This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
Ovinus has given you a bowl of peaches! This delicious fruit promotes WikiLove and has hopefully made your day juicier. Spread peachiness and WikiLove by giving someone else some peaches, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, by adding {{subst:Peach}} to their talk page with a friendly message!
Was thinking of you and your work earlier, Jen. Thanks for everything and I hope you have a good day! I certainly will be... today is a dim light at the end of this year-long tunnel. Warmly, Ovinus (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Ovinus How lovely! Thank you! That's so sweet - haha little pun there... I put Christian ethics up for peer review, and I know that it was ready thanx in large part to your input. I am currently working on a definition of evil that can be used in at least two articles here that make assumptions about what evil is. Bad philosophy! I figure there will be some hoorah about it, so I am being extra careful with my research. It's been interesting reading. What are you working on? I have hopes for the future too - it has to be better, it just has to be! I guess we'll see! Take care! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Haha, well I look forward to going through your rewrite! Now, a definition of evil?? So you mean from a Christian or general POV? In either case, good luck with that, my friend... but do let me know what you find! I'm especially curious about Christian conceptions.
I've been quite dazed on- and off-wiki, but I'm probably going to focus on peer reviews, GANs and FACs. Just not in the mood for content creation. COVID drags on... it hurts and saddens me how many folks at my school are feeling lonely, dazed, suicidal. The most positive outcome in my life has honestly been discovering this site (as an editor) and being able to meet so many interesting people. You're right, it has to be better... your optimism is contagious, Jen. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Ovinus Hey darlin'! I just finished going over the peer review stuff, and it was excellent, and I used all your suggestions. Thank you so much! Another pair of eyes - it just continually demonstrates to me that the product we end up with is always, always better when collaboration is involved. Resisting being corrected is exactly the opposite of what and how WP works, and how WP works is really the best possible method. It definitely has its weaknesses - I had someone fight off instruction and change here recently - and it's so genuinely sad to me, because they are only hurting themselves and their content. I realize it takes some maturity - whatever your age - (and a smaller ego than many here have) to have that 'learner's' spirit and the cooperation with others that is so valuable here. I realized at once that you had that, and was so impressed with those qualities in a young person that I genuinely hoped we would stay friends and continue to work together. I am so glad we are.
Yes COVID drags on, and it has taken much, but it has also given. It taught you one of the secrets of happiness: connectedness. We humans need each other. Community matters more than most people previously recognized, especially in the good old USA where we supremely value independence. Humans need belongingness, we need connectedness, we need purpose, we need work we think matters. COVID has reminded us all that the work those at the bottom of society do really does matter - perhaps more in its functioning - than the ones at the economic top do. Pay is not accurately representative of value. It's been an eye-opening experience for many to think that way, and the whole thing continues to present other valuable lessons about ourselves and life in general, as well. Hopefully, we won't forget. It has changed us, but in many ways, for the better - if we have that learner's spirit and don't let ego get in the way. Pass that on to your struggling friends. Life is often really painfully tough, and this won't be their last one, but the most difficult things are always the ones that offer us the most opportunity to learn and grow. Holding to that is how we survive. You keep on surviving dear one. WP needs you, and so do I.
The section on Evil I have been working on is the 'Question of a universal definition' therefore it must be a secular definition imo. I have now posted my suggested changes on the Talk page in order to get feedback before jumping in and hopefully lessen the amount of upset and opposition big changes sometimes cause. Go and participate if you are interested!
Hey! I forgot! See below where Grabergs posted a link? Go there and see what you think as well. He will appreciate your input too. He is a great, great guy, and Swedish, which is totally cool imo, since my ancestors were Danish and used to fight his! Have a great day! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
So many thought-provoking things you just said that I'm going to need some serious time to think. "We need work we think matters", yeah. As a prospective computer programmer I see the joys and dangers of it all; I need to remain vigilant. The loss of privacy is pretty terrifying in that many of us young folk have just accepted it, including me for a while. I don't want to work for a company which freely sells their user data, or uses machine learning to make decisions like determining healthcare. It's so annoying that I buy a book on Montessori education, and now I get ads for it constantly on YouTube. Maybe that's one of the best things about this site, that its primary motivation is not money, that it doesn't have a financial incentive to be a platform for conspiracy theorists and the like, that it's honest that everyone can see what we write.
Thank you for your thoughts on connectedness. "Especially in the good old USA where we supremely value independence"... yeah. Wow. For a long time I, having been instilled with it as a child, subscribed to that rugged individualism, but that's changed. Indeed we must put on our own oxygen mask first—get ourselves up before helping others—but without each of us subsequently making an effort to reach out, to contribute, where is the humanity? Maybe I'm exaggerating, but not by much. Having seen what this cabal community is like, I'm going to put more effort into the one(s) in my real life.
Ovinus You fill me with hope for the future, and I see no exaggeration in your comments, just intelligence, awareness and sensitivity. We don't have the power to change everything, but we do have the power to change ourselves, and that impacts everything as it ripples outward. I come from an abusive background where there was no kindness, no gentleness, no love. I wasted time and energy looking outward for what I didn't have. Then one day, the still small voice inside me told me I must learn to be what I needed and stop waiting on others to do the changing. I needed to be willing to be the beginning of change - it had to start with me. I wanted someone to care about me: that meant it was on me to be that caring person for those around me, to give what I wanted to get, not what I had been given. I've spent my life pursuing that illusive ideal, and whenever I get discouraged, I ask myself, what is it I'm looking for? And that's what I work at giving. Small steps, but significant for me. I wish you well, Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if the Bible-author is making a "joke" here: "Moses, you so and so, you married a Cushite woman." ... "behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow". Grim OT-humor?
Idk! But it is worth noting isn't it? Someone told me about My Library when I went to the resource exchange sometime back. Wonderful discovery isn't it? Through it, I have gotten access to any number of things that I couldn't have otherwise. I love it! I just paid 40$ for a book I wanted that wasn't accessible... I'm a sucker for books! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Problem of evil, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Rowe and Paul Draper.
