NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

User talk:Richard Jensen

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

American religion, again

Hey Richard-- Sorry to bother you again with a question about religion in America, but I just hacked out a stub on Unitarianism, and I was wondering if you might take a look at it. I feel reasonably comfortable about the first paragraph, where I distinguish between the denomination and the theology of the godhead, but I wanted to make sure I didn't make any howlers in my discussion of early Unitarianism, particularly in America. Feel free to change anything you like, as American religion is a mere side-interest of mine. Thanks, Brian P. Long 15:53, 6 May 2008 (CDT)

willdo...thanks for starting important article. It looks very good! Richard Jensen 16:11, 6 May 2008 (CDT)

I need your input

Hi Richard, can you take a look at this page and give us a little direction? Thanks in advance! --D. Matt Innis 17:42, 8 May 2008 (CDT)

History Workgroup Week

Hey Richard-- Would you want to be the History Workgroup Week Coordinator? I can work on getting the basic page together and helping out generally, but we need an editor on-board. Are you game? Thanks, Brian P. Long 18:43, 8 May 2008 (CDT)

yesRichard Jensen 20:29, 8 May 2008 (CDT)

More input

Hello Dr. Jensen, could you see here about the naming of the Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima article that I'm going to start? I borrowed my book on Imjin War to one of my friends so I can't work on the Korean War of 1592-1598 right now. Thank you very much. (Chunbum Park 23:54, 8 May 2008 (CDT))

it's the author's call (Chunbum's) -- I lean to "Liancourt Rocks / Takeshima / Dokdo / Tokto" see for military discussion) Richard Jensen 00:15, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
Hello, I never considered that. I'm used to being in Wikipedia, so multiple names is not so obvious to me. Thank you, I'll suggest that in the discussion. (Chunbum Park 08:35, 9 May 2008 (CDT))
Actually, I can't make it author's call - the issue's too big for me to take full responsibility. See these news articles: Joseon Ilbo, Livedoor, Japan Probe, & OhMyNews. (Chunbum Park 08:48, 9 May 2008 (CDT))
Chunbum in fact handles big wars very well; he can name the rock! Richard Jensen 11:02, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

Archived for you

Hope you don't mind! --D. Matt Innis 08:00, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

hey thanks--I really appreciate it. I'll pay you back--how about a bibliography on the topic of your choice :) Richard Jensen 08:16, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
Hehe! I think I still owe you for the last one! :-) --D. Matt Innis 08:33, 9 May 2008 (CDT)


Thanks for the note. I seem to have created a big mess by just jumping in without understanding the way things work. Maybe I'll wait a few days to be bold again.--David Boven 08:28, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

no no, be bold-please write! it's just that moving and renaming articles causes no end of technical troubles, and I've made the mistake several times. Happily our very good technical crew cleaned up the mess I made. :) Richard Jensen 10:27, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Removing the Bruce-Lovett report

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been deleted, because it sure sounds like an extremely dubious document. (Puzzling, because Schlesinger has a good reputation, so 2+2 aren't adding up here - but that's a rathole for another day!) I just like everyone to be cheerful. (Not the world's worst character flaw, eh?) J. Noel Chiappa 11:05, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

