User talk:Rjensen

You've been leaving notes on talk pages telling people you own the copyright to your additions. Yes, you own the copyright to your contributions, however, you do not allow its use by Wikipedia - you allow everyone the use. I'm leaving this message to make sure you understand what the GFDL means.

When you submitted your edit, it was stated, both on the edit page and on the linked Copyright info page, that all text contributions are automatically licensed under the GFDL, which means that you still own the copyright, but you also relinquish control on what other people may do with your text, without compensation or notification, for profit or for free (but attribution IS required). I'm just making sure you understand this. It's not necessary to advertise your copyright status on talk pages, it's the same as everyone else's. If you have a problem with this then perhaps we should find a way to remove your contributions from the site, since they would be incompatible with our license.

If you have any questions, please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia! (Oh and one final tip - you can easily sign your comments on talk pages by typing ~~~~). --Golbez June 30, 2005 17:15 (UTC)

New Deal

I am deeply sorry about my reversion on the New Deal. I undid your work when I was not even aware of the content of your edits. I am tempted to explain the source of my confusion yesterday; but I really have no excuse for my carelessness and recklessness. 172 08:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey no hard feelings! thanks for the note. RJ Rjensen 08:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Labor history (discipline)

I see that you have worked recently on Labor history of the United States. I have been working on Labor history (discipline) about the development of labour history as an academic subject. If you have anything to contribute, especially about how labor history has developed in the US, I'd be grateful. Mattley 11:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Your essay on labor history discipline is pretty good; I think you should call it "Labour Historiography" which will explain its British cast. I have indeed been following the labor historiography in USA and would be glad to suggest some items. I did a little work on John R. Commons just the other day, and need to say more on his role as historian. As well mention people like Taft and then the new labor history folks (Gutman, Montgomery, Brody, Dubofsky, etc ... I know them personally. Rjensen 12:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheers - I'll try to check out some of those names. I'm not sure about a name change. My impression is that Labour history is principally used to refer to the body of research, writing and interpretation rather than to the actual history of labour - but maybe that is a British and/or academic usage. Anyhow, thanks again. Mattley

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Rjensen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

---

Template:Bizetasks --Pamri • Talk 05:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

India related links

---

India-related tasks | Indian noticeboard Requests: Sibichen K Mathew, Dominic Emmanuel, AK Merchant, Counterfeiting of currency notes in India, Akhand Pratap Singh, Asura (band), Asian Variety Show, Cultural liberalism in India, India Export Tax, India Import Tax, More... NPOV: Greater Nepal Rajneesh, Ranjit Lal Jetley Hedgewar, Puttanna Kanagal, Bride burning, Sonia Gandhi More... Wikify: Railway stations, Mahavidwan R. Raghava Iyengar, Silk in the Indian subcontinent, IDBI Bank More... Cleanup: , Rampur, Tav-Prasad Savaiye, Shipping Corporation of India, Velama, Medical college (India), All India Radio, More... Merge: Raghava Rama, Sammar Bahisht, Sathya Sai Baba movement,More... Expand: Prime Minister of India, Krishna district, List of railway stations in India, Swaraj, Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India (Supreme Court Case), Barak Missile Deal Scandal, 14th Lok Sabha, Adithada, Ali Sardar Jafri, Bandhani work, Bhaiband, Chikan (embroidery), China Town, Kolkata, Rahi Masoom Raza, Energy policy of India, Essar Shipping, Fair use, Hinduism in India, Imperial Bank, Inbuan Wrestling, Iran-India relations, Islam in India, Arjuna award, Sunil Mittal, Save Indian Family, Anjana Sukhani, Rajendra K. Pachauri, More... Stubs: Anand Math, A R Antule, Arjuna award, Army of India, Bapudeva Sastri, Bombay Dyeing, Indian Copyright Act, Marimallappa, Mumbai Skywalk, More... Translate: Bhojpuri Wikipedia articles, Maithili Wikipedia articles, Telugu Wikipedia articles, Marathi Wikipedia articles, Hindi Wikipedia articles, Sanskrit Wikipedia articles, Tamil Wikipedia articles Kannada Wikipedia articles Collaborate: Collaborations of the Month, Notice board, Category Adoptions To do, Version 1.0 assessment, India Portal, Life in India, India quick links Indian Wikipedians, More... Requested images: Ilaiyaraaja, M. S. Subbulakshmi, R. K. Narayan, Free image of Aarti Chhabria Other requests: Add maps from WikiProject India Maps to articles of Indian regions found at List of regions in India Create links/categories to {{Elections in India}} template

--Pamri • Talk 05:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Show preview

I notice that you often do a number of small edits in a row on the same article. This makes for a crowded edit history, and makes users who want to look over your edits page back through a bunch of (generally) slow-loading pages. You can avoid this by using the Show Preview button more often, holding off on hitting Save Page 'til you're pretty sure you're done (just don't forget the final Save).

Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the tip -- I will take the advice Rjensen 03:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I'd like to apologize for my comment yesterday on Talk:The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. It was a lot less personally intended than came out, and it was out of place to begin with. Please see my note on the talk page, and the new vote proposal I've added there. --Woggly 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Request

You have been making large, broad changes to Republican Party (United States). In the future, before you make a wide sweeping change like that, it might be wise to discuss it first on the talk page. You are less likely to be reverted, and we won't lose certain, already agreed upon content. Thank you. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

good point--though in fact I have been leaving comments there. Rjensen 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was specifically commenting on your additions from today (for which there was no discussion). I have seen you comment there, but just want you to keep it up. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

References

I noticed you are changing reference sections labels to "Scholarly Secondary Sources", instead of "References", which is the Wikipedia standard (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style). --JW1805 (Talk) 04:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point: but the Guidelines say: "When writing a new article or adding references to an existing article that has none, follow the established practice for the appropriate profession or discipline that the article is concerning (if available and unquestioned)." In the case of historical articles, that means using the established practice in the history profession, with a term like "Secondary Sources" or "Primary Sources" as well as "Scholarly" and "popular". This is essential help for college students who are required to tell whether or not sources are primary/secondary and scholarly or popular. Rjensen 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• That's fine, but if possible, I would say put them under a "References" heading, with a "Scholarly" or "Popular" or whatever subheading. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Willdo. Rjensen 04:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Need help

We need some help building the Labor unions in the United States page. You wrote some really good section headers and mentioned that you would like to continue writing in the future. I was hoping that my section (comparing America and foreign unions) would be just a small minor part of a larger article. But thus far, no one has come forward. I hope you were not scared away by our heated argument. Your knowledge is needed on Labor unions in the United States! I hope to have my section comparing America and foreign unions to be either moved to another article or be a minor part at the end of a larger article detailing the history of unions. Anyway, any contributions would be welcome.Travb 03:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite--yes I will take you up on it (after the holidays) Rjensen 06:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

minor question

I am glad you took up the invitation.

you wrote: American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since 1932.

The original sentence I took from Amazon said: American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since the nineteenth century

Thanks for the intro--not to nitpick, and I will leave it standing as is, but from my reading the levels of unions is the lowest since the turn of the 20th century--which would correspond with the original. Minor issue, just something I am curious about. I pulled up this article, first one I found on google, and it says the rates of union membership for private employees was:

1900 6.5%

1901 7.7%

1902 9.3%

and

2000 9.0% [1]

Now it is at 8.0%, from last I read... So maybe the correct statment would be American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since 1901? I have read this statment before in a similar form: American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen to levels not seen since the nineteenth century

Again, I will leave the article as is with your new edits, and I will steer away from making filling in these blank portions of the article to avoid any disagreements. Instead, I want to focus on some of the particular strikes too avoid any arguements.

Thanks again for your time. Travb 09:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The numbers you cite leave out farm workers. However they are legitimate targets of union drives and I think they should be included.

Also it inflates membership around 1930-1932 (when many union members were laid off and did not pay dues, but were still counted as legit. Permanently laid off workers are NOT counted today.) SO I count the 1932 numbers around 7-8% if we use today's measurement methods.

This is an example of nit-picking.  :) Rjensen 09:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer--I think I understand what you mean (not)...woosh...(over my head)

Good job on the work on the site, maybe in a few years I will know as much about the subject as you--I think you are the "expert" that I was thinking of when I put the {{expert}} template up. You already are teaching my lots. I will come up with some cheesy award with picutre to give ya. Travb 10:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

hey thanks :) Rjensen 10:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe just the guy to ask

Maybe you are just the guy to ask:

I was in this silly fight a few months ago with this neocon on frontpagemag (before I found wonderful wikipedia) and he mentioned about the unemployment figures in Europe.

Since then, I have heard that the Europeans count there unemployment different than Americans--that the Reagan administration stopped counting workers who stopped looking for work.

If this is the case, what is the estimated change that this had on US unemployment figures? Would US unemployemnt figures then be roughly comparable to European unemployment figures?