Gareth Griffith-Jones I am always impressed and grateful for a man willing to help with housekeeping. I have no snowdrops where I am, but then it was 70 degrees Farenheidt today, so thank you for the picture. There are several bulbs and flowers I miss living in the semi-tropics, but there are others I am just learning about that sort of compensate a little bit. But I miss snowbells and daffodils, definitely. Thank you for thinking of me today. I have never in my life even imagined the craziness we have had here. Hopefully we can move forward together. We'll see what happens. Hope you and yours are well and safe - have you gotten vaccinated yet? My husband has, and I haven't yet, but hope to within this next month. Take care my friend - and thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I have watched it all on BBC News. It was wonderful. Sanity returns to American politics. Yes, Jen, I am keeping well and being very cautious. The weather has been awful this January. I wish I could swop with you. Not yet been asked to come for the "jab" and that is how it is done in the UK. You cannot just turn up. My age should mean that I'll have the first one quite soon. All the best! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I tried to give 2021 a good start by updating the QAI project topics. Please check and correct, please check especially if the infoboxes passage works (which dates back mostly to 2020). - For moar private "happy new year" see here. Best wishes for you and your mother! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt hello adored one with the beautiful soul! Your work is very impressive. I had no idea we had a collection of articles on the Psalms. I think I will start reading them. The infobox thing is funny. Happy new year to you too. I hope it is a better year than the last one. My country has gone completely insane. I attribute it to too much isolation. Of course, I've been isolated so I could be wrong... :-) Did you see the notice Grabergs sent me just below to Jimbo's talk page? A young woman with a chip on her shoulder is having trouble. You might take a gander and see if I missed something. Or not - she lamented, where are the female editors? - So having you show up might improve her perspective - but who knows? Thank you for your thought of my mother, so kind! Bless you dearheart. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, dear! You made my day saying the infobox thing is funny! (Another user told my how sad it was that I'm still discussing infoboxes, and when I replied that I said "don't discuss", he said by mentioning them I'm discussing them. - "Funny" really comes as a relief.) Last year, I had just said "don't discuss", which resulted in a loooong discussion (archived), so I thought I better be clear ;) - I just made a FAC nom, believe it or not, BWV 1, a bit prematurely but I wanted today's time stamp on it. I don't care if it becomes featured or not, just want it as good as possible, and a peer review resulted just in the nomination being criticised ;) - Tired, so right now nothing to the below, and I avoid our founder's talk. Take care! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
To FA no, just FAC, - wanted to do something special on Wikipedia's birthday, so nominated something, - not quite ripe, but perhaps it will get there. Comments welcome! - I decorated my talk today. You are invited. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, FA is featured article, and FAC is a candidate for it. I reserve grief for when people die, - no article is worth grief. I gave the below a header because I found it tricky to find my spot to reply. My New Year's song on the Main page, I mean Paul Gerhardt's of course, with a hook saying "sought solace", wording not me, didn't know the word. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Aha!! I wanted to give it a title to separate it as well but wasn't sure how! Thank you so much!
You are, of course, absolutely correct that no article here deserves grief, and that is part of what convinced me I had invested too much and needed to let it go. It isn't mine to grieve over.
No idea what it means to you, - what I tried to say that the poet didn't rhyme and then some composer set music, but the melody was there first, and he wrote the text according to it. - Did you follow the "when people die" link? (warning: heavy) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, well imo, that definition is not clear and deserves to be there so it is clearer to the reader. Hmm, I think this is the first time I have made such a suggestion to you! I must be getting uppity! I'll try to be more careful! I did follow the link. It was sad and disturbing. I am personally getting better at spotting difficult editors - and then mostly just avoiding them. For the most part, I have found the majority are willing to work together. I just finished a redo of Christian ethics and beginning it required a good bit of negotiation and cooperation, back and forth, but we did it (all collapsed now), and the article has benefitted accordingly. I am getting into the habit of posting any big changes I want to make on the Talk page first and asking for input there and that has greatly reduced conflict. Haven't really had any problems - excepting FA - since my nemesis left. It's been great being here these few months. It has helped me cope with everything going on - even the FAC stress was a good learning experience, and that's what it's all about for me. I promise not to place too much weight on life here though, truly. I appreciate what you are saying. Take care of you too - and expand that sentence. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
How do you remember that? I don't remember which you were for me. I only remember that you were one of the few who stuck by me when things went south. That, I will never forget. You must have been among the first ones I met though, since I didn't know that many - less than ten I think. You've been here so long that you must have seen a lot of people come and go. That's sad Gerda. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I've seen them come and go - some more than once, but death is final. He was among the first handful of editors I met, in 2009, and was always helpful, and never pointed out that he was world class in his field. More detail on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt And so you have good cause to tell me that you reserve your grief for losses like this. Though I didn't know him, I walk with you in grief at his loss. We must think of him as writing on Wikipedia in his next life now, carrying with him all that he was and learned from being here. And we must enjoy what he left us and pass it on. Thank you for sharing him with me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry, but sharing grief wasn't my intention, - what was unclear? Pointing at a great person was my idea, creating interest in him and (more!) his topics, music, friendship, especially Stockhausen. (I can't find a better analogy than John pointing at the Lamb of God, - please don't misunderstand, I don't think he was any saviour, but just greater.) - Thinking of Flyer22 still causes grief (she was in her 30s ...), - watch Die Fliege if you want to follow how users I care about come and go. Happily, the last one missed returned, "pardoned" by arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Jenhawk777. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Augustine on coercion, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
I appreciate the concern but I don't understand. This draft was deleted long ago. It's in the deletion log I believe. I was notified recently that I could restore it if I wanted to so it must be gone. I am clueless. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Some thoughts
Thought I should bounce this idea off of you. We know that coverage of the humanities on Wikipedia is generally pretty poor. Part of that is editor demographics, but I'm also thinking it may be due to the difficulties of having a strict NPOV. It's hard to discuss a philosophy's merits and counterarguments without taking a sort of position, at least temporarily in a paragraph. There's so many beliefs out there that need to be balanced in a way that doesn't just confuse a reader, with them reading a section and taking away nothing but "uh... lots of opinions...." Plus we all have our own beliefs that makes writing about it hard. What is writing about Christian topics like for you, as a topic expert? Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Just as difficult as you describe - maybe even more so because it is so common to get push back from others who disagree or dislike your topic while you are honestly working hard to be neutral. I read a question at the philosophy site last night where someone was asking what to do about an editor that keeps posting one quote after another from Kierkegaard so that the whole article was overrun! I answered that I have frequently spent more time attempting to establish cooperation and consensus than I have spent editing the article itself. Religion is even worse. It is easy to slip into POV. Probably impossible not to at times. All humans have biases. If you ever catch that in anything I write, please say so. I depend on others to help me with that. I'm afraid though that the effort to have a npov requires "lots of opinions" because that is generally all there is. There are so many beliefs out there, you are so right, but they aren't all majority beliefs, they can be grouped by type - sometimes - we just have to give due weight and present them accordingly - which is not necessarily equally. We look for majority views. I note in a couple of articles that there are two primary points of view on Antique Rome. I am writing on theodicy right now and a typology of four approaches sums up those opinions. I think is actually helpful to give such summaries or overviews if you will. People can begin with a WP summary, then go research the specifics more on their own. The section on war in CE is an example. I really do try to present all the arguments - which having philosophy as one of my majors I actually enjoy. My problem is that then I want to describe them and discuss them and ... Sigh. Coverage of the humanities is going to get better now that we are here... Right? :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Right! Yeah, I'm sure your philosophy major comes in handy, until you get too deep! Thanks for your thoughts, especially on religion. A complex thing to get right, if you even can. It makes me also think about "verifiability, not truth" and whether consensus can determine truth. If we were to represent the world's opinion proportionally, the article on homosexuality would speak at length on its sinful nature, the Donald Trump article would claim that his successor's legitimacy is seriously disputed, et cetera. Oh well... we can try to keep things fair, whatever that even means. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't let me shoot down your ideals here, but jeez, that's exactly what I'm going to do - well forgive me then! No, I'm afraid we make no effort to keep things fair, we make the effort to be neutral, and that's entirely different. And we don't pursue truth in any form, consensus or otherwise. The scholars we reference are attempting those pursuits - some more than others - but all we do is attempt to accurately present what the current thinking is. Period.