I really like Schlesinger -- but he handled so many tens of thousands of documents that he let this one slip through. In his defense he was not writing about 1956 but about a later period (1960-61). I think somebody made a mock "report" and Kennedy laughed about it and kept it -- and Schlesinger thought it was real. I used to be active in archival circles (I was on the FBI Archives advisory board), and know US government agencies all have multiple checklists to deal with real documents (none of which show the existence of this document). As for keeping people happy, I think Howard C. Berkowitz, who's doing terrific work, appreciates fellow experts helping him out. That is what CZ is all about: collaboration. Richard Jensen 11:17, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Yes, that struck me as the likeliest possibility (if it's not real); that somehow this thing got into RFK's files, and Schlesinger took it for real. (The other possibility, if it's not real, being that Schlesinger faked it, which seems considerably less likely.)
The problem I have with that theory is 'where is it, then'? Since the RFK Archive people have looked for it, and can't find it, one now sort of has to come up with an explanation as to why (again, assuming that Schlesinger really saw such a thing). Did they just miss it somehow (perhaps because it's misfiled)? Did it somehow get lost (e.g. someone borrowed it, and didn't return it)? Did someone have it removed from the archives (to cover up the faking, perhaps)? And if that could have happened, couldn't it also have happened it if were real? Etc, etc...
As a side question, again assuming Schlesinger really saw such a document, one has to wonder 'why did someone go to the effort of creating this fake'? The CSI theory is that it would have wound up in RFK's files in the very early 60s, well before the CIA had a raft of people out after it. A bureacratic rival?
If it is real, I wonder if the reason it doesn't show up on any logs, etc is that it could have been an informal document solicited by Eisenhower from these two people in a quiet way - perhaps because he wanted them to be very frank, and be willing to break some institutional rice bowls.
Etc, etc. Very curious, all around. J. Noel Chiappa 11:46, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Yeah, it's curioser and curiouser. We knoe Ike did not see it. His staff was VERY efficient in logging in every document that went to the White House, and there is no such document, and no such log record, at the Eisenhower archives. The simplest explanation is that it was a draft that never became an official report, or that it was a a prank that Schlesinger misunderstood. I can't believe Schlesinger faked it--he knew a real document would have a long paper trail at the CIA, White House etc. and that a fake document would humiliate his reputation (as hapened to Trevor Roper who authenticated the fake Hitler diaries.) As we know from the CBS-Dan-Rather-National Guard business, it's easy to fake a typewritten report. If we had the copy Schlesinger used we could use standard techniques to maybe discover if it was a later fake, but his copy has vanished and so have his notes. Maybe Schlesinger realized it was a fake and discarded it instead of returning it to the Kennedy Library?? Alas, he was quoting himself on the subject as late as 2000. so that theory is out.Richard Jensen 13:42, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Seems like a lot of work for a prank, but I guess it's possible.
Here's another theory, which draws on your suggestion that it may have been a draft: perhaps it wasn't drawn up as a formal report, but rather an aide-memoire for one (or both) of them, as part of a review requested (perhaps verbally) by Eisenhoweer, and the results of that review were presented to Eisenhower verbally? I know, I know, it's a bit of a reach, but it is, I think, plausible (especially if it involved the potential breakage of rice bowls, they might want to do that quietly). Unfortunately, the only evidence for this possibility is, in the best conspiracy theory style, the lack of evidence!
Yet another one, drawing this time on your "a fake document would humiliate his reputation": Schlesinger eventually realized it wasn't real, and he'd been had, and he didn't want the embarassment of coming out and admitting he'd been had. So he disappears the original document, and his notes, leaving fog behind... that keeps him clear, and minimizes the damage to the historical record.
And a variant on that one: he falsely comes to believe it was a fake (because nobody can find any contemporary cross-references), even though it was in fact real (but very oddball), and events ensue as in the previous one. And I'd better stop there before my fantasies become too elaborate! :-) J. Noel Chiappa 14:26, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
I lean to the aide-memoire hypothesis. There was no commission, no staff, no study, no report. But Bruce and/or Lovett exchanged private memos. How did Kennedy get a copy? One suggestion on the web is RFK headed a stury of what went wrong at CIA's Bay of Pigs. Lovett testified and was harsh on CIA, and gave Kennedy the private memo. Ok--here's another (better?) possibility. Schlesinger hismelf was involved in the investigation of the Bay of Pigs, Lovett or his aide gave SCHLESINGER the draft in 1961. In 1968 when it came time to write the book on Bobby the draft was at hand, and Schlesinger made the mistake of saying he found it in the Kenedy papers. (We know it was never logged into the Kennedy papers--the Kennedy Library has very good archivists who track these things.) This explains why the Kennedy papers lack the copy--they never had it. Likewise Eisenhower never had it. So what did Schlesinger do with his own copy and the notes he took?? Richard Jensen 14:36, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
That hypothesis (that Schlesinger misremembered where it was) is another good possibility - but as you say, it does raise the question of what happened to his copy - and we still have the question of why there's no copy in the Bruce archives. Of course, if it was an aide-memoire for Lovett (who was the one who testified, after all - our hypothetical transmission channel), it might quite reasonably not be in Bruce's files. I wonder if Lovett had archives, and if so, if people have looked there? Or perhaps there was only one typed original, and whoever (Lovett?) gave it to Schlesinger (or RFK), and it's now lost? Or maybe Schlesigner thought it was in the Kennedy, and as result never bothered to look in his own files because of that? I wonder where his papers are now, and if they've been searched?
As to the notes, Schlesinger says he gave his original notes to Grose, and didn't retain a copy (!!). (And why did he make notes if he had the original? But perhaps he was confused, even back then, as to where it was?) Again, slightly odd, but not impossible.
I have sent email to the person at Cryptome who had a copy of the CSI mention of it on his web-site, so perhaps he can provide something more recent. J. Noel Chiappa 16:35, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Schlesinger's papers were recently purchased by CCNY--I suppose it will take a few years to sort them. Suppose--if-perhaps--in 1961 he saw the memo and made notes. (He could have been shown the memo by X for a few hours, made notes, then returned it to X.) Then perhaps in 1969 when he wrote his book on RFK he only used his notes. (This was not a central point and no need to track down the original when you have your own notes.) Then in writing up the appropriate footnote he got mixed up, and said the original was in the Kennedy collection when it was not. Schlesinger does emphasize in his book that no one paid any attention to the memo in 1956. (Which I think is because no one saw it then.) As for giving the notes to Gose?? Schlesinger had a secretary and xerox machine, and so the idea he mailed off his only copy, the Gose lost them, seems odd as well. Richard Jensen 17:12, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
I like that one (that he was shown a copy, made notes, and got confused about where he'd seen them) too, but I wonder why he thought he'd just seen them in the RFK papers (presumably shortly after RFK died, because Schlesigner apparently said something about "before they were deposited at the JFK library"), when under this theory it was many years before. Maybe he got confused because there was an RFK connection in both cases? I see also the book was published in '68, which would have been shortly after RFK was killed - maybe he was under time pressure to get it out, and made a mistake because of that?
I too was puzzled as to why Schlesigner didn't have a copy of his notes any more (see incredulity above), but the CSI newsletter indicates they interacted with him directly: Professor Schlesinger informed us .. [h]e had loaned Grose his notes and does not have a copy of these notes. So either he's mistaken, or he did loan out his only copy... who knows? Another odd circumstance.
I got a reply from Mr. John Young, who has a copy of the CSI thing on the Cryptome website; he suggested we contact Mr. Grose to persue this further; I asked him if he knew how to do that.
Late addition: See the Talk:CIA page - I think I have found testimony from Lovett confirming he and Bruce did an investigation. J. Noel Chiappa 18:29, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

