User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

MOS on names

Hey! Remember when you went and asked about whether or not to include "Historian Joe Shmo" or just to say Joe Shmo? I tried to go retrieve it and it's either gone or I was looking in the wrong place. Someone is giving me grief saying it's wrong to include names in the text at all, and I wanted to use that discussion to talk about it with them. Do you think you can direct me or is it long gone. Was it on the MOS talk page? Should I look at history? I am just finishing up something and will be available to be serious about humor soon. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Easy enough: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_199#People_we_quote_and_paraphrase. Stuff tend to get archived sooner or later, and then the "frontpage" link won´t work anymore, but you can get helpful clues from it. If one knows where the discussion was one can check recent archives (if it was a recent discussion), perhaps do some ctrl-f:ing, or use the "search archives" for the archive if there is one, like on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. In this case you could have copypasted and searched "Gråbergs" in that field, that would have led you right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Copy paste and search for you in the archive?Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ja, in this case that would get you [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

How cool is that! I did not know you could do that! Can you do that on anything with anyone? Whoa! That's sort of 'big brother-ish'! 1984!! Creepy!

Have we started the humor article yet? Is there a link? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not being very quick about it, have some scribbles in userspace, but if you or aleph want to start it, that´s fine. The reward is getting to decide spelling of "humor".

WP is is very open for everybody about everything apart from a few things only admins can see, if you´re so inclined you can "stalk" other editors to great extent, something that is sometimes abused. See the "User contributions" link on the left, under the WP-logo? Check that. Here you see (almost) all my edits, and if you click "diff" you see exactly what I did in each edit. You can check that on anybody. If you check the bottom of that page, you see a link for "Edit count". Check that. See also WikiScanner, Wikipediocracy. There´s more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, you know about Help:Watchlist, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I do know about watchlist, thanks--I did not know about the other things. So I saw your addition to Aleph's lengthy article on Arabella. Is there ever any time scholars don't disagree on dating? That's like the default mode--there should be some kind of shorthand for it: standard date disagreement-SDD--or some such thing that we could just type in without having to state it in every article as though it were unusual! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:OUTING?

Jytdog, I wonder if I may have your opinion on something. A sentence added by me [2] is under discussion here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tom_Cable. Do you agree that it violates WP:OUTING? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There´s now been some redactions, so you can´t see the sources anymore, but the sentence is still there on the noticeboard, at "Yes, if consensus is that"... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Naveen_Jain

Hello, thanks so much for responding to my message about Naveen Jain. The suggestion of discussing the issue with the other editor at the article's talkpage is problematic, the editor won't engage with "less experienced" editors such as myself (I'm more experienced than my new login makes me look I'm afraid), please look at the talkpage... It would be great if any experienced editors could have a look at the page (compare it to any other page about tech entrepreneurs, I'm sure this will highlight the problem!). Thanks for your time and hope you don't mind me reaching out to you. Trufflegoblin (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no harm in asking! I pretty much agree with what MPS1992 said at their talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Pionius

I think I have done what I can do there--have any ideas to move on to next? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Humor/Humour in the Bible. I think there´s enough sources for at least a stub that meets WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I know you said you were interested in that, but I am unsure how it would be possible to research. I'll give it a go, see what turns up. I'm sorry I was unable to finish the Samuel references before getting banned on B&V. I should have done them immediately. It will be a good thing for me to be gone from there though. You can finish them or wait and see if I am brave enough to go back after a month. Or stupid enough... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven´t read every detail in that ruckus, but note that the "judgement" was mostly "a moderate headache on both your houses" and nobody has suggested block or topicban or anything like it, so take heart. Personally, I think a "Stop it. NOW." from an admin would have been sufficient, but as you may have noticed, our dear pedia is not perfect in all it´s aspects. We'll get there though, all that´s lacking is a Borg assimilation to aid consensus-building.

If you´re interested in the more "esoteric" side, check out Unknown years of Jesus, Swoon theory and Roza Bal. And today I found Alcohol in the Bible. BTW, here´s the humour-sources I found earlier:[3]. The goal is to make a better article than at Conservapedia: [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

For your enjoyment, here´s a little biblical geekery: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2017_November_15#Breastplate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Piomius?!? Did I do that? You not only made me feel better, you made me smile. I wish all good things for you! :-) I am not much interested in the unknown years of Jesus. I read up on it and wrote on it on Quora-- well now wait a minute, I may be too hasty there. It's mostly one guy's travel-log that started the whole hullabaloo, and it's got lots of controversy that eventually comes to nothing. But I could go a lot deeper on it. It could be done. It might be worthy of attention. The humor thing sounds great really and it looks like you have some decent sources--it seems like it would be more fun. I have also read and written a lot on swoon theory. It would be a pretty easy one. I don't know who Roza Bal is. Generally I like things I know nothing about--that's the most fun in my mind. Because, Yes, I am a geek! I like other geeks! Geeks rule! But not Conservapedia--they do not do quality work. Not what I have seen anyway. Thanx. This has me a bit down. It reminds me of grade school--submit to the bully or get in trouble with the teacher for fighting with him--either way you're screwed. Wiki is more like real life than we give it credit for. I should have remembered resistance is futile... You pick--any of those would be good. Start something and tell me where it is and I will work. Time will pass. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I´m not sure if you noticed that these were wikilinks (as in read/edit if interesting): Unknown years of Jesus, Swoon theory, Roza Bal, Alcohol in the Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I did look at those. The writer on the missing years did a reasonable job--that's about all the material available, we could only add a paragraph or two. Swoon theory is very mediocre--we could definitely improve that one. The other two look adequate--but I like humor in the Bible. I also like humour in the Bible. :-) Let's do that--start her up mate! I will begin reading. And thank you for 'lamest edit wars'--that has helped more than anything! Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I have come to the conclusion that all edit wars are lame by definition. I will never do it again. Period. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That´s mostly the case... But sometimes people are just wrong. Still, one must pick ones battles, choose which particular hill to die on etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes--but in the talk page from now on! That worked so much better the last time--well it worked! When nothing else before had worked at all. So no revert wars--talk page battles only--and only over what is worth fighting for. I may be a slow learner--about some things--but I eventually get it. I've been on Wiki for months now! Why don't I know everything yet?! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Does humor have a link yet? Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm still phlegmatic about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha! after all this time I just saw this! Not that kind of humor! :-) Let's start on it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Humor

