17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Reverted edits by Eejit (Talk) to last version by RJJensen
[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:49, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for your fascinating addition to [[Barack Obama]] re: financing. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
== Welcome ==
Welcome indeed to CP! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:18, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
==China==
Chinese history would appear not to be your forte. How describing the fluctuating state of authority in the warlord period counts as 'red propaganda', I am at a loss to understand. Please don't cause damage to other Chinese history articles. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah but I am fairly familiar with 20c Chinese history. the article was full of Red propaganda (not that particular example)--which is bad for a conservative encyclopedia. for examples:
#the very title, and many of the pinyin terms, are the ones created in the 1950s by Communists in Beijing, and not used at the time or by the anti-communists in Taiwan.
#" However, Chiang was aided by the 'Guangxi Clique' of nationally-minded warlords; and the northern progress of the expedition was aided by carefully-timed popular uprisings planned by the CCP against local warlords."
#" Chiang again turned on the communists in the 'Shanghai Coup'. Aided by the police of the International Settlement and the French Concession in the city, and by gunmen of the influential 'Green Gang' criminal network, Chiang's troops and police rounded up and executed hundred of communists and trade unionists"
# "that to build a strong China it was necessary to defeat communism first, to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic."
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
All those are established facts, however unpalatable some of them may be. At Conservapedia we deal in truth, not propaganda. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
In addition, it is a very bad idea to build up Chiang as a conservative ideal type. He was - to put it mildly - an unsavoury and unscrupulous thug, who was portrayed as a democratic leader in the west for the sake of wartime unity, and wwas later loyal to the US as he had no choice but to be so. He was the very opposite of loyal at other stages of his career: vide his flirtation with [[Nazism]], and his cavalier treatment of General Stilwell. In terms of opersonal morality, well.... suffice to say that his avowal of Christianity was purely opportunistic; he presided over a regime of brutality and corruption that alienated all potential allies; he was the sort of man who actually made Communism look like a desirable alternative. How bad do you have to be to do that? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::- ::No, you have to read some of the history. I actually worked through the books in the bibliography. For example, who cliams " to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic." (answer: the far left). The story of the Nanchang uprising ("carefully-timed popular uprisings planned" is from Communist folklore as told to Edgar Snow in "Red Star over China", a notorous far-left book. As for Chiang's character, it is NOT white washed here. He was a rough character and I do not call him democratic. As for Stillwell, I think Chiang and Chennault were mostly right and Stillwell mostly wrong. (My articles on Stillwell and Chennault are coming soon--they are now both at Citizensium--take a look also atmy CBI article there. I have read the major studies for China in the 1940s.). Corruption--alas that is the history of China for the last 150 years, continuously (for example, don't feed your baby on Chinese formula--or feed your cat with their stuff. That is 2008 corrpution.
:::I too know a bit about that period - the Americans backed a loser in Chiang; and the real blame for the fall of China to communism lies with him - not with Service or Lattimore or any of the other John Birch Society bugaboos. Chiang was a late era warlord who used the KMT as a personal vehicle, and whose corruption and nepotism ruined the infant republic. There were better warlords for the west to have dealt with - Yan Xishan at least would have kept his hands out of the till - or Li Zongren. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::well everyone to his own warlord. Fact is Chiang came to power in 1920s and remained so to 1940 with zero American help. I think we agree the US policy to support China in order to defeat Japan was a fiasco (this was Stillwell's idea.) --More on this in my WW2 articles to come. I did not drop the conspiracy interpretation of the late 1940s which was in the article for a months or years.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::''well everyone to his own warlord'' hehe - I once attended a lecture by Jack Gray who was an ardent fan of Wu Peifu. I think his argument was that because he had no fixed territorial power base, this showed not that he had drawn the short straw geographically, but that it meant he was a truly 'national' leader rather than all those regionalist cliques, Zhang Zuolin in Manchuria, Feng in the north-west, etc. I thought it a dubious argument then and still do. But anyway... Chiang held power from the 20s to the 40s, but he certainly relied on Communist help both in 1925-27 (and he was plotted against as much as plotting, I have no doubt), and at the Xian incident. If the Young Marshal had had him put up against a wall, and seized power for himself, rather than bottling it.... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::the happy fact (not yet in the article) is that he created a regime on Taiwan with far less corruption and it historically led to a pro-US nation with capitalism and democracy. As for Christianity, the issue was active persecution of the missionaries. Chiang's highly public conversion helped change the status of Christians and reduced the persecution they sufferedin 1930s. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
== Latino ==
Could we please talk about it before reverting? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::Yes indeed--I have explained my edits. I fixed a several little grammar issues, enlarged the map to make it legible, expanded the caption. We don't want to illustrate a U.S. article with a Mexican coach in Spain. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The image shows a latino, beening in the US or not he is a latino; it is illustrating the very first part of the article. It also shows that not all latinos are illegals or land workers. This is enough to have a place there. The map is much better where it was before according to the subject. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::get a better image. This person is a Mexican living in Spain. The map was to small to figure out. The article makes it very clear that only a minority of latinos are illegal[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