reverted your edits

Hello Richard, I have reverted your edits on CIA earlier this morning that caused some upset. Do take your time and use the talk page before making such large deletions. --D. Matt Innis 21:22, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

there are now several thousand words explaining the deletions. Is that enough? Richard Jensen 04:56, 17 May 2008 (CDT)
yup, any deletions that are made to this material now would be content issues. --D. Matt Innis 13:12, 17 May 2008 (CDT)

Approval of Cauchy

Richard, could you approve Augustin Louis Cauchy? --Paul Wormer 02:56, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

Did you see Talk:Augustin-Louis Cauchy#Approval? J. Noel Chiappa 15:19, 23 May 2008 (CDT)

Latinos and Hispanics

I was just looking at the draft of the week. I was always taught that Latinos included people from Latin America that spoke Romance languages whereas Hispanics were only those that spoke Spanish (not Brazil, Suriname, etc.). The new draft of Latino History is a little confusing in the lead. I haven't had time to read the whole article yet, but you may want to look over it.--David Boven 11:00, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

thanks for the heads-up. I'll look into it now.Richard Jensen 11:21, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

Red herring-thanks

Thanks for the clarification on Red Herring. I have been trying to remove it from the unchecklisted list for weeks, but it sat there empty all this time. I gave it a quick try just to clear the log. You verbage is a definite improvement. David E. Volk 15:24, 25 May 2008 (CDT)

happy to help. Harry Truman got in trouble saying the Alger Hiss case was a red herring. Richard Jensen 16:38, 25 May 2008 (CDT)


Hello, Dr. Jenson! Thank you for your kind greeting on my talk page. If you need any help with any article in a subject area I am familiar with, I will be glad to assist. Erik M. Baker 22:03, 28 May 2008 (CDT)

DoD (US) name

See Talk:United States Department of Defense#names - should I rename it to Department of Defense (United States), then? Not U.S. Department of Defense and not Department of Defense (U.S.), or anything else? J. Noel Chiappa 12:27, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

