestion that you back off', & find work to do, that doesn't involve lurking my contribs list & reverting my edits on articles you have little or no other history on.

next step is to file a complaint, fair notice.

Lx 121 (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Stalking?? No I am following articles to which I made a lot of contributions in the last 10 years and which I care about. like Jackson (92 edits by me), Calhoun (87) JS Adams (34) McKinley (21), Giving readers impressions of helpless invalids is very bad POV in illustration policy, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

aaand that is called "nnpov" on your part! ^__^ (even AFTER you re-edited your comment) please read wp:npov to see how to avoid it.

and how, exactly does the mckinley photo show him as a "helpless invalid"? or EVERY SINGLE ONE of the six john calhoun photographs.

AND your last interest in the mckinley article was circa dec 4, unless that was you doing the anonymous edit(?), then you suddenly turned up right after i restored the longstanding photo.

just like you did on the john calhoun piece,

etc.

& btw; i find some of your edit on mckinley to be highly questionable.

why are you removing relevant, sourced material "en mass"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_McKinley&type=revision&diff=753180046&oldid=752912644

Lx 121 (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I watch every edit made on McKinley. I spent years researching and writing a major scholarly book about his COLORFUL era in which he was the main character. Rjensen (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Huh, that's a strange situation. Lx has a contentious RFC open on whether photos or paintings are more accurate – and by raw count, Lx is losing that RFC – but somehow has decided that the most urgent thing to do was to revert other editors twice in the last week over a photo at the lead of William McKinley – an article he'd never touched before.

I've checked the talk page, and I don't see a word from Lx or anyone else about that image. In fact, contrary to the assertions above, the one that Lx reverted to is not the long-standing image (i.e., the one that was in the lead during the FAC process and stayed there without dispute or even comment for years); it's just one that was added without discussion eight months ago.

Yes? -- & if you go back through that same edit history, the lede image has been a PHOTOGRAPH since at least 2012; 500 EDITS AGO. Lx 121 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been wondering whether Lx has annoyed enough editors during this discussion that this might turn into a TBAN proposal against Lx changing or discussing images. This kind of edit-warring-while-losing-the-RFC behavior could increase the likelihood. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• comment you are a little trigger-happy with that ban-hammer there; when you are the editor under review for something, or rfa, or whatever, please do be sure to inform me? i want to make sure i can wp:agf you right back. Lx 121 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree--he seems to have a fixation on photos even if they are heavily retouched. The root idea may be that machines produce 'truth' and humans produce 'pov' and whether they are painters of yesterday or Wiki editors of today their false ways should be blocked. Rjensen (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

He called for a decision at Village Pump and got one--and rerfuses to accept it: It reads: The community rejects the assumption that all photographs would necessarily be better lead images than paintings or drawings. The consensus is instead that lead images should be chosen on a case-by-case basis by consensus following discussion on each article's talk page. Rjensen (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

actually, NO the only consensus was to reject the proposal.

there was no consensus on alternatives.

& one of "your crew" subsequently made a counterproposal on image use policy, which was also shut down.

so the score you are keeping is null:null.

15:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

& there is now a talk-page section on mckinley, so you can repeat your same thesis all over again, & i can c&p & link the responses to it, by me & other users, from the last 4+ times we've done this.

but you might want to think about fighting this battle when every other presidential bio for 50+ years back & 100= years forward uses a photograph of the person as lede Lx 121 (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling for a debate at Village Pump, & being disruptive during it, and rejecting the results sets you up for a permanent ban for disruption. I note you never actually tell us the features you see in the photo and why you insist color is so unimportant in people's faces & hands. Rjensen (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

I Can't Find the Material to Which You (kindly) Gave Me a Link

Greetings Rjensen. Thanks for the notice on my talk page:

"There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. you're perfectly innocent but it's time ANI handled it. Rjensen (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"

I went to your link today, but didn't find anything significant related to such an issue. Perhaps you can tell me how to find it. Thanks again (PeacePeace (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC))

it's been closed. you can find it in page's latest archive 12:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Haitian Revolution

I deleted "racial" from "hostility against the French" because French is not a race. Perhaps you will revise it to clear this up?

Avocats (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)±

it was anti-white & whites there were mostly french. at the time people spoke of the "french race" Rjensen (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rjensen!

Happy New Year!