Have you started Humor yet? Are we gonna huh? Do I get to play too? Are you already done? What's happening? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Down, puppy! I shall put something up in the coming week. Not a lot of WP-time right now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha! That's my new nickname from now on--I am not the almighty dog--I am puppy! :-) What -- you have a life?! Did wiki give you permission for that? Okay! Next week--ping me--errr--ping puppy! Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice

You may or may not wish to join a discussion at Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca#Request for comment about a topic on which you have contributed on an identical RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bible and humor

I take it you wish I was more didactic in my research. Fair enough.Julio P. 07:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Puentes (talk • contribs)

Bible and humor

I started putting some material up there and I got worried--it's still a draft isn't it? Because I didn't put the stuff I wrote in my sandbox and clean it up before putting it in the article. It's not ready to be submitted yet, so if that article is out there, I should probably go take that back out and work on it some more. You were right btw--there's lots out there and it's interesting and worth an article. There are multiple books available.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777. No, it´s a mainspace article. But now I understand your edits better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh jeez! Why'd you dump it out there so fast?!? I hadn't put anything in and you knew I was going to! Criminittly!! Great. Just great. This does not make me happy! I will go remove what I added into my sandbox. Do you still want me to work on this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, now you´re a little hard to please, I think. And of course I do. But I am a little relieved. When I saw your quote-attack earlier today I wondered WTF..? Maybe a work-in-progress kind of thing..? Or is she drunk..? I'll just wait and see. Ok, movie-time, talk to you later! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hard to please?!? Hard to please!!! In the future, Swedish borgs must put all potential joint articles into a draft space where they can be worked on until it is agreed they are actually ready to be submitted! Puppy is growling! If I claim I was drunk would it be less humiliating? I thought it looked different than Alephb's... Jeez--nevermind--I'm an idiot... what movie? Here I am--sweating over your article--and there you are off having fun... Sigh... Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Careful, I have a rolled-up newspaper and know how to use it. Darkest Hour, it was pretty good. And as a Wikipedian there´s the added pleasure of editing the article afterwards. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, here´s an interesting BLOA: Muhammad in the Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - assuming I’ve posted this to the right place!

making this article suitable for Wikipedia. I hope I will get to return the favour.

I need to sleep now but will get on to some more sophisticated referencing tomorrow...Dylanpops Dylanpops (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

You got it right! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Cat misquotes Shakespeare?

This appears to be WP:OR written by a now-banned IPA. The Cat Empire's lyrics you removed appear to be adapted from a line from that speech but I can't find any reliable source indicating this association. Ideally one would want a source where Felix Riebl (the track's writer) discusses the Shakespearean allusion(s) of this track.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks shaidar cuebiyar, appreciate it! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Bible and humor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laban (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Laban (Bible) it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you for adding the article from Southern Poverty Law Center. I used to donate to that organization but received too much collateral in the mail. I am always interested to find out what they are doing. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Alien: Covenant#Plot

Nice work! I was worried about the grammar of the month-old edit by User talk:62.7.74.180 regarding the David/Walter switch - and you properly realized that the switch itself should not be mentioned until a later paragraph! Thank you. Jmg38 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Jmg38. Huh, I got more comments on that than I expected. I really thought I was on common-sense territory. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bible and humor

(with no 'u' in it). Hi! I got a notification in my email you had written, and I couldn't take the guilt, so I have added some to our article. If you like it I can keep on. Thank you for thinking of me. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Jenhawk, hope you are well. Guilt, huh? I'll remember that for the future. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Guilt for abandoning you-- and a rolled up newspaper... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, here's a Jenhawk-snack: [5]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I am still smiling. Who wouldn't get a lift from Gilbert and Sullivan? I love everything they wrote! And Star Trek Gen. combined? It was awesome! How do you find these things? Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: So no front page? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

So I saw the changes Onceinawhile made and really like it. I answered there--the suggestion about getting rid of the history is not a good one however--it's based on not knowing what is actually said on this topic--but I will follow your lead in this. I also saw it says "expanded five times by Gråbergs Gråa Sång". Is that because you created the article in the first place? It doesn't really matter though right? No one is actually keeping track right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay--have now followed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 On the 5x, I noticed that before and wondered about it, but I think it should be read "5x expanded [as in grounds for DYK-nomination, there are a few] by Gråbergs Gråa Sång [Nominator, but not necessarily creator or expander]. Self-nominated [But he was also creator, the self-promoting hog]". Compare for example Template:Did you know nominations/Gerberding Hall where "Created" is short for "newly created". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess this makes you a member of the Five-Timers Club. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

On not keeping track: Weeeelllll... Some editors really like to create new articles and have them become DYK:s, and then mark it on their userpage. Prestige, possibly. Harsh words have been used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a club? Do we get t-shirts? You deserve all the credit you can get. There would be no article if not for you--twice over--because not only did you create it, but I would not have come back and Arbela'ed it if not for you. So thank you doubly, and for sharing the credit. This time I cared. I do have a question though. Onceinawhile suggested that Alt1 and I had this idea it was going to be the lead into the article--I'm thinking now that was wrong, that it's just the Dyk sentence. Do you know? :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And thank you for all your work. I'm so happy with what Onceinawhile did to the lead, it makes so much more WP-sense. I wanted the content, just not there. There is nothing that says that the DYK-hook and the WP:LEAD should be one and the same. I'd say quite the opposite, nothing in WP:LEAD says it should be "hooky" (well not very much, anyway). Dry, dusty and bland, that's us. In moderation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If you like Stephen Fry (and everybody should), you may enjoy this video[6]. Comic genius. Still disapointed he never was on House, they had 8 bloody years to do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christ myth theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galatians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Epistle it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for thanking my edit. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Not quite unsung, eh? I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day! [7] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thx for your support, WikiPro04 WikiPro04 (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, WikiPro04! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Bible and humor

Hello! Your submission of The Bible and humor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

