This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jenhawk777. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey! Just wanted to check in to say I haven't forgotten about our work on Ambrose. Perhaps we come back to it this summer and push for GA? I have a few other WP commitments in the way, and would like to get them done before returning to Mr. Aurelius Ambrosius. Aza24 (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
That timing would probably work out for me. I have no way of knowing, but I do know, not now, and maybe not even then, as it's already been a crazy year. My mother died and my sister stole most of the estate's money. Yeah. It gets worse too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Jen, I'm so sorry to hear this, its awful that you had to go through that. Can I offer some of the relaxing music I go to? [1][2][3]... maybe it will help. I only reached out about Ambrose so you wouldn't think I had forgotten about the article; I'm totally fine returning this summer, next year, or even later. Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Aza24 Thank you for the sympathy. I am surviving surprisingly well I think. Perhaps it all hasn't hit me yet - ask me in a year if I have hired someone to kill my sister... No on second thought, don't ask!! . I am glad to hear from you, always. I'm glad you hadn't forgotten - I did! Music and kindness and the caring of others always helps everything, so thank you, come back whenever you think you are ready, and if I can't I will just explain when I can. Being on WP helps make me feel normal again, it doesn't hurt anything, so this is a good thing. I am working on three things right now though, so when I am done, I will ping you and see where you're at! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
You really have 2 options: either add a mention to the |note= parameter, or else close the review and start /GA2 with yourself as the reviewer. There is otherwise no way to get credit for the review. (t · c) buidhe06:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
you know, when I answered the second opinion, I thought I should have closed it then, but it was a second opinion, so I didn't. Then I was left with it. There is no note = parameter that I see. Oh well. I will finish the review anyway. The article deserves it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
buidhe The real question is, once I finish, do I have the power to promote or fail? That's what matters. This has taken months, and she has persevered through it all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Jenhawk777, you edited the WP:GAN page again today. Please don't. The bot will take care of things, and nothing is so urgent that it can't wait for a max of 20 minutes for the next bot run. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
BlueMoonset I'm so sorry! I thought it said that if it reflected what was on the article talkpage that it was okay. You're right of course, there was no urgency, but I didn't know anything about how often bots run. I do now, so I won't do it again. If I am understanding correctly now, you are saying that if I change it on the talkpage that the bot will come along and make that change on the nominations page in 20 minutes?
This was a different circumstance than the one above - we never did get that one figured out - on this one I had done a little whining, and it needed removing. I had embarrassed myself, and now, by removing it, it seems I have embarrassed myself yet again! Mea culpa. Please forgive my ignorance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Jenhawk777, no problem. The bot runs every 20 minutes, so you should never have to wait longer than that for any change you make to the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page to be reflected on the GAN page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
BlueMoonset Thank you. You seem knowledgable about this, and if I may take up a little more of your time, I'd like to ask another question. Just above this was a problem we never could figure out an answer to. I picked up a second opinion which became an abandoned review, but the original reviewer never removed their name as reviewer or put my name on it. When it came time to conclude the review, the bot would only recognize them, and I had to go get them to post the results. Thank goodness they were timely in responding and the article's author didn't have to wait indefinitely - they had already been through a lot of waiting - but neither I nor buidhe could figure out how to change the name of the reviewer at either the article talkpage or the GA page. I tried several things but clearly I am not well informed about how this all works, and none of it worked! So if you have any idea what I should have or could have done in that circumstance, I would appreciate knowing in case it ever happens again. Thanx again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Jenhawk777, happy to reply. We haven't typically updated the GA review page when a new reviewer takes over from a previous one who has withdrawn from or abandoned the review to officially hand off responsibility for the review. It is understood that the new reviewer has taken over and is now responsible for the review, even if the bot shows the previous reviewer. So there was no need to get the attention of the original (and still listed) reviewer; the decision at that point was entirely yours, and you could have closed the review at that time even though their name remained on the review. (I think I posted something to that effect on the review at the time, but it might not have been until after the closure was done.) This isn't an ideal situation, and perhaps GAN needs a more formal way of reassigning reviews when that happens; it is possible to make a manual intervention on the review page, but it's almost never done—it may be because the history of the review is obscured, but there ought to be a way around it. I hope this helps. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
BlueMoonset So here I am demonstrating my ignorance again, but I thought the listed reviewer was the only one who could pass or fail a review. Other opinions are invited but they can't make the final call. So did I get credit for that review after all? I don't suppose it matters a great deal, but I do want to do my part to help others and I know somewhere one of those magic bots keeps track. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
If the listed reviewer has been active throughout and continues reviewing, then it is true that they alone make the final decision. However, if they have abandoned or withdrawn from the review, they have forfeited their say: that decision passes to whoever takes over and completes the review. The bot may not have given you a credit for that review—it was never programmed to determine a change in reviewers—but you can certainly claim it in your own accounting. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
... after Easter and resilience: dance and singing, peace doves and icecream - Freiheit! to listen to, - the livestream has it all, safety announcement, speeches, intermission ... but there's a good legend to find the symphony movement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt Thank you dearheart, it's been a long year already and it's only just started. People like you are always a help. WP helps. It gives me other stuff to complain about! I loved the music and dancing. Thank you for thinking of me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I posted a note; I'm afraid it might not be what you were hoping for! I am impressed by your academic knowledge, but I do think changes need to be made. We can continue that conversation on the article talk page.
Have you considered working on something small and getting that to GA? It's really hard to start at the top level and work down; it's usually easier to start with the "leaf" articles on the tree and work your way up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
No no Mike Christie don't apologize. Your honest assessment is what I asked for. Yes, I have other GAs, though some of them are pretty large too. I have answered your note on the article talk page. I am thankful for this Mike. I don't mind making any and all changes if I can just figure out what changes need to be made, so you are helping me, and I am deeply grateful.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
May Women in Red events
Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230
Hi @Jenhawk777, I'm really not sure. I'm not experienced on here, I was just looking through recent changes and thought the redirect of a major article seemed 'off', and clearly it wasn't in bad faith by any means. I wish I could help more. Hope the difficulty you're experiencing is resolved soon! <3 TheoCourt (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bible you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
June events from Women in Red
Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233
Hello @User:Jenhawk777 - just a quick thank you for your initial good article review over at the Papyrus 45 page. I am working on including all your very helpful comments (+ respective references), and will let you know once done. Thanks again! Stephen Walch (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Stephen Walch And thank you for your gracious response. That isn't always easy, is it? Just to prove it to myself, I asked my husband - who has lived with me a long time and hears about all this kind of stuff regularly - if he knew what the Chester Beatty Papyri were. He gave me a "look" and told me not to be ridiculous. He's an engineer. I'm not sure his alma mater even had a liberal arts program... Now, if it involved baseball he would know! I will look forward to seeing the result, but I have no doubt this will all be trivial for you, and you will do a great job. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Jenhawk777:No trouble at all. Appreciated the constructive criticism, especially as the criticism can be levelled at pretty much every single New Testament manuscript article on Wikipedia (see for instance the pages for Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus - quite a few of which I've edited extensively). Problem is the topic at hand is in itself, technical, so finding the best way to explain it to the average person is tricky, but your comments have certainly pointed to the proper aim each article should strive to achieve. Thanks once again! Stephen Walch (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Stephen Walch You are so right, the topic is technical. I can't tell you how many times I have tried to explain that to people who have said exactly these same things to me, and they just always respond with 'too bad, so sad', and point me to some science or medical article in the same circumstance that did a better job of explaining than I did. Sigh. It's damned annoying is what it is - especially since they are right... I will fully expect, after you finish this one, that you will go back and fix the others you mention making them more accessible as well. You will make wikipedia a better encyclopedia, and that's our goal.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Jenhawk777: I have hopefully incorporated all relevant comments to comply with your very helpful suggestions in the GA review. Please feel free to notify me on my own talk page (so we don't clutter yours) of any and all improvements I should include. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The article cites "Sáry 2019" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js');// Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•304:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The article Bible you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bible for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
And, since noone else did, I started an article on it: Larries. Anything you are familiar with? I really like putting " doi:10.3167/ghs.2019.120106" into an article like this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I have never heard of this before, but it is not terribly surprising I suppose. Human culture has always been defined by its stories. We take them seriously. With television, we know way more about those tv story characters than anyone in real life. Combine the two, and it seems inevitable. (Still funny though...) All of us humans are an odd sort, you know? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Diannaa I need to know what was deleted. How can I see that? I have been checking for copyright-vios consistently. I have some quotes that keep coming up as violations but aren't really. I don't know what this is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Jenhawk777. You used the {{Help me}} template, but you wanted an answer from a specific editor. If you still need help, please add your question to that editor's talk page instead. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance.
Diannaa Nevermind! I see it! I know what I did now. How stupid of me! I included that list without attribution didn't I? Dag nabbit! That was nothing but sheer carelessness on my part. I deserve to be flogged! I do thank you for catching it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The list I thought, and the quote after it, which I failed to properly quote. That's humbling. I am simply too careless at times. Thank goodness for you. And thank you for just removing the problematic paragraph and not deleting the entire thing. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red in July 2022
Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235
I'm sorry to say this, but I felt compelled to close the GAN. Levivich raised citation-verification concerns that I didn't feel I could ignore. I find it frustrating, because you're a very well-meaning and enthusiastic editor, but both times I've reviewed your work, verification problems have tripped you up.