Rjensen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Coughlin

I've started a thread at the BLP-notice board. I'm probably "required" to notify you, so here you go. Hope this is nice and "civil" enough for you. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

no you don't quite have "civility" under control. The civility rules require a discussion first on the talk page which you have ignored. Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

RFA

I had to revert your edit here because it resulted in newlines being removed. Figured I'd let you know so that you can go back and re-vote. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Rjensen (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential changing WASP party affiliation

Hi; I'm the guy whose edit to the article on WASPs you just reverted. Judging by your bio, you seem to be an authority on the subject, so I thought I'd ask: might it be true that general WASP allegiances are shifting? I ask because of the socially liberal and economically moderate-right views discussed in the article, which would put them strongly at odds with the Republican Party of late; and because, as I mentioned in my edit, many famous WASP areas (coastal New England, the Chicago North Shore, large West Coast cities, etc.) have become near-unassailable Democratic bastions in the past thirty years or so. If you don't have the time to discuss it here, could you point me toward a good history book or two that would help shed light on the matter? I'm quite interested in the subject. 205.175.98.121 (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

good question! the WASP element has lost power & influence across the board--but they still vote Republican i think. The upscale neighborhoods now have a lot of Catholic, Asian & Jewish residents who are liberal Democrats. In terms of WASP republicans, think Bush family, and yes Donald Trump & family. also Romney, McCain (his grandfather & father were famous 4-star admirals)--go back a ways and add Quayle (richest family in Indiana) & Goldwater (who was a WASP leader in Arizona & never associated with Jewish community), Rockefeller. Henry Cabot Lodge, Scranton....[GOP leaders not in the WASP heritage = Paul Ryan, Bob Dole, Reagan, Nixon). Rjensen (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Free trade as a Cold War weapon

To sum up a bold question briefly, Can the free trade movement of the 1980s & 90s (such as NAFTA) be considered an outdated Cold War strategy?

Marshall Plan for instance says, The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous again, and prevent the spread of communism.

In the early 1980s, when NAFTA was being proposed, the USSR & Cuba were fomenting revolution in El Salvador and Nicaragua, but everyone on both sides 'eyes on the prize' was Mexico. NAFTA was proposed to make the US-Mexico competative with the EU which had already done away with trade barriers. The Soviet Union collapsed too suddenly, and the wheels of NAFTA were in motion.

Main point: many in the EU and US are now discovering it was a mistake to view free trade as an end itself and a permanent so!ution. Nobs01 (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No i don't think so. EVERYONE noticed the collapse of Soviet-style Communism in 1989-91 and US policy makers saw no need to continue containment. Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Post-war Britain for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Post-war Britain is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-war Britain until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Nevé–selbert 02:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Portugal during World War II

Your independent views on the ongoing discussing on the article Portugal during World War II would be appreciated. J Pratas (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC) PleaseJ Pratas (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Economy of the United Kingdom

Hi Rjensen, you might have missed my talk page post about whether responses to economic change should be included in the article. It can be found here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

let's keep it because RS consider it an important aspect of deindustrialisation--they give it a lot of attention because it is a long-term result with major impact (eg on BREXIT or on Trump vote). Rjensen (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hayes and George

I agree with you about removing that line from Rutherford B. Hayes about him being a Georgist. It's certainly not indicated by anything he did as President. But I thought you'd be interested to know that Georgists claim Hayes as one of them based on a source, if a weak one: there's one line in his post-presidential diary where he says Henry George has some good ideas. Clearly, that's not enough to call the man a Georgist, but I think it's interesting and sheds some light on his thinking. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

agree. I read his diary too. Hayes diary states that he does NOT support George's single tax scheme. Hayes read widely AFTER he retired, including George's best seller. Definitely not a "Georgist" in my reading. Rjensen (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Stalin

If you don't understand mathematics, ask.Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

please tell us what a "sine function" in USSr looks like. Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Kay Summersby

I see that you say that my self-published book on Kay's relationship with Ike is "not a reliable source". I'd therefore be grateful if you'd suggest a publisher to me!

Yours

Kieron Wood http://irishbarrister.com/book.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6AA2:D500:74AF:2417:8D66:506C (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules ban the use of all self-published books as reliable sources. Publishers who like Ike include: William Morrow, Lexington Books and Harper. Have your agent contact them. Rjensen (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"Old line"