When you get to reading lots of journal articles in whatever field you end up in, you will find that some scholars are better than others at presenting the views of other scholars, especially of those who might be considered as against them. A neutral, even favorable discussion of the strong points of your opponent's arguments is a solid foundation for proceeding to tear those arguments apart and establish your own theory as the best possible approach. (Nothing is quite so Darwinian as academia.) What you are learning here about neutrality will aid you in the future, but never ever mistake it for fairness or truth.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No no no, I am open to change, not least because I'm still trying to wrap my head around this! So do we try to proportionally represent the views of scholars? Or of reliable sources? I guess I had this idea that we're supposed to represent the views of all people in the world—published and unpublished. What is the difference between being fair and being neutral? Also I'm going to quote you on that "Nothing is quite so Darwinian as academia", I love it. As to the last thing about neutrality and truth, I think I need to be careful. If one's striving to be neutral on-wiki persists off-wiki, one might have difficulty maintaining opinions, in the worst case descending into equivocation and inconsistency. Neutrality is not truth, consensus does not determine truth. Ai ya.... Ovinus (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Well now that I have totally mixed you up, I will leave you to work it out on your own... No I won't!! Reliable sources are written by the best scholars. Some scholars are mediocre. Some are total crap, and other scholars use them as an ongoing joke. They sometimes write very popular books, but no one considers them RS. I am not a fan of Bart Ehrman's scholarship, but he is very popular and recently wrote a book on the historical Jesus where he took a crap scholar and her book on the Jesus myth completely apart and did a brilliant job of it. Reliable sources represent the work of the very best of current scholars. The difference between being fair and neutral is in your judgment. Being fair means you have determined if something is just or appropriate. Being neutral means you have withheld any such determination, you are not helping or supporting either side, but simply presenting both sides as they are presented in the sources. If you do enough research, you will begin to see the repetition of some views, their acceptance, and somewhere someone will say, "the majority agree...", but there are also minority views, and minority views have a way of becoming majority over time, so they need to be presented as such as well. That isn't fairness as such because you don't agree with one or the other. That is neutrality. Yes, you are as insightful as ever - we all must be careful about carrying too much of this into our personal lives. I am fortunate and unfortunate in that I already know what I believe and why and am thereafter able to set my views to the side. I've had a lot of time to work through a lot of issues and haven't really run into anything new and unfamiliar on WP yet. It could happen! Then I will come to you and your insight for help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey Ovinus! I didn't mean to cut you off from reviewing Christian ethics. I thought you were done since I hadn't heard from you in awhile, and no one else had shown up, so I closed it, but that doesn't mean you and I can't continue if we want to. I am always interested in what you have to say. It will no doubt be months before anyone responds with an interest in GA reviewing it, so we can continue an informal peer review if you so desire. As you wish. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
No mere technicality will prevent me from reviewing! I've been a bit recently and haven't done much on-wiki, but I promise I'll get back to you in due course. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Problem of evil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francisco Ayala.
Thank you so much! Gerda Arendt Happy Valentines to you as well. We are actually getting some cold weather here this week. It's going to get below freezing, which almost never happens here. Everyone is freaking out! It's the big story on the news! :-) People are funny! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
very cold here as well - next year's February pic will probably picture ice sculpture. Believe it or not, my FAC is moving, finally. Heard great music today, BWV 159. Details on my talk, as always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Further down on the page, there are conversations about the current arb case request - I feel I have to stay away - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
March 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red| March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193
Evolutionary theodicy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
buidhe I did not know that till now. I had this idea that everyone had to submit their articles before they could be published - a mild sort of peer review. This actually explains a lot ... :-). Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jenhawk777! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Compare and contrast list, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
buidhe Oh bless you! That will be helpful. It is always easier to see an example and copy it than it is to try and follow written directions that rarely make any sense to anyone other than someone who already knows what to do. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
You're very welcome User:Jenhawk777. I've noticed that you've made several wonderful contributions to other Christianity-related articles too. You definitely deserve this! With regards, AnupamTalk04:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The source does indeed say an archaeologist has discovered a cross in grafitti under the Colosseum. I'm not sure your inability to read a language is justification for removing reference material. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod it's good to meet you, but I'm afraid this is mistaken. The inability to verify a source is justification for reversal - one could even say it's required - since we all stand or fall based on the quality of our references. Her reference says the claim is on page 103 of The Colosseum by Hopkins, right? But if you look at page 103, it not only doesn't say anything about recent archaeological evidence, it says: "The fact is there are no genuine records of any Christians being put to death at the Colosseum."
So I assume the only reference to archaeology is in the Italian article I can't read, but I also assume that if something like this is correct, it would be being reported in multiple places - some of which would be in a language I can read. It wouldn't be in just one source, you see what I'm saying? If there is some way you can help with this, it would be greatly appreciated. I would very much like to have this included in the article if we can just verify its accuracy. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I imagine if you look at the history you will see it used to say there was no evidence, referenced to the book, then the bit that there was evidence was added referenced to the Italian paper. Not the best way, but never mind. Your inability to read Italian does not mean it is unverifiable, just that you can't verify it, which is no cause for reversion. Your OR about lack of further web hits you can read doesn't amount to much. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Johnbod This is the English WP not the Italian one. All that needs to be done is to provide a translation that includes names, dates and places that can be looked up and verified. Or another archaeological reference that can be verified. Something other than stonewalling and edit warring. WP only uses verifiable reliable sources. Without that, this addition will end up removed at some point whether it's by me or someone else. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Or find someone who can read Italian - not that rare a skill. Which has now happened. WP:V has no requirement that sources be in English. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Johnbod Why so obstructive? WP:V doesn't comment on other languages in any way, but its opening line does say: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. and again All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. If I say I can't check this, that I can't verify it, then that matters, and must be addressed.
WP:V also says: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
Johnbod Of course I will, but you haven't actually told me anything. You have used some implied insults and personal attacks, but beyond that have done nothing to either verify the material in question or provide evidence that it is not necessary. Nor have you provided evidence that I have violated any of WP's rules in this exchange, and without that, it's on you to stop making unfounded accusations. All I asked for is a verifiable source. I don't quite see why that has caused you - who didn't write it - so much heartburn. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see, I have offered no insult of any kind, veiled or open. Please copy paste anywhere I did because I would definitely owe you an apology. It is never my intent to insult anyone. Reverting, or asking for a verifiable source, is not an insult of any kind. It's business as usual on WP.