I wish I could offer you advice on how to avoid this problem, but I'm afraid I don't know how most Wikipedians keep track of which page says what as they're writing or rewriting, and my own approach (obsessively keeping my sources on hand) is uniquely extreme and may only make sense with my glacial, perfectionist approach to writing. What I can say is that you consistently bite off more than you can chew. You've tackled a lot of enormous topics in the nearly four years since we first interacted. It might work better to focus your efforts on one topic and work on it at a slower pace. You may be fed up with the article after all this, but I encourage you to work on addressing the concerns Levivich has raised at Talk:Bible. I'll be keeping an eye on the discussions and may be able to offer useful input. A. Parrot (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
A. Parrot Thank you for your time and for the good advice. Where did she raise those concerns? I read everything she wrote on the talk page, and as far as I can see, Levivich found one verification problem at [7]. Were there others that I missed? I will spend whatever time is required, and I will recheck every citation, not just my own, including Levivich's which I had previously found problems with, and I will ensure this doesn't happen again. I have never yet encountered an article that didn't have these problems to some degree. I haven't found your perfection out there yet. I will finish chewing what I bit off here. I will make a list as I go through here on the talk page. I will renominate then. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
A. Parrot I don't know if you still care about this article, or me, but I figured out, I think, that the only way to deal with the constant conflict on this article is simply to back off and let the other editor have it. Since then, there has been ongoing editing on the article, all good, and while other sources have been removed, there have been no more "concerns" over the verification of any of my edits since that one, that one time. (She was right about that one where I should have cited the title of the book instead of the page where the title was printed. I didn't know I could do that then, but I learned that from this experience.) I am "letting go" to an editor who will not change their own citation approach, no matter what you and I and WP policy says, though I do still feel they are a good dependable editor overall. I am formally requesting that you keep your more experienced eye on what goes on there. It seems you may be tired of me, but I hope you aren't tired of the article itself. Right now a total reorganization is being discussed - which could very well be a good thing - so I am hoping you will have some input on that. I'm sorry if I've been a pain. It's been a difficult year in RL for me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
No, it's nothing about you. I've just had difficulty concentrating on Wikipedia in general lately, and when I do concentrate, it's on a writing project of my own that has an informal deadline of sorts. But if you need me for anything specific, don't hesitate to ask. As for Bible, I've looked at the proposed reorganized article structure and it seems OK to me, but I stand by what I said about bundled citations and hope not to see more of them in the article. A. Parrot (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
A. Parrot Oh thank goodness! I was afraid the whole citation thing had irritated you beyond enduring! I am careful, honestly, but I know I am imperfect with details. I am just not a detail oriented person. I am a big picture, big concept person. I can take big ideas and make them accessible. My research is always extensive. I actually read through whatever journal article or book I am using so I have a clear overview of the scholarship myself before writing anything. That usually means I spend anywhere from days to weeks researching multiple sources on any given single paragraph in any article. I take notes on everything I read. With page numbers. My scholarship is dependable, in depth, accurate and representative. I know that's not enough by itself. I do acknowledge I am imperfect with citations, but it is also fair to say my mistakes are few. In my recheck, that one is the only mistake I have found - so far. I am trying to be really careful, but chances are I will never be as 100% perfect at this as you are. I'm sorry. I am just being honest about who I am and what my strengths and weaknesses are. I am getting in the habit of double checking myself, since your comment here, but I am still not confident that will ever completely fix it, since it isn't just something I do, it's who I am. 99% may be the best I can do. From much of what I have worked on "redoing" here on WP, my percentage is higher than most - at least those ordinary articles that aren't FA - by us common, flawed people who aren't YOU.
Since you asked :-), those bundled citations are still there, unchanged. I do want to ask you to, please, keep an eye on this whole issue. I have failed repeatedly to have any impact at all. You have been told, by the editor that put them together, that my moving these citations caused a verification problem. That same bundle is in the article about a dozen times, so that would be a lot of verification issues! But every time I attempt to do something about it, she reverts me, saying they are right. We are caught in a loop: either there really is a verifiability problem with them, as she says, and they should be replaced accordingly; or there isn't really a problem at all, since she re-verifies them every time she feels they are threatened, so she should stop saying there is a problem. She won't cooperate with either approach, and that makes me wonder if I am missing something. So, one thing I need is your take on what I might be missing. I take it as a personal failure that I have been unable to work this out with her - which leaves the citations unfixed. So, the other thing I want is for you to do what I am apparently unable to do. You have weight that I don't have. This is too important an article to let a verification issue slide because I am tired of fighting a no-win fight. So I am hoping to pass the baton - at least for a while. Fix this. Get her to fix this. I know this is a horrible thing to do to a nice person like you, but I am at my wit's end over this. I am having a horrible year so far, and my endurance is running out. Please help. And thank you for helping me be a better editor. I am taking all you have said to heart. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
A. Parrot Nothing is happening. If and when anything changes, I will ping you. In the mean time, you are off the hook. Thank you for making yourself available. I am very grateful for that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red in September 2022
Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241
Gråbergs Gråa Sång That was an awesome read! Thank you! Did you post that to Aza? Everyone there should read it! I didn't know people were doing research on us, but I definitely agree that content that is a result of disagreement is always better in the end. I think I remember to say thank you, but not always before it has irritated me! I will have to be sure I have apologized for that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Well, I guess I don't think of disagreement as abuse except when it has some condescending or personal aspect to it. I know others have sometimes read me that way when I have disagreed with them though. I don't read political stuff. My head is firmly in the sand these days. American politics has gone completely off the rails. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christianization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honorius.
I saw your name pop-up somewhere and came to say hello! How have you been doing? I have watchlisted a couple of articles you have worked on, and I was sorry to see their GA review not work out. I know you had worked hard; I am confident that you'll see them get through the process successfully in the future. I have read a thing or two about those topics and I am here to help should you require an extra pair of hands — you can always ping me. In any case, I am glad to see you around and working tirelessly, as you always do! — The Most ComfortableChair15:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey The Most Comfortable! How are you? It is great to hear from you! Yes, I really struggled with Christianization of the Roman Empire. People have POV expectations, and that article did not meet them! I think that is for multiple reasons, but I am hopeful that I have now addressed all of them that are mine to do. One of those was a retitling, so I am about ready to nominate it again and see what happens.
Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation has now been redone for the third time! The last reviewer that failed it said "pick one topic" but doing that creates a different set of articles and does away with that one entirely - which may have been his point! It's done now, and I am not redoing it again. I will try again for GA with it eventually, but I might wait awhile until people get a little more aware that these ideas are out there.
I am currently working on Christianization and would be thrilled if you felt like taking parts of it - or anything at all. It is tagged as needing sourcing, and often when there are not sources, what there is, is personal opinion that is often heavily biased. So I don't go looking just for sources to validate what's there. I go find sources first, figure out what they say, then keep only what I can support. It's tedious, so I can fully understand if you want to pass on this amazing janitorial opportunity!
I am sorry to hear about your mother. I can only imagine how difficult that must be and I hope you are doing all right.
Christianization is a broad topic! I could help you expand the "Colonies in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Pacific" part — I believe all three could be a subsection of their own. I have been working on a draft of List of Ig Nobel Prize winners in my notepad that overhauls the article completely (more in line with Nobel Prize winners' lists), and I want to eventually take it to FL. It is taking much longer than I had anticipated. — The Most ComfortableChair14:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I am doing pretty well all in all. Aside from the grumpiness...
Oh man I would love help with the colonies! I do understand about something taking much longer than anticipated. Christianization is exactly that. I dearly want to untag it, but doing all these different countries is really time consuming - and why it hasn't been done before I'm guessing. I think the original author had an oversimplified view. It's taking 4-freaking-ever! I understand completely if you don't want to take something else on.