Hi, I've never heard "old line" used to describe socialists, and its meaning is unclear. Is there another way of expressing what you mean? DuncanHill (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

it's pretty standard for historians: here's 1000+ cites to the scholarly literature. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22old+line+socialists%22 It means a commitment to pre-1914 programs for worker control of industry, dialectical materialism, trade unionism, nationalization of industry, and social welfare. Here's a cite: "The New Left wanted to go beyond the old-line socialists, with their basis in dialectical materialism, trade unionism, nationalization of industry, and social welfare." Rjensen (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it standard for American historians? It is certainly not standard in British usage, and will not be widely understood. The article is about British history, so ought to be comprehensible to British readers. DuncanHill (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I provided a definition. Readers can learn something new. But the cites are there over the last 100+ years : 1) A History of the British Labour Party (2008) "[in 1992 John] Smith was happy to continue, and indeed accelerate, the shift back to the old line that a fairer society had to be paid for by economic growth, as opposed to the 'tax and spend' option ", 2) Modern England by Webb (1968) "in the Labour party...the Socialist League helped to widen, if not to create, a gulf between the old-line trade unionist socialists..." 3) The New Republic (1947) " It has been opposed by one group of old-line Socialists in the pacifist tradition, and by another in opposition to Bevin's...." 4) The Economist (2000) " within mature democracies such as Britain.....is not about that but about 'relative poverty', a propaganda device of the unreconstructed old-line socialists." 5) U.S. News & World Report (1997) Tony Blair " comes off as a fresh figure who has dragged his party— once a bulwark of old- line socialism— firmly into the political..." 6) The Forum (1910) "there are the unbending old-line Marxists in England, but it is impossible to give any estimate of their number," 7) Current History (1921) "The British press reported the sessions of the convention in full detail, ....The international congress of old- line Socialists, whose organization is known as the Second International, ..." 8) British Labor and the War: Reconstructors for a New World (1919) Page 43 by Paul Underwood Kellogg, ?Arthur Gleason - "The old-line Socialists in England had, in truth, been split by the great war into two groups..." etc Rjensen (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of those American? Seriously, why do you insist on using language alien to the subject? I'll add that a book about documentary films probably isn't the best source for a sweeping assertion about British Socialism anyway (you'll know the quotation about Labour owing "more to Methodism than Marxism"), but really to insist on using Americanisms in an article about Britain just looks shoddy. DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

And your first cite above is not to how you are using it anyway. DuncanHill (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"Alien" is wrong --I think you mean "unfamiliar." There are a lot of American historians of the UK and of socialism who use the terminology, and we are looking for a global readership rather than just Brits reading it. Rjensen (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No, "alien" is what I meant - "foreign". Why not replace "old line" with "traditional", as that is what you appear to mean (again with my caveats about your interpretation being a profound misrepresentation of socialism in Britain)? DuncanHill (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh I think Brits can handle a few Americanisms without anguish. Lots os American authors sell books in the UK. As for "a profound misrepresentation of socialism in Britain" -- that is serious. what do you mean?? Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

We handle some Americanisms ok, but not ones that are confined to one academic specialism. We also manage to fix your spelling, incorrect titles ("Earl of Spencer"), and calling universities "schools" without too much difficulty. As for the other, you seem to be using the article to equate Labour and the unions with a form of Marxism that was far from the mainstream of either. You don't come out and say it outright, but the way you phrase certain things - the "old line" section for example, and the way you juxtapose certain statements seems to me to have that effect - . Bevan as a "militant socialist"? Not how I think he was or is seen here, and to many (not just in the traditional left) "lower than vermin" was one of his finest moments, not something he failed to live down. You also introduce positive adjectives ("erudite") about extreme right-wingers like Enoch Powell, as well as giving him a leadership role in the Tories which he never had. DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I follow the mainstream scholarship: 1a) On Bevan: Bentley B. Gilbert - Britain Since 1918 (p 168) "The intellectuals, on the other hand, tended to be militant socialist ideologists who were impatient with the more modest working-class objectives of social insurance and ... Within the cabinet the socialist purists were led by Aneurin Bevan." 1b) Kenneth Morgan, Labour in Power p 57 says "Bevan alone kept the flag of left-wing socialism aloft throughout — which gave him a matchless authority amongst the constituency parties and in party conference." 2a) Vermin: "Like Bevan, Kinnock has always had a tendency to let his mouth run away with him. For example, his remark about Mrs Thatcher glorying in other people's guts during the Falklands War almost matched Bevan's 'lower than vermin' jibe." [Davies, To build a new Jerusalem: the British Labour movement from the 1880s] 2b) The Economist (1974, reviewing Foot) " His Tory-party-lower- than-vermin jibe hung round his and his party's neck" 2c) See Foot v 2 p 238 where Atlee privately denounces Bevan and says there has been a good deal of criticism from inside Labour. 3) you say that Enoch Powell was not erudite?? (In 1937, at age 25, he was made Professor of Greek at the University of Sydney). He was stripped of his leadership role as Shadow Defence Secretary because of "Rivers of Blood". He had been Minister of Health from 1960-63 (cabinet 1962-63). Rjensen (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

George Washington Carver edit (back on nov 11th 2016)

