User talk:JW1805/Archive 2

Naming of Civil War

I'm not sure why you don't think that the term "Second War of American Seccession" isn't used, but I've seen it in literature regarding the period, and the Southern States certainly viewed it in such terms, if not by that exact name. Sure, it's not as popular a term as, say, the "Civil War," but it is in use and contains historical context.

MSTCrow 22:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• See: Talk:Naming the American Civil War--JW1805 (Talk) 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"That is POV crap. What on earth is 'Social Inequality'"

Hi, just letting you know that your language is offensive! Talk:United States#Minimum wage and taxes.--sansvoix 09:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

...Social Inequality

• Responded at User talk:Sansvoix.

Could you please stop reverting the edit. I didn't write it, and I'm not taking sides, but it is properly referenced, and "Social Inequality" IS a legitimate term! It is not fair for you to delete an entire paragraph because it rubs you the wrong way.

...And because you asked, "offenseive to whom?" on my talk page, I'm just letting you know that in society stating things such as "that is crap" and "what on earth?" is considered anti-social, and it alienates anyone you are supposedly trying to work with, who might hold a different opinion!--sansvoix 21:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Social inequality is a valid term used by millions of economists, social scientists, political scientists, historians and sociologists. And yes the US is regarded as having an appalling history of social inequality internationally. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edits on Talk:United_States#Proposed_Removal_of_City_Pop_Chart

Please do not do that agian, it is helpfull for people who do not wish to read through all the debate. We are not signing the items, as it is simply a repeat of what was stated in the lengthy debate, for your benifit. Most of the comments are "mine" but that is because I copied them from the debate--and other people have edited them since!! None of the other people involved in that debate had a problem with the summary, in fact they participated in it, as it is a VALUABLE TOOL in understanding the topic at hand!

Your comments on my talk page were also very cynical and negative. Please try to work in good faith.--sansvoix 04:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Ottoman Empire template

You wrote: "rvt. wide templates like this usually go a the bottom of page". I had the same impression. Please see my message at User talk:Tommiks#Ottoman Empire. The guy seems to take a vacation. Please add your comment to mine, so thet he will not be especially surprized. mikka (t) 20:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Declaration of Independance

Actually the Lee resolution was delegates to a commity in mid June. On July 2 the document that the commity put forth was addopted.

Only two delegates signed on the fourth, and then most others signed on the second of August.

My source for the date of the addoption of the DoI is John Adam's writings, and my source for Hancock and Bartlet signing of the fourth is the World Book Encyclopedia (though I've read this in other places too). Yank 00:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• That is not correct. Responded at User talk:YankeeDoodle14 --JW1805 (Talk) 02:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble finding the book that supports my Hancock-Bartlett signing assertment. I'll try to get back to you on that.

However you may remember the quote of Adam's, to the effect of July second will go down in history for the celebration of independance. Again, I'll try to find the exact statement.

Nope, the draft of the Declaration was finished by then.

Democratic-Republican Party (United States)

Thanks for your vigilance at the Democratic-Republican Party (United States) article. It appears some of the posters have a political agenda. Did somebody go through and change references to the Demo-Republican Party throughout wiki? If so, let's you and me put together a strategy for changing it back. Again, thanks for your work. GriotGriot

Rjensen has made a hash out of this article too: History of the United States Democratic Party. I wanted to call your attention to it. I'm going to see about fixing this in the days ahead. GriotGriot

FYI--Rjensen is folling around again with the Democratic-Republican Party (United States) article. Griot 22:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Griot

Thanks again for helping me keep Rjensen in line. This guy is all over the map. I believe he reads out-of-date history books for pleasure and copies long block quotes into Wikipedia whenever he comes across anything interesting. I also detect a conservative political agenda behind his edits. Griot

JW -- I did some major editing of the Democratic-Republican Party (United States) article today, cutting out the block quotes and generally tightening everything. I hope you will support me in this. I expect RJensen to join the fray. Griot 15:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Scholarly" sources

Will you please stop blanking key information in the bibliographies! Wiki rules say that we should follow the standards of the discipline--in this case history. History makes a big deal about "primary" and "secondary" and about "scholarly" and "popular" sources. I write popular books myself but students should be using scholarly books in their termpapers. Wiki should help them, so please don't remove the accurate designations. Rjensen 20:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Other issues

Rjensen is constantly rerverting my edits and calling me a vandal. If I make a whole lot of edits, and some of them include my zapping questia, Rjensen just rv's the whole article. He's unwilling to consider wikipedia policy as if his ideas are universal.

