User talk:Richard Jensen

Richard Jensen

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

You're cleaned up

I moved everything to your Archive 2. --D. Matt Innis 21:42, 7 January 2008 (CST)

"Analysis" re:John Edwards

Richard; if it is indeed an analysis then I would recommend backing up this "analysis" with evidence that supports the conclusions rather than just blindly reinstating hyperbole. --Robert W King 10:01, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Robert, please read the Talk page and the many citations given there. Do you argue that Edwards did NOT change style since 2000??? If so you are defying the experts and you need to find an expert that backs your theory. Richard Jensen 10:20, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Reapproval of Nathanael Greene

The Nathanael Greene article has undergone a fair share of updates since it was approved, mostly spelling and grammar. I'd like to see the cleaned up version get approved if you're up to it. Thanks --Todd Coles 22:08, 8 January 2008 (CST)

yes it's OK by me, but I don't know what the re-approval procedure is? what do we do? Richard Jensen 23:04, 8 January 2008 (CST)

The re-approval procedure is exactly the same as the approval process. --D. Matt Innis 23:07, 8 January 2008 (CST)

well not quite. the new draft page says it is "Approved article: approved by editor(s) according to our process" when the new draft in fact is not yet approved. Richard Jensen 23:20, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Hehe, the policy is the same, but obviously the procedure changes, hmmm. I'll follow up on your try and we'll write it as we go. --D. Matt Innis 23:28, 8 January 2008 (CST)

I think this worked [1]. I just filled out the ToA section of the metadata page but make sure to keep the status at 0 so the template remains green. I think it works. --D. Matt Innis 23:42, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Richard, there have been several edits to Nathanael Greene since the approved version. Do you want me to add those edits to the approved version? --D. Matt Innis 22:49, 14 January 2008 (CST)

sure go ahead. Richard Jensen 22:58, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Civil

Insults or personal attacks, on talk pages or other open forums, that are relatively mild, but which are still objectionable on grounds that they aggressively impugn the moral character, or personal or professional credibility, of a project member. It does not matter whether these attacks are made using Citizendium resources or other resources. --D. Matt Innis 23:25, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Party! You're invited!

Hi Richard — Your neighbourhood Mistress of Ceremonies here. Don’t forget to come on over to the party and sign in at one of the categories! Aleta Curry 16:31, 9 January 2008 (CST) say ‘hi’ to me here.

Pittsburgh articles

Hi Richard, we were updating the subpages on the article that were approved before subpages were developed by moving the bibliographies. I think you like to leave some on the main article. Would you take a look and see which ones you want to keep and which ones can be deleted? All of them have already been moved to the bibliography page by Todd. --D. Matt Innis 22:21, 14 January 2008 (CST)

thanks for the tip. I did as suggested and also dropped lots of red links from Wikipedia. Richard Jensen 22:46, 14 January 2008 (CST)

There are a couple of notes that seem to be missing their 'note' [2]. --D. Matt Innis 22:59, 14 January 2008 (CST) and here [3] --D. Matt Innis 23:03, 14 January 2008 (CST)

The notes seem to be in random order. that's crazy. How can we make them go 1-2-3-4 ?? Richard Jensen 23:06, 14 January 2008 (CST)

I'm not sure about the 1-2-3-4, but it looks like there was probably some text that was deleted that contained the first reference for this one <ref name="Lorant"/>. Maybe that is messing them all up. --D. Matt Innis 23:22, 14 January 2008 (CST)

there are lots of problems with the footnotes. minor ones (no italics) & missing page numers. Almost all the references to popular sources like Lorant are not needed. So I will trim them down and try to leave those that might actually be useful to a person writing a paper. Richard Jensen 23:26, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Since those would only be copyedit changes, when your done, just put it up for re-approval for say one day and then we might as well get the whole thing moved to the Approved version. Just go to the metadata page and put your name under the ToA editor and that should do it... I hope :-) --D. Matt Innis 23:30, 14 January 2008 (CST)

OK I will try. :) Richard Jensen 23:32, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Remember, just copyedits changes, otherwise we would need three editors!!! --D. Matt Innis 23:33, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Right, I am just doing minor changes to text (and adding a few items to bibliog). I wish you could do that approval magic for me. I keep screwing it up. :( Richard Jensen 23:35, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Richard, I found the references for those that were missing. When we split the article, we forgot about bringing over the first reference... I have no idea how it made it through approval. I'll put the approval tag on the two articles for one day. Just let me know if you need more time. --D. Matt Innis 19:04, 15 January 2008 (CST)

I dropped all the unnecessary references to well-known facts that came from popular sources (like EB 1911, and Lorant pop history), and keep the more recondite ones that might prove useful.Richard Jensen 19:22, 15 January 2008 (CST)

Re-approved! That was the long way around, but I think it was the right way to do it. Thanks for your help. --D. Matt Innis 21:22, 16 January 2008 (CST)

Thanks again. isn't there a button we can click to automate the process? Richard Jensen 22:10, 16 January 2008 (CST)

Thanks!