	Thanks
	Thanks for your guidance. But unfortunately, it was not a promotional thing. Anyway, I will keep in mind your guidance and improve my addition. Rahulbtrivedi (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

help please

how does one tag an article for bias?Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Any/some of these? Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Neutrality_and_factual_accuracy Just put the {{whatever}} at the top of the article. It may also be good to make a comment on talk or at least an explanatory editsummary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW, This edit [8] made me wonder: Do you know you can use the "New section" link at the top of a talkpage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No, of course I didn't know that! I thought it was one of those rules that everything had to go next in line at the bottom. Jeez this place makes me feel stupid sometimes! If you say maybe that proves something I will not laugh at it! Okay maybe a little... :-) So, your answer to my question is just do it? I'll go dig around. I am trying to explain things more on the talk page before and after doing anything at a new place. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Do it, be prepared for disagreement/revert. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I will wait till there is no other option. Thanx. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am probably going to leave this alone. Someone there has added a little more in and that's probably as good as it will get. The fact that to me it reads like a blog advocating drinking the Kool-aid is really completely beside the point, right? That's allowed for some weird reason I cannot fathom. C'est la vie on Wiki. Hey--btw--I contacted Aleph. He says he's not coming back but wished us both well. Sigh.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Pity about Aleph, he was so good to have around. Perhaps he'll be back, who knows. And now I'm going to template you per Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

He was, and you are too--and don't fuss at me about using wiki--just because it proves I am too damn lazy to type the whole word does not mean you can make me stop using it in my personal correspondence. Are there templates for stubbornness? Send me one! I have decided it's a requirement for working on...wait for it...wiki! :-) Now that I know it bugs you I will use it repeatedly you know...Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for The Bible and humor

On 26 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Bible and humor, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it has been proposed that there are more than 1,000 examples of humor in the Bible? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Bible and humor. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Bible and humor), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, thank you. This was my first attempt at a DYK, glad it came through at last. However, while I did create it, Jenhawk777 5x:d it, so will you please give her one of these too? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Most excellent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You're the sweetest thing! :-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I added it to the stats ;) - thank you for sharing the credits! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, Americans have guns, you know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, she wrote 85% of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Block quote

How do I do a block quote? I'm working on one of those articles you sent me to--it's as big a mess as Bible and violence was when we started work on it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

(watching:) I use {{quote}}, and wonder why it's mentioned first, but the example is with html "blockqute". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I finally figured out the problem--I was forgetting that last /! It was screwing up everything! DUH! Stuff like this makes me feel stupid... We could advertise--If your pride gets out of hand, come to Wikipedia for awhile and learn the true meaning of humility... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Not the worst idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Women

Time for us to move on to the next project I am thinking. There's only the floor-sweeping left to do on humor--the clean-up--which I think you have already done pretty brilliantly, and if it isn't perfect I can't tell. But I have moved on to Women as you have discovered and I would dearly love for you to come work there with me as well. You are so much better than I at all the technical details! I am pretty much rewriting the whole article! So I thought you'd get a kick out of that. No one has shown up to bash me for it yet! We'll see what happens. OH! BTW--it wasn't Aleph who fixed the contractions. It was someone else. He sounds really well and happy though. Being off Wik-PEDIA is good for him apparently. It's possible it could be good for all of us. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll stop by as inspiration strikes me, it's not a topic I've given much thought (granted, that doesn't seem to stop me[9]). Good choice, this article could easily be as long as "Violence" so you have room to run. Consider what Onceinawhile did to the WP:LEAD at "Humor". As for Paleoneonate, he's done like 10 edits in the past two weeks, so he's not very active right now. Do you want to start the GA-thing anyway? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Today is Valborg, the traditional arrival of spring in Sweden.[10]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes my lead sucks, my lead always does at first. One of the reasons I need you around. And come on now--I know you're interested in women! It is going to be a bit long I'm thinking but it's going fast. I'm enjoying it so far. I AM interested in the topic. :-) I don't care --do you want to do it or do you think the article needs more? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll check that nun first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the video! That was lovely! What were they singing? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Traditional 19th century spring-song. You can use g-translate on this [11], but the language is a bit poetic/arcaic and the machine doesn't quite get it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Women in the Bible made me remember this West Wing-classic: [12]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

OMG that was hilarious! I never watched West wing when it was on--I may have to now!Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It has occurred to me after the fact that I switched topics in mid-stream and it might be a little confusing! Do you genuinely think humor needs more--that's what I was asking. I kind of like the idea of others coming along behind us doing that. Thank you for those contributions to women--I love the pics--I would have guessed you would add a picture of a naked woman... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know that it needs more, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's more good stuff to find. It seems to cover the topic fairly well as is. And of course everybody likes naked women. My hyphothesis is that Barenaked Ladies took their name so people would think "What will make this [whatever it is] better? Barenaked Ladies!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! You are unarguably right of course--everyone likes naked women! What's up with that? I have finished the OT section there and an just beginning the Nt which will be longer in this case instead of shorter--weird huh? But I need editing you know! I really need you! My stuff is too long and too magazine article-ish until you come along and say clean this up, take that out!! I'm a mess without your support--does guilt work with you? It always works with me... :-) So Paleo answered--I didn't know there was formal evaluation involved for a GA--he says he's not qualified. So whatever. Maybe we'll ask someone else one day.Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Now your editing talk? Does this not concern you? :-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look, soon-ish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs I'm ragging on you for being obsessive. You moved things on this talk page--who cares what order it's in really? I'm making fun of you--and I didn't even mention your statement about using "consensus" in ordinary conversation... Now I have though... I am beginning to think everyone on Wiki--PEDIA is OCD! Including me. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

At least I'm doing it at my own talkpage ;-) Now, where did I put that newspaper..? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

:-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You know, I hope, how much I appreciate your comments. I have calmed down a little from my feverish excitement and am attempting to actually create some balance. I have now written on five articles--wow I know--and I think I am figuring out that the less you know or care, the more likely you will actually do the job properly. It's very difficult, perhaps impossible, for human beings to care and be neutral at the same time. Neutral isn't the same as being fair. It's the first time I had read Tykva Frymer-Kensey and OMG! She is awesome--okay--deep breaths--she has such a positive attitude about everything! Okay that was my calm voice. I am now a big fan--which is now obvious since I basically quoted her whole book. So I am going back and putting in other views and removing some of her--but she really is great! :-) Thanks for putting up with me and for helping me like you have Gråbergs. I wouldn't still be here at all without you and Aleph. When I finish this one, I will find something I am totally disinterested in and know nothing about--I promise!Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It can be a tricky balance. Passion makes you write stuff, so we need that, otherwise nothing happens. Too much, and all you get is brick walls. Classic double edged sword. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Review the review