Can you back me up here? —Markles 03:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Questia

I notice you've reverted some References (BTW, it's always plural, whether there are multiple entries now or not) that have Questia links. Is that really an MoS policy? That site provides online access to a number of books and allows limited searching through the text for nonsubscribers. I would certainly agree that we shouldn't link to Amazon because they are primarily a bookseller, but Questia's a gray area. (I actually subscribe to it myself; pretty useful.) Hal Jespersen 15:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree completely with JW1805 that Questia references are inappropriate. Questia is a bookseller even if they provide some free services. They are a very good resource, but linking to them shouldn't be allowed.—Markles 15:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I thought you'd like to see this: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#January 30, 2006. —Markles 14:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Du Pont family edit

In wrting about this family I am trying to address the particular problem of how a couple of dozen prominent and "encyclopediac" people are related to each other, particularly as their familial relationships are critical to their historical role. Genealogical information about this family is not "an indiscriminate collection of information," and is certainly "for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." In this case the family as a whole is the subject, along with a couple of dozen individuals. Good articles about those individuals neccesarily must include much genealogical information, and my intent was to avoid duplicating it on each article, but simply referencing the family article. In many ways the Du Pont family is like a European royal family, and in fact, you will find articles on ancestors and descendents of royal families in Wikipedia, see Elizabeth II. Perhaps I have erred in including too much genealogical information, but honestly leaving it out would seem like "an indiscriminate 'omission' of information."

Having said all this, I understand your concern, and have debated it myself. What do you think would be a good way to meet all the objectives?

stilltim 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

succession box at Thomas McKean

Because

• 1) I think that's the part of the article it's most relevant to,
• 2) because it gets lost down in the bottom of the article along with all the other templates, and because
• 3) I can't find any policy that says I can't do it.

And I'm not sure I understand why you continue to work the du Pont issue after I made a very substantial effort to address your concern. stilltim 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• It makes all the sense in the world for the reasons I have given, and does nothing to disrupt the consistent look of the articles. It still follows the verbal part of the article and only preceeds other reference information and templates. What makes no sense is a slavish dedication to repeating a convention that produces an inferior product. How about giving it some serious thought for a while? Like I have seriously considered (and implemented) many of your thoughts. stilltim 03:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Human rights portal

Portal:Human rights I, Lucinor, creator of the Portal:Human rights, invite you as editor of Human rights-related articles to start contributing to aforementioned Portal.

--Lucinor 12:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hunting of the Snark - Truth Revealed

Hi, I saw your last post on the Talk:The Hunting of the Snark page, I uploaded an image which should help clear up all the insanity over the "interpretations". Carrol never divulged enough information regarding the Boojum, however I believe Henry Holiday added an easter egg by hiding his interpretation of the Boojum along with the fate of the Bake in his last illustrated lanel - see for yourself. Piecraft 11:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

POV editor

Recently I came across User:Rjensen, and his consistent string of POV edits, and noticed that you have had some conflict with Rjensen in the past. Is this guy really relied on by some editors as an authoritative source of historical fact somewhat often, as he seems to be? I mean, look at this. If you continue to have conflict with Rjensen, I would support an Rfc if you chose to post one. Just FYI. - Jersyko·talk 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Jersyko sent me the same message as what's posted here ↑, and I'm considering and RFC.—Markles 01:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Rjensen

Can you please give me some help? You, and some other users have been having trouble with Rjensen and now he's causing more problems. See User_talk:Markles#Rjensen.—Markles 13:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem

Go ahead and delete my comments. I've already blocked both sockpuppets. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi; I saw the AfD. I think redirects are handled at WP:RFD. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Zephram Stark

That explains a lot; I've encountered the unhinged Mr Stark before. Reverting his edits is usual practice in cases like this, but not usually Talk page material. Still, there's nothing there that will be any great loss. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a photo