I have now added a sentence in the article offering an alternative view to the one claimed, thanx to Anupam. Perhaps this will be the end of this unfortunate exchange now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Johnbod I went and looked - and fixed their work - because you said Which has now happened. so I expected an English version. It isn't there, so it remains impossible that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. This isn't about whether I can read Italian. It's about the ordinary reader and the quality and dependability of our work here. If you are an instructor, you are not doing Karma any favors by helping them violate WP rules and requirements. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I apologize if I am joining this discussion uninvited. However, I have made edits on other articles related to this topic before and should note that the Encyclopedia of Sacred Places, authored by Norbert C. Brockman and published by ABC-CLIO, states: "There seems little doubt that some Christians were executed as common criminals in the Colosseum-their crime being refusal to reverence the Roman gods. Most martyrs, however, died for their faith at the Circus Maximus." I trust that this information is helpful. With regards, AnupamTalk04:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Massacre of Thessalonica 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 Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
March flowers
Imagine, the FAC was promoted. - Uta Ranke-Heinemann died, and I wonder if you could look over her article and especially her book, for theology terms we may not know/understand. Perhaps she even deserves a position in Bc ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt The first thing that hits me is, this is you, and you seldom ask anything of me, and this is a chance for me to do something for you, and then my stomach sort of tightens and my second response is, this involves going back to BC. Well, I will do this at some point, because you asked, and because I have every intention of returning and splitting it as was recommended, but not today my dear friend. I can't just yet. I will, I promise. I will go ahead and research Uta Ranke-Heinemann and keep her in my sandbox ready to add her in when I can. I know you think I'm silly about this, and someday I'll get over it I know. I will. Then I will return to work on BC yet again. Just give me time. And thirdly, congrats on the FA. I am not at all surprised. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about your stomach, - all I intended was telling you that a FAC lingering for more than 2 months can still come to some good end. - It would be nice if you could simply read the Ranke-Heinemann article, and her book (with a translation tag!), and perhaps fix things. How would I know if the translation is good when I don't know theology in English? Asap, if I may ask, because she is on the Main page NOW ;) - I also thought that her wording, translated "But at the same time, his (Bultmann's) example taught me that even the sceptic can be a Christian, even if not in the conventional way", might speak to you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt Sorry that I misunderstood. I read the article and skimmed what I could with my pitiful German of the book. I could not get it to translate, but the article did, so I was able to glean some of her views from that. She was quite an impressive woman, no doubt. Her book No and Amen, however, did not receive glowing reviews. Kirkus reviews wrote back when her book first came out that "The author advances all of her assertions as if they are somehow startling, even though most have been made by Protestant scholars and others for years. She too easily confuses the Catholic Church that banned her with Christianity as a whole." The argument over the historical Jesus has been ongoing for 200 years largely because there is not sufficient historical support for her views to be unilaterally accepted, and there is a lot of history behind the traditions. But you make no claims as to the veracity of her views one way or the other. That she references Bultman is not in her favor in my opinion, but her personal "theology" is laid out just as you have it. You don't evaluate it, or give anyone else's evaluation of it, you just present it, and that is perfectly appropriate. What you said is what she said. I see nothing in your article that needs fixing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt Sorry for the delay - RL interference. You are always most welcome dear Gerda. Anything, ever, just ask and I will be happy to do it - even go back to BC for you, with no more griping, promise. I am glad I could offer support. Blessings! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
As close as we get, apparently
Happy Passover!
Hello Jenhawk777, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this passover. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a happy passover or easter, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy editing, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, hope you are well. I recently read Alpha and Omega by Harry Turtledove. Not his best, but several elements and musings that I think you could find enjoyable. Also, it took off in a direction I didn't expect. Tell me you won't read it and I'll be happy to spoil the plot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Hello dearheart, how are you and yours doing these days? Have you been vaccinated? How is the sweet shaggy puppy dog? Give him a pat and a hug for me. :-) I don't know if I will read it. I read very little fiction these days. It takes me awhile to wade through a lot of what I read for WP. I am reading "God, chance and necessity by Keith Ward and I just finished slogging through "Animal suffering and the problem of evil" by Creegan. She writes the densest sentences I have ever read. They have to be taken apart a phrase at a time - really difficult to understand - as she assumes a level of scientific knowledge that most of us theologians don't have. It was a worthwhile read but I was exhausted at the end! Any fiction that makes me think will be more trouble than I can take and any fiction that doesn't will seem like a waste of time - hence the not reading of much fiction these days. My literature days may be in the past, at least for awhile. But tell me about it. Perhaps you will intrigue me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I/we are well, thanks for asking. Your bunch too? Current info is that I'll be allowed to book a jab in June, though Dad should be allowed to do so now.
Oh, Kratu? My article, not my dog. His owner found the Teahouse, and somewhat to my own surprise, I made an article about her dog. Apparently she has a small flock of rescue dogs. Good WP-time.
Archeologists in Israel finds a certain ark, the small one. And though I was waiting for the hoax to be revealed, no, it's the real thing, bad for peoples health and everything. So now the characters (all kinds of Abrahamics), from believers to not-so-believers, have to deal with that. It's interesting, and now I know about the Red heifer, never came across that one before.
Boyfriend: So, God really exists.
Girlfriend: Yup.
B:We should get married. Like, right now.
G: Yup.
Near the end, a certain SoG turns up and speaks. Character: What did he mean by that? Oh right. Parables.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång I thought he was yours since you had him guarding your user page! Silly me! I have a friend who has rescue dogs too, and I think it's a wonderful thing to do - would do it myself but my husband would leave me...
No reason for anyone in our modern day to know about the red heifer unless they were into studying all the many obscure and complex rules of cleanness/uncleanness and sacrifice in ancient Israel. I used some of them on Women in the Bible, but didn't buy any of those to read through! Complexity and obscurity and irrelevance - not a good combination!
Looked at the front page - that was fun! I almost never look at it, so thanx for the pointer.
Speaking of "complex rules of cleanness/uncleanness", one plotpoint is a group of kids kept ritually pure, including they have never been allowed to walk on/touch the ground. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Two things: I went looking for a Happy Easter template and there isn't one! How does one go about making one of those? I wanted to send it to you. There's a Happy Hannukah but no Easter. So Happy Easter to you too - with no embellishments! Second, I am looking for a way to reference Bible verses that allows one to actually see and read the verse. Do you have one? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jen! Just wanted to reach out since you're one of the go-to editors for religion articles. I noticed that the article on Easter was just pulled from the "on this day" section of the main page because of under-referencing problems. If you're looking for a high-visibility page to improve, it'd be nice to get it in good enough shape for it to be ready for inclusion by next year. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Sdkb How very kind of you! Thank you. I have been accused. of many things on WP but I don't think under-referencing has ever been one of them. I will definitely go look at it. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Christian ethics 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Cerebellum Hi! YAY! Whoohoo!! I am so glad! I now have two articles being reviewed at the same time, and my RL is overwhelmed with a project I am lead on, but I promise to keep up with whatever you give me to do just as fast as is humanly possible. I am so excited about this article. I hope you like it too. Thank you so very much for taking time to do this. It means a lot! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed! Your timing is off! I am wigging out because someone put a tag at the top of the article and I think it's baloney, but I checked the 761 quotes and there were about a dozen mistakes, so I am bummed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The article Christian ethics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Christian ethics for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Ha ha!! And you do it with grace and aplomb! I looked at that Christian values article - good night nurse! It really is terrible! Hey - I removed Steven Wilkins entirely from CE - I went and looked him up and decided he wasn't a good person to reference after all. I kept the book because it is written mostly by other people, but ditched him personally. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I misread his name first and thought it was J. Steven Wilkins, which seemed a... questionable choice to start the topic with. Thanks for removing.