I think I have done what you suggested. Since I now have sections of history and a blurb on sex under NT do you think I am required to do that under the OT too? It's long, would it improve it? I have excluded lots of women of course but since there are hundreds I had no choice. I tried to be fair to the fundies but it's hard! :-) If you feel like another look over that would be cool but if you feel like you've had all you can stand--that's okay too. There isn't much left of the original article! It's longer--I hope it's better too! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look later this week. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You're a peach. (In the southern US that's our highest compliment.) :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

How do I add something to the Bible sidebar? Women in Judaism is missing but listed at the top of the article, and most of the authors I reference are not there. Listing feminist authors without including three of the leading names is an oversight. Ditto for a couple of the conservatives. I wanted to just add them and didn't find it under 'edit source'--so where the heck is it? Jeez. No matter how far I get there is always something else I don't know.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, now we're into the deep mysteries of WP. These templates are technically their own pages. See the three tiny letters in the bottom right corner? Those are links, E is for edit. But I don't think these fit the Bible sidebar very well. Are we thinking about different sidebars? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No that's it--but it's all spread out on the article page with everything under each category showing and I noted those items missing from the lists. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No that's wrong! It's Christianity and gender--not the Bible!Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that might be it. No opinion on the authors, but you can't really have Women in Judaism in the Christianity and gender sidebar, can you? Or maybe I missunderstood. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha! No--no you can't! Well maybe you could but it might need some explaining! I kept thinking of it as the Bible! Okay, I will add the authors and leave well enough alone! Hey I submitted my first article--a book review og McDonald's Early Christian Women. I'm guessing they will come back with suggestions but it will be a good learning experience for me. I did it all by myself. Puppy is growing up. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool! Excellent! Well done! McDonald's Early Christian Women... I saw that film with Michael Keaton, were any of them in that? ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha--laugh away--Margaret Y. McDonald--scholar--professor--she's probably a vegetarian and you just deeply offended her... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

first article

So this has been a tremendously great experience. My submission was declined at first--which turned out to be good--because one of their comments was "too essay like" which was something the big dog used to say which I didn't understand and he would not explain. This person took what I wrote and showed me exactly what they meant--moved a couple things up and down, added some headings, and vóila! Told me to resubmit! It was awesome! I want to send them flowers! It was so frikking helpful! I get it now! Now I want to go through and recheck the entire women in the Bible article and everything else I have ever written here! So don't bother to go look at it--I am going to work on it some more. This all makes me glad I came back here. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I've been declined again. This time the reviewer said my quotes were too long, that I need to paraphrase long quotes instead of actually quoting. I can use short quotes without copyright violation but not long ones. I did not know that. He/she was really nice though, and sent me some encouragement saying if I looked at the history of many "good" articles I would see they had a rocky beginning just like this, and they encouraged me not to give up but just to fix it. I had no idea I could expect multiple rejections, but they said they had an article they had been working on for a year and a half. So maybe you submitting Bible and humor with four lines was actually smart!:-) Anyway, maybe I'll work on it later. I don't think I'll feel like it for awhile--but I will eventually.

Hey! I went looking up women in the Bible in art and opera and Holy Crap Batman! There is a ton of stuff!! It should be its own article. Should we start one? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

If you find a few good sources that discuss the topic "women in the Bible in art", not just 10 tons of examples of it, I see no problem. It wouldn't surprise me if there's several books on the topic. BIG topic though. "Women in Christian art" could be an alternative, somewhat smaller topic, but then there's no operas. Perhaps "women in the Bible in art" should be a category for stuff like Bathsheba (Memling). It would be a big category, and I have no idea how to create categories.

The dear Aleph showed by example [13] that creating an article is dead easy. Just write Women in the Bible in art in the searchfield, search, click the redlink, write something and save. IMO, however, that one could just as easily have been deleted by a quick Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers, but he got lucky and it survived. So when I created "Humor" [14] my focus was that it should be something that could be accepted per WP:GNG. The next day, when it looked like this [15], a reviewer (Paleo) put their "ok" mark on it (not visible, but the creator gets a notification).

Since then I've created two other articles, The Sandman: Overture and Norse Mythology (Neil Gaiman). Noone has reviewed Norse Mythology yet but I'm confident the sources are sufficient. So I think starting small can work well. I was thinking of creating another, discussion at Talk:Jameson Blake but got discouraged. The topic came up at Teahouse, and I got interested.

Yeah, WP is real sensitive about copyright, and fair use is kept on a tight leash. For good reasons. Also beware Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No Show

Hey--would you have any knowledge of why, when searching for "Women in the Bible" the article I have been working on doesn't show up in the list at all? It seems weird. Shouldn't it? I think maybe I will also ask at the Teahouse. See what they say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You mean on google? No idea. Maybe it's to general a term for WP to have the usual impact. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

List of women in the Bible shows up.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup. We don't have a monopoly on google-hits, it just seem like we do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I know that! But usually Wikipedia articles do show up on the front page. Don't you think it's odd? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It is, but I have no better guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha! Okay then! It's cool. I just wondered if it had something to do with me removing the flags that had been at the top of the article for years. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you to someone worth admiring

For going the extra mile, taking the extra time, and doing the extra work to help others learn how to bring your level of quality to Wikipedia.

