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)