At one point I actually looked up all of this on wikipedia, and found some great definitions, but was never able to find any definitive answer. Thanks in advance....Travb 10:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There are small differences, but they matter little. The OECD tries to get comparable data. In every country, to be unemployed you have to be 1) Available and 2) looking. each country defines that slightly differently. "Discouraged workers" (who stop looking) are carefully counted in US; there are not many. It's more likely Americans have two jobs, which is rare in Europe. Rjensen 11:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

on the Roosevelt rewrite -- technical issues

In your editing here, I note that your browser seems to have corrupted the links to languages in non-Roman scripts — replacing good (if unreadable to us anglophones) Unicode text in them with strings of question marks. I'm not sure what's causing this; for smaller edits, you can work around it by editing a single section at a time, but for these article-long rewrites I'm not sure what your options are. ～J.K. 12:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Sorry I did not realize that! (I was doing the editing in Word Perfect) I will try to repair. Rjensen 16:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

John Kennedy

If you feel like the assassination stuff shouldn't be in the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly HAVE been discussing it there. How much of the JFK article do you think should be about Kennedy? I say 100% Rjensen 03:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Scholarly secondary sources

Hi there:

I'm one of the contributors to the Whig Party (United States) article, and I have a couple of comments:

• Please, please, please don't mix in "Scholarly Secondary Sources" in with "References". "References" is supposed to be for items used to construct the article; the articles you're adding should be put under "Further reading" or some other similar topic.
• Also, if there were to be a section labeled "Scholarly secondary sources", only the first word is supposed to be capitalized.

— DLJessup (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

————

OK on capitalization. I've in fact written part of the article and I used ALL of the sources, believe it or not! (I've been reading about Whigs for many years). So I have followed the guidelines exactly. The Wiki usage guidelines say we should follow the practice of the discipline--in this case the history profession. Which I think I adhere to closely. The goal is to help the readers, not puzzle them. So to call an item a scholarly secondary source is exactly correct, and the students who write papers need to know that. Rjensen 03:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

————

Hmmm…. Well, I'll be: there's your contributions, way back on June 29! OK, I've restored your items to the "References" section. Sorry: it appeared to me that you appeared off the street and were just offering suggested reading—your text and your sources were just a wee bit separated in time….

— DLJessup (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

WAY BACK, to a historian like me, means 1844, not last July. :) Anyway it's a pleasure to collaborate on an important article. Rjensen 04:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Samuel Dickstein (congressman)

Rather odd here that people will have total faith in the weirdest stories (Butler-as-dictator) and yet distrust the Archivist of the United States, who was confirmed by the Senate last year. The idea that the Soviets faked their archives? That Weinstein faked archives so that he could attack a forgotten Congressman?? That the Kremlin did not try to get a spy in Congress?

Please don't count me in this list. I disagree with the user fervently. I think, based on the evidence, that he was a spy. I don't want to argue with him though, and get in the middle of this argument that I know little about. This argument just proves that left wing people can be stubborn ideologues too.Travb 19:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. :) Rjensen 19:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

For a striking and funny 2 examples of this, see my criticisms against two ideologues, a left ideologue and a right one.[2] I get in arguments with right wing people more, but I also get in some pretty heated arguments with left wing people too. Travb 19:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is amusing! Rjensen 02:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Italian American

Hi, please do not place ethnicity in the header, just nationality. Thanks Arniep 13:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding edit

Hi again Rjensen. Looks like we have the same interests, you popped up twice on two of my pages.

In regards to this minor edit, I disagree with it, but will leave it.[3] I feel the more information that users have the better, your edit deleted the ISBN number, publisher, and date the book was published. All I ask is think twice before taking out this format in the future. I probably was the person who added this information in this format, it takes a long time to look up all this information (for a good example of a section I changed see: Dick Cheney criticism section. Have a merry Christmas.Travb 19:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi--good to see you again. Sorry about deleting info. Every recent book is readily listed at Amazon.com so no one needs that information, in my opinion, save for rare items. Less is more.  :) Rjensen 20:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Carl Hayden

I defer to you if you knew Hayden - the anecdote was told and re-told over the years on soc.history.what-if and considering the amount of historians that frequent that group i assumed it was true although others did say that Hayden's senility was not as bad - closer to that of late-period Thurmond - than say Groucho Marx near the end of his life. PMA 10:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

18th-century American history

I appreciate your contributions to this project. Your edits have been appearing on many of my watchlisted articles, and they're always good. You have expertise in areas in which I have only interest. That knowledge would be beneficial at a pair of articles which I've found problematic. Black codes and Morrill Tariff. If you have the time and interest to edit them that'd be swell. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the invite! yes I will take you up on that Rjensen 18:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Great work, thanks for your participation. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Questia

Noticed your Grant edits. By sheerest of coincidences, I happened to find and subscribe to Questia just today. Do you think it is appropriate to point people to a website that charges a subscription for accessing material? Wikipedia normally has a more "free material" point of view. Do you know of other such links that have withstood review? Hal Jespersen 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)