User talk:RJJensen

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Usa new year 2010.jpg

--Joaquín Martínez 00:14, 31 December 2009 (EST)

/Archive 1


You reverted my edits to the Trinity page, with the comment "The Trinity is Christian". I was a bit baffled by this, but then realized that I had used the Torah as a source. The Torah is just the Old Testament, and is part of the Christian Bible. I did not realize that my language would be so confusing (I am used to it, my parents converted from Judaism to Baptist Christians). You will find that much of the Hebrew Bible (The old Testament) supports Christian concepts. This is because Christian concepts are universal truths!

Haha, yeah the rain has been murderous all week long! I had the misfortune of planning to drive into Athens today, only to find all the roads underwater! I didn't realize until you messaged me that my talk page has the info intended for my user page, so thank you for your inadvertant help (also, yes, it appears my grammar died while I was writing it!) Are you from the area as well? Always good to meet a fellow southerner who understands the Obama Crisis. There are so many hayseed liberals down here it makes me sick! Don't worry tho, you won't hear me crying out for a confederate south:) Long live a STRONG CONSERVATIVE UNION, with a surplus export of integrity! RoyP 20:33, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

thanks for the update. I'm actually a Yankee now living in Montana, but I have had a strong interest in the South since I studiesd with C. Vann Woodward some years back.RJJensen 20:36, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
I can forgive a Yank, I used to be one (Mt. Vernon, Washington)! Unfortunately, that town's Conservative fervor lives solely in the words of one Glenn Beck (that man's done for intelligent conservatism what Sean Penn did for photographers dentistry.) RoyP 20:45, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
Now, what kind of a snide insult is that? Beck is a thoughtful, honest fighter for the conservative cause, and if people are angered at the government by his exposés, all the better for the nation. Both he, and those of us who respect him, are intelligent people. DouglasA 20:59, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
Forgive any intrusion or stamping upon your own loyalties. But surely you must admit that the movement suffers from a lack of Irving Kristol or William Buckley type figures. I long for the days when conservatism nakedly confessed that the intellectuals were the brains of the movement while the power of the people were its fists. OF COURSE a weapon must be weighted properly, with the correct balances, but it is only in retrospect that people might discuss its craftsmanship and the components which constituted it. I would venture to say that anyone slain by Excalibur would comment on anything but the sharpness of its blade, which in this most basic analogy, would comprise the incisive wit of conservatives who have lived and then gone to meet God in heaven. The fires of anger burn with intense heat in the belly of American conservatism, but to stoke these fires, as Beck often does, produces little but flash and smoke. It will be some current or future leader, a Reagan-type, I pray, who shall light his torch with such a flame and bring it to the halls of Congress or to the Obama home and say, "See, this same flame has burned for ages now let it singe you!". God, conservatism, the side of moral right; all are the same, and united they are all consuming. But it must take SOMEONE...a prophet, a politician who does God's work, a priest with God's word in him...someone, SOMEONE must carry that torch. RoyP 21:15, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

Quakerism category[edit]

Thanks for setting it up! I'll try to contribute a few more new articles to insert. --MarkGall 14:20, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

"Revert vandalism" on the Chavez article[edit]

Does this edit really count as "vandalism"? Or would it be more fair of you to qualify it as a different point of view? A point of view that may be criticized, perhaps, one that may or may not be backed up by whatever evidence is cited--but where is the "vandalism"? Wayne 08:44, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

it's vandalism--it was designed to attack and denigrate and damage a CP article. RJJensen 10:10, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
Introducing a different point of view--with a citation, no less--is denigrating and damaging to the article? Is the article that fragile? Wayne 10:25, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
that was his goal. to sabotage the article by making it contradictory. RJJensen 10:38, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
Would it not add to the credibility of the article and the site as a whole to engage with the ideas that the editor brought to the table on their own merits--or lack thereof-- as opposed to dismissing them as vandalism? Wayne 12:16, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
vandals seeking to weaken or ruin articles are not welcome here. RJJensen 12:20, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

speedy delete?[edit]


Dear Dr. Jensen,[edit]

i think your edits are far above the average quality here. I am quite liberal (and not American), so i don't always agree with your opinions, however i enjoy to read your articles, since they are written in a quite concise and interesting manner from the right distance of view and i usually learn something about topics i don't know much about.

