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)