For the first time I've tried to add a non-free image to WP, we'll see if it sticks: Tharbis. One of the prettiest Bible-wives ever, I think. There's also Jane Seymour playing a certain bathing woman in The Story of David, ably illustrating the "right, who do I have to kill?" motivation of her next husband. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
No, but she's in that film. 25 years old. Playing Bathsheba, the woman who caused David to think "I have to kill her husband. It's only logical." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång She is indeed in the film, and breathtakingly beautiful, no doubt about it. David's reaction makes perfect sense. I have often thought Seymour was so remarkably beautiful, it interfered with her career because no one would take such a beautiful woman seriously as an actress, but she is also remarkably talented. She is the real deal - beautiful and brainy and brilliantly talented. Can you not find any stills of her to include as well? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Gerda Arendt and Happy Easter to you as well. I was just getting on here to write you a question and found this - I don't know how I missed it earlier, but it's still Easter for 12 more minutes here, so it still counts! So thank you!Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Guess what, It's still Easter here (we have 2 days, and in Bach's Leipzig they had 3, and he composed different things for the 3) ;) - Also: I take good wishes anytime. Did you check out the link to my talk? - And what was the question? - Explaining: when you go to your talk as the first thing after a break, you miss the "new messages" bar. It happened to me, too, and I always go somewhere else first. Most often, that's the Main page, ugly but full of treasures. You could go to my user or talk ;) - remember: my daily newsletter. - One more, once I'm here: at your top here, could you somehow indicate that it's from last year? ... or take this year's? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry dear one, I stayed up until 2:30 in the morning answering all the changes for the GA because I had no time during the day due to RL making too many demands! I will do it tonight, I promise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt Please review what I have done and see if it is at all what you had in mind. If you don't like it and want to revert it, please feel free, I will not be offended at all. It is really quite an interesting article on a genuinely fascinating man - those German reformers are still causing trouble! I'm glad I read it and am doubly glad to have contributed even a tiny bit to it. It's really good Gerda.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank so much, Jen! I made one change (US to UK spelling, and if there are more please fix), and moving the pic more to context. Perhaps add where Patricia L. published? ... because her views are quite prominent. - I had not seen the article until he died, DYK? ... but read some of his books. He is Swiss, not German ;) - a great reformer. - Next time you do such a magnificent job, can you please split it a bit? Reverting would be easier ;) - I think the article is much better now, seriously! -Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt Hah! I mad at least one change to American spelling! Sorry. I should have known you would know Brit English. You may not know, that's what I learned first as a child as well. We lived in Argentina and I went to a school that had a British teacher in the morning and an Argentine in the afternoon - or maybe the other way around - anyway, we did our work in Spanish when the Argentine was there and in English when the Brit was there. I was 4/5 and so I first learned how to write European style and had to unlearn it when I came back to the States. I still get confused on occasion!
I found Lefevere's article online at the National Catholic Reporter; that's all I know. It said she had interviewed him several times and the information was all consistent with what you already had, it just added a little more of the personal, so I used it in that middle section. Make him come alive as a person and not just an intellectual.
Swiss not German, of course, but worked in Germany, so I forgot! I will remember to split input - if you ever ask me again! I didn't think of that when I did it. Hope it wasn't too much trouble for you. I am glad you are pleased with the overall result. It's a really good article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing! I learned Brit English in Germany, but US when living in the States, so get easily confused ;) - It was you who mentioned revert, but then please how if it means revert all or nothing? I'll ask you again! - It was tough, three who recently died, a soprano (appeared) and an actress who didn't, but Prince Philipp immediately. The actress had not even an article, - interesting role model in a different way, pictured on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
So we will be confused together - or just confuse each other - or some such thing! There seems to be some concern over using Patricia Lefevere so her's a link I found on her. [[4]] Seems like a qualified source. At the end of the obit she wrote, it said she had interviewed him herself more than once, so there was some personal knowledge in it as well. I liked that factor especially. I just used it to beef up what you already had - there were no contradictions - just some extra details. And yes I did think it possible you might revert some of what I did, and I will know next time that doing it all at once makes that much harder. I had an editor come along and edit Christian ethics just recently and went and asked her to revert herself - she made several errors - and she told me to do it myself. I had to go to each one of the diffs, find any incorrect changes she made, and do them one at a time. It took forever! It makes me cringe to think I just did that to you! I am just a blindly unthinking idiot sometimes!! I am so sorry, and promise I will remember in the future.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for having made you feel sorry, not my intention. I looked over the whole thing and liked 95% (or more). If you want to make life easy for a potential reverter, you make small changes and write a good edit summary for each. Then I can just roll back or undo one bit, or two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I listened through the link in the article, it didn't go to Youtube, but holy cow Gerda! I didn't know that could be done! That is amazing, you and writing that are amazing, it is all just blowing my mind!!! It's brilliant. Very awesomely amazing! I don't even know what to say. I'm incoherent! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry not to like the links in the article, not for how they perform the music, nor the space their display takes up, but this a joint venture ;) - Today: an article about music significant in my life, Bach's motet Jesu, mein Freude, with a long way from the start in 2006 to the Main page today ;) - perhaps FA some day ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry you don't like them too! :-) I thought they were great. Good luck on that FA! I'm sure you will get it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello darling Gerda Arendt! I have been wallpapering my dining room and making new curtains, only writing a bit in my sandbox right now. Taking a mini-break from WP. It is good to remember past friends, and good to hear from new ones. Hope you are well and staying safe. Blessings. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Atheism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naturalism.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Problem of evil, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Doctor Faustus and In Memoriam.
I figured I'd respond here with regard to your questions about the next step on the GA review. In short, no, there are no requirements for you to make substantial changes or to wait a certain time at GAN. (I think FAC has some sort of rule like that, although that's above my pay grade.) To the contrary, WP:GAN/I#N4 says that If a review stalls or there is disagreement over interpretation of the good article criteria, you may want to consider allowing the review to fail, then renominating the article to get a different reviewer. That's essentially what happened here, and there's nothing shameful about it. If it makes you feel better, take a look at this rather extraordinary review, in which a reviewer ignored at least three other well-established contributors and insisted on their own (questionable) understanding what the article should have been. The reviewer eventually failed it, and the nominator quite correctly renominated it within two hours. I reviewed the second nom, and it passed without incident. The point of that story is that there are some times when good-faith reviewers end up having irreconcilable differences with good-faith nominators, and in that case renominating is the best way to go. Anyways, I hope this experience doesn't get you down: it happens to everyone (the nominator in the review above has over 100 GAs) and it doesn't really reflect poorly on you. I see you've renominated the article, so I'll head over and open up the review page. Here's to a more...amicable experience. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
It is not in any way over the top for me to now say, Extraordinary Writ, you are my new best friend, I will love you forever, you are a wonderful person, a stand-up and be counted kind of person, who makes the world - my world - a better place. I am so relieved I could cry! Thank you thank you thank you!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
In this case, it's probably due to Legobot's longstanding issues with reviews of an article that has previously been reviewed. (It's been known to erroneously inform people that their reviews have failed, which must be awfully disconcerting.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
A cake for you!