Hey, I was hoping you could help me out with something. I've never gone through the process of getting a photo deleted. I think that this photo Image:Janica.jpg should be deleted as its taken directly from the CBC web site. Would that be a speedy delete or an image for deletion? Sue Anne 23:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Self promotion

Hey give me a break-- I have NOT violated the Wiki rules about "Vanity information can come in many forms. It can come in the form of an entire article, or it can come in more subtle, but equally unencyclopedic advertising links, personal page links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other information that appears to be intended to distract readers away from the main topic of any article towards the promotion of personal or commercial interests." DISTRACT READERS --not me: I am pointing them to lots of useful sites related to political etc topics. (These sites, which I did indeed design, were sponsored by several foundations, especially the Dirksen Foundation and the NEH.) Rjensen 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Conversations

I am entirely comfortable with carrying on conversations with whomsoever I chose. Before reverting those contributions, read them, and see if there is anything even faintly trollish, offensive or otherwise objectionable about them. And if (as I suspect) you find there isn't, pause for a moment, and consider this:

If a tree falls in a forest but no one hears it, does it make a sound?

Depending on your answer, you might then just think it best to leave things well alone.

Well, it's just a thought. ElectricRay 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

JW, I checked the Admin noticeboard, and taking heed of your concerns I have removed the "offending" images, and have adopted all of the content the authorship of which you objected to, as my own. I'm not a banned user, nor is any of the content, of itself, objectionable. Presumably now it need not be reverted or deleted? ElectricRay 17:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Doug Moe (writer)

I had a look at this article. I've never heard of this writer, but he has several books listed on Amazon UK and Amazon US, which seem to be well received, and he gets plenty of non-Wikipedia Google Hits. The article seems to be factual, written from a neutral point of view, and of commensurate length with the notability of its subject. What's the objection to the article? ElectricRay 17:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Generations template

Could you please sort out Rjensen who is constantly deleting the template from the articles of Third Great Awakening, Culture war, Second Great Awakening and First Great Awakening. I have tried to discuss it with him but he continues to disregard any relevance that these time-periods had on the American generations of which the generations have taken their names! —This unsigned comment was added by Piecraft (talk • contribs) 21:27, March 21, 2006.

guarana, guaranine, banned and sockpuppets

I'm too new to have learned how to know who is banned and who are his/hers sockpuppets. Are all those reverting chemical info with references to databases sockpupetts of a banned user? I don't know what's their agenda, but guarana extracts or drinks are to guaranine like tea is to teine, coffee is to caffeine, and mate tea is to mateine. All current chemical official databases used by the NLM and the ACS define as synonyms: guaranine, mateine, mateina, teine, teina, caffeine, cafeina. What can I do so the chemistry prevails, as it should in an encyclopedia? Jclerman 02:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Time of the Seasons

Well, it was very summery. ElectricRay 17:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest on Stark

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Zephram Stark sockpuppets. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RE:States

I have based my formatting on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states. There is a section under 'template' that states:

• introduction: statement that it is a state of the United States, (note internal link to U.S. state), the U.S. Post Office abbreviation for the state, (e.g. MA, TX, etc.), the official (long) name of the state (e.g. "Commonwealth of Massachusetts"). Add "Order of entry into Union," and for the first 13 "Order of ratification of the Constitution." When available, add a picture of each state-designed quarter.

Most of the information I have seen in the opening has been stuff that should be categorized somewhere below, or is a duplication of something in the main body of the article. I also think it makes it more presentable and easier to read since the Table of Contents is pulled up closer to beginning of article. Even in the above suggested introduction, I think it's a bit wordy, since USPO abbr. is always in the table at the right, as is Order of entry.

I just don't like to see duplication of information; if you feel differently, maybe we can come to a consensus and update the project format. My main goal is to make the format of the states look essentially the same... Civil Engineer III 02:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Texas

Can I keep reverting if it's only those troublemakers doing it? --SR Bryant 20:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting that. I've followed the link that Jayjg gave you and put all of Stark's articles on my watchlist. --SR Bryant 02:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Homer

I am sorry. I seem to have acted prematurely. this image shows that "Homer" is to the left of "Hesiod", aligning with the labels "right" and "left" on the plaque images. Sorry for the mixup and thank you for paying attention :) dab (ᛏ) 17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm paranoid

Relax, it's not everyone, just Zephram. ElectricRay 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)