We use to lock the articles while in the Main Page. If you need to edit it, please let me know. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:00, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
::OK, no problem. I won't be working on it for a while. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:06, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
== Warning ==
Please be more accurate in your edit summaries of "minor" edits. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
::sorry about that. I tried to change categories (Bryan was never a jurist) and the result was a bizarre edit I did not intend. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
== Newton ==
Hi, your calculus section in the [[Isaac Newton]] article had some conceptual errors in it -- I've rewritten the mathematics of this section appropriately. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 04:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::very nice job--thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:25, 3 November 2008 (EST)
==National Socialist German Workers Party==
Just to let you know, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, but the listing of the Allies led by the US, Russia and Britain is inaccurate. The term Allies (for WWII) applies to all the countries that opposed the Axis powers, and that list included 21 countries or blocs before the US joined in 1941. Obviously the effort of the Allies had to be co-ordinated in the years between 1939-41 so the question of who led the Allies during WWII is, at best, not something that can be easily dispensed with a single sentence. Furthermore, saying that Russia was an member of the Allies is inaccurate, it was the USSR which was a member of the Allies, of which Russia was a part (an equivalent example would be if the sentence had read that .....by the Allies, led by Texas, Russia and Britain).
As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. [[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)
::the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941. You are right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. The debate should be on the article talk page, not here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Copied the debate over to the talk page.
== ''Germania'' ==
I loved to read your article on the German Americans. Thanks for posting it! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:49, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)
== Roosevelt ==
Why are you deleting sourced material from this article? Remember that the removal of relevant, sourced material from Conservapedia is considered vandalism. Please do not try to insert your own [[opinion]] into articles by censoring [[facts]]. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]] 14:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::the article is supposed to be about FDR and introducing red herrings hurts students. CZ rules clearly state: "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)
==[[Holocaust]] article==
The additions you placed in there now make that article repetative; things are said twice. It needs to be fixed so it runs smoothly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::you're right and I will try to smooth it out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:59, 10 November 2008 (EST)
== Category Military history ==
Thank you for your work on the project. When we create categories we use capitalization so the category should be Military History. I would also recommend that if you do feel that category is important, that it covers a specifically defined area. Perhaps it should probably deal with overlying changes in tactics or doctrine that has guided military functioning that has had a profound impact. I would not use it for things like Wars or Battles which already have their own categories.
Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:32, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::thanks for the tip. I think the demand for article on military history is enormous--look at the very heavy emphasis at Borders and Barnes and Noble, for example. My college courses on military history attracted far more students than other history topics. Of course a specific topic may well overlap several categories. People will want to use our category pages as an index to what is available here. Discussions of tactics, strategy, technology and doctrine, for example, are often included in articles on specific wars. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:41, 15 November 2008 (EST)
== First Black President ==
Hello, please do not censor correct information in the [[First Black president]] article. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::what information was correct? it did not check out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)
I notice you are a controversial editor who has never geneflected before Mr. Schlafly, and neither have you praised his wisdom and judgement in his fascinating revelation that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. Are you a Muslim sir? [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:57, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well actually more of a Catholic (a graduate of Notre Dame University class of 1962).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:01, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Are you more like Barack Obama, a [[Liberal]] who lies about his religion, and then subverts the office of the United States, and then deceives the American people and then institutes an Islamic Caliphate, giving control of our nuclear arsenal to Iran and Bin Laden? If this is what you are, then we are better off without you. [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:05, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well no--but I was hoping Biden would be president--as a Catholic he will bring the Pope over to straighten us all aout. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)
I would rather the pope as my slavemaster than Bin Laden! Obama will, any day now I'm sure, give the nuclear launch codes to all of our enemies - Bin Laden, Iran, Satan, Green Goblin, France - and introduce an Islamic Caliphate to our great and glorious nation! Heel before the almighty Schlafly, only his logic and truth can save the world from the dark precipice it has gotten itself under! Only the bright and free can be saved! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:16, 20 November 2008 (EST)
==English and UK categories==
Question for you at [[Talk:William the Conqueror]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:26, 21 November 2008 (EST)
*Thanks for meeting me there, and now a question on ...