Regards, --Stitch75 12:45, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

thanks! :) RJJensen 13:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Why did you revert my edit calling for a citation? AZF 17:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

you're making work for other people; if you want to add a citation please do so. RJJensen 17:14, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
The person who made the initial assertion was making work for other people. AZF 17:19, 7 October 2009 (EDT)


In the 1872 painting; are you sure she holds a school book? Might it be the Bible?--Jpatt 00:03, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

my students always ask that--it says "School Book" on it. you can read it at larger image RJJensen 00:07, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you, a beautiful picture btw.--Jpatt 00:13, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Milton/Paradise Lost[edit]

1st of all, thanks for the encouragement on my talk page. We now seem to be sort of collaborating on the Milton and PL pages. I came across some public-domain images of Blake's watercolors for PL that would be great to add to that page. How do we go about making that happen? ChrisFV 17:58, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

yes--it's fun! I can upload files if you gove me URL's or email to me at RJJensen 18:04, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
Here is the site: ChrisFV 20:09, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
OK which ones do you want to use? 04:45, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
So hard to choose! I think "The Expulsion from Eden" (Book XII) is essential for the PL article. If there is room, my next choice would be "The Downfall of the Rebel Angels" (Book VI), and then "The Temptation of Eve" (Book IX). ChrisFV 11:24, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
done: see File:Blake-xii.jpg File:Blake-vi.jpg and File:Blake-ix.jpg RJJensen 05:19, 31 October 2009 (EDT)
Hi. Would you mind uploading for Cary Grant or giving me permission to do so? Thanks! Keepscases 16:05, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
Never mind, Jpatt did it. :) Keepscases 16:57, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

William, Mary, etc.[edit]

Hello Richard;

Just noticed you doing some 17th century history - could I ask for a bit of a hand getting William of Orange's article up? He doesn't have one, at the moment, I think, and 'William and Mary' redirects here. Thanks, and nice articles. AungSein 14:45, 1 November 2009 (EST)

look at William III. :) RJJensen 15:16, 1 November 2009 (EST)
Pesky Stadtholder ... ;) AungSein 15:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)


Just because someone is a "nasty vandal" is no need to erase every sign of his presence from the website. That's a tactic that might have been appropriate for the great Soviet Encyclopedia. I fail to see how it's suitable for an America conservative project. PeterF 19:49, 3 November 2009 (EST)

DerekE -- or someone using his account-- has tried to seriously damage CP (look at the edits a few minutes ago on Obama Administration). That destroys his entire credibility from A to Z, in my opinion. RJJensen 19:58, 3 November 2009 (EST)
That doesn't answer my question. removing a talk page post--in effect trying to make him a "non-person"--has nothing to do with the situation you describe. We've always been at war with East Asia. PeterF 20:02, 3 November 2009 (EST)
we don't want saboteurs at CP and we remove their work. It's like a team changing the record book when an illegal player is involved. RJJensen 20:17, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Scotland Revert[edit]

Hello, i noticed you reverted an edit by DWiggins on the scotland article, saying in the edit description that "civilized world seems to cover the reaction pretty well". I've undone your edit as it was biased and misleading, if the "civilized world"(could you specify what the civilized world is?) universally thought it was disgusting, why was there so much controversy? perhaps from an american perspective but outside of the states "disgust" doesnt cover it at all, unless you meant to imply that the civilized world is solely the USA, in which case all credibility of claims about conservapedia being fair or trustworthy are lost. also, please dont ban me, i'm just trying to bring some balance and i dont mean to troll, but as im scottish it annoys me when people try and spin the lockerbie story, thanks. Euaaan 09:13, 4 November 2009 (EST)

there was very high controversy regarding 1) wisdom of releasing a convicted terrorist and 2) role of the London government in trading convict for diplomatic and trade goals. And yes, worldwide disgust was pretty intense. RJJensen 09:23, 4 November 2009 (EST)

John F. Kennedy[edit]

I responded to your argument on the John F. Kennedy talk page. You should go check it out. ChuckR 13:31, 5 November 2009 (EST)

John F. Kennedy (again)[edit]

I added a new section re: Medicare to our Kennedy discussion on the JFK talk page.

I would really like for you to respond to the slew of points I raised re: Kennedy's liberal positions and traits. I believe they extend far wider and deeper than the article or your arguments suggest they do. In reading what I wrote and responding to it, I would like for us to work together to re-consider and re-write the parts of the article that discuss John F. Kennedy's ideological bend. Certainly, we can together reshape this article to reflect that he both advocated dramatic liberal measures and made conservative stands on certain issues that no modern-day liberal would ever dream of considering. ChuckR 20:02, 8 November 2009 (EST)

thanks I appreciate the help and i will look at it later tonite. RJJensen 20:19, 8 November 2009 (EST)
I responded to your arguments. I am still hoping we can re-write this article together, and show that Kennedy was a diverse politician with both liberal and conservative views (and one that is hard to accurately describe as "basically liberal" or "basically conservative"). ChuckR 21:28, 8 November 2009 (EST)
the current text says "JFK was middle-of-the-road on domestic issues and conservative on foreign policy" which does seem to sum it up. RJJensen 21:37, 8 November 2009 (EST)