Can I help you with anything? If you tag the top of the article as Under Construction (with double curly brackets) it makes it easier to actually work in the article itself. You can do it a bit at a time. I am working in my sandbox so I can post stuff to the talk page first - in case of opposition and conflict - before publishing in the article, otherwise, that's exactly what I would be doing. I look forward to seeing what you've written. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for asking! But I think I feel overly frustrated with having to fix list template issues all the time, so I will get on with some content work now. I have a tendency to be a little slow though — if I could do Wikipedia for my day job, I would — so I hope you bear with me. I will most likely have it done in the next couple of weeks. — The Most ComfortableChair02:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I am currently on vacation and only have my phone with me. I’ll be home Sunday and will give it a serious look over when I get home. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Indeed! I have gone north where the leaves are beginning to turn for fall. That won’t happen for another 6 weeks where I live. I am visiting family that I am actually happy to see! 😉 Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Laurel Lodged No! They did not ask anyone! And I don't agree! I tried to undo it and it said I couldn't, so I have asked them to do so. I took so much grief for this article being historiography - which is still on the talk page - that I thought it was important to include that in the title so it's clear this is what the article is. There was no justification given in the edit summary either. I think I will ping them directly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red October 2022
Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244
Hello dear Gerda Arendt! I was just thinking about you yesterday, thinking I hadn't heard from you in awhile and that I needed to go say hi. You beat me to it! So HI! Hope you are doing well, I know enough not to wish for you to stay busy since you always are! I am currently working on redoing the biggest longest article I have ever done - and that says something doesn't it? Love you Gerda! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Gerda, Gerda, Gerda - I was so very much expecting the opposite reaction that I think I was actually looking forward to some comments about people who never learn or some such thing - which I would completely deserve - but music is definitely better. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh wait, as I look at that now I see sarcasm. Gerda! I am shocked! Hah! What are you working on these days? I am spending hours and days and weeks on Christianization. Nearly the entire article lacked sources. How does something like that get published? That's rhetorical but not sarcastic... Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
No, but I did used to live in Nebraska, and when we were wild and crazy teenagers, my friends and I used to drive over to Iowa to buy beer, so I have fond thoughts of Iowa. Hawk is a derivative of my last name in RL. Thank you for the compliment Musdam77. We apparently both also like the number 7. Take care and thanx for the hello! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
If so, that doesn't prevent you creating a page, but there are rules that have to be followed to prevent it from being taken down. Just copy/paste (in edit source) the following:
you, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that she has been paid by InsertName for her contributions to Wikipedia.
on your talk page along with this disclosure at the top of the article's talk page:
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
you (talk·contribs) has been paid by InsertName on their behalf. Insert relevant links, such as relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts written by paid editors, or diffs showing paid contributions being added to articles.
.
If you are not being paid by the organization, but are a member, the difficult thing will be achieving a neutral point of view: [9] but if you are careful with sources, it can be done.
Wikipedia does not recommend beginning with article creation if you are a new editor. There are lots of rules to follow. Take a look: [10] Your article will have to be accepted by a more senior editor, and if you have not followed those rules, your article can be rejected. A real bummer after lots of work. Beginning small, if you're new, is a much better approach.
I watched it, but that would be the extent of my knowledge on it. But that's the great equalizer of Wikipedia - it makes no difference what you know or don't know - or think - the requirement is to go out there and do the research and write what the good sources say from a neutral perspective. What you bring with you might help you know where to look, but mostly I think people just start with google-scholar and work their way through the list. Are you working on writing something? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red November 2022
Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247
Go to Your first article and the Article wizard will walk you through creating an article, but the fact your user page is still red indicates to me that you are a new editor. Starting here with article creation is not a good idea. The chances of meeting the standards necessary to write an article that actually gets accepted and published when you're brand new and inexperienced in the many tedious, difficult, winding ways of Wikipedia are about 1%. Learn to edit first. There is a lot to learn here. Read this: Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, and also know this is what has to be fully and completely complied with in everything you write on WP: Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If what you edit doesn't meet these WP standards, you will have the unhappy experience of having all your hard work not only not accepted, but if you manage to get it published, another editor will come along and remove whatever parts don't measure up (a revert) or will remove the article in its entirety. We have a whole system for deleting entire articles here. It happens every day.
Find an article you are interested in; find a good quality source that discusses what that article is about; see if you can find some aspect on that topic that the article omits that you would like to add from that quality source that you can reference with the page number where you found it. Do not copy it. Again, do not copy. Put what it says in your own words. Write a summary sentence of the pages you have read. Go to edit source on the article, place your edit in the appropriate place, cite it using the reference and pages you found, then publish. When you have more experience in all the aspects of the manual of style including picking a topic and remaining neutral and encyclopedic, then write your first article. Happy editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Made a couple of updates to articles on Wikipedia. How do I know if those are accepted and how do I know what is allowed to be updated and what is not allowed so that I can stay within the TOS and policies of the platform?
As soon as you press edit, they will publish and a little notice that says "Your edit was published" appears at the top right of your screen. Anything is allowed to be updated, and indeed, editors are encouraged to be bold in doing so. What is required of WP editors is here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If what you have written does not meet those standards, it won't be long before another editor comes along and reverts what you wrote - that is, they will remove it and hopefully tell you why. Try not to get upset, just learn from what they tell you. Always cite your source with page numbers. Never ever copy. Always summarize in your own words. Stay neutral and encyclopedic. Please turn your userpage blue by writing something on it as well as your talk page so people can leave you messages when needed. Good luck and happy editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Good morning Jenhawk777.
I'm interested in gardening, allotmenteering and growing vegetables and flowers. Also I am an experienced picture framer.
If this helps my profile. --Jester-Mal (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
You may put anything you like on your user page, but I am unclear what you mean by "helps my profile". Helps how? Toward what? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Gerda Arendt Thank you! I see you like to hike. What I remember most about Germany is how much everyone liked to walk - or bike - so very not-American who hop in the car to cross the street. Love you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
On my first trip to the U.S., I wanted to walk from a motel to the restaurant next day, - half-way down the driveway to the street, someone offered me a ride. - How do like the cantata? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
OMG! I love that story! As before, I am unable to receive any recordings. It makes me sad. I try every time you send one, but I never can. It's got to be something on my security but I don't know what. I'm sure it was beautiful. :-( Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Can you read the article? Can you search for the word "audio" (next to each movement is one)? Can you search for the word YouTube (it's under External links), and open it, and listen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! I just wanted to say: I'm new to serious editing on this site, and as I've wandered through edit histories and talk pages, your work has stood out to me again and again. We're interested in a lot of the same things, and so I've admired your handiwork on particulars; but I've also just really appreciated your style, your ambition, and your evenhandedness. Thanks for all the hard work, and thanks for being a good role model as an editor. I hope eventually we get to work together on something! —Brian (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Wow! I think that may be one of the nicest compliments I've ever gotten. Thank you! It's kind of you to take the time to send this, and I really appreciate it. I hope we get to work together some time too, but there's no time like the present! I am currently working at Christianization. It is long and complex, as every country has to be researched separately, and it is taking me 4-ever! If you are at all interested, and would like to help, I would love the input. I usually begin by google-scholar searching on the topic - say Christianization of the Kievan Rus which is where I am up to now - then I start taking notes in my sandbox, being careful to record page numbers, and try to decide what's actually pertinent to the topic. Then I compose and insert into the article. That's just my approach. You could take a country on your own, or we could work on each one together or whatever you think you might like. I am always happy to have help, but I am also always happy to make new friends, so thanx again and happy editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
As I say: you've got ambition! What an article to take on. But I'm happy to pitch in. That looks fun. I've been working on a couple of small articles—this one and this one—that still need a bit more research, but once I've got those to a good place I'll start catching up on what you've done on Christianization. Glad to be in touch! —Brian (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Brian Those look good! Be sure and get them re-evaluated when you're done. I think you've improved them at least one level. YES! I am ambitious! It is my ambition to bring every article on WP that covers Christianity up to as high a standard as I can manage. Granted, that isn't entirely up to me, but I am doing my best. From the beginning here I have worked on big articles - while everyone told me not to - well almost everyone. See above, the picture of the crocodile? That is from a truly wonderful and consistent friend who has repeatedly helped and supported me in those efforts. He doesn't really like it but he does it! How can a person be a better friend than that? So come join the crocodile with the monstrous appetite when you can! I will look forward to hearing from you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Ha, I see it now! Well, you give me courage. The one I've been eying is original sin. Maybe I can be a crocodile. I'd like to get those first two up to B class before I move on (though I bit off more than I meant to with the article on the early Marian icon, since almost all of the best sources are in German or Italian and unavailable online), and then I'll go for some grander fare. —Brian (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I love that! We can be the croc club! Two can make a club right? LOL! So many good sources in need of translation! I used to speak Spanish and German fluently but haven't used either for years and I find that when you don't use it, you lose it! I'm sure I could pick it up again with a little work but haven't felt the need so far. Never did speak Italian! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
LOL!! But I am the croc - you are the snack!! Hey did you see I renominated HofCofRE for GAN?? I am a glutton for punishment am I not? I couldn't think of a better way to make this year worse! If it doesn't make it this time, I will ask for a second opinion. I am putting on my armor and preparing for the fight - sharpening my crocodile teeth! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I apologize for editing your userpage. Fyi, there is a red link in your "Help" section, since User:Jack who built the house/Convenient Discussions is on Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia. Also, what appears to be meant as a link to Bulgaria links to a user talk page. DefThree (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, you have a bunch of instances where you give both a url and a wikilink to the same article. I tried to clean that up, but I suppose that was intrusive, and someone reverted my edit. Near the top, Wikipedia is misspelled as "Wikpedia", which is what got me started editing your page. DefThree (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh here! On my user page! So what is your job in RL? You are clearly a detail oriented person, which is a good friend for me to have, as I am not. I not only don't mind the "intrusion", I am grateful for it. I admit I haven't paid much attention, and have put stuff there mostly for my own personal use figuring no one cares but me, and here you are proving me wrong. Thank you for telling me, thank you for cleaning things up and thank you for helping me out. Since you have divvied up contributions and added the GANs I failed, you might as well add Christianity. I recently failed it. Feel free to do clean up anytime, but don't feel that's the only reason to drop by. You've edited my user page - we're friends now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