PS: I am keeping an eye on Elizabeth II, will move it soon. J. Noel Chiappa 12:37, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

New type of subpage

Officially these need to be approved before being hardwired but I have set up the subpages template such that you can start using an experimental version. My thinking is that if an experimental subpage becomes popular then this will be a strong reason to adopt it to the official list. The way to set up an experimental tab is to add "|tab1=New Subpage name" into the metadata page. You can see an example of this type of addition at Damon_Knight_Memorial_Grand_Master_Award for the Honorees tab. The full proposal for adding new subpage types in this way can be read at CZ:Proposals/Should_we_allow_article_specific_subpages?. Let me know if this does not make sense. Chris Day 22:37, 5 June 2008 (CDT)

thanks. I'm proposing a standard subpage for all history articles for "Primary sources"-- excerpts of original historical documents. For copyright reasons these will be old documents (or government documents), and thus seem most appropriate for History, but others can use them too. I expect several hundred history articles could use this subpage effective. Richard Jensen 23:39, 5 June 2008 (CDT)
Note that Larry affirms it needs approval before being hardwired. Chris Day 09:53, 6 June 2008 (CDT)
Certainly articles like Hippocrates and Galen could use a "Primary sources" subpage. --Anthony.Sebastian 00:04, 7 June 2008 (CDT)

Approval of United States Environmental Protection Agency

Richard, I would like to have the subject article approved. Since you and I are the only two who worked on it, it is my understanding that we cannot nominate it for approval. Do you have any ideas as to which editors we could approach about nominating this article for approval? - Milton Beychok 04:51, 7 June 2008 (CDT)

hmm.. i'll ask. First how about changing the title to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (It's real name is just Environmental Protection Agency., and the U.S. is an identifier versus state agencies.) Richard Jensen 06:03, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
When I find the time, I will change the "United States" to "U.S." or "U.S.A." ... there is some discussion going on in the General Forums about standardizing what article name to use in just this case and I would like to wait until that shakes out. Moving the article name involves moving the entire cluster of subpages, metadata page, approval page, etc. and is quite tedious and time consuming.
In any event, The U.S. or the U.S.A. is more than an identifier versus the state agencies ... many foreign countries also have very similar Environmental Protection names.
Have you ever worked with the editor Anthony Argyriou? If you have, would you be so kind as to approach him about nominating the article? - Milton Beychok 13:37, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
Ok I just asked him at User talk:Anthony Argyriou Richard Jensen 21:05, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
Richard, would you please read my comments on the Talk page of the article regarding your thoughts on changing the article name? I think we need more discussion before changing the name. Thanks in advance. Milton Beychok 16:12, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

R. Eugene Pincham

Do you know anything about Chicago's R. Eugene Pincham? I can hardly imagine you were not aware of some of the publicity-oriented cases he took. Stephen Ewen 03:58, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

I would read about him in the paper or TV esp high publicity murder trials; he ran for office a few times and was known to be close to Mayor Washington, but I never had any inside info on him. Richard Jensen 06:01, 16 June 2008 (CDT)
I recommend contacting Mel Holli, retired U of Illinois-Chicago history prof and expert on Chicago politics. "Melvin Holli" <mholli -at-> Richard Jensen 06:06, 16 June 2008 (CDT)


Hey, sorry to see the dustup over Gettysburg. :-( J. Noel Chiappa 06:29, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

oh it's a striking confirmation of the old academic adage that there are no disputes on earth so trivial as academic ones. Richard Jensen 06:35, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

Richard, maps 2 and 3 work for me and seem really helpful. --D. Matt Innis 09:37, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

thanks--must be my browser. Richard Jensen 13:33, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

On medieval referencing

Hi Richard--since things change over time, and it has been mumble mumble years since I was in school, can you refresh my memory?

If I want to quote a medieval book and I have a) a 19th century complete reprint of it and b) there is a complete scanned copy of the original in the national library that I have reviewed, but c) I've never actually seen the original hard copy, when I put it in my biblio, do I put the original, or because I haven't actually held the hard copy, do I reference only the reprint?