==World War II fatalities==
Thank for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Japan&curid=11154&diff=564889&oldid=555832&rcid=615850 this addition]. I had simply assumed that every Japanes soldier who died in WWII was directly killed by the US and its allies. Except maybe an insignificant number of accidents - oh, and the suicidal heroics of the [[Kamikaze]].
If a soldier dies from starvation, I'd lay that death at the feet of the man who sent him out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:01, 21 November 2008 (EST)
::I was also surprised at the numbers. I knew about the starvation on the isolated Pacific islands but was surprised at China numbers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:10, 21 November 2008 (EST)
== Shays' Rebellion ==
I wander why the ''Block quote'' was deleted? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::it was too vague and did not add information to what was already covered regarding the impact of Shays' on the government. It took a left-wing approach that did not help any. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)
== The so-called Progressive Era? ==
*Sorry for removing a category you only created today, but CP likes to not make stand-alone narrow cats. Somehow we need an over-arching category to easily facilitate searches, and not just one per person. It might be easier to discuss adding categories somewhere, rather than just doing it.....or at least leaving a trail of bread crumbs for the less historically blessed to follow! :-D --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 23:57, 30 November 2008 (EST)
::I agree. We need a page on CP where technical issues can be discussed and conventions established. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)
== Additional privileges ==
Congratulations, you've earned the additional privileges of 24-hour editing, uploading images, and blocking others. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks--I appreciate that! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:55, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Congrats. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:01, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::::Congratulations from me too. Well deserved! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:41, 2 December 2008 (EST)
==Oz pic==
Just uploaded it for the article: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Woz_movie.jpg] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:12, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::thanks--the visuals are great. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)
== [[Barry Goldwater]] ==
I see some recent stretching to include people like Goldwater as libertarians. You are too good a historian to muddle the waters with throw-away lines such as "many of his later views were libertarian". Yes? So? Many of his views would, today, be considered near leftist as well. ''Historians need to resist revisionism''. In his time, by his own definition, Goldwater rejected libertarianism, and self-branded himself a conservative. Goldwater did not believe in abortion as a substitute for abstaining or birth control, nor did he support "abortion on demand". Many views held by even Ted Kennedy could be considered "conservative", but that hardly gives license to brand him one, or make the statement "some of his views are conservative", that would be misleading, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:well I knew Goldater personally since 1958 and followed his career very closely. After 1980 or so he was libertarian on most social issues, while remaining conservative on defense and spending issues. In his heyday as a conservative leader (1960-64) he rarely mentioned social issues and they were seldom on the agenda. Here is what Bill Buckley said of Goldwater:
<blockquote>
''Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.''[http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200412101327.asp from National RreviewDec10, 2004]</blockquote>
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::*Ditto for me. My family were neighbors at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, CA, for several decades. But this is straw snatching, trying to paint the man as a libertarian, by a few high-profile pronouncements later in life, to somehow add cred to the libertarian cause. Find your own hero's, but kindly do not snatch our conservative ones! I do not disagree with showing, with cites, his later libertarian views (many of which I agreed with), but putting him, and others, with the help of another libertarian editor, into the libertarian category, and implying some "conversion" isn't being honest. --[[User:TK|₮K]]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 17:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::Conversion? well, I think Barry was always a libertarian but only became outspoken about it in the 1980s when social issues got high on the political agenda. When he was a leader of the conservative movement (1958-64) he rarely mentioned social issues of any kind--he never mentioned abortion, for example. (he did mention gays in 1964 in the Walter Jenkins scandal--a top LBJ aide was arrested during the election campaign-- but did not condemn it.) His libertarianism after 1980 was not a "few" statements it was his high profile fight to get O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He was at that time a very powerful Senator and his views are quite important. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::*We mostly agree. Just please don't go adding him to the libertarian category, or make it seem he was not a conservative. We are obviously near-contemporary, and no doubt share the acquaintanceship/friendship of many, it seems. However to use your friendship and personal assumptions as to what he was, absent of his repudiating being a conservative, is wrong and purely anecdotal. That is my only objection. --[[User:TK|₮K]]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 17:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm glad we agree. I was not the one who added the libertarian category. But he publicly announced his positions and angered a lot of Arizona conservatives by so doing. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::::I well remember! We should have a libation one day and swap old stories. --[[User:TK|₮K]]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 17:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::::::I'll drink to that. I left Arizona this summer and we moved to Montana, but there's a bar and a casino on every corner here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)