An admin warned me not to edit anyone else's userpage, so I'd better not. You could restore my edit and work from there. I didn't really add anything to your userpage; I just removed redundant links, changed urls to Wikilinks, and fixed a few typos. DefThree (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
They destroyed that bust with that cross carved in. That is disturbing and the only way to put it is desecration of art. "Deconsecrated" .. what hoops must you jump through to take that seriously? Yes, the Taliban also has found it spiritually just to blow up ancient monuments. What kind of argument is that? "Modern sources use how they viewed themselves" ? Really? Totally disingenuous and I stand by my edit. That is total desecration of art. It is stamping onto human history a defect. Luxporphyra (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
While I might agree with you personally, modern scholarship writes history from the perspective of those who participated in it, not from a perspective of those who judge it centuries later. It doesn't matter how you and I feel about it, it matters how they did. Most of all, it matters what the sources say. If you have a quality source that asserts this difference, by all means, use it. I have multiple sources discussing deconsecration, so that is what I have gone according to. Content should reflect the latest best sources and not our personal feelings. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Luxporphyra Here is what I have: "Calculated acts of desecration - removing the hands and feet of statues of the divine, mutilating heads and genitals, tearing down altars and "purging sacred precincts with fire" - were acts committed by the people during the early centuries. While seen as 'proving' the impotence of the gods, pagan icons were also seen as having been “polluted” by the practice of sacrifice. They were, therefore, in need of "desacralization" or "deconsecration" (a practice not limited to Christians).[1] Brown says that, while it was in some ways studiously vindictive, it was not indiscriminate or extensive.[2][3] Once these objects were detached from 'the contagion' of sacrifice, they were seen as having returned to innocence. Many statues and temples were then preserved as art.[2] Professor of Byzantine history Helen Saradi-Mendelovici writes that this process implies appreciation of antique art and a conscious desire to find a way to include it in Christian culture.[4]" Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
References
^Brown 1998, pp. 649–652. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBrown1998 (help)
^ abBrown 1998, p. 650. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBrown1998 (help)
^Bayliss 2004, pp. 39, 40. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBayliss2004 (help)
You disagree that this is what the source says? You disagree with Peter Brown's methods of scholarship? His conclusions? What? And this is based on what? Your own extensive scholarship of the period which is here somewhere on WP because you are actually famous and are writing here incognito, right? Which is the only thing that would give you a leg to stand on in this argument. Well, tell me what works you have published that demonstrate your personal disagreement as being right as opposed to the most famous scholar of Late Antiquity on both sides of the Atlantic. I will go and correct that in the article and cite you accordingly. Otherwise your disagreement isn't worth squat. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
A new-ish editor responded recently to a comment of mine that "This settles the case based on the relevant rules." Quite unexpected but very pleasing since it's so rare. And we were talking about American politics (!), too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I was making a point. I'm well aware of christian ideology and what they mean by 'deconsecration.' It is destruction of artwork, PERIOD. I'm not interested in how some of them may have wrote it down. That is not the reality. The reality is desecration after desecration of ancient spiritual monuments, and the equivalent of the bulldozing of Eleusis. Not budging Luxporphyra (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I also don't buy much of the ideology spun as history. 'Deconsecrated' is ideological. Desecration is an act. We live in reality. Murder is also something they used to call divine retribution and justice. Not interested Luxporphyra (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
You don’t have the power to define reality for others. Nobody cares what your opinion is and no one is going to try and change it, but if you are going to write on Wikipedia the rules will be followed or your edits will be removed. Now that’s reality. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red in December 2022
WiR Women who died in 2022Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250
Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name, like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Those look great! My computer ia in the shop right now and I have limited access, but should be back in a week or so. Will comment then. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Addictra23 and welcome to Wikipedia. We are glad you are here. You may add or delete anything you like on your own talk page simply by going to edit source, but must not edit someone else's talk page. You can ask them to remove your message, but it is up to them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
That template is to be used when an article is currently undergoing major work. You placed the "Under construction" template on Christianization on September 4 [11] and left it there for 10 weeks. You had not made an edit to Christianization in two weeks when the template was removed, you didn't make an edits to it for another 10 days after the template was removed, and you claim that your "computer is in the shop and may be for another week". Clearly there is no reason that template should be on the article. Don't restore again until you actually start working on it, don't leave it there when you are not currently working on it, and replace it with the "In use" template when you are actually making edits, per the instructions Meters (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your advice. The template isn't there just for me, and there are no rules on WP that say any of this. Please note that there are no time limits on Template:Under construction. I took a break to work on other things that were immediately demanding, took some time off WP for RL, and at this time my home computer is in the shop and may have to be replaced. I have borrowed a laptop but will not make any long edits to anything until my computer is back or replaced. Christianization is still in need of citation, and since removing the template leaves the tag saying so intact at the top, clearly the article does still need it. It is my goal to be able to remove the tag at the top when I am done, but even when I come back to do that, I may not work on it in a singular fashion. This is a long article, and every section has required a good bit of research on my part. It's been tedious and difficult. I did quite a lot before requiring a break. Instead of griping to me about how long I am taking, why not just jump in and help? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I have zero interest in contributing to that article, so no, I'm not going to jump in.
Perhaps you should actually read the template. It says "If this article or section has not been edited in several hours, please remove this template." Don't restore again until you actually start working on it, don't leave it there when you are not currently working on it. Meters (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Meters Who died and left you in charge? I don't work for you. I am a volunteer doing what I can when I can. If you won't help, at least don't interfere. Leave me alone and allow me to work as I am able. Please do not post anymore on my talk page. This is nothing less than harassment and I will notify an admin. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Bless you! Thank you so much for catching that. It is from lambs to lions, which I thought was already there, and yes the page numbers were wrong as well. Number 153 is at the top of the page on the right hand side and that's what I wrote down. DUH!! I should not work late into the night! I think I have fixed it now thanx to your careful observance. (That is such a long and tedious article!!) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Your perseverance is impressive, just don't burn yourself out. I've made the mistake of editing to late into the evening, thankfully it was an obscure article and noone notices before I could fix it ;). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking of you just a couple days ago trying to decide if you would be glad to hear from me or not!! I am glad to hear from you. Merry Christmas to you as well. I wish you and yours all good things. CoRE is now Historiography of CoRE and is currently undergoing its third attempt at GA. I am in an ongoing dispute at Resurrection of Jesus that's lasted a month, and otherwise am working at redoing Christianization. What are you working on? Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Content-wise, I have done very little lately, mostly following some controversies and politics surrounding article notability, mass creation and article deletion. Now that I'm on a brief vacation, I'm going through some of my old stuff and thinking on finally giving the Good Article process a try. Avilich (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm guessing any article you have ever worked on could pass GA standards. The process is sometimes a little excruciating but I think you do better coping with minutiae than I do. I wish you well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Bless you Gerda Arendt! So glad to hear performances went well. We also had a wonderful Christmas. Music makes the season, doesn't it? We went to a local performance of Vivaldi's Gloria, and it was magnificent. Kids participated in a live nativity presentation at church, and it was also wonderful to see. More company coming today for a few days and planning more for New Years. I will need a vacation after this vacation! I so genuinely hope you have had a wonderful holiday as well. Thinking of you, Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 Thank you so very much. You did the most complete review I think I've ever had. You were thorough and fair and completely reasonable at all times. I am so grateful, I can't say thank you enough - but thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations on that, a well deserved milestone after several months of hard work, and happy new year. I just happen to have succeeded in mine too. Avilich (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Not quite easy ... the reviewer and I got annoyed at each other, he left the review in limbo and I had to request a third opinion. Avilich (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Avilich Ha ha!! LOL!! I should have known that! And I should have known you would make a very gutsy response to that as well. In fact, that is probably what I should have done with the prior reviewers on this one as well. Instead, I just took what they said and attempted to accommodate, and if it hadn't been for Anywikiuser coming along and restoring and reorganizing, this one would probably never have moved on. You shouldn't leave me on my own for so long. I'm glad we both made it through. As bad as GA can be, FA is worse. I have yet to get up the courage to face another one of those. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Highbury Bingley And welcome to Wikipedia! The easiest approach is to use the citation template. If you click on edit source you will note that the window that comes up has a header that has a B in bold, an I in italics, a chain link, and so on. All the way to the right is "cite" with a little arrow next to it. If you click on the arrow, a drop down window that says templates, named references, etc. becomes available. Hover your cursor over what kind of reference you are using, click it and a window with a form to fill out will pop up. Fill it out and press insert and it will insert the reference as a citation. Always include your page number so others can access your reference. Please note there are only four templates, but they are not the only possible references. For other templates, such as citing an encyclopedia or a newspaper or a conference or other possible referencing, you will need to take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners. At some point, reading Wikipedia:Citing sources becomes necessary for all of us - plus they have access to all the other templates there. Good luck and happy editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I hope all is well. Looking forward to helping out with some articles. What do I have to do to start creating wikipedia pages? Thanks! --Rownelair (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Starting with article creation is generally not considered to be the best idea however. The chances of meeting the standards necessary to write an article that gets accepted and published, when you're brand new, and inexperienced in the many tedious, difficult, winding ways of Wikipedia, are small. If what you edit doesn't meet WP standards, you will have the unhappy experience of having all your hard work rejected. Being rejected, and rewriting, and being rejected again, etc. etc. can be a very discouraging and frustrating experience. I know because I had it when I was new. This is just to warn you that just because you write something doesn't automatically mean it will be or stay published.