Hi, I'm trying to stay within Conservapedia's guideline but did find the article riddled with povs and language that is unsourced. His own actions speak for themselves and don't need nudging. I tried to emphasis the Communist affiliations and advocacy while referencing to the aspects of his life that were patriotic. The article is too small for someone of such importance plus there is word that he is going to be given a Presidential medal of freedom posthumously so the facts should be straight. AmandaC 21:52, 19 November 2009 (EST)

yes, good work. He's anathema to conservatives and the article needs to explain why. RJJensen 01:09, 20 November 2009 (EST)

large bill[edit]

No problem, they've always fascinated me. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 04:25, 26 November 2009 (EST)

large bill[edit]

No problem, they've always fascinated me. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 04:25, 26 November 2009 (EST)

Unlock Sedition Act?[edit]

You locked the page nine hours after it was created, it's been locked for almost a month now, and it badly needs some work. Right now, there's little more than a dictionary entry. I'd like to add some information about the history of sedition acts, examples (from other countries than America), why they've been passed, examples of how they've been used and abused, and at least some idea of popular objections to them. If you want to add more, I'd love to see it. I won't add my uncited opinion, which I'm guessing is why you locked it in the first place. (If I'm wrong, please let me know.) If you have another idea of what the page should be, I'd love to talk about that - I'm sure we both agree it'd be best with something more than is there now.

And, by the way, Talk:Sedition Act is currently a redirect to Talk:Sedition_Act_of_1918; you might want to fix that and move the current debate.

Thanks. --EvanW 21:42, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Ok I unlocked it. :) RJJensen 23:13, 8 December 2009 (EST)


What's with the large scale removal from Sin? Admittedly, it could be made more concise, but dropping sections and removing key redemptive fact like "Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God's offer of forgiveness, can we be saved from sin" seems a bit odd. DouglasA 14:38, 12 December 2009 (EST)

there was lots of stuff there unrelated to sin as ordinarily understood. The "trusting in Jesus" statement is a sermon and is hanging loose, not tied to any of the many traditions that are covered in the article. RJJensen 16:00, 12 December 2009 (EST)

William Safire[edit]

Why did you edit the Safire article to say he was a token conservative? The commandments state all information must be true and verifiable. The reference provided does nothing to substanciate your claim that Safire was a token conservative at the NY Times. For this reason your edit should be removed until a reliable source is provided. I have been unable to find one that is suitable. --MichaelJB 12:54, 18 December 2009 (EST)

1) I did not make that edit. 2) But what it means is that for many years he was the only conservative voice on op-ed (and the editorial page was very liberal). 3) it's common knowledge of the sort you get by reading the NY Times every day. RJJensen 15:20, 18 December 2009 (EST)
My apologies. That being said, it shouldn't matter if something is common knowledge or not, the reference provided does not state Safire was the alleged token conservative at the Times. According to the commandments all entries must be true AND verifiable. --MichaelJB 19:21, 18 December 2009 (EST)


So is there any reason why you removed sourced material from that article and replaced it with vandalism? --JeffD 10:58, 22 December 2009 (EST)

it was a bad source and needed fixing. don't be insulting.RJJensen 14:37, 22 December 2009 (EST)

America the Beautiful[edit]

You mean I was actually right about something? Ssh! My friends at Wikipedia would faint if they knew! ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 16:15, 24 December 2009 (EST)

well Ed I think you're usually right! RJJensen 16:28, 24 December 2009 (EST)

"The Honorable"[edit]

I was merely requesting that "the Honorable" be added because I noticed that about half of the Justices pages possessed the title and roughly half of them did not. I thought since it was the proper title for a Judge it might be a good idea to place them on the pages that did not have them.

none of the articles on justices should start that way. RJJensen 21:09, 6 January 2010 (EST)
You'll have to fix Clarence Thomas, it's locked. JacobB 21:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

Headline text[edit]


Headline text[edit]


thanks for the chart on atheism, it was very helpful[edit]

Thanks for the chart on atheism, it was very helpful to the article. The only reason why I removed it as it was blurry but you fixed that issue using a larger display size. I put the chart next to the section on atheist population that was already in the article and the chart nicely complements that section. conservative 23:11, 10 January 2010 (EST)

at my age all fonts are blurry--but I did an OCR and made a new chart that works well. :) RJJensen 06:33, 11 January 2010 (EST)


I don't think your intro to Satan is correct, but I respect your writing ability too much to revert it. In the previous version, I had moved down your "embodiment" sentence here. --Ed Poor Talk 10:50, 13 January 2010 (EST)

thanks. I just expanded it somewhat. I think that Conservapedia should not try to take sides in theological debates (for example, is the devil a real person or an impersonal force?) I think that just confining the Satan article to Bible verses misses 1900 years of theology and art. RJJensen 11:07, 13 January 2010 (EST)


