From the well loved and deservedly honored Gerda Arendt words of wisdom and hope for 2020 – and onward:
... that missed friends return (... banned, blocked for no good reason, just given up ...). (Amen Gerda!)
... that edit-warring is replaced by discussion - I am on voluntary 1RR. (I pretty much never revert. Instead I talk and talk!)
... that people realise when they dominate a discussion too much - I try to stick to 2 comments. (Unlike Gerda, I personally do not practice this, but think it's important for everyone to consider why this might be good or not.)
... that infoboxes added in good faith (now or in the past) are not regarded as vandalism
... that we'll live up to the legacy of Brian Boulton, in article creation (Percy Grainger and Lost operas by Claudio Monteverdi coming to mind), reviewing the work of others, having a willingness to collaborate and seek compromise, and a respectful attitude always. (Amen!)
... or in summary: that good faith and IAR are applied more generally, - just look at Ray's Rules and "go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset over this".
Out of the difficult year 2020, Gerda and I together add our hopes to:
- unite what is divided
- give those who lead the light of wisdom
- give our world peace
- give us the strength to heal
(I have relocated these very precious kindnesses from others to the top of my talkpage, so they will never be lost or forgotten. I am very grateful for each one.)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For your well-chosen words at Talk:Christian ethics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Phenomenal job on History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance! Your deep grasp of the scholarly literature and your tireless commitment to addressing my large number of comments and generally improving the article is very impressive! Thank you for all your hard work! DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your diligence at Biblical criticism and elsewhere. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
Your praises played by Moop Mama, more on my talk, or the Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Friendship Barnstar | ||
Thank you again for your kind comments and friendly gesture. You are a fine example of a Kindness Campaign member. History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 04:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC) |
P.S. Feel free to take over the 'Gerda's newsletter' idea. I'm going to re-focus on maybe starting a Kindness Campaign newsletter :)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
You definitely deserve this for your work on History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance! HouseBlaster (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC) |
Precious anniversary
"What do you mean, I can´t rewrite the entire article!?" | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1915 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The Christianity Barnstar | ||
You deserve this for your herculean efforts to improve Biblical criticism and respond to the comments at its recent FAC. As Gog mentioned in the closing note, with some additional work it will have a good chance at passing next time around. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC) |
Fruits
A barnstar for you!
The Christianity Barnstar | ||
Dear Jenhawk777, I award you The Christianity Barnstar for all your hard work in WikiProject Christianity-related articles, especially your recent creation of Evolutionary theodicy. Keep up the good work! Your efforts are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you Jenhawk777 for the message that you left on Gerda's page for me. Truly, the volunteers of these huge projects like WP, LibriVox, DP cannot go the extra mile without people like Gerda and you, who inject fresh energy into the volunteers. The kind words are our only salary, and fortunately we all can pay each other a lot. :) Qapisce (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC) |
A superior barnstar for you!
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia | ||
For all the time and effort you have put in — across thousands of edits — to markedly improve numerous articles related to Christianity all these years. The magnitude of the positive impact you have had with regard to Wikipedia's coverage of academic topics related to Christianity is unprecedented; I cannot think of any other editor who has worked so rigorously and improved those topics to the extent that you have. You are a phenomenal editor and your work is awe-inspiring. Thank you for all that you do! — The Most Comfortable Chair 21:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC) |
- This has touched me so deeply I almost cried. Thank you so, so very much. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For excellent work on Theodosius I and Massacre of Thessalonica Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC) |
Christianization of the Roman Empire
On the fourth century Christianization of the Roman Empire, Peter Brown has nailed it down:
"The notion that this one short period of time (of under a century) witnessed the 'death of paganism'; the concomitant notion that the end of polytheism was the 'natural' consequence of a long prepared 'triumph of monotheism' in the Roman world; the presentation of the political and religious history of the period as fraught with high drama, as a succession of Christian emperors, from Constantine to Theodosius II, played out their God-given role in abolishing the entire 'error of the Greeks', despite moments of dramatic but hopeless resistance by the devotees of the old gods; and the view that the definitive humiliation of the Jews throughout the Roman world was a further, logical corollary of these momentous events: all this amounts to a 'representation' of the religious history of the age, constructed by a brilliant generation of Christian writers, polemicists and preachers in the last decade of our period.[This] Christian 'representation' of the history of the fourth century has survived, in thinly laicized form, in the majority of modern narratives of the period. From Gibbon and Burckhardt to the present day... The 'roar' of [this] Christian narrative has made it exceptionally difficult to recapture the mentalities of the fourth and fifth centuries... It is difficult to get behind the deceptive trenchancy of such narrative structures..."[1]
References
- ^ Brown 1998, p. 3; 635; 636.
- ^ Brown, Peter (1998). "Christianization and religious conflict". In Averil Cameron; Peter Garnsey (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History XIII: The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425. Cambridge University Press. pp. 632–664. ISBN 978-0-521-30200-5.
Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Editing the GAN page
[1] Won't work, Legobot erases all edits. You need to make any edits to the GAN template on the talk page. (t · c) buidhe 05:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- buidhe Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well I tried. That didn't work either. Can you buidhe fix it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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) buidhe 06:15, 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)
- I would say yes because it's abandoned. (t · c) buidhe 21:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- buidhe Oh good! I will go ahead and finish up then. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would say yes because it's abandoned. (t · c) buidhe 21:27, 11 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)
- 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)
- 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) buidhe 06:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well I tried. That didn't work either. Can you buidhe fix it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:08, 10 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)
- Okay, that I can do. Thank you again for your patience. I appreciate someone willing to help others. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:19, 26 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)
- 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)
- 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 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, 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)
Ambrose check in
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? [2] [3] [4]... 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)
- 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? [2] [3] [4]... 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)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Syro-Malabar Church on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
April
... 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. I needed that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I had no idea, sorry. Best wishes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 25 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)
- Dove sono (Where are those happy moments ...?) - concert with Kyiv orchestra and Aleksey Semenenko (quite a story!) tonight, Symphony with war and peace in the subtitle --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 28 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 had no idea, sorry. Best wishes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt Thank you. I needed that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Have posted
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
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Four years! |
---|
Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Gerda Arendt sorry for the delayed response. I'm a little out of it these days. Thank you for this. It's kind of you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- no response needed, ever! - going to sing evensong tomorrow and next Saturday, then Auf dem Weg durch diese Nacht! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt perhaps not needed, but your extraordinary kindnesses deserve acknowledgement. Wish I could be there to hear you. Break a leg! As they say on the American stage! (But don't really... ) It was my birthday yesterday. I was 29 again... First birthday without my mom. First of many of those firsts. Going to be a long year. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- take some of the flowers and the rainbow for your birthday, with the best wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- and here's a strong woman --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt the link is to an archived page but I am unsure what part of it is your talk. Is it the 2022 friendship at the top or is it at the bottom where new stuff goes? Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- perhaps I don't understand the question - it's my talk as it is now, but tomorrow it will look different, therefore the archive. The pic on top should be obvious, I'm always extra proud when a pic I took makes it to the Main page. Further down you can read "My talk goes like this", explaining how the images following are connected to my life and my articles. The video of the music is at the bottom of the orchestra article, the other at the bottom of the violinist's article. Both highly recommended. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt Ahhh - you mean your talk page. When you said, "I like my talk today" I misunderstood. I thought you had given a talk - a speech or something - and it was recorded and I could see and hear you, and when I couldn't find that I got lost. I am caught up now. Thank you dearheart, and thank you especially for sharing those with me.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- happy we could clarify, and sorry for sloppy language - didn't we talk about a newsletter once, and I said my talk (page) is my newsletter? - nothing new there today but new flowers and archiving, but two people recently died who will (hopefully) come up --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt Ahhh - you mean your talk page. When you said, "I like my talk today" I misunderstood. I thought you had given a talk - a speech or something - and it was recorded and I could see and hear you, and when I couldn't find that I got lost. I am caught up now. Thank you dearheart, and thank you especially for sharing those with me.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- perhaps I don't understand the question - it's my talk as it is now, but tomorrow it will look different, therefore the archive. The pic on top should be obvious, I'm always extra proud when a pic I took makes it to the Main page. Further down you can read "My talk goes like this", explaining how the images following are connected to my life and my articles. The video of the music is at the bottom of the orchestra article, the other at the bottom of the violinist's article. Both highly recommended. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt the link is to an archived page but I am unsure what part of it is your talk. Is it the 2022 friendship at the top or is it at the bottom where new stuff goes? Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt perhaps not needed, but your extraordinary kindnesses deserve acknowledgement. Wish I could be there to hear you. Break a leg! As they say on the American stage! (But don't really... ) It was my birthday yesterday. I was 29 again... First birthday without my mom. First of many of those firsts. Going to be a long year. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- no response needed, ever! - going to sing evensong tomorrow and next Saturday, then Auf dem Weg durch diese Nacht! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
YES!! A Gerda newsletter for all of us who love you to keep up! That's what we need! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps somewhat interesting to you
Talk:Historicity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#RfC_on_category_inclusion/exclusion Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanx! I went and put in my two cents. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- This [5] is completely unrelated, but it's nice when the collective gets a pat on the back. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- This [5] is completely unrelated, but it's nice when the collective gets a pat on the back. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
finally replied to that last message of yours Avilich (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'll go look Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Christianisation of the Roman Empire
Hi! Recently you added a redirect from Christianization of the Roman Empire to a page that doesn't exist. I've reverted that change as it seems to be a mistake. Hope that's okay. TheoCourt (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- TheoCourt Perhaps you can help me figure this out. Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation is a rewrite of this article that I was told I didn't have to get approval for but could publish directly. I just attempted to do so, and instead it went here: [[6]] I have no idea why it didn't just publish, and now I don't know what to do. Do You? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Thanx! I'm trying! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- TheoCourt The redirect should go back now! I'll go ahead and do it - I hope... Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- It works just fine for me, too. Thanks, and congrats on the rewrite! TheoCourt (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank the gods of Wikipedia!!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- It works just fine for me, too. Thanks, and congrats on the rewrite! TheoCourt (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- TheoCourt The redirect should go back now! I'll go ahead and do it - I hope... Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanx! I'm trying! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
Your GA nomination of Bible
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
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Thanks for initial review
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)
- 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: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)
Missing cite in Ambrose
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•3 04:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- OOps!! Thank you Renata! I have fixed it now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bible
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)
- A. Parrot If you agree to and like the fixes, these have all been done now (in less than 24 hours). Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Found a weird topic again
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)
- Well that explains why he didn't stay with Taylor! !!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
And if you haven't heard of shipping before (I hadn't), imagine a group of passionate trekkies debating if Troi should be with Worf or Riker. Or T'Pol. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:55, 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)
- Very true! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Another thing I learned from this subject is that slash fiction isn't about Friday the 13th-style movies. Not that there can't be horror in slash fiction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)