Perhaps you already have an area/subject/article you are interested in. The next step is to find some good quality sources and see what they say about it. If you can find some aspect of that topic that the article omits, or that you think is important enough to add, then do so, referencing with the page number where you found it. Do not copy it. Again, do not copy. Put what it says in your own words in a summary of what you read. Go to edit source on the article, place your edit in the appropriate place, cite it using the reference and pages you found, then publish. All kinds of people rock along on WP w/o ever creating a new article, so don't worry if it takes awhile to get around to that.
If so, that doesn't prevent you from editing, but there are rules that have to be followed. Just copy (click edit source at the top of the page and you will see what needs to be copied with the curly brackets) and paste the following:
you, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that she has been paid by InsertName for her contributions to Wikipedia.
on your talk page. Along with this disclosure, at the top of the article's talk page paste this:
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
you (talk·contribs) has been paid by InsertName on their behalf. Insert relevant links, such as relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts written by paid editors, or diffs showing paid contributions being added to articles.
And you're covered. Edit like any other editor, follow WP rules, work at being neutral and balanced - especially when writing about your client. The key is good sourcing. Good luck! Feel free to come back any time and let me know how it's going. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red in February 2023
Women in Red Feb 2023, Vol 9, Iss 2, Nos 251, 252, 255, 256, 257, 259
Thank you so much! This article was the most difficult to get finished satisfactorily and approved for GA that I have ever done. This guy gave the article a fair chance - the other reviewers didn't - and he was really reasonable. I've had lots of reviewers that change happy to glad if you know what I mean, but I think this reviewer's changes were actual improvements. So that's good! Your input was invaluable. You make such a difference in all you do. And now it's done! I am shoutin' hallelujah! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello dear one, I have been in RL for a couple of days. It was my father who introduced me to literature, but I discovered my love of music on my own. I did however pass it on to my daughter. Legacy. It's wonderful every now and then, huh? Happy New Year to you as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
It was great, back home, - yesterday I managed the images of 26 Jan - variations of views of a lighthouse - but 2 days are still missing - please keep watching. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
You can't - mustn't - add anything that is a promotion of any kind. WP is an encyclopedia not a promotional advertising site. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Question from Riverside4x4 (06:56, 25 February 2023)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Gareth Griffith-Jones. Hello dear ones, you always make me grin! Thank you for that. I am mostly absent right now from Wikipedia, but still present in my heart, and I will be back within the next month or so to whip that tuna into line! Have you run across anything else that needs redoing? I will want work when I come back! Till then I am missing you both. Thanx for this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I am the manager of Canadian artist David July and trying to get him an official Wikipedia Page. I have submitted a draft for review and any tips, revisions, and anything else we can do to get this page up would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much. --Unleashed entertainment (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Not for the last year or so. Of course, every now and then I do actually submit things, but this year I have not. Mostly I've just stirred up trouble... I'm still trapped in Christianization. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
OMG! That's hilarious! Do you suppose someone who works at the paper got their homework and their work-work mixed up? That's really nuts! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
So I went down the rabbit hole as well, since I had to go read both of those... and I have to say, I don't even mind, since I enjoyed them both. Pretty funny - an article on WP rabbit holes. It's well written too. Better than some other stuff I've read recently... Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I am not familiar with him, but I think I will spend some time looking him up. I am almost finished with the article I've been working on for 6 months. I think I will take a break and spend some time goofing around then. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I swear, WP! Sometimes it just wears me down. I spent all kinds of time actually resolving conflict on Francis Drake and thought it was done - well at least some of it genuinely is resolved - but some has come back again, and I am tired of what seems like pov pushing to me. Not that that doesn't happen here a lot! I declare! Tell me something funny! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
WOW that's a lot of discussion. Which I'm sure readers benefited from. Have some British humor:
Baldrick: I was wondering if I might have the afternoon off?
Blackadder: Of course not. Who do you think you are, Wat Tyler? You can have the afternoon off when you die, not before.
Baldrick: But I want to cheer brave Sir Walter home. Oh, sir, on a day like today, I feel proud to be a member of the greatest kingdom on earth.
Blackadder: And doubtless many members of the animal kingdom feel the same.
[A loud cheer erupts from outside]
Blackadder: Look, will you shut up?! Bloody explorers. Ponce off to Mumbo-Jumbo Land and come home with a tropical disease, a suntan and a bag of brown lumpy things, and Bob's-your-uncle, everyone's got a picture of them in the lavatory! I mean, what about the people that do all the work?
Baldrick: The servants?
Blackadder: No, me! I'm the people who do all the work! I mean, look at this! [holds up a potato] What is it?
Baldrick: I'm surprised you've forgotten, my lord.
Blackadder: I haven't forgotten, it's a rhetorical question.
Baldrick: Nah, it's a potato.
Blackadder: To you, it's a potato. To me, it's a potato. But to Sir Walter bloody Raleigh, it's luxury estates, fine carriages and as many girls as his tongue can cope with! He's making a fortune out of the things: people are smoking them, building houses out of them... they'll be eating them next!
Baldrick: Stranger things have happened, my lord.
Blackadder: [dismissively] Oh, exactly.
Baldrick: That horse becoming Pope.
Blackadder: For one.
[Knock on the door]
Blackadder: Get that, Baldrick. Probably some berk with a parrot on his shoulder selling plaster gnomes of Sir Francis Drake and his Golden Behind.
An elderly man goes into a Catholic Church to make his confession. He tells the Priest, "Father I've been married 50 years and have never been unfaithful to my wife. Until yesterday. Yesterday I had sex with a lovely twenty-something year old girl."
The father replies, "When was your last confession"?
To which the man responds, "Oh, I've never confessed before".
The Father asks, "Why is that my son"?
And the man replies, "Because I'm Jewish".
In some annoyance, the Father responds, "Then why are you here telling me this"?
My dear friend. Sit down. I have some shocking news. I wouldn't eat a pickled herring if my life depended on it, and most of the world would agree. Some cuisines export. Some just don't. But I do sincerely hope you enjoyed them. Happy Easter. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Booze qualifies as cuisine? My Danish ancestors and your Swedish ones obviously do a lot of partying in the afterlife... Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Those ancestors (at least going back a bit) would probably say that partying is what afterlife is for. Islam seems to have a similar idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for answering this for me and for them. I am grateful! I've been mostly not here at all, and while I am trying to get back some, things may be this way all summer. So double thanx for the help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I have some questions. Please kindly and help:
1- How can link article to other lanhuages?
2- How can I edit my Wiki user page and make it awesome?
Atingle (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Click on this link, it explains what to do and how to do it. [18]
I suggest user boxes. Go around to other users who have those little boxes with bits of personal info in them and ask them if you can copy and use them on your own user page. Modify them as needed to represent yourself. It's fun. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Recently I said in a WP-disussion that I couldn't get any relevant hits for a Tom Willett on a particular news-site, and a helpful editor mentioned I could try Thomas Willett... FacepalmGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I read it and I think it's a really nice little article. Well done. If there's baby that isn't there I didn't notice. I didn't know this much about Zipporah any way! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
She stopped God from killing Moses, it's the kind of thing women do (and if memory serves, Moses in his turn stopped God from killing all the Hebrews a couple of times). I've noted that this "scene" tend to be excluded from drama like The Ten Commandments, probably hard to include in a way that makes sense to the audience. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
It's unclear if it was Moses God actually tried to kill. The story probably doesn't get included much because of that ambiguity, and because it's heavily debated, and because it's a weird story. It's one of those things one periodically runs across in the Bible that you just know there used to be more to it - more information, more context - and anything that would clarify got lost along the way, but because it's the Bible, they won't intentionally throw anything "sacred" out, so they kept it in, no matter how completely senseless it seems by itself. The Old Testament is riddled with dead ends that we can only guess about. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jen -- hope you're doing well. I've been spending time at GAN recently, and happened to notice that Acts of Peter and the Twelve has been nominated for GA by a very new editor -- only 71 edits. I've been trying to review articles by new editors, since it's so discouraging for a new editor to wait six months for a review, but this is well outside my area of expertise. It's not a particularly long article, and knowing you I think you would be able to tell at a glance whether it's close to GA standard. Are you interested in reviewing it? The editor hasn't been active recently but of course they may just be lurking and waiting for a review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be happy to. I am not busy right now so your timing is perfect. :-) I will go look at it right now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th
Tip of the month:
Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.
However not all of them are the same family - hence me wanting to make a new page and add in members who are the same family but with a differnet surname. Now that someone has put it into draft form I have no way of getting it out. Can you help in any way please. Thanks. --JuliusJasper (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
JuliusJasper Sorry for the delay, I have been offline for a few days. The problem was created by starting a new page when one already existed. New material should simply be added to existing pages. Make sure it is well-sourced, then take the material from your draft and put it in the existing article in the appropriate place(s). If you think it will be controversial, you can always go to the talk page and explain what you are doing first, but there is no requirement for that. You can simply Be Bold and edit. That's the way WP works. Then delete your draft. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for the reply. The problem is 2 pages aren't the same - the original one (not written by me) is erroneous as it gives the impression that the individuals listed
are the same family whereas they're simply people with the same surname. Mine was different in that they were the same family and an useful guide for historians. Neither have any sources but mine always seems to be the one being dumped into draft form. I've tried to explain this to the people concered but i'm getting nowhere. It's rather put me off making any additions to Wikipedia tbh - esp as it's not user friendly either. JuliusJasper (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
It's only because yours came second, but there is no real problem here. It doesn't matter that they aren't the same. What matters is that there can't be two articles on the same topic.