Thanks for this. I had a feeling that op cit. was incorrect. --Ed Poor Talk 21:21, 16 January 2010 (EST)

I've always hated "op cit" because it's the devil to pay to find the op cited when there are many footnotes. :) RJJensen 21:32, 16 January 2010 (EST)
That's a good point. Let's find a way to make it easy for the reader to locate the source. --Ed Poor Talk 21:51, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Post Office[edit]

I deleted the template because it appeared to be a copyvio. Its been reformatted now into a block quote, which appears to have been the intent of the author. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 22:06, 16 January 2010 (EST)

ok thanks. Note that short quotes are not copyright violations. We have fair use rights, which are pretty strong unless we somehow ruin the commercial value of a publication.RJJensen 23:27, 16 January 2010 (EST)
Short quotes aren't copyright violations, but uncited quotes are another matter Geoff PlourdeComplain! 23:45, 16 January 2010 (EST)
what do you mean--plagiarism? Plagiarism means taking false personal credit for academic gain, which is not at issue here. Nobody is gaining any academic credit for their writing at CP. RJJensen 00:11, 17 January 2010 (EST)
Whenever you are writing, it is intellectually dishonest to quote from a source without citing the source. If you are copying something from another website, it is a simple matter to include a citation. This has the added benefit of informing the reader about the existence of the source website, which might be helpful in their research. Generally, school students are not allowed to use a wiki as a source in their work, so a wiki such as this serves mainly to provide some background and to act as a portal to other useful websites on the subject. In addition, it helps the user to see where the information came from, so they may judge the accuracy or point of view of the information accordingly. If we want to be helpful to our readers, we should provide sources wherever possible, whether we are legally required to do so or not. --Hsmom 16:03, 17 January 2010 (EST)
Two points: 1) it is not intellectually dishonest unless you claim personal academic credit. Look at most textbooks, for example and note that footnotes and other credits to sources are rare. 2) We do a good job in providing bibliographies and footnotes. RJJensen 17:39, 17 January 2010 (EST)

Thanks for quick action[edit]

It was late and i saw some information that i thought would be helpful to a very present subject of interest, but i did not read it or the site enough to see its agenda.Daniel1212 00:59, 18 January 2010 (EST)

thanks for the note --it's fixed now. RJJensen 01:08, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Hatemonger article.[edit]

Thanks. You may want to look here too--I already asked the editor in question to fix his work, but it may be beyond repair. Your call, Professor. AlexWD 22:33, 20 January 2010 (EST)

Image upload[edit]

Hi, RJJensen. I'd like to ask you how I may get images upload right. All the images I am going to upload were taken by me. Thank you.Friscokid7 18:02, 29 January 2010 (EST)

Only editors who have been here a while and demonstrated that they are not vandals are given image upload rights. Users without any contributions do not get image upload rights. JacobB 18:14, 29 January 2010 (EST)
The thing is that my only contributions will be adding images. For example, I have a good image of erosion that I took just last night. The image could be used in Erosion article. English is not my first language, that's why I am not sure I will be of a great help in editing the articles, but I do take good images. I am not a vandal, but the only way to prove it, is to allow me to upload some of my images. Thank you.--Friscokid7 18:34, 29 January 2010 (EST)
You will not be getting upload rights. You can send the images to an admins email, which will then be posted. --Jpatt 18:54, 29 January 2010 (EST)
Where could I get their email address?Thanks.--Friscokid7 19:34, 29 January 2010 (EST)
First, activate your email on C P. Then I will send you my email.--Jpatt 19:37, 29 January 2010 (EST)
I did.Friscokid7 10:30, 30 January 2010 (EST)

David Lloyd George article[edit]

I have been somewhat under the gun as of late in terms of time to do reading on history which has always been one of my favorite subjects. I recently had a chance to look at your David Lloyd George article and I thought it contained some very interesting material. conservative 18:14, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks! :) RJJensen 14:14, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Nice work[edit]

I recently went back to the Theodore Roosevelt page and saw your additions to an already well written and informative page, (should be a featured article) and wanted to commended you. You could write a guide to new editors (and old) on quality writing, but knowledge of the subject is a key, and yours here is evident. Keep up the good work. To God be the glory. Daniel1212 09:30, 17 February 2010 (EST)

I agree! --Joaquín Martínez 09:32, 17 February 2010 (EST)
thanks! RJJensen 11:24, 17 February 2010 (EST)

Risk factors for cancer[edit]

Please read my comment at Talk:Mobile phones and brain tumor risk. --Ed Poor Talk 08:53, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Canada is north of the USA[edit]

What made you think that Quebec was south of the US? [1] --Ed Poor Talk 13:07, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

Nice edits[edit]

Would be awesome if you started to contribute again. Dvergne 00:33, 21 April 2013 (EDT)