User talk:Rjensen/Archive 12

Your reversions at Southern United States
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Southern United States. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Hoppingalong (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note I have reported your violation of the three revert rule at the 3RR noticeboard. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: It's clear to me that you're making a good-faith effort to cooperate, and as a long-time editor with many contribs and a clean block record there's no way I want to block you -- but you have violated the 3RR rule.  I beg you to be more careful about this and not force me or some other admin to do something we don't want to do. Looie496 (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * yes my apologies for getting caught up in an edit war, which has now, happily, moved to the talk page for serious discussions. Rjensen (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop that
I have explained my edits to Communist Party USA in the comment line and on the talk page. hy have you reverted them? These are valid edits that are consistent with WP:MOS. I am glad that you are adding citations, but wiping out my edits is rude. Please restore my version and add your citations. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 22:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is whether statements that need citations should be erased ofr kept with a good citation added. I did the latter. I'm not sure what edits of yours I wiped out. I looked and did not find them. I dropped some duplicate links (eg changing Comintern to Comintern after the first use), and dropped a couple lines that were unsourced but that you did not add. Rjensen (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you please restore the valid edits that I made to this article that you wiped out in restoring material that I had corrected deleted? And in the future, if you are re-adding material with citations, please re-add the material to the latest version instead of reverting back to an earlier, badly linked and badly formatted version just to save yourself a bit of effort. This sort of editing is aggressive, unnecessary and does not make Wikipedia a better place. We're all for adding citations, but we can have citations and proper formatting and linking too. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 15:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did restore your more useful edits--but the drastic removal of so much good information really messed up the article that I tried to repair. Rjensen (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You left the headings a mess, you left links unfixed, and so on. I removed information that had been left uncited for periods between 11 months and three and a half years. Removing questionable material improves the quality of articles. Adding it back in with citations, as you did, improves Wikipedia further, but there was no need to restore formatting and linking errors while you were doing it. You could have easily resorted the material and added the citations to the last version of the article, and preservde the formatting and linking clean up that I did. Please fix the headings at the very least. Ground Zero | t 19:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * if you think the article can be improved please do so. You made some minor improvements that got lost because you were making massive deletions at the same time. Rjensen (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Queston
May I ask why you reinstated an old version of the text of the "2008" section of Conservatism in the United States? Some of the wording used in the old version of the section either hints at ([WP:POV|POV]], isn’t reliably sourced, and/or isn’t really explained. Here's the text you reinstated, with emphasis on the terms that don't really belong or need more work:

The Republican contest for the nomination in 2008 was a free-for-all, with maverick Senator John McCain the winner, facing the first black candidate in Barack Obama. McCain electrified conservatives by choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate; she immediately emerged as a major political leader on the right. The economic crisis of 2008 doomed McCain, and Congress had already shifted to the left in 2006.


 * maverick -- According to wiktionary, a maverick is someone who shows "independence in thoughts or actïons." While this is definitely true of McCain, its not grven enough context to make it sound NPOV. Including referenced examples of McCains willingness to transcend party lines and the medias referral to him as a maverick would make it better,
 * the first black candidate -- per Black presidential candidates in the United States, Obama wasn't the first black presidential candidate, just the first black president. Also, calling attention to that doesn't really make sense in this context.
 * electrified conservatives -- this could mean a couple of things, and the text doesn't make it clear which of those it is. It could mean McCain shocked them negatively, or he energized them positively. Either way, it needs a source.
 * doomed McCain -- needs a source. It's kid of a dubious statement, but if you can find a source that says that the economic crisis specifically doomed his campaign, then its worth leaving in. But it would still need to be connected to conservativism in the United States (maybe a large percentage of voters didn't agree with his opinion on how to resolve the crisis? I can't remember...)
 * I'll add more on the others later -- right now I'm dashing out the door!

Additionally, your edit suirmary merely said “updates”, which doesn’t address the reinstatement of the old text and merely addresses the moving of other text from one section to the "2008" section. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 02:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * good questions: some comments

By Richard Wolffe p 294. I'll post this to the articl talk. Rjensen (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "maverick" is widely used for McCain (Elaine S. Povich. John McCain: A Biography (2009) ch 15 is entitled "Maverick")
 * 2) Obama is the first black presidential candidate --others like Jesse Jackson never became candidates
 * 3) "electrified" is standard English. Webster's 3rd unabridged: "to excite suddenly and markedly as if by an electric shock: startle, jar, or thrill into total attention or concern"
 * 4) economy doomed McCain -- the consensus of most analysts. ("the economy perceived to be the most important issue in this election" says Frank Newport, Winning the White House); also Renegade: the making of a president (2010)

Fair use rationale for File:Lbj-green.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lbj-green.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije 11:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to History of the United States appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 18:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Winner needs to be more specific--I made over 100 edits to that article and which one is his problem? Rjensen (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Conservatism in the United States. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * folks anytime you think a statement needs a citation, the proper way to request one is to put in a flag.  I have added the citations that polite editors would have requested. Rjensen (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the proper method is not to add content unless it is cited, particularly on topics that are subject to controversy. Your use of POV language and broad, sweeping statements does not help either. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Uncle Dick is now happy with all the citations that have been added at his request (from sources like Gallup, BBC and NY Times). The original language closely followed the RS and was correct and true and hence not POV in the first place. Rjensen (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, you seem add unsourced content on a whim, relying upon your personal opinion. After you're called on it, you quickly look for sources to support your opinions, but it doesn't always match up. The sources you have cited do not support the bold, sweeping assertions you have made about the Tea Party movement. Content needs to flow from the sources, not vice versa. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * well that's a false personal attack. I actually do read the newspapers. Uncle Dick instead of violating Wiki rules by erasing statements he personally dislikes should do a google check himself and then he would see the statements are solidly based. The "anger" statement is a good example--solid evidence he could find in 30 seconds. Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)