== [[French Revolution]] ==
Hey, I noticed you're doing a bit of work around this area, and as you seem to be the resident historian, I thought I'd volunteer my services here, so you're free to do other area's that need some touching up or expanding. If there's any articles or stubs in the French Revolution section that need to be fixed, just let me know. Thanks [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)
::GREAT! we can use short articles on the major players and events. Suggestion use the facts from the online Columbia Encyclopedia at [http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col65&query=French+Revolution&x=0&y=0 Columbia Enyc srticles on French Rev.] -- it's very good. Be sure to summarize & rewrite the facts, not quote exactly. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:02, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:::OK I'll get right onto it. Thanks for the suggestion! [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:05, 8 December 2008 (EST)
==Medieval Cats==
As the person who has probably edited more articles on medieval history in the last few months than all other editors put together (including six pages in the last hour or two, if I had been told that there was a new category for "Medieval history" I could have saved you a heckova lotta work.:) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::you're doing a great job and I've been trying to clean up all sorts of categories. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:58, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::But are there any others I should know about? You see, on the 22nd I changed the cats of about 2 dozen English/British history entries. This new one could have been done at the same time. (And - just to let ''you'' know: I am thinking of starting a cat (sub-cat, whatever) for the "Wars of the Roses"....)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:16, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::what I did was go though all the articles in Category:European History and change the specific ones to specific countries, or eras. That cleans up European History and makes the other sub categories more useful. yes' War of Roses" car would be good idea [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:44, 26 December 2008 (EST)
== Invitation to join Wikiproject:News ==
RJJensen, since you have contributed a wanted page in the past, you are invited to [[Wikiproject:News#Members|sign up]] as a member of [[Wikiproject:News]]. <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]]</nowiki> the Guidelines. Make your news suggestions <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]]</nowiki>. Add wanted pages [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page#Wanted_Pages_for_.22In_the_news.22_section_-_To_be_created|here]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 10:04, 28 December 2008 (EST)
::thanks for the invite; i just signed up. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)
==Dutch History==
RJ (if I may call you that), I see that you have replaced the material on Dutch fascism in the 1930s. I'm pleased that this was done under a separate heading, but I am still concerned that this gives a misleading impression of Dutch politics at the time (an analogy might be an assessment of American politics in the 1930s which only mentioned Charles Coughlin and the German 'Bund'). Would it be possible for you to give an overview of mainstream Dutch politics at this time, as even the NSB was a fringe organisation. As it stands, the article presents the Netherlands as a quasi-fascist nation. As the grandson of a Dutch patriot active in the resistance in the war years, this is extremely hurtful. I also altered the reference to liberation by Canadian troops to one recognising the role of all the allied forces - including my father, in the British Army. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:50, 31 December 2008 (EST)
::Thanks for the note. My intention all along is to emphasize the fascists were a fringe group. I'll rework it again to make that clear and give more emphasis to what the main parties were up to (following the Kossman book).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:48, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thank you very much. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:37, 31 December 2008 (EST)
== Happy New Year! ==
{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''<small>--Oprah Winfrey</small>}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 23:24, 31 December 2008 (EST)
== Congratulations! ==
Congratulations on your promotion to Sysop (Admin) status! This gives you many new privileges. Well deserved!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:42, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:Indeed! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 00:12, 1 January 2009 (EST)
Congrats RJJensen. I look forward to working with you this year. Now you can protect all the great images you upload. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 01:31, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::hey THANKS EVERYBODY--I promise that 2009 will be better than 2008. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 04:10, 1 January 2009 (EST)
:::Well done RJJensen, you have been a prodigious contributor here and the promotion is deserved. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:47, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::::and many congratulations (and happy new year!) from me too. I look forward to working even closer with you this year. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']]</sup> 06:23, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::::: Congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:05, 1 January 2009 (EST)
Congrats and Happy New year! [[User:AddisonDM]]
::::: Happy New Year!