Thanks for adding that extra clarification after you reverted the change; it needed that context. Have a good one! TrackZero (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

thank you. Rjensen (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

H.H. Asquith

Are you sure you haven't just got half of The Chancellors? Mine starts with Randolph Churchill in the 1880s and HHA gets the whole of pages 158-164. I've put it back in. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

ok I just noticed that i have vol 2! Rjensen (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Blanking other users' talk comments

You might want to avoid making edits like this[1] per the terms of your editing restriction. Most if not all of your recent blankings were theoretically justifiable on their merits, but in those cases you should notify someone else who can make the choice to blank them. The Talk:African Americans one, though, was a comment in a language that I have to assume you don't read and another comment by someone saying that Google Translate had not been able to tell them whether or not the comment was constructive or not. If another editor has already said they are unsure if a comment should be blanked, you really shouldn't be making the decision for them, and especially not blanking their comment.

I actually didn't want your editing restriction to prevent you from making edits like these, and if you want to make a request for it to be amended to cover only edits where you cite BLP I will support you (heck, I'll make the request myself if you want), but you can't make edits like this under the current terms of your restriction. If nothing else, it's not fair to the rest of us who know we could probably "get away with" making constructive edits in violation of editing restrictions but choose to abide by the restrictions nonetheless.

Note that this edit[2], as unambiguous vandalism, is covered under BANEX and is therefore fine. These edits[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] are mostly borderline as your restriction allows for "non-controversial" changes, which I think is meant to be interpreted as correcting typos but I might be wrong.

Hijiri 88 (???) 10:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

no controversy here--that was deliberately disruptive editing--spam repeated in many articles --he's now been permanently blocked for it. Rjensen (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want to revert banned editors, that's fine, but the above blanking took place 12 days before the account was blocked, at the time you (and Sro23, to be fair) blanked the user's talk page didn't even include a warning about the block they had coming and their block log remained clear for another 12 days, and you blanked another user's good-faith attempt to figure out what the comment meant. If you want to ask Dicklyon if it's okay for you to blank their comment while blanking another comment that you assumed was unhelpful, that's also cool, but you shouldn't be assuming it's okay. You also should not have made the half-dozen other borderline edits. I actually wasn't aware that you weren't the only one to blank that account's edits until just now, but the fact that Sro23 made about a half-dozen similar blankings within a minute of you is just another reason you shouldn't have bothered doing something that is, technically, a violation of your editing restriction. You should have just waited for Sro23 to do it, or perhaps notified them to encourage the to do it. Hijiri 88 (???) 11:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

numerous editors agree that Zemstan95 was engaged in disruptive editing. Zero editors supported him and I assume you also agree he was being deliberately disruptive. I was following the suggestion of Dicklyon who looked into it and first suggested it was inappropriate. The non-controversial Wikipedia policy here is that Talk pages are for discussing the article....This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the XYZ article. I am following that non-controversial rule. Rjensen (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asking for you to be blocked for edits you made before your ban, but similarly you can't use the fact that the account was blocked and its edits mass-blanked two weeks later to retroactively make your blanking uncontroversial. Dicklyon's comment looks to me more like he's not sure if the Farsi comment in question was constructive or not, and unless you read Farsi you are no more qualified to make that judgement than he. Even if the comments are unconstructive, you should not be the one making that call.

And the "Talk pages are for discussing the article" policy cannot be used to determine if blanking a comment, especially one from a new account, will be uncontroversial (since virtually any apparently off-topic comment could be read as "Hey, maybe the article should include this information -- what do you think?"); especially by a user who is explicitly banned from talk page removal or refactoring except what is "minor or uncontroversial".

But I can see I'm not going to get through to you. I had enough IDHT from you in December, so I will drop this for now. If I see you making any more edits that you shouldn't be, I will request someone with more patience talk to you about them.

Hijiri 88 (???) 12:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

People who like to enforce rules should read them very carefully and not make up their own private new rules. In this case Dicklyon raised the issue first. He said the Persian text was meaningless and that it was uncyclopedic; he asked other editors if they agreed. Dicklyon Sro23 and I all were watching the "African American" page and we all immediately agreed the material was unencyclopedic and did not belong. That's consensus. Wiki noncontroversial rules apply here: for the first unencyclopedic edit the rule states: revert uncited or unencyclopedic material. Use an edit summary which describes the problem in non-inflammatory terms. Stay very civil. WP:DDE that's what I did and Sro23 did exactly the same at the same minute. Your pretense that ALL the editors might be wrong about Zemstan95 is not well founded as numerous other editors all later agreed on his many odd edits and unanimously banned Zemstan95 permanently. Rjensen (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31