I told you to go back to the original because anything unsourced can be deleted by any WP editor. Do that. Delete all unsourced material, in fact, feel free to blank the entire article if it's all unsourced. If there is anything worth keeping, anything accurate and well sourced, keep what you can out of respect for the other editor's work, but otherwise, make whatever changes you feel are appropriate.
Then. Rewrite it using your valid sources. Take everything from your draft and use 'edit source' and add it into the original article. Then delete your draft. Now the original article is your article.
That's the way WP works. We do not have multiple articles on the same topics written from different points of view. We have one article that is monitored and edited by all with a neutral point of view using the best quality most up to date sources. If you have found an article that needs a complete overhaul - which happens believe me - type the phrase Under Construction with two curly brackets {{ }} at each end of that phrase at the top of the page and save the page. Then go for it. Do that total overhaul.
You won't get the credit for the article's creation, but the work will get done, and if you do a good enough job, you can always go for good article status and get a little feed-back that way.
Stop trying to convince people that your version should be allowed as some kind of a rival with the original. It will never happen. Even if you wrote it, they would require that yours be merged with the original. That takes it out of your hands. And it's completely unnecessary. Just edit. That's what editors do. Go rewrite what's wrong. Good luck and happy editing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello @jenhawk777,
Aww I have a Wikipedia mentor! Hurrah. That's so sweet. I didn't realise this would happen. I have really enjoyed falling down the Wikipedia editorial rabbit-hole these past few weeks. While all the while, it is has been quite daunting at the same time. So having a mentor makes me very happy.
I was trying to find the editor who tweaked the V&A citation and pointed it to the much more relevant collections page on Wyndham Payne bio and his poster of the clown? I think is was you? Thank you for doing that. Such a nice refining of the source. It taught me oodles, in one fell click.
Just a heads up for you, I will probably ask you quite a few basic questions because ironically I find reading super-large amounts of text a lot more difficult than I used to.
I am totes into most subjects, with a high degree of bias to English creatives.
Let's leave the last words of this message to Alice:
Down, down, down. Would the fall never come to an end! `I wonder how many miles I've fallen by this time?' she said aloud. `I must be getting somewhere near the centre of the earth.' --The Nookster (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The Nookster Ha ha!! The rabbit hole analogy is perfect. So, so true! I do not remember what you are referring to about a V&A citation, so it may not have been me, but even if it wasn't, I am still glad you contacted me. I am always glad to find others who share my obsession and a sense of humor about it. You will need it, as much of what I answer your questions with may involve reading those long WP texts!
You will be glad to meet another like us: talk:Gråbergs. I am often gone from WP these days as Real Life is interfering with my time on WP, but if you ever have a question, and I am off in the ether, please ask him. He is totally awesome, well informed, helpful and kind, and keeps his humor with him at all times. I can hardly have higher praise for anyone! I am sure I will be saying - writing - the same things about you in the future. Good luck with all your editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello mentor, my name is Tife and it's good to know i have a mentor to learn from.
I just created an article day before yesterday here on wikipedia, then i saw an orphan tag on it. I went through it and added the page to categories, linked it to about 4 articles and added it to lists relevant to it. Yet it's still showing the orphan tag, please kindly put me through.
Secondly i would appreciate your guidance on wiki commons. I saved a picture off facebook page of the subject i created the article for but i do not know how to fill the copyright section and not violate wikicommons guidelines. Kindly guide me through this as well.
Hello! Tifesheldon I am also glad you are here. I want you to know that I am very sporadic about my WP time right now - real life is interfering - and I have days (sometimes weeks) when I am not here at all. I do try to check for questions like this - even if I don't have time to work myself - helping you is a priority, and I want you to know how glad we truly are to have you here.
So, What is the name of your orphan article? Let me go see if I can figure out the problem. As a first article by a new editor, articles must be reviewed by an established editor before actually being published - did you go through that process? It is almost impossible to get everything right the first time, and it's a necessity for WP to maintain its standards.
To upload an image, just go to WP commons and press the upload button and follow the instructions. All images must be uploaded before being used, because the image must be shown by the established standards to be copyright free. People will jump all over you if you violate - or come anywhere close to violating - any copyright for either image or text.
I have jumped through all kinds of hoops and still gotten dinged for cr violation more than once. It's annoying and frustrating, but it may be the number one area of hand-wringing out of all the many rules here. Do not violate copyright. Etch that on your hand. Type it on your screen. Do not violate copyright. If you can't get that image copyright free, you absolutely cannot use it.
Here, in edit source, copy this and put it on your user page where it's easy access:
Thank you. Mayolee is the name of the article. I didn't know I needed to send it to an expert for checks, that was an error on my part.
Also I had taken a picture off the subject's Facebook and uploaded it on wiki commons but didn't get the copyright questions right so it's flagged for deletion in 7 days.
@Tifesheldon Stuff like the orphan tag is not removed automatically, but since it's clearly fixed [20], you are welcome/encouraged to remove it.
Rule of thumb: Every picture you find online (outside Commons) is under some sort of copyright and can't be used on Commons/WP. It's a pain, but it's how it is. That someone puts a pic of themselves on FB means you can look at it on FB. On Commons, you can upload pics you have taken yourself with your own camera, and so can others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2023
Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 7, Nos 251, 252, 274, 275, 276
Hello jenhawk777,
Thanks for affording to be my mentor.
I am struggling to set up a profile photo of myself please guide me how to go about it sir. --Julian Earlkin Tucker (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
If you want to upload an image of yourself, you can. You have to be the copyright holder (almost always the photographer) so think selfie. Pick one, and follow the guidance that starts HERE. And note that this means you are more or less "donating it to the world."
Hello @Julian Earlkin Tucker we are so glad you are here. I apologize for the delay in my response, but Real Life is interfering! I am gone more than I am here these days. My lack of response does not indicate a lack of caring, just a lack of time!
Right now, I am depending upon friends like Gråbergs Gråa Sång who are always willing to help others out. I can't say enough about how great he is and how thankful I am for him. He gave you good advice - he always does - and honestly knows much more than I do about all things WP. Again, welcome.
Good day mentor. Thank you for your guidance the other day, it was really helpful.
The article i created (Mayolee) is being nominated for deletion the 2nd time as it's been created once just this year. Kindly help look through it. I did give a rebuttal on my talk page. Please help look through it and offer your advice.
Thank you.
Warm Regards --Tifesheldon (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay Tifesheldon, first off there are so many freakin' rules on WP that getting a first article published without going through the process of checking Your first article to see if your topic is appropriate, then using the Article wizard to walk you through creation and approval, just almost never happens. So having yours nominated for deletion is not unusual, don't take it as a personal setback. It's really just part of the learning process.
Second, responding on your talk page is not going to work. You must respond on the deletion discussion page. It's not about you, it's about the article's deletion, and all discussion of that topic belongs on one page that everyone can quickly see. People don't need to be hopping around to different places.
Third, there are specific complaints about too many sources, and about sources of questionable quality, and these complaints have not been addressed. The complaint seems legitimate to me, but even if it weren't, you must respond one way or the other - either remove or replace those sources or provide evidence that they are sources that meet WP standards. Do that immediately. If you fix the problem, the article might be salvaged.
It's possible that fixing its problems might salvage the article, whereas doing nothing to evidence that you have taken this seriously will absolutely and dependably only result in deletion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much. This is helpful! I will look for the deletion discussion page and post my response there. Thank you again. Tifesheldon (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Nothing to go looking for really. It's right there. Go to the article and note that at the top there is now this: This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's deletion discussion page.
Tifesheldon. I have gone and checked, and I think you handled that quite well. I wish you good luck on fleshing that draft out and finishing it up as well as on all future endeavors. Ping me any time. Happy editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Plenty of music on my talk now that our festival started where I saw and heard the enchanting Diana Tishchenko. I added a pic that I took to her article, also a lovely short video with interview and music. She said its all about communication, and true for us here as well. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
And for those of us here on WP, there is no one better at that than you. Thank you and bless you for all you do to connect us with each other Gerda. You are a blessing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello mentor how are you doing today? Thank you for the guidance to respond the other day on the discussion page. I did learn alot, thank you.
Wanted to ask if you also saw the discussion and know what you think. I also would like to ask if to remove the music website links crediting the producer or add more notable sources when i find.
Tifesheldon I did go and read the discussion and replied above accordingly. Thought you handled it well by agreeing to put it in draft form and continue to work on it. Sources are everything on WP. No matter how much you know on a topic, if you can't source it, you can't write it. Definitely remove the questioned sources and add more dependable quality ones. Please do read this: [21].
I also noted that Grabergs sent me the discussion on plagiarism, which is like a fire alarm on WP, so be sure to be careful of copyright on images and text. WP has certain basic requirements - neutrality, good sources, and no plagiarism.