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	It's not a singing Gorrillagram, and it's certainly less than the admiration and appreciation you deserve, but imagine step and kick, step and kick in your honor! You are an exceptional person and an even better editor! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)]

I wanted to send you three more of these but I was lucky to figure out how to do this one... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that's a nice start of the (WP) day! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggest deletion of women in the Hebrew Bible

None of its content is usable. It's not worth saving. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing the Gospel of Judas

So you think you know something about the Gospel of Judas? How did you happen to notice my comment? You will have to explain to me how Gagne's know-nothing commentary is more pertinent than my informed one, given that his has even less to do with the Gospel of Judas. "His argument rests on the translation of the Greco-Coptic term "apophasis." Mine rests on the understanding of a true mystic, even if he is anonymous. (I didn't hide that fact.) The 'denial' is of the Logos, not a "declaration." The Logos is the Word, not a "declaration." Read John 1. He mistranslates the wrong part. Wiki doesn't need to be a mouthpiece for apologists, like this article is now. Gagne's comment should be removed, not mine. Sahansdal (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Gospel_of_Judas#Copied_from_my_userpage, since it's about that article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft of pagan opinion

I appreciate the input and I am okay with it--but it was put in by the first reviewer--not me. It is a kind of a summary lead sentence. Maybe we should leave it?? That reviewer also did not agree with the second review--there seems to be a great deal of variation and personal opinion involved in all of this. The second reviewer's complaint was that it was too "quote-y"--which I like since I am obsessive about accuracy and quotes are the best way to be sure of that. I accepted what they both said and have tried to follow through--both reviewers have been really nice and very encouraging. I will persevere. Replace the sentence or not as you see fit. I trust your judgment. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Personally I would strike "universally" from the current version, but it's a minor quibble. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Consider it done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Now review the review!

And please help Gerda Arendt add in section on "Women from the Bible in art and culture" or some such thing! I think I have properly formatted it all now. I think the lead and the introductory paragraphs reflect content--(I went through and made notes!)--I think, I hope, the entire discussion is a little tighter and better organized--and overall I actually think it's pretty good! I mentioned but did not hit as heavily on repeated references to the traditional views since they are well known, however, it's NOT the feminist view anymore--I hope! I have noted a few additions here and there so I hope that means you are ready and able to give any feedback you have. Please come and play with puppy! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I can't say thank you enough. This article is better as much from your input as my typing. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Hey where are you? Should I come there too? :-) (So puppy-like...) I have reorganized-- AND the lead section is shorter and more of a summary without presenting arguments. I don't want to merge with the other article--it's crap. Sorry. I really think it would be a complete rewrite to bring it up to snuff--and although that is apparently becoming my specialty--I have no desire to make a duplicate of what I have already done here. (I know there are barnstars for little troll changes, but is there one for total rewrites--a big bulldozer maybe? A barge covered in trash heading off into the horizon? Ah well...) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So. I learned about blank and redirect. That was good. I'd read up on deleting but had never heard of this. So that's new. And I am trying to be cooperative with our old friend. I actually think he improved the sexuality section, but not the section on Eve, though I'm willing to let it go. He made some mistakes in some of his references and changes, but it is my goal to embrace an ability to work with anyone, so I just fixed them. He has removed the section on patriarchy entirely, and if egalitarianism is in, patriarchy should be there too, or it creates an inaccurate picture. That is not a mistake a professional encyclopedia would make--just giving one perspective. The church treated women well then badly and both should be mentioned. Perhaps he would like a 'historical views' section? I'm hoping he will respond at some point to my request to discuss that. I think he has accepted my explanation of scope, though he hasn't said so, he seems to have dropped that issue. It's weird and stressful for me. I think he's keeping tabs on me. It's kind of freaking me out. I know this isn't your problem, you were just helping me out with the page. But if you have any ideas--how does a person go about getting consensus with someone who won't discuss? I would appreciate input on that. Still learning wiki-ways--hey--do you know, ever since you fussed at me about using 'wiki' I have become aware of it everywhere! It's funny--even some of the instruction pages use it. I laugh now every time I see it. :-) So thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have not checked the latest discussions in detail, actually my initial reaction was "Ok, I'll go somewhere else for awhile". Which we both know won't last. I have no current opinion on patriarchy/egalitarianism. There are the usual wikiprojects to ask for more input (phlegmatic as we know they often are), but have you considered Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies and possibly Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History? Can't hurt to try.

About Jytdog keeping tabs on you. Can't be disproven, but AFAIK he hasn't tried to interact with you in quite awhile.

Consider this possibility. Jytdog had Women in HB on his watchlist since 2015 (he edited it then). He noticed the discussion and tried to be helpful. The discussion naturally continued on "Women", but he's not very interested (he has A LOT of WP-interests), hasn't watchlisted and hasn't read your latest comments. Can't be proven, but in line with WP:AGF. It's also possible that he's ignoring you, in which case I think it would be more polite to say something like "I will not comment further/edit this article anymore" or whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I know--that's the reaction when people expect conflict. I like your explanation better than my paranoid one. It makes sense--I did not know he had edited the page back in the wayback. That explains it then. Please delete that vp reference you made. I do not want that out there. I was careful not to use names. It was supposed to be a discussion of policy not individuals. It was just a personal example. It's sometimes very difficult here for newcomers. I didn't actually ask for an opinion on egalitarianism/patriarchy so much as I stated mine--but it's okay if you have one. :-) And maybe you're right about why he isn't answering. You're assuming good and I am stressed and fearful, so I will hold to the idea that you are right and I am wrong. I have already said I won't do anything till I hear from him and I haven't. But I don't understand why it would be more polite for me to stop work altogether indefinitely. I will walk away if that's what you recommend as the best approach on Wikipedia, but I don't understand it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, I meant that if he is ignoring you it would be more polite of him to say something like "I will not comment further/edit this article anymore" or whatever. FFS, you basically wrote the thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

OH! Okay--yeah--but it is my opinion that demonstrating polite concern is not really his "thing". If he has gone off on another project and isn't watching this one, he probably isn't thinking about me or my stress at all! It isn't intentional, like you said. I have pretty much rewritten the article from top to bottom and taken it to B quality--with a lot of input from you--without once insulting me. I would like very much to finish it. When he edits, his work is always dependably good--even allowing for a mistake here and there. I meant it when I said his help would improve the article. Correction, instruction, other points of view--even most reverts aren't what upsets me. It's the "hit and run" rewrites. There's no such thing as a polite hit and run. :-) At any rate, thanx for clarifying. I was confused! Puppy will be quivering under the table for awhile now, but I will see you again sometime down the road, I'm sure, as I am not running away this time. Thanx again for everything. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. And kindly, do not scare me like that again! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Numbers: [16] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That is so totally cool! I have never seen that before--how do you find it? And what are you talking about scaring you?!? I didn't mean to--whatever I said! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Page information" at top-ish left on whatever page you're interested in. Scroll to the bottom, click "Revision history statistics". The "But I don't understand why it would be more polite for me to stop..." made my brain scream OMG I RAN OVER PUPPY WITH A TRUCK!!! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well--puppy's tail only--but I understand stumped tails are "in"... :-) I'm okay--I was just momentarily confused. All is back right side up now. Compared to you disapproving the other problem paled by comparison--put it in perspective--so well done! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Docking (dog) has been illegal in Sweden since 1989. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I won't report you--it was an accident. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey You!