Aleta Curry 18:46, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

I think either one works. The goal in a scholarly article is to prove whether you saw the original or a photocopy of it (you did), but that's not an issue here. I would cite the version that users are most likely to come across (probably the reprint, which is much cheaper and so libraries could buy it.) Be sure to mention the original date. For really expensive books the rare book library only lets most people handle the photocopy. Richard Jensen 19:20, 16 June 2008 (CDT)


Aw shucks, 'tweren't nothin'. I just made the previous statement inoperative! Bruce M.Tindall 15:04, 19 June 2008 (CDT)

just don't get on the CZ Enema List -- you'll catch shit. Richard Jensen 15:29, 19 June 2008 (CDT)


I hadn't been planning on doing a full article, although I can contribute to some of the electronics. Interesting, though -- I just found Rudel's autobiography. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:10, 25 June 2008 (CDT)

well I'll start on it then.Richard Jensen 17:50, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
you may not have seen this, since it was in the radar technical article, but, while the author is a bit provocative in some statements, he's right that Germany had some more advanced radar technology, but didn't have enough system thinking around it.

<ref name=Clark1997>{{citation | id = ADA397960 | title = Deflating British Radar Myths of World War II | publisher = Air Command and Staff College | author = Clark, Gregory C. | url = | date = March 1997}}</ref> Howard C. Berkowitz 20:38, 25 June 2008 (CDT)

I really don't know much about radar and electronic navigation so I hope you will handle those topics re Luftwaffe. You can keep all the strips of aluminum foil you find as souvenirs Richard Jensen 20:51, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
LOL...of course. Chaff makes nice Christmas decoration. Do you have R.V. Jones' The Wizard War?
Seriously, I'm updating and generalizing integrated air defense system. The Germans did develop some not-unreasonable IADS, but, by the time the large-scale Allied bomber forces flew against them, the Allies also knew more about electronic warfare. A number of the more effective techniques were deliberately held back until the invasion of France. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:16, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
While it was indeed Luftwaffe in WWII, the term, AFAIK, is still in use. I've seen transports in Luftwaffe markings at Dulles International Airport, over at the General Aviation terminal.Howard C. Berkowitz 00:11, 26 June 2008 (CDT)


Thank you for your approval, Dr. Jensen! People weren't approving the article, so I planned to take the article off the list after this vote but I guess I don't have to. If you have doubts about the neutrality of the article or you are interested in the subject & would like a neutral & professional view on this issue, please take a look at this article written by a Japanese historian - Hideki Kajimura: The Question of Takeshima/Tokdo. Thank you. (Chunbum Park 18:07, 1 July 2008 (CDT))

Actually, I'd think that you would stop reading the pdf by the 1st page or so, so here are some interesting & provocative quotes from the pdf:

To presume that the existence of Takeshima ~ Tokdo was not known to those people who lived and engaged in farming on Ullungdo for several hundred years is caused by a prejudice regarding Koreans as half-witted.

...the Japanese government confirmed Takeshima/Ullungdo as Korean's inherent territory in 1696, and took the measure of prohibiting completely Japanese from making voyage there.

The word "voyage" (or crossing sea) means voyage to a foreign country (since a permit is not needed for going to a domestic island), and the fact that the Japanese/government issued a permit of voyage to Matsushima means that the Japanese government did not regard it as a Japanese territory...

During the heated anti-foreign campaign between 1952 and 1954 the notion that "Takeshima ~ Tokdo is Japan's inherent territory penetrated into the Japanese for the first time. This campaign was also utilized clearly as a means to push for Japan's military rearmament.

(Chunbum Park 18:26, 1 July 2008 (CDT))

thanks for the tip. And thanks for a very good article! You have the knack for writing for the encyclopedia. Richard Jensen 18:55, 1 July 2008 (CDT)


Richard, could you move AFL to American Federation of Labor? Eventually someone will write an article about the American Football League, so we will be needing a disambiguation page. David E. Volk 14:08, 7 July 2008 (CDT)

OK, done. Richard Jensen 18:57, 7 July 2008 (CDT)
Thanks David E. Volk 22:02, 7 July 2008 (CDT)

Dokdo approval

Hello Dr. Jensen,

I think I finished the Dokdo article. Could you see if it can be approved? Thank you very much. (Chunbum Park 21:45, 17 July 2008 (CDT))