We do a summary style of paraphrasing what the sources say and only what those sources say. We boil things down so a sophomore in high school can understand. We look for the majority view. If you add your own views or deductions, that's original work, and it is not allowed on WP. You can summarize but not interpret. If you quote, it must be attributed in your text to the person who said it so as not to plagiarize. I am sometimes careless with my quotes and that gets me in trouble every time.
Meeting all of these standards required some adjustment from me - it is not like other scholarly writing where I evaluated and interpreted and took positions on things - but it is demanding in its own way. The best writing on WP is like a good research paper. The worst is like a blog - which we are not allowed to reference by the way.
I think you will be fine, but it is a good idea to spend some time reading the WP guides. The learning curve here is pretty steep. Good luck and happy editing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this. I will go ahead and remove all the music blog credits and hope there will be better sources on the subject in the future. Thank you again.
Hello, I see you reverted my edit and I hope you can undo that. I did not include an external source because the Gospel of Bartholomew page had the details. However, if you require an external source, Apocryphal Texts and Traditions in Anglo-Saxon England. United Kingdom, D.S. Brewer, 2003. which is on books.google.com if you search the keyword “Salpsan” which is on page 127 but I am unsure how to add the page until I review it further. If you could, I’d appreciate you adding the source and restoring the details to the page. The entire book itself is almost an interrogation of satan and I invite you to read it yourself on audio format on YouTube to be certain if you must. Twillisjr (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Twillisjr Thank you for discussing here. I genuinely appreciate that. Unfortunately, the fact that another article in WP has a reference does not exempt them from the requirement for sources in the article they are editing. And also unfortunately, that is on you. If you want to put the statement back, simply include the citation with it.
The easiest way to do citations is to click on "Cite" (in the menu immediately above this window where the big B for Bold and so on are). The little arrow to its left will then point down, and a second line below it will have appeared. Move your cursor over to the arrow beside "Templates" and click on "cite book". Fill it in, including the page number.
I did not dispute the content of your edit, only its lack of documentation. I have read the Gospel of Bartholomew, but what you and I may know for ourselves is inadequate for WP. Always. Original research is forbidden. The absence of citations will, eventually, always get your work reverted - no matter how "right" you may be. I am currently redoing an entire article for its absence of citations. I have found no errors of fact, but it all has to be redone anyway, so it can be correctly cited. It's part of what makes WP great - and such a pain! Good luck in all your future editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi JenHawk! I’m having difficulty placing our agreed upon cited information into a proper place on the article now that it’s been challenged. Can you take a peek at the Devil in Christianity page and determine a better place for it? Thanks! Twillisjr (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Twillisjr I am confused, the sentence that needed proper citation with an explanation that it had been copied was removed, I thought. Unless you put the sentence back, there is nothing to cite. Do I misunderstand? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi JenHawk, I’m sorry you were offended by my moving our conversation, it had been a couple of days and I thought you might not have seen it. The information was re-added once a citation was located, and it was my understanding we reached consensus. Is that wrong? Twillisjr (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not so much offended as concerned that this habit will eventually get you thrown off other people's pages.
I did not see it. You have to ping me if you want to be sure I see something.
The information is being disputed on the “Devil in Christianity” talk page. An excerpt from the Apocryphal text “Gospel of Bartholomew” that shows that Satan was speaking with his son Salpsan. Twillisjr (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
It is a nice article even if I didn't write it! The Palmer Report can definitely fornicate off! LOL! We totally rock! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The TMO seems quite exited about it, and it seems to have directed some traffic our way. And Cullen, I have to say this once: Please indent like I think you should indent. Set an example for the newbies at the Teahouse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Uh-oh! Cullen328 The indent police caught you out! Better watch out! (I don't know what gets into him from time to time - he's normally so sweet... ) I think it's all this mentoring - he's doing mine as well as his own, and he won't yell at me - I think ... So yeah, any positive mention of WP is good! Just agree and cheer Cullen. Wikipedia!! Whoohoo!! That's all that's required. I'll know if you don't... Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I have been editing for 14 years, Jenhawk777, and this is maybe the second time that I have been dinged for indenting errors. I will be walking on eggshells for a while. Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
No one thinks you're wrong - it's just funny that you brought it up. I'm afraid poor Cullen328 has post-traumatic WP stress syndrome now. :-( Am I making things better? I'm sure I'm making things better for you both, since stuffiness is forbidden on my Talk page. Here, we make our own rules and fine all violations. Send those fines to me here ... Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hah! It seems to me that every time someone is corrected here for anything it seems to produce PTWPSS. Just being here does it apparently. I know I've got it!
You may ban me from your talkpage now, but I've never watched much of TOS. I've seen the films. Not up to date on Picard or Discovery either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
OMG! I am so impressed with you! I have recently learned I have the power to assess articles - except I don't know how... :-) I could assess yours if we could find some instruction on how and if there is any actual criteria. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello ActivelyDisinterested! It is so good to hear from you! I can't remember what I was working on last time we conversed - Christianization? It took me 6 months! Longest article I've ever worked on, and I have pretty much only worked on redoing the long ones. The ones without citations are generally the most non-neutral, so the content can't be taken for granted, so every single claim had to be researched until I was sure I knew what the majority view actually was. I thought I would never finish that one!!
One nice thing is that I am able to reuse some of that work on History of Christianity where I am now. It has required a good bit of editing myself down to a short summary, but that has been a good learning experience as well. Between thorough and concise, I usually go with thorough, but this one requires concise. I keep going back and removing stuff to shorten it - then end up adding something else in its place!
Even the highlights of The H.of C. still cover a lot of ground. I'm up to the Renaissance now.
You know my references always need work. I try to measure up - I actually think of you - but I am just not in your class in that area. If you feel like doing anything at all - and anything you feel like doing - is always welcome. Your contributions are gold in my book. I love that you showed up and offered. You so rock. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Your willingness to take on overhauling such large articles is, as ever, far more impressive than my gnoming. My work on articles with no target errors goes on, down from 26k to 11k now. I'm just about to clear all articles beginning with H, which is why I saw the HoC article. I just want to make sure you know I'm around if I can help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
If you ActivelyDisinterested take one look at my refs, you will no doubt start choking from seeing things I don't even know are problems. All the way up to "H" huh? I think you are amazing. If you are a gnome at all, you are the most constructive, helpful and impactful kind that I am thankful I know. Feel free to take a look, see what only you and "gnome-vision" are capable of seeing, and fix it. Make it so number one! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
ActivelyDisinterested Not a Star Trek Next Gen fan? I have attempted to count how many references without citations there are in this article, and it's somewhere around 80 - yes 80 - that need removing. I was going to wait until I had completed all composition before doing that, but I just wanted you to know it is on my list. I'm up to the late modern era now, so not much longer. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Next Generation was a tv show - in the 90's?? It's on constant repeat on random channels of course, as are all the Star Treks. The Captain was always discussing what to do with his next in command, and when they would reach a consensus, he would say "Make it so, number one!" Great line. Anyway, when you said you saw I was working on a new article I thought that meant you had looked at it. I am working at History of Christianity. It is too long to ever be reviewed I'm afraid, but I am attempting to do the same kind of work that I would if I were going for a GA. That includes cleaning up the refs, but there are over 500 of them now, and I am not finished yet. Each section is like a full article. As the parent article, I am attempting to edit down each section to less than 4 paragraphs. Attempting. Trying really hard. Will get there eventually. I definitely need more coffee... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
ActivelyDisinterested I can definitely see Picard doing exactly that. No worries mate. There are sources listed in the sources section that have ended up not being cited in the article. Their reason for existence no longer exists. It's sad really. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
They've all moved to the further reading section, and one from further reading to bibliography. You'll have to go through the further reading section to decide if it all needs to stay or not. Just let me know if I help in any other way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much! It's very kind and I may very well take you up on it. I do have a good ways to go before completion, but it shouldn't take more than a couple weeks - if real life doesn't interfere. I've been obsessing over making everything as concise as possible since it's so long, so I've been sidetracked as well. Focus! I need focus! 03:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
i have a public figure profile with me to list.. can i get support to list it on wiki...waiting for response.. thanks in advance
+919995000123 --Ashraf Pullambalavan (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Ashraf Pullambalavan and welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry for the delay, I am only online occasionally these days. I do not understand your question. Are you saying you are the public figure? What list? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!
Hey mentor, I am a Gemstone lover and i will be direct in the question while reading I came across some articles that around 2008 a new discovery of sapphire has done, and with that I have been trying to add this information with all the citations and every links to many articles however people just come and undo even after 100 % using words directly from the articles from Gia, GemA ,Incolor all the well known gem authorities , I can you help me out to understand how can i add the information
THANK YOU --Amandawhale12 (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Amandawhale12 welcome to wikipedia. Did no one bother to explain the problem? I apologize for that. People don't always take the time they should to help newbies. I hope you will persevere through these things. There is a steep learning curve on WP - lots to to learn about what is acceptable and what isn't. I looked up each of these and they are what WP calls unreliable sources because they are all sponsored by people who sell gems and have a vested interest in reporting what they want reported. Please click on this link and read: [28]Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, I got a very different perspective to see the wiki editing, and in future I will surely follow the information on reliable source and promotional source and the fact that we have to find the deep truth and be neutral, however sir if I do not disturb you, can you see my recent edit on the sapphire 4-5 line edit, everything I took was from the GemA, Journal of Gemmology, Incolor and Gia, I do not understand, there is no bigger authority in gemstone world than these, I will really appreciate if you can describe briefly why it was not enough to explain the authenticity
I think I did hundreds ;) - Daughter of Turkish workers (in the town where I live) who made it to chancellor of a university and secretary of state in Hesse. - Today Jahrhundertring, and I'm listening to Götterdämmerung from the Bayreuth Festival (pictured), - the image (of a woman who can't believe what she has to see) features also on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I recently spent 6 months redoing one article and just finished another that I have worked on since May. I doubt I will ever be able to say I have done hundreds. I admire you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I thought you meant the pictured woman by wow ;) - Four seven years now, I have done my little article per day, and many of those simply were living people ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Ha ha! No, I'm sure she is a perfectly admirable woman, but no woman in green could compare to you Gerda.