Haven't heard from you in awhile. Whatcha' been up to? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you mad? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello! No, I've been enjoying Swedish weather rather than WP. We're having like the earliest and warmest summer in thirty years. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That sounds lovely. Go back and forget I bothered you! :-) It's already hot as an oven here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I think I remember you saying you live in California? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No I live on the Gulf of Mexico at the very center of the country right smack at the very bottom of it in Mobile, Alabama where we have Mardis gras in February and jazz and fresh seafood all year round. Drive due south from where I am and you will soon hit water and beautiful white sand beaches. The sand is so fine it looks like sugar. We are way--way--hotter than California. Texas is on the other side of the Gulf, then west of them is the American desert--but we get lots of rain on this side. I live in the semi-tropical land of palm trees, mildew and bugs. :-) It rains almost every afternoon but it doesn't cool it off, it just makes it humid. It's already in the 80's at night and almost 100 today. We have very little cold weather--maybe in January it gets to freezing--then we basically have three summers in a row, with the last one being the hottest. I stay in the air conditioning in August. Going outside will take your breath away it's so hot. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, quick question--what is the Wikipedia convention for writing "the seventies" or the "1970's" or is there one? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

...can't think of one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry--made a mistake! Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

So. I've been traveling a lot lately--three trips in three weeks--and a couple of weeks ago I tried to use my husband's laptop and couldn't remember my password to log-in--I know, I know--so I attempted to simply change the password on my phone so I could then use it to log-in on the notebook. I must have tried five times and it kept saying error till it finally locked me out completely. So fast forward to two days ago, I try getting on Wiki on my phone and it tells me I am edit blocked! So I read up--come home and find I am not edit blocked on my computer at all--only my phone. So I try contacting people, it's a mess--then all of sudden with no notice or explanation--the block is gone! Everything works again! What the heck?!? Wikipedia is a strange place. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are not too busy hanging out in the sun would you be willing to give me an opinion on Biblical criticism? I've been working there awhile now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And do you have any idea how to make your references show up in alphabetical order? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not inclined to read Biblical Critisism at the moment, maybe later. References show up in the order they appear in the article, why alphabetical order? But don't know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries mate. I saw three articles with their references arrange alphabetically and thought it would make it easier to locate references at a later date. That's all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

first article

My article got accepted!! My article got accepted!! WHOO--hoo!!! I am thrilled! I am sharing the joy! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Bravo! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you friend. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

plagiarism

Guess what? It turns out this existing article I started editing on May 31st was almost entirely copied! The only parts that weren't are the parts I rewrote--or wrote. I didn't rewrite these others because they were good and didn't need it--BECAUSE THEY WERE COPIED!!! It's really easy to write well when you steal copy from a pro! Farang's being really nice--I think he thought I had done it at first--but I posted the dif showing those sections were in the article before I ever started on it. I never would have known if I hadn't tried for GA. It seemed like a good idea at the time... I am never doing this again. It makes one wonder how much of this is out there. I do real research. I know you do too. I am pretty sure whatever else one can say--Jytdog does as well. Are we it? This is a fine kettle of pickled herring... I'm working on redoing it. I'm more than halfway, but boy this is distressing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You might find this helpful in the future if you're looking for copied material. Alephb (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Alephb, hope you are well. Annoying, and to bad Farang didn't notice it earlier (he did write "No copyright violations" at one point), but he's obviously doing the best he can. WP has become better at detecting copyvios in new stuff, but the system isn't perfect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This is completely inadequate recognition of the copious amount of weeping this produced--somebody say, "poor puppy! You have been very brave!"

And thank you for the tool--I will use it in the future on EVERYTHING I work on. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Help with images please

My reviewer wants me to put tags on the images and I don't know where they go--besides the fact that they are huge and spread all across the page. Can you tell me where they are supposed to be placed? And are we supposed to do this with every picture?? I have never done it or seen it done. I thought pics from wikimedia commons were all public domain and didn't need what he's asking for. I am whining--I'm sorry--I am totally freaked out! Help! And thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea. I also just put whatever I find on commons in the articles, just clicked that "Use this file on a wiki" and noone ever told me that was wrong. Is there some "correct" form somewhere you can copy in a monkey-see-monkey-do fashion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, per Farangs latest explanation the tagging is done at Commons. Their example edit seems doable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I am clearly mentally blocked on this--I went and looked at that example and I still could not tell exactly where to place the tag when I am typing it in. I know I'm going to feel really stupid when I finally figure this out--like placing the slash mark in back instead of in front screwing up my blockquotes--but that's what I need to know. All I have ever done was copy the file text and go--like you said--so what else needs doing--specifically??

Also, it looks as though you have to go back and line off the changes you requested that I have done--he is not going to do it. He has lined off things around your comments and left all of yours alone. Where do I add the #*!!?## tag???

This is quite a process. He's great, absolutely and doing a phenomenal job--but it's a little like the prep for a colonoscopy... :-) nice image there huh? :-)

Thank you for your help and your comments and participation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I see you put links in the picture titles--was that it? I knew I'd feel stupid... Thank you. From your friend, the idiot... Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No, that's unrelated. I'll get back to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok Jenhawk777, I just did the "Title page of Richard Simon's "Critical History" image, here's how:

Started at Biblical criticism.
Clicked the image.
Clicked the big blue "More details" button in the down-right corner. Note that we now left WP and arrived at commons, the "actual" home of this image.
Added the tag Farang recommended here [17] to the "Licensing" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Ooooohhh!! You are amazing and brilliant and wonderful and kind and all things good and great!! You should write all of Wikipedia's instructions. That was clear! OMG! Thank you so much! You deserve another singing telegram. Really. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC

I am genuinely grateful for all your suggestions and help, but I would like to ask --in this instance--that you not make any more changes to the text without asking or telling--me or Farang or just type in on the review what you did--or something so I can keep up!! I think I got lost on a couple of changes and didn't keep up with what's been going on. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I will not do anything major without noting it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Have you looked at the things you suggested that I have done? I think I did them all--all the text and all the references now have no number conflict. That was a good idea by the way. A lot of trouble but the change is a definite improvement. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought that if I was a serious reader of the article it would annoy me greatly. It's what our customers pay us for ;-).