:::::: Congratulations on your promotion! --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)
==Tuskegee==
They were real. Can I suggest an undelete minus the parody?--Jpatt 20:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::they were indeed real. They did not fight the Japanese. Booker T Washington died many years before. The article has to be redone from start, since all the "facts" in this version are now suspect. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::: Following Jpatt's suggestion, I wrote a new article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:49, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::::Looks fantastic--Jpatt 23:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:::::thanks :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:53, 5 January 2009 (EST)
==US Civil War==
Thanks for your massive additions (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=American_Civil_War_homefront&curid=84224&diff=603647&oldid=603640 this one]). How do you find the time to do so much writing? --
::hey THANKS. It's retirement --I used to spend all that good time in committees. Now I just write. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:55, 6 January 2009 (EST)
== Protecting images ==
I protected a number of images you uploaded (Image:Sherman2.jpg, Image:Weyrich.jpg, Image:1900HA.jpg, Image:~HANNA96.jpg). Please remember our policy of protecting all images. Thanks for your contributions to Conservpedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 11:42, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::thanks--I'll keep protecting them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:19, 11 January 2009 (EST)
::: Thanks much for your insights. I've learned tremendously from them. However, as Dean says, it would be great if you could click "protect" at the bottom after you upload a new image, and then click on "Administrators Only" to give them the greatest protection. I just did that for your two most recent uploads. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)
== Third Party v Third Party System ==
Your opinion is sought! [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Third_Party_System#Merge.3F] --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 23:01, 13 January 2009 (EST)
== Democratic Governors category ==
There is already a [[:Category:Democrat Governors]]. If you are planning a move from that category to the new one, then please disregard this message. Otherwise, I wanted to catch you before you got halfway through. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|<sup>Hello!</sup>]] 20:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
::OK --it was my mistake (I have been trying to repair lost edits from the last week). [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:56, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::Yeah, me too. I lost about 300 edits, including the lists of governors you were kind enough to add bibliologs to. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|<sup>Hello!</sup>]] 11:36, 29 January 2009 (EST)
== Blago ==
I understand what your thinking is, RJ, but in this case you are too idealogical, and giving the liberals far too much credit. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 23:52, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::when we make serious allegations they have to be based on serious evidence or we are guilty of bearing false witness. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:50, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:::No,we are using plain old conservative common sense, RJ. The legislature didn't have evidence of anything, and until the United States Attorney presents his case in a Federal Court, and a jury convicts him, the will of the people should never be overturned by some legislature, based solely upon some contrived "disability" of being unpopular, having low poll numbers. If you don't want to cooperate, and accept the ruling of a senior administrator, so be it. But Mr. Schlafly has made his position crystal clear on this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 01:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::::The rule throughout American history is that the legislature can impeach the executive for any reason. Conviction for crime is not necessary. What is the "will of the people"? The Founding Fathers were pretty clear that the will of the people resided in the legislature. My discussion with Schlafly was on an different issue; it had to do with the powers of the state supreme court to intervene (that is a moot question since it did not intervene).