Extraordinary Writ (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Ask and ye shall receive. (Yes, I know that's a quote, but we all have to yield to temptation sometimes.) Seriously, though, a cake is the least you deserve for your work on Massacre of Thessalonica. I look forward to seeing what you end up working on next.
Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Extraordinary Writ OMG! I love it! Thank you! I was actually in the process of posting a cake here for you and buidhe (talk·contribs) when it hit edit conflict!! congrats! You both most certainly deserve it for all you do to help others become better editors, and for putting up with me and my warped sense of humor! I can't say thank you enough. And for the cake! The colonel says, "there should always be cake". (Notice how I slipped in that quote? Good thing you are not easily annoyed...) :-) Notices, shmotices. I got cake. I love that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Fixed your talk page archiving
Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings on this page. I noticed that you put the archive settings after certain sections that you don't want archived, but the bot doesn't work that way. It doesn't care where on the page the settings are. So I've tagged those sections (where it hadn't happened already) with {{DNAU}}. I've moved the settings and the "This talk page is automatically archived..." banner to the top of your talkpage, and slightly reworded your message about having relocated the barnstars. I hope you're happy with what I've done. Otherwise, please feel free to revert/modify it. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Here [5] I reverted a few edits. I don't think I bulldozed over anything constructive, but as I recall you wrote the text and if you feel like checking it couldn't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
dear Gråbergs Gråa Sång I have been out of town for three days and just. got back. I will check this week if I can - have company here now - but right now I think your changes look good. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
define "know". He was the priest at a wedding in the family here, and a funeral here, and on one unplanned occasion he was there for a lunch at his sister-in-law, and I forgot what we talked about, probably travel suggestions for further south. My memory ... The sister-in-law wrote me in a Christmas letter that he had died, - no, I didn't know him. I learned all about his Trinity symposium (which included the chapel) now, researching. Funny that I met the priest but not the musician, other than being in the audience when he conducted. His recording of the B minor mass, however, changed my life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theodosius I 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 Smallchief -- Smallchief (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Smallchief Wow! I have never had a response this fast. This is amazing! I am so excited! Thank you! I look forward to working with you and will be as fast as possible in responding to all requests. Thank you and wow again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Wow! Just wow! I certainly made some colossal errors as a newbie myself. I learned the hard way to be more careful - and to run the copyvio detector on everything!! I don't think I ever did OR, but I did do some synth... it's part of what you are supposed to do when writing academic research papers, and when I first started here, that's all I knew. Thanx to you and a few others, I am better now. It's also good to know other newbies were as big screw-ups as I was!! :-) Thanx Grabergs. I will hold onto not being alone in that. It does actually make me feel a bit better about my first year! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, in your case, the brickwalls didn't have a chance. Wether you bashed them with your head or walked around them is a matter of opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The article Theodosius I you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Theodosius I for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Smallchief -- Smallchief (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You reverted at least four of my edits in a 24 hour period; you may not be aware, this goes against Wikipedia policy.
That didn’t turn out the way you expected but that doesn’t mean we can’t figure out how to work together with cooperation instead of antagonism. This was an unnecessary waste of time and energy and unproductive of anything good for anyone. I have made the changes you wanted. Let’s move on from there and leave this behind. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång both stressful and a complete waste of time! A little time on the talkpage could prevent it all! Anything I anticipate being controversial I usually post on the talk page before inputting it into the article, but this one caught me by surprise. I didn't think it was! HAH! Silly me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Arianism: possible OR
I'd appreciate your view on this question. In the lead you find this sentence: "Athanasius was exiled to Trier (in modern Germany) following his conviction at Tyre of conspiracy, and Arius was, effectively, exonerated.". Is the exoneration supported by the citation? If not, do other sources support the exoneration? Otherwise, is the exoneration just OR? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
It is supported that Athanasius was exiled. I will check on the accuracy of Trier, but I think that's right too. I will find a citation one way or the other and put it in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Laurel Lodged What article is that and where? I found multiple references for Athanasius' exile at Trier. Here is one: "Arnold, Duane W. "The early episcopal career of Athanasius of Alexandria." Christianity and Judaism in antiquity (1991)."Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Well Arius did come back and the Arians did throw out the orthodox for awhile - that's how Athanasius got exiled. Exonerated is probably the wrong word, but it does say effectively, so it's a modified claim. They went back and forth kicking each other out. Constantine was sympathetic to Arianism. A description of Arius being given sanctuary by Eusebius and then returning to power and then losing it again might be more appropriate than a single claim. Perhaps you could find that. I have to get offline for awhile. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I went ahead and nominated the one on Ambrose for deletion. You might be interested in giving an input. I'm starting with the one with fewest content and which had most support for elimination in the Wikiproject. Avilich (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
For now I only mean you might want to give your input on the current AfD (keep, delete, etc.), the one I just linked. You mentioned you never submitted an article for deletion before, do you know the basic procedures? Avilich (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Avilich I do not. As a general rule I rework broken articles, I don't delete them. This will be a first for me - the idea that an article isn't salvageable - and it hurts me a little ... but you think this is the best approach, so what do I need to do? The article totally sucks as it is, but it isn't a bad topic actually for a splinter article. We could keep the title - and nothing else - and rewrite the poor pitiful thing with some genuine scholarship. It wouldn't be that hard or take that long. We could do it. Maybe we should consider redoing all of these on your list so the meta-data on WP is the same. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
You just need to indicate in bold your preferred course of action (keep, delete, etc.) and follow it up with a (preferably) brief rationale. That's the only thing you really need to know; if you're interested there are whole guideline pages on AfD procedure and conduct (which I myself never got to reading). I don't like leaving bad info lying around for the anyone to absorb, and I think new articles should be created only when another one is inadequate to deal with the subject. Ambrose's own article currently doesn't have much about the topic either, so, if you or anybody else feels they can go on an improving spree, they should definitely start there instead of this one I nominated. The same is true of all the other articles I listed: focus only on the 'persecution of pagans', only split the content if it ever becomes too unwieldy, and don't otherwise waste your time with lower-quality copies as a single one is already hard enough to manage.