Stuff stricken. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

DAMN this is a LONG article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

TELL me about it! And you made me go through all the references twice!!! It's a good thing puppies are devoted! :-) I am actually trying to come up with ways to shorten it and have started just cutting whole paragraphs and lines and words wherever I can. I am thinking the first section on "Background" really serves no real purpose that isn't also covered better in history--what about eliminating that whole section--after moving the references to appropriate places of course??? Give me your considered scholarly opinion... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

While I often applaud brevity, complex topics need some space, and I think we're in fairly gray area here. There's guidance at WP:TOOBIG. Using copypaste and wordcounter.net, I'm told there's about 56k characters of readable prose, which I'll assume is about the same as 56 kB. That's between "May need to be divided" and "Probably should be divided", but pretty far from "Almost certainly should be divided". So... do what you think is best.

The "Background" section isn't spectacularly bad, but perhaps it's more "Overview"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

moved it into the lead rewrite Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

writing group notes

Does a group note have to have its own reference or can the reference be part of the note? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the question, so you should probably ask someone else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. Is everything okay? Are you mad? Did I say something stupid? You know sometimes I think I'm being funny and it comes across exactly the opposite. So give me a chance to apologize if that's it. Surely you know there is no one on Wikipedia I think more highly of than you. I even trusted you to go off and work with the big dog on "MY" article! :-) What greater compliment is there? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry. The weather has improved and I haven't felt like attempting to read through Biblical critisism again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Shew! Puppy was piddling all over the carpet there for a minute! :-) LOL! No worries--it passed. Now I need a sentence for DYK--and you need to have the joyful experience of nominating one of yours for GA. I suggest the Bible and humor. It turned out pretty well--and at least you won't have to worry about copyright vio's... Enjoy the nice weather--do some of that Swedish dancing. Life is short. Later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

...Did You Know that dead Germans are a big part of the subject of biblical critisism..?

...Did You Know that the word "theologian/s" occurs 24 times in this article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Did you know that you are a hoot? Those would have been great! I kept thinking about trying to write this article without including theologians... the whole time I was writing it. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

My "joe schmo" approach gave slightly silly results this time (still think it's the way to go though), I thought about a note at the top: "Unless otherwise stated, assume that a named person is a theologian." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

that's it! You need to go to the village pump and suggest a new template that says that! There could be one for medical articles--all kinds of things! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The fourth of July

It's Independence day here today! People are coming to the house--we have no traditional dances to do--but we will eat like crazy and shoot off fire works after dark. I am taking a break for a few minutes from getting ready. I have pinged Jytdog at his talk page twice asking him about coming back (to women in the Bible) but he's really busy. It's all been really civil. I think I am beginning to get past my hurt feelings and resultant pique and he's actually been nice. More experience has helped me see that--when you get past his insults--what he has to say is worth listening to. He is really rough on newcomers--and not just me. They really aggravate him! But thanx to you and Aleph--and you some more--I am beginning to understand a little better about Wikipedia (see how I typed Wiki out for you? :-)) than I did a year ago when I first showed up and ticked him off. Perhaps now I can avoid pissing him off so badly! I know he hasn't been back to Women since I left--I figure if I show up again he'll return. :-) I like the changes you have made there. When we finish with the body, we can redo the lead which does not really reflect what's in the article--as you both said. I'm thinking that whole second sentence should be removed. Anyway, I'm thinking of going back. The break was good, and it enabled me to tuck one success of my own under my belt, and that has helped me feel a little better able to cope with Jytdog's criticisms. It's okay if he doesn't like something, it can be fixed. If I come back, chances are he will too and be all bossy again, but I think maybe I can deal now. What I need from you is not to leave if things get difficult. Have an opinion that focuses on content, and say it--when you have an opinion of course. I will try to do the same and avoid personality issues. Deal? What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this asking too much? I'm a little scared and feel the need of back-up. I don't mean to put you on the spot--well wait--of course I do--but you have the right to refuse with impunity and no hard feelings, okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Glad fjärde juli! Firework after dark..? Strange people, the Floridians.

I make no promises on involving myself (not saying I won't), though I have been idly thinking about adding some of the women I think are missing. One difference I see between you guys and myself is that you actually have read some of the scholars involved and have opinions about them. At least on this topic, I just look at what's in the article and comment on what seems reasonable to me. The article may still be wildly unbalanced without me clearly seeing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Go for it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Orrin hatch

Thanks for warning that vandal, but I suggest that in the future you not point out that the vandal got in the news, this only encourages vandalism. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right. Fun story, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice

The next time you do something like this, you will be blocked or banned by Abecedare. wumbolo ^^^ 12:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs, please ignore the above note placed without my prior knowldege or approval. The addition of the Brietbart article to Talk:Sarah Jones is undesirable because of the quality of the publication and especially, the BLP violation in its headline. However, I assume that your edit was in good faith and it deserves no warning or block-threat. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Abecedare, please pardon my intrusion, but in 13 months of editing Wikipedia, I have never before seen a stern block/ban warning from an administrator posted on a user's talk page without the admin's prior knowledge or approval. How is that possible? I pray this is not some new virus infecting Wikipedia. KalHolmann (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo posted that warning (and I agree that it was overly dramatic). —Paleo Neonate – 22:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Just adding: Breitbart is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 22:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare and anyone interested. Thanks for assuming good faith, and I'll assume you meant Talk:Sarah Jeong. My general (and specific) position here is that for the press-box, quality of the publication and if it's an RS for a BLP (of course it's not) is not the issue. The pressbox is for things that are press, including Daily Mail, Washington Times, Breibart and other things we wouldn't use (generally) as sources. Breitbart, Daily Caller (and the survivor The Atlantic) is press, this is what they look like. Personally I don't think Breitbarts headline is a BLP-violation (the article has the word "racist" already) , this is the "strongly negative reaction in conservative media" the article talks about, and having them in the press-box on talk seems quite WP-natural. Who is surprised Breitbart had such a headline?