== Economic Recovery Advisory Board ==
Is this an article you want to tackle, or perhaps have research or ancillary information on? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 03:51, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:good idea. I just wrote [[Economic Recovery Advisory Board]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:50, 13 February 2009 (EST)
::Super! And I was just being nice making sure you could log in, never thinking once about this article I knew was needed....;-) Glad it worked out. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 01:27, 13 February 2009 (EST)
==Velikovsky==
Richard, I left a question for you on the [[Talk:Immanuel_Velikovsky|Velikovsky talk page]], regarding category tags. --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 08:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:I left another comment regarding yours, on the [[Talk:Immanuel_Velikovsky|Velikovsky talk page]], --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 12:25, 14 February 2009 (EST)
== Your edits to [[Scopes trial]] ==
Dr. Jensen, your recent edits to the [[Scopes trial]] delete important information and introduce unjustified statements, like calling the [[atheist]] and stridently anti-Christian [[H.L. Mencken]] a "cultural conservative." We can discuss further on [[Talk:Scopes trial]] if you like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:40, 14 February 2009 (EST)
::Mencken is one of the most famous names in the history of American conservatism. He ignored the religious questions and ridiculed the backwoods types. That's true and important to know. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:42, 14 February 2009 (EST)
::: Mencken was one of worst anti-Christian bigots ever. It's indisputable and completely distorted his reporting on the Scopes trial. And it wasn't just Christians whom Mencken was bigoted against.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:01, 14 February 2009 (EST)
:::: all true enough but he was a cultural conservative and strongly influenced libertarian thinking against government--and many people's ridicule of the South. Bryan of course was the leading big government liberal of the 1890-1930 era, which made him Mencken's target.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:28, 14 February 2009 (EST)
This really should be discussed on the article's talk page, where I've just added my comments. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:15, 15 February 2009 (EST)
== Category: Naval Battles ==
I don't think that Horatio Nelson belongs in that category. He is an admiral, not a battle. [[User:DuncanB|Duncan]]<sup>[[User talk:DuncanB|Channel 16]]</sup> 15:34, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::the article is what gets categorized, and the article talks about naval battles in an important way.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:35, 16 February 2009 (EST)
I am trying to figure out why Trafalgar didn't make it into [[:Category:Naval Battles]], at least not when I click on it.. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:36, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::well it certainly belongs! please add it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:37, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:::What I was getting at was that although you had changed the cat to "Naval Battles", for some reason it wasn't showing up on the Cat. page. I deleted it on the Article then added it and it has now come up. A mystery. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:;::good job! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:12, 16 February 2009 (EST)
==Vandalism patrol==
RJ, thanks for your recent efforts to block vandals and undo their damage. I don't know why some people enjoy messing up other people's work. Maybe they are intellectually lazy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:16, 17 February 2009 (EST)
::well at least we attact a better class of vandals than Wikipedia! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:28, 17 February 2009 (EST)
:::LOL, I think. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)
==Criminals and folk heroes==
What about that [[Che Guevera]] guy? Why is it that people who say they care about the poor and the oppressed lionize (idolize, idealize) murderers like Che? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:14, 18 February 2009 (EST)
== Cartoon ==
That pork factory thingy is a nice cartoon, but I'm not sure about the "fair use". Wouldn't "fair use" be if we put the image in an article ''about the cartoon itself'', or in an article about a controversy caused by the image?
From the copyright office's website:
<blockquote>
“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
</blockquote>
I'm worried this might get the site into hot water.
Sincerely,
[[User:EMaurice|EMaurice]] 11:24, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::no educational use has ever gotten into any legal hot water by using items like this that have been posted on the internet for free. CP uses the cartoon to comment upon a current news event, which is a legally protected form of fair use according to Congress. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)
:::I'm not sure that the fact that no-one has been prosecuted for it means it's legal. If we go down that road, we'll be just like the bums who get into debt and then ask the taxpayer to help them, claiming they didn't know what they were doing. And as for using the cartoon to comment, how is that under fair use? Fair use would be for commenting about the cartoon itself. Every big newspaper has a free online section. Would the Washington Post accept the Washington Times copying one of their cartoonists? Do you see what I mean? Thanks, [[User:EMaurice|EMaurice]] 11:46, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::::Congress says that fair use applies to nonprofit educational use, and the courts have always agreed. The Washington Times is a commercial operation and different rules apply to them. (The worst case scenario is that the copyright owner asks us to remove the cartoon, and we do so.) Conservatives need to uphold their legal and constutional rights or they lose them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 19 February 2009 (EST)
== Parodists ==
It would seem we have two users in need of a lengthy block, and you appear to be the only one present with block rights. See Ed Poor's talk page please! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::thanks for the heads-up. I'll be watching but so far I have not seen anthing more serious than a debate on chemistry. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:31, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:::The manganese edit was 100% wrong, so he's (KrisTree) a parodist. But everything which he's said about the other guy is actually pretty correct, and GFasten did indeed put up a stupid Bollywood video which was later reverted. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:34, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::::No the manganese edit was not 100% wrong (it is used in steel), and there is such a book as "Salters Chemistry". There may be errors but that is not the same as parody. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 21 February 2009 (EST)
== The View From 1776...Tom Brewton ==
Presented for your inspection and consideration.....