Some editors do share your reluctance to delete pages, but WP:JUNK says "We don't need to keep an article with no merit in itself just because it might, theoretically, be possible to make a good article on the subject". I made a case on the talk page here that there isn't anything really worthwhile on that article specifically. You can of course vote however you wish, but that's the approach I personally prefer. Avilich (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
When I had Biblical criticism up for FAN, they told me it was too long and should actually be three articles. I didn't agree. My FAN was archived. I learned. I redid Problem of evil, split it into two articles, and created a third new article. On the other hand, I added a long section to Augustine of Hippo which was already a long article, when I had originally intended to create a separate article. It was like Biblical criticism - it all needed to be there together imo. These articles to delete have been up for years. Leaving them up long enough to repair them is miniscule by comparison. I do think an article on Ambrose's anti-paganism - which is disputed - would be good to have, but I am willing to work on that and insert it as a section in the main article. It's probable I will see it the same way I do BC and Augustine - some information just needs to be kept together. Okay, so I am talking myself into voting for deletion. Yikes! This is so unlike me! I am repair-girl! Sigh. I will go and do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I hope I argued in a reasonable and neutral fashion here, I don't want for it to sound like I manipulated you into making a decision since you've never done this before. You're always free to disagree with me and vote differently. Avilich (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Now it's my turn to LOL! No one ever has to encourage me to state my opinions! :-) I can and do disagree - when I actually do disagree. But I think you're right, this hot mess needs to go. There needs to be a section on it in the main article and everyone needs to let us write it. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks. One final thing: I think your original explanation on the talk page is worth putting on the nomination page as well, so that other editors and passing by and the admin who'll close the discussion can see it easily. A comprehensive and original rationale will also naturally make your vote count for more in the final tally. Avilich (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
You're wasting your time. You think you're close to reaching a compromise but he's just saying the same thing with different words. He asked me to prove that this article is devoid to merit, I did this twice here and twice elsewhere, and he purposefully ignored it and went back to the same old thing, only to you now. This is all WP:BLUDGEONING on his part, and the more you feed it the more you'll get in return. Look at how big the discussion has already become in a single day. It will last at least seven days, or more if a closing administrator decides to prolong it further because consensus is being (artificially) blurred. AfDs aren't generally supposed to have this size, certainly not due to stupid time-wasting nonsense like this, it's super disruptive and inconvenient. That's the whole reason I took it to wikiproject CGR before bringing it to AfD: he's not the only one like this, and I almost knew something like this would happen. Avilich (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Chill mi amigo Avilich. You have to let these things play out. Have patience. There is nothing to be gained through aggression. It makes no difference what is usual, people are not usual, they are unique, and their concerns must be addressed. I think you will find I have done so.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Avilich Don't be upset with me for trying to mediate, please. Right now, I am sorry I ever got involved with or met this group of history buffs.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
People bickering in AfD because they have different interpretations of the rules or varying levels of diligence in their approach is to some extent a fixture of the process. I sort of expected this, but it still annoys me that this is getting relisted and delayed over some procedural technicality. I'm not upset at you. Sorry if I upset you somehow. Avilich (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Avilich Good. You were unavailable for awhile so I wondered. People bickering instead of actively working toward a solution annoys me too. It annoys everyone, but that doesn't seem to stop them. Ah the joys of wikipedia... Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
GA improvements - hopefully...
@Avilich: I have begun some of those changes. It's a bit of a slog. :-( I will be here tomorrow, but then I have a family thing beginning this Friday that will last a whole week, so I may not get much done thereafter for a bit. I promise I will be back and will continue to work on the structure and readability of the prose - and its organization - in this article until we both feel it is as good as we can make it. Don't give up on me - but feel free to do whatever you feel like as well. Anything you see that you don't want to mess with yourself but want to offer to me up as a suggestion of what needs doing, makes it easier on me too. Hope you're having a good week! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
:^) I hope you're having a good week too, and I'll probably be minimally active for this week and the next. I do in fact have another suggestion, which is to review an elephant in the room that is usually taken for granted and passed over without much consideration. Already in the article's second sentence, it is said that Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the empire (the Cunctos Populos edict). RM Errington wrote in 1997 (pp. 410 onward, and also p. 435 and n. 90) that Cunctos Populos was more or less a relative nothingburger and, like the other laws in the CTh, was of local and limited application. In this wider article he successfully made the case that the CTh laws had hitherto been vastly overestimated in importance, and no historian that I know of has disagreed with him. Other post-1997 sources on Theodosius (including Hebblewhite) attribute little if any importance to the Edict of Thessalonica. Avilich (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Avilich I am currently in the process of moving/removing all religious commentary to the religion section. We have one. We should use it for covering its topic and let the First civil war be about that - period. Chronology within each topic matters, but sticking to the thematic approach also matters.
So I am up on the Theodosian laws being overestimated in their importance. Since Peter Brown turned everything upside down, no on has disagreed, you're right. This may be another case of later Christians writing the history of the victors, and there is definitely support for the whole idea of the church triumphant being spiritual more than actual. Still, he did issue it, and there were conflicts. You know what we should do? We should add a paragraph or two in the evaluation section discussing this changing view and then reflect that in a more modified sentence in the lead. What do you think of that approach? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The Edict of Thessalonica has its own article, the development of scholarly views can be written in detail there. It should of course be mentioned in our article, but together with the other stuff relating to Arianism and religious struggles in Constantinople (there was, for example, an 'Arian' riot there in 388), where the decree was applied. As for the lead, I would simply state that he played a decisive role in establishing the Trinity as the orthodoxy, omitting mention of the 380 edict altogether and perhaps mentioning the Council of Constantinople which he convened. The lead's first paragraph itself needs expansion. Avilich (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I can't promise I'll accomplish anything significant these next few days, but I'll take a look. Of course, don't wait for me if you have a sudden streak of inspiration. Avilich (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. That section still has problems. It still claims incorrectly that Eugenius restored funding to the cults, restored the altar of Victory, and appointed the pagan Flavianus as prefect (he was a nominee of Theodosius). I don't think a new source (Salzman) is needed here, as Cameron and Hebblewhite already give an appropriate overview. They show that the entire narrative about Eugenius favoring paganism was made up by Ambrose's biographer Paulinus the Deacon, and his version is repeated uncritically by later Christian writers. I find that huge quotation unnecessary: only a brief note about past misrepresentations of the conflict is already sufficient. Also, that was the second, not third, civil war. Avilich (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
It is in that source but I will rewrite to make it clearer this is contested. So what was the third civil war then? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Avilich Dude! Why have you left that there this entire time then?!? Seriously! My field of study is religion and philosophy, so I am already outside my comfort zone here, but this kind of leaves me hanging out there! How do I explain this to a GAN reviewer? Ay chihuahua!!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I hope I have fixed it. Third civil war is gone, the quote you disliked is gone, and I hope the issues are stated more clearly. Please like it! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Avilich Apparently the acknowledgement of that mistake was not an issue for the reviewer. Thank goodness! I was upset! It looks like approval of GA is coming, but that doesn't mean we can't continue to improve this article. Now that we removed other aspects from the war sections, I find the summation of his other life aspects inadequate - his marriages and kids etc. I am thinking we should change the background section title to Life and career and add more to it. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I prefer Backgroud and career, since the entire article is about his life, and his posterity and family I would add to the end. The section itself needs slightly more about his upbringing and, more importantly, his career between his recall by Gratian (377) and his elevation (379). Not long ago I removed some incorrect information but haven't replaced it yet. The only sources I have on this period are Lippold 1973, Errington 1996, and Theodosius's entry on the De Imperatoribus Romanis website. I don't have Hebblewhite 2020, who I'm sure will have something of use here. Avilich (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for dragging you into this cesspit. I did expect to find some obtuseness along the way and so I wanted to build a solid case before running straight for AfD. I took it to CGR for a quick assessment of general opinion and, if that turned out unsatisfactorily, I'd build a more comprehensive case for deletion in the talk page as proof of a WP:BEFORE prior to starting an AfD. Having you reported to ANI or forced to debate on uneven premises and demands was obviously not what I wished. Avilich (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I know that. It is in no way your fault. I didn’t correctly understand the 3rr so that’s entirely my fault. It will work out. We will persevere politely and overcome them with our good faith and good sense. 😉 I haven’t given up yet. Your comments are good and if they would actually read what we have written they would see they are calling for something to be done that we already do. In the end we will improve the encyclopedia. It will be worth it. Don’t worry. I am okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich: As it turns out, I did correctly understand the 3RR. The complaint was denied and shut down. WP's Admins rock I tell you! So, one wicket down, now onward! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you perchance own Hebblewhite's biography of Theodosius? You used it for the massacre of Thessalonica article. It feels awkward trying to find all these sources for his annoyingly obscure career and retirement while the modern scholarship is apparently all assembled there. Avilich (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC) ? Avilich (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Jenhawk777. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 19:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Man! I wish I'd had this when I first started on Ambrose. I need to learn how to make a file like that. I look at so many sources and then just close them out when I am done with an article. I need a file! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ruach (Kabbalah), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genesis.