Hey, Gerda, I was going to volunteer on the GA backlog and am having trouble following their instructions. I've done Ga reviews before and haven't had a problem, but I can't get the review page to properly generate, has something changed? Do you know? Can you tell me what I might be missing? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777, first thing that comes to mind is the new template. It was recently decided that a reviewing template would be present when a new nom page was opened, but can be removed and replace if needed. Is the issue you're encountering regarding that auto-generated table? Or is the "start review" button not creating a subpage? If the latter, I suggest going to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanx! The info was definitely interesting. I have never used VE. I have no intention of doing so! Now I have a good reason why! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
OH dear God, that is one of the funniest things I've ever seen!!! I have seen neither one, so you'll have to tell me about it tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
It was good. 3 hours, never boring, and the title-role actor had a wonderfully weird vibe. While watching, I never realized Robert Downey Jr was in it, very very not Iron Man. And thanks to being a fan of Big Bang Theory, when I saw a guy playing bongos in the film, I knew that was Richard Feynman. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I read that one all the way through! Holy Toledo Batman! That's just crazy! Well, America has always been a land of possibilities!! Apparently any crazy thing is [possible here!! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I am unsure exactly what you mean by a personal research article. If you want to use an article you wrote, I would first ask if it is self-published. If so, you may not use it. If it was published in a peer reviewed journal or book, you may quote that journal.
Wikipedia editors may only reference secondary sources with no original or primary sources. If you look up the definition you will find: "Secondary sources often summarize, interpret, analyze or comment on information found in primary sources." Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello Mentor, Is it possible to write an article in vernacular language, translate articles to vernacular languages or dialects in order to make the articles or content reach to a larger audiences. For Example A Wikipedia on Mythological Gods and Deities being translated to certain language, into a full article, an exact translation from English. Would it be considered as Plagiarism.
Also in order to write new article are there certain methodology or approach that a writer needs to follow in Wikipedia? --Sangkni Nokma (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
My story today - a first - isn't about an article by me, but one I reviewed for DYK, see here. I like all: topic, "hook", connected article (a GA on its way towards FA), image and the music "in the background". I just returned from a weekend with two weddings, so also like the spirit ;) - Pics to come, I promise one cake, the other was too large! Good music, and better even in the concert ending the second day, - Goldberg Variations theme for an encore, after Dohnányi Serenade! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
What a wonderful - and exhausting - weekend it must have been! My GA just failed, so I redid it yet again. I will persevere! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
How right you are, about wonderfully exhausting, with ten hours of travel. - Again not by me: today's story - with the triumph of music over military - is uplifting! - No cake yet, but a butterfly and open-air opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I too have just returned from a wonderful and exhausting trip. Saw family I hadn't seen in quite a while. It was great. Back to work now! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
This too shall pass. - Ten years ago on 28 August, I heard a symphony, with a heavy heart because of the pending decision in WP:ARBINFOBOX, and not worried about my future here but Andy's. - It passed, and I could write the DYK about calling to dance, not battle, and Andy could write the DYK mentioning about peace and reconciliation, - look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
So long, and thanks for all the fish
Looks like ArbCom is going to ban me from Wiki. Just wanted to say that I've enjoyed your work, working with you and your impeccable good manners. Keep up the good work. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, I had no idea. He has never been anything but polite to me, and I am a female that writes on religion all the time. I don't know exactly what arbcom is "interpreting", but I assume they know what they are doing - eventually they do seem to get it right. I will trust in that. It's too bad for me though as he was going to help me with some of the tedious work that I hate! (And how this impacts me is all that really matters right?!?) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
(I should say so!) And if I read it right, LL is now blocked for some sort of holocaust-joke.
More uplifting story: I noticed that the PaykanArtCar (article I started) had been seen in Oslo recently, so I asked that Norwegian we know if perhaps he had access to a picture. He said no, but try asking on no-WP. I did, it took like 2h and someone said "Sure, I was there!" It never hurts to ask, that is worth remembering in WP-verse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay. You said 'on the left' meaning the car itself is on the left in the picture, right? I thought you meant the picture was on the left in the article, and there is no picture on the left. DUH! I'm caught up now! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Future2023Living Okay, I went to Peopling of the Americas, viewed the edit history, and read the talk page. Wow. First, I will say frankly that imo, you have handled this badly. Discussion on WP should always be limited to content, and theirs has been. Yours has not. That's a mistake on your part. Well, live and learn. You are clearly passionately invested in this - which doesn't prove you right or wrong - but will prevent you from getting anywhere as long as you give in to it. Take a walk. Drink a beer. Play a game for a while. Visit with friends and family. Remind yourself this is just Wikipedia, it is not your life, and your real life doesn't depend on it. Take a few deep breaths and chill. Then, rise above, be the better person, apologize for letting your passions run away with you, and directly address their concerns.
They have accused you of OR, and I am wondering if you fully understand what they mean by that. They are not saying you don't have sources, or even that your sources aren't good, they are saying you have taken "A" from one of those good sources, and added in "B", which it or another good source also says, and that you have personally put them together in what seems like an obvious conclusion of "C" - where "C" is not actually stated directly in any source. That's the WP definition of OR. Before responding any more to these allegations, please be sure and read [29] where it explains that any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources is OR. We aren't allowed to reach conclusions. We just report what the sources say.
That analysis is what they are accusing you of, and that is what you have to disprove, if you can do that. I think you might very well be able to do so. I think their interpretation may very well be based on language differences. I think perhaps you are not a native English speaker, and that is causing some misunderstanding in what it is you are actually saying.
Prove them wrong by quoting directly from a source, and giving the page number for every claim you make, but first and foremost, for those claims they dispute. Do so on the talk page. Start a new topic, and fill it with "proofs of no OR". Dedicate all your passion toward annihilating them with facts and quotes and references.
You can only accomplish this with a cool head and an eye for the details of their accusations. They directly quote your source and quite effectively show that your paraphrase does not accurately reflect what the source says - except they stop before quoting the article's conclusions. Why stop? So, you go back and get that quote and finish it. Use it to demonstrate their error.
But do so politely. Just because it is your intent to grind them into dust does not mean you can't do so with a smile. Never ever ever let the bastards see you sweat. It's a tired old quote, but still applicable. Especially here on WP.
If you can't support all your claims, then the only thing to do is consider if they might be right. In that case, make the necessary changes, and move on as a wiser and better Wikipedian. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Doug Weller Well then. I guess the conclusion was not only bad behavior and personal attacks, but that the edits were actually OR. I trust admin. They are sometimes a little slow, but they always come through in the end. Thanx for letting me know Doug. (But how did you know he had come here?) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
OMG! I made it onto the board of quotes! I may now die happily as I have achieved the pinnacle of greatness on WP! I love it! Thank you. I do truly feel honored to be included. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
You are most welcome, I'm already honored to be mentioned on your userpage. If you haven't, read the Bishonen quote, I love that one.
GGS the humble bird
You will, of course, include me as a humble bird on your coat of arms when that time comes. Here's a good model, I think it's from a large building somewhere in Italy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I love that image - think I will put it on my page. We need a way to combine it with the others.
ANI gets a lot of "bad press" on WP, WP:CESSPOOL is an actual redirect. Bishonen accidentally cutting the gordian knot, so to speak, and getting lauded for it appeals to me.
Okay, well quite understandable then, he just identified it with what he was most familiar with. Makes perfect sense. Your new image is now on my user page, but I din't have room at the top for the cattle tyrant, so I put it at the bottom of my rant on neutrality with a slightly altered caption - most people probably won't get it but you and I do so that's all that matters Have to go to work now! Later 'gator! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed, the Wikidata information can be useful
Hello! Could you please create a redirection from Cismar to Cizmar? I can't do that alone, but this would be very helpful. It's basically 2 variations of the same surname. --MrCiz (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
. I am glad to hear from you, always. I'm glad you hadn't forgotten - I did! Music and kindness and the caring of others always helps everything, so thank you, come back whenever you think you are ready, and if I can't I will just explain when I can. Being on WP helps make me feel normal again, it doesn't hurt anything, so this is a good thing. I am working on three things right now though, so when I am done, I will ping you and see where you're at! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bible for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
; see Talk:Bible for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
; see Talk:Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire for comments about the article, and Talk:Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire/GA3 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
.svg)
Facepalm Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
_on_Capybara.jpg)
.jpg)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)