* [http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/the_limitations_of_econometric_computer_models/ The Limitations of Econometric Computer Models]
* [http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/tooth_fairy_economics/ TOOTH FAIRY ECONOMICS]
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 06:42, 22 February 2009 (EST)
::Thanks-- I enjoyed reading that! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:51, 22 February 2009 (EST)
== Gibbs ==
Thank you, good Doctor! Whenever I read something where the basic, minimum essentials are missing, and people are already arguing over rather common political tricks, I see red. Thanks for jumping in, but let's not save the protagonists from having to do some due diligence as well, okay? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 15:39, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::right! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:13, 3 March 2009 (EST)
== CENTRISTS CONCERNED ==
[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/centrists_concerned/] It’s noteworthy that political moderates who supported President Obama in the election are worried that they may have been misled, that traditionalists’ forebodings may have been on the mark. Amazing! ;-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 23:31, 6 March 2009 (EST)
::thanks for the tip. I don't see a connection between Obama and the Social Gospel Movement myself, and the Socialists of 1910 (who included just ONE Social Gospeller, an obscure professor at Vassar) wanted to destroy the banks, not subsidize them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:35, 6 March 2009 (EST)
:::Email Tom...he's a nice chap. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 23:43, 6 March 2009 (EST)
==Pearl Harbor edit==
Had to revert your edit to Pearl Harbor. The Air Force did not exist until 1947; prior to that it was the U.S. Army Air Corps. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
::the name was changed in 1941 -- before Pearl Harbor--to US Army Air Forces. There was no longer an "Air Corps". [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:48, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
== Can you add Obama's ignorant, disgusting joke to the front page news? ==
Joke here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXcgpZwsBPY]. Obama apologist Olbermann's desperate plea to comedian Craig Furgeson(sp?) to find an excuse - any excuse - to allow Obama to get away with the joke here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD0EcujFSn8]. Note that Craig immediately recognizes the joke for what it is and doesn't give the kind of answer Olbermann was hoping for. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:15, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
:On the [[Jay Leno]] show, Obama quipped that his bowling score of 129 was "like the [[Special Olympics]] or something". My question was whether he was putting himself down (i.e., being humble) in an innocent, lighthearted way - or whether (as his detractors are eager to say) he was making a derogatory reference to handicapped people. [[Craig Ferguson]] grimaced and called the reference "a misstep". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
:*I read later that he called up the Special Olympics and apologized - even before the show aired. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:::That's called "damage control." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Beating him up for a slip like that is called A "[[personal attack]]". I would rather we contributors focus on principles and facts than on personalities. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:55, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
==Stimulus bill==
Thank you for continuing to work with me. My text moves are not to be taken as Editorial Prerogative. Feel free to reverse my edits when they don't make sense. What I want to do is collaborate, to work together to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:53, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
::Ed--thanks for your stimulus to my thinking! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:54, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
:::LOL, there's a [[Volvo]] radio ad I've heard dozens of times which talks about "stimulating your stimulus". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:58, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
==Featured article==
Congrats on getting a weekly featured article! The financial crisis.
[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
::hey thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:13, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
==A Glitch?==
This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Gresham_Machen&diff=644407&oldid=644405] looks like a glitch. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 12:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
::yes my "oops" (I was trying to move the reflist). Thanks for the good work--Machen has never looked so good in the last 70 years. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:22, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
== World History Lectures ==
I really enjoy your contributions. In fact, reading them drove me to Conservapedia. Couldn't you do some fact-checking on the '''World History Lectures''' of Aschlafly? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 15:56, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the nice words. I'll keep my eyes open. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:03, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Could you shed some light on [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:World_History_Lecture_Nine#Prussia_vs._Germany this discussion?] Thanks! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:13, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest the best approach is to propose an improved sentence for the text. think positive. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:21, 27 March 2009 (EDT)