Gerda Arendt You always make me smile. That's a beautiful flower and I love flowers. They are my favorite thing to grow. Thank you Gerda with the beautiful soul. I appreciate you thinking of me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Holy red heifer, you do like a challenge, don't you. My interpretation of the lead is: "Reader, go somewhere else, this is not for you." No promises. I want to make an article about Isabel Thomas, see my recent creation Whizz Pop Bang, but the lack of WP:GNG sources is, well, insulting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
It really is a challenge but I am hacking my way through the forest of thorns without too much bloodshed. I like your suggestion. I will try it. I will also look at your articles tonight or tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
That is a reall;y good question. I have been looking at all of them I can find and so far haven't found any I would call good articles. Hopefully this one will be by the time I am done with it. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jenhawk777, I'm in the middle of rewriting the history of music article (it's going to be a long haul, that's for sure!) and stumbled across this article: History of music in the biblical period. Frankly, I have no clue what the article is about; I have no idea what the "biblical period" even means, and part of me thinks its use would like, legitimize the historicity of the bible? Would a title like "Music of the bible" make more sense or something? Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi back at ya' Aza24! How lovely of you to think of me. WOW! That's a big project to bite off and chew, but I fully understand the allure! I wish you well.
The History of music in the biblical period looks interesting and fun. It looks like a good article to me, but as you say, it does seem to be about the history of music in the Bible more than the biblical period. The biblical period is simply the period when the biblical books were being written. Ending in the first century, with its beginnings at least four thousand years ago and possibly reaching back much further into a fog of time beyond our ability to nail down, the biblical period covers between 4 and 6 millennia and a lot of history.
I am not exactly sure what you mean by 'legitimize the historicity of the Bible' though. The historicity of the Bible is a many sided thing in that much of the Bible is known to be dependably historical, and that is acknowledged by most historians; some of it is most probably historical, (with only the most extreme skeptics refusing to acknowledge that); some of it probably isn't historical; and some of it is disputed and may never be proven one way or another. Things that were "proven" as non-historical 100 years ago have since been proven the other way with more modern archaeology methods, and vice versa. So I am unsure how I might help with this, or if that's even what you're asking. Please clarify. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm my initial interpretation was that biblical period referred to the period in which biblical events took place. So when it comes to the more mythological events like say Noah's ark—saying "history of music in the biblical period" is like saying Noah's ark happened and this is what music was like around then—though now that I'm writing this out, I'm not sure there's much sense to my initial interpretation :) I guess I'm not sure what to think of the article; it seems to conflate the biblical origins of certain instruments and techniques with literal historical ones, causing quite a bit of misleading information. I'm guessing an RM would be the best bet? Aza24 (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The story of Noah's ark is historically one of the oldest myths in the Bible, it is difficult to date accordingly, and arguments about Gilgamesh seem to support both sides - that it is older than Gilgamesh and younger and based on Gilgamesh - and it is those oldest stories that reach back beyond our ability to date dependably that are historically the most challenged. There were always floods. There may even have been one that seemed like it covered all of what was known as 'the world' to the author. Who knows really? But since there is no real agreement on when events did or did not take place, defining the biblical period based on that would be problematic. We have made serious inroads through source criticism in dating the documents themselves however, so defining the biblical period as the era when the Bible was written has a kind of solid sense behind it. There is definitely some conflation of both of those in all discussions of dating the Bible texts and events, and not just in this article, but on a regular basis whenever referring to anything "and the Bible".
But if this is an article about music in the Bible, all it has to be is in the Bible. It doesn't have to be proven as anything else. The biblical period makes it more problematic. That would require accurate dating, and for the oldest parts of the Bible, there just is no agreement on that. Are you talking about moving it to add to your article? Music in the Bible seems separate from what you are doing, and that's really what this article covers. I would think a short summary of this article would be sufficient for yours. Your going to have a lot of info as it is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I stumbled across to it because of the History of music#Biblical period section, which I will probably have to trim considerably, since it really doesn't fit well into any chronology and it's just too much information for (as you said) an article that will need to be extremely concise. I guess I'm just left uncomfortable with the problematic nature of the history of music in the biblical period article... You know, speaking of floods, in my recent reading into Chinese mythology, it's rather striking how common these ancient floods are across cultures; I mean, the purported "first" (Xia) Chinese emperor (Yu the Great) received his status because he stopped a flood! Aza24 (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, there you are then! Floods everywhere! Yes indeed, every culture has a flood myth, which probably doesn't indicate anything except that floods were common, but could possibly indicate a world wide one. Perhaps one of those meteor strikes, the tilting of the earth on its axis, the shifting of the geological plates and the oceans themselves, there are all kinds of stories out there, and who knows which is the most crazy or the most likely! We can't know much about anything that old with any real dependability - except we know the story was written down at some point and then it became part of the biblical period. Once it's in textual form it's ours! So I guess I will take a hard look and see if I can improve it. Maybe I will lobby to change its title as you suggested. I will endeavor to make your world more comfortable - but not right away. I am working on Ruach (Kabbalah) right now and it is kicking my you know what. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, wow, given the state of Ruach, it certainly does seem like a worthy candidate for your attention! No pressure at all on the History of music in the biblical period (kind of a mouthful, you know?) article—I might propose an RM myself if I get around to it. Thanks again for your valuable insight, as always... ! Aza24 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
"Biblical period" makes sense to discuss in terms of the Bible and theology, but less so in terms of global history of music. After all, in other parts of the world at the same time, music was being developed that had nothing to do with the bible. So I do wonder if it would be better to rewrite as something like "Music in the Bible", "Music in the ancient Near East" etc. (t · c) buidhe05:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree the title does not reflect the content - or perhaps it's vice versa - either way, it needs re-titling. Is that a word? :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I am better with Latin than Greek, but I would consider myself poor at both. My Latin education was high school, not college, and consisted mostly of its presence in English. Why? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Modern translations are readily available, and we are dependent on secondary sources for everything here! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I put Christian ethics up for peer review, and I know that it was ready thanx in large part to your input. I am currently working on a definition of evil that can be used in at least two articles here that make assumptions about what evil is. Bad philosophy! I figure there will be some hoorah about it, so I am being extra careful with my research. It's been interesting reading. What are you working on? I have hopes for the future too - it has to be better, it just has to be! I guess we'll see! Take care! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Done
Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