Thank you. I made a few edits afterward. They would be included in the approved version? (Chunbum Park 00:22, 18 July 2008 (CDT))
yes. you did a good job! Richard Jensen 10:19, 18 July 2008 (CDT)
Hi Richard, I left a message ont he talk page: This article is up for approval today. I see that there are several edits since the date that Richard Jensen placed the template. If we want those included, the version date needs to reflect that change, otherwise I will use the latest version before that approval was made. D. Matt Innis 08:16, 21 July 2008 (CDT)
Hello Dr. Jensen. I think here you said "yes" to the edits made after you put the approval template. Didn't you? Thank you. (Chunbum Park 10:43, 21 July 2008 (CDT))

Approved! Thanks for the last look ;-) D. Matt Innis 14:47, 22 July 2008 (CDT)

Dr. Jensen, are you still around? Just checking. I've seen about a page about "dead Wikipedians"... I hope we don't see something like that here for a long time. (Chunbum Park 11:23, 29 August 2008 (CDT))

I was forced to take a long "vacation" from CZ. :( Richard Jensen 15:55, 29 August 2008 (CDT)
"forced" ??? (Chunbum Park 18:48, 29 August 2008 (CDT))
yes--officially asked to take a long leave. Richard Jensen 21:21, 29 August 2008 (CDT)
I see. How come? This must be the first case that someone's been "ousted" from Citizendium. (Chunbum Park 16:08, 30 August 2008 (CDT))
I find myself forced to correct Richard's misleading statement. If Richard sincerely believes that he was "forced to take a long 'vacation' from CZ," he misread e-mails that were sent to him. Without elaborating on his situation--which we may do if Richard wishes which is his right--he retains the right to contribute here. If he did not know that, he does now.
Indeed we have "ousted" several other people from CZ, but have not done so in many months now (simply because we have had fewer problems). "Ousted" and "forced" are the incorrect descriptions, however, because they imply a raw, blind power struggle as opposed to a regular "legal" process; if someone is removed from participation in CZ, however, it is always done through due process and is subject to appeal. Believe it or not, I and many other people in CZ care very much about such matters. --Larry Sanger 22:59, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

Richard Jensen was asked to take a 'holiday' from editing here. He was humiliated before he was stood on, basically. In a purely understandable response to this, Richard told them where they could stick their wiki. Denis Cavanagh 23:03, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

Dr. Jensen, Dr. Sanger says you can still contribute. I think you should. I'm not sure what the problem was, but we should all be fully aware that Citizendium needs more people like you participating. We have 100s of PhD accounts registered that have no edits at all. (Chunbum Park 15:27, 2 September 2008 (CDT))


Richard is now editing on Conservapedia. John Stephenson 22:23, 3 September 2008 (CDT)

We should wish him luck. --Larry Sanger 22:27, 3 September 2008 (CDT)

I'll second that. Best of luck, Richard, wherever you do your work; and many thanks for your valuable contributions to Citizendium. Brian P. Long 23:15, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
I'll second that! Hayford Peirce 23:22, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
Thanks--I'm back as well to Wikipedia. Richard Jensen 05:16, 4 September 2008 (CDT)
I hope you have an ample supply of Valium! Hayford Peirce 10:16, 4 September 2008 (CDT)
I don't like Wikipedia... well, good luck Dr. Jensen. I hope that soon all will be settled, you will recall the Citizendium experience, think how wonderful it was to be here, then change your mind & come back! : ) (Chunbum Park 18:39, 4 September 2008 (CDT))
For what it's worth, I second that. I have no idea what happened here, I guess I missed a lot over the summer. I hope time heals the rifts. Chris Day 21:08, 4 September 2008 (CDT)

Are you back?

I noticed a couple of edits earlier today from you. What a surprise! Does this mean you are back? --Larry Sanger 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! Let's have a party!
"Chunbum Park brings 6 bottles of ^ beer and gulps one down." (Chunbum Park 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC))
No I'm on sabbatical for the next three years. Richard Jensen 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It's been 1 yr already in Mercurian calendar. (Chunbum Park 04:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC))
Hello Dr. Jenson. How are you doing? Will you come back in November 7, 2011? (Chunbum Park 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Explosives approved

Explosives has been approved! Congratulations on a job well done. --Chris Key 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

I have removed the last paragraph of the James G. Blaine article as it appears to be copyrighted and so should not simply be uploaded there. Under our blocking procedures, this attracts a warning first, then a ban. This message constitutes the warning, unless you can show evidence that the material was appropriately uploaded. John Stephenson 12:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)