Thank you for the compliment on education sections. Yi Zhe Wu 11:29, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Euclid and Euclid's elements

Hi Richard, I wrote about Euclid and Euclid's elements. I'm finished so far. Maybe you like to add some more historical perspective to it? --Paul Wormer 09:20, 24 January 2008 (CST)

you know, I fell in love with Euclid in 1956. I wonder what's new. :) Richard Jensen 10:02, 24 January 2008 (CST)

Does that mean you'll write some?--Paul Wormer 10:53, 24 January 2008 (CST)

yes. Richard Jensen 13:37, 24 January 2008 (CST)

Countries - HIstory Workgroup?

Hi Richard-quick question - Should countries be automatically placed in the History Workgroup. I've noticed some are, some are not. I'll go ahead and start adding; please advise if I shouldn't. Aleta Curry 19:04, 25 January 2008 (CST)

On second thought, maybe I'll just note the ones I've noticed, since that involves changing the Metadata and then changing it back again if wrong. Ireland, Pakistan, Uganda Aleta Curry 19:18, 25 January 2008 (CST)

yes, all counties will get a long history section (eventually...I usually start with a historical bibliography). Richard Jensen 20:12, 25 January 2008 (CST)

I think Aleta was asking about workgroup tags rather than article content. While country articles will have a history section, they will so have political, economical and other sections applicable to other workgroups. I don't think we need to tag countries to every possible workgroup. I would not tag country articles like Poland to the history workgroup, even though the article contains a history section (actually it doesn't have a history section). However, I would tag articles like Poland, history to the history workgroup as they are exclusively about history. If we tagged every article that contained a history section to the history workgroup then I would suspect that every article on CZ would be tagged to history.

On a side point. Why Poland, history and not Polish history or Poland's history? I noticed in the core articles list for history that counties are all listed in a adjective form rather than using a comma. Derek Harkness 22:27, 25 January 2008 (CST)

I think we should presume taht every country will have a History section as a main component and thus should be tagged. (Once the section is big enough as in Poland it can be spun off and the tag dropped). The point of the tags is to alert history authors that the article is ready for their input. As for naming conventions, it's simpler and more elegant to use the Poland, history format for every country. People will then know immediately where to look. Richard Jensen 22:33, 25 January 2008 (CST)

Yes, Derek is correct, I was asking about the tags, not about the content.

Richard's executive decision is that all countries should be tagged in the History Workgroup, so I'll do that for the ones I find that don't have the History tag, and going forward.

Here's my side point (as long as we're at it). Why should we have Poland, history History of Poland, Polish history etc etc at all? Why is not HISTORY a subpage of the Poland cluster?

Since we have this beautiful system, why not use it to full advantage, and do we have to talk to Chris about setting this up?

Aleta Curry 19:33, 26 January 2008 (CST)

Subpages don't work that way. They are not sudo-categories under which a range of themed articles can be kept. Subpages are for other forms of content which support or add to the article. They are not for sections of an article.

Richard, would you also want cities and towns tagged to the history workgroup? Derek Harkness 02:28, 27 January 2008 (CST)

On cities and towns: some have a major historical importance -- especially capital cities, cultural centers and key places like New York, Florence, Montreal, Kyoto, Shanghai, etc and should get tagged. See Beijing. for most places the history should not be tagged.

California

When I was writing the education section in the California entry, I found that they have a decent amount of top colleges but ranks low in education. Can you explain the cause of this apparent contradiction? Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 12:24, 26 January 2008 (CST)

good question,. it is a notorious paradox: at the top the university of California system is by far the best in the world. In recent years they have cut back $ on K12 schools. Richard Jensen 16:27, 26 January 2008 (CST)

Ha! So does that mean in ten years the California universities will no longer be the best in the world, or they'll be the best in the world but all full of foreign students? Aleta Curry 19:36, 26 January 2008 (CST)

Hehe, no, they're just all from the east coast :-) --D. Matt Innis 19:59, 26 January 2008 (CST)

My niece was valedictorian at Berkeley about 7 or 8 years ago, which I thought was terrific. Later I discovered that Berkeley has 10 or 15 valedictorians every year, spreading them out over a range of different fields. Being an old geezer, I'd never heard of that before. Maybe most big U's do it that way these days?Hayford Peirce 20:51, 26 January 2008 (CST)

California's UC system (ie the PhD schools, Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego, Irvine, Santa Barbara, Davis, Santa Cruz) will remain the best in the world. 40-50% of the undergraduates are Chinese-American....they attended the mediocre California public schools but took a lot of supplementary help. (They are the offspring of recent, post 1965 immigrants from Chinese lands). The grad students come from worldwide. (My daughter just applied to the PhD program at UCLA so we do follow that story.) (Note that the California State Colleges are a different system and not nearly as good; they do not award PhDs).Richard Jensen 23:11, 26 January 2008 (CST)