Anyway, if I decide to discuss this on the talkpage you'll probaly notice it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The "strongly negative reaction in conservative media" isn't referring to garbage-like publications, but to mainstream conservative publications. Everything gains "strongly negative reaction" in Breitbart et al. wumbolo ^^^ 18:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it refers to the garbage-like publications too. Being garbage-like doesn't stop you from being press or media. And surely there must be stuff Breitbart likes? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Graberg, there doesn't appear to be wikipedia-wide agreement on the issue of what sources permissible in the {{press}} template for BLP articles. Perhaps this BLPN thread or a new thread at WP:VPP would be a better place to decide this than at Talk:Sarah Jeong. Abecedare (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Abecedare, I think the word "source", which on WP usually means "something to use/perhaps use in mainspace", is wrong to use here. I didn't use Breitbart as a "source", I said (by adding it to the template) that it was "press". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I only meant "press sources" as used in the template documentation. Didn't mean, say, "reference source" as used in context of WP:RS. Whether the latter standard should be used for {{press}} entries, or something looser devised, would be the point of the BLPN/VPP discussion. Abecedare (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

You are not a new editor and having looked at your talk page, I was surprised at having to post this warning message, because I am sure you know that Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. You must not copy and paste text from sources you find on the web into articles as you did in the article Christopher Marlowe in fiction. You can see the "Earwig" tool printout here. The pink highlighted text on the left side was copied verbatim from the pink highlighted text on the right. I have not removed the infringing text and am leaving you to rewrite the relevant passages, but the material you copied is subject to copyright, as is almost everything on the web, and when creating or expanding articles, you should completely rewrite the information from the source using your own words. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cwmhiraeth! I am surprised myself. If you have examined the history and the talkpage, you have seen that I created this article by moving/expanding a section in Christopher Marlowe, and I didn't check what I copied from there with earwig, I've never used such a tool though I know they exist.

If I understand your analysis correctly, this [18] is the supposed copysource, correct? I'm not sure what it is, actually, but it says "Published on Oct 18, 2017".

This [19] is the WP-Marlowe from oct 11 2017, and the pink words are already in place. Does this make it likely that WP is innocent of copyright violation in this case? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

A Template:Backwards copy kind of thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I had not appreciated that the article was not an entirely new article so I drew the wrong conclusion. It does appear that the other site copied Wikipedia and not vice versa. You might be surprised at how high a proportion of new articles I meet while patrolling new page are copyright infringements (perhaps 10%?). My apologies to you. I have struck the statement above and have removed the inaccurate tag from the page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Cwmhiraeth, then all is well (and that doesn't surprise me in the least). And thanks for patrolling new pages, an important task I feel slightly guilty for not doing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how to stay civil and successfully de-escalate a situation. Alephb (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Amen bro'! Grabergs is among the best of us always. Of course it was really all due to my unwavering support and encouragement... :-) Heh heh heh... Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

And I of course predicted it all...^[Humor] —Paleo Neonate – 04:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to share the credit--with you PaleoNeonate! Grabergs is lucky to have us right? Good thing we are around to keep him out of trouble--prevent him from doing things like going OT and all that. It's a burden but we bear it well... :-) Humor Hah! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Kull wahad! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I should do something with a lower OT-factor... I know: I'll argue for the inclusion of Breitbart at Talk:Sarah Jeong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hah hah!! You're such a good sport. You take teasing very well--no deep distress. :-) I love your sense of humor--keeps me on my toes! But the Breitbart ship has sailed--no one else will think it's as funny as we would if you did it. Save yourself the grief. There are always new people out there to aggravate. Come work with me on ethics! I could use the help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

...actually, I'm doing it (Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Pressbox/This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization,_again), I feel there's a kind of principle involved, a writing for the enemy sort of thing. Consensus will be what it will be. But misunderstand me correctly, I don't want to use Breitbart in article-space! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought you made yourself and your point quite clear through your response here, and I think you are in the right about it. I admire you sticking to your guns. Good luck with it. Come over to ethics when you are done defending ethics for real. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

In other news

I am shamed in the face of Neil Gaiman [20]. Well not really, I (so far) wrote very little of the plot-section, but still, Neil noticed an article I created and he had to see that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Dude, you got burned by the Neil himself?!? I feel a little jealous now. Yes? Yes. Definitely a little jealous! --Xover (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

favor

Hey, would you do me the favor of taking a look at the Responses section of biblical criticism and give me your personal, private opinion? You don't have to make any comments there. I am cross-eyed on this and don't know if I am seeing clearly or not.

And did you see? It finally got its DYK mention! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Bravo! There seems to be a DYK-mentality that you have to really want it... OTOH, WP:s shopwindow should show good stuff.

Ok, by Puck. The first section is an entirely christian affair (American Fundamentalist movement should be linked if possible). When we get to "condemned secular biblical scholarship" in the next section I wonder what secular scholarship, but that may be explained elsewhere (haven't tried to read the article in a long time. Of course he may equate secular/non-catholic). Probably need a cite at the end. "Contemporary" may be stretching it. "20:th century" doesn't quite cover it either, though.

Second section, also entirely christian.

Other sections indroduce judaism, so in total "Responses" is entirely judeo-christian. That may be as it should be, scholarship, like WP, is done by those who show up.

It's well-written, but the reading level/understanding demanded is sometimes high: "In 1905, Rabbi David C. Hoffman wrote an extensive, two-volume, philologically based critique of the Wellhausen theory, which supported Jewish orthodoxy."

I sometimes miss a "that", but I think you negotiated this in the FA, so I'll hold back on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It's half the big dog's edit and half what I already had there. I have no intention of doing anything about it, but I was concerned partly because there is one paragraph on each of the other groups and three paragraphs on the Jewish response and they're the smallest group. BC was an entirely Protestant undertaking for over 200 years. Can't make it politically correct by over-writing one section of this article. Secular scholarship is neither explained nor mentioned anywhere else in the article. The dead Germans thought they were. Ah well. I am leaving it alone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)