Jump to content

User talk:Jenhawk777/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Bible

You are good at this sort of thing, so would you take a look at Bible? I'm trying to reorganize the jumbled order and remove the redundancy. Thanks! Editor2020 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Editor2020 Hi! Thanx for the compliment! Please consider moving this discussion to the talk page there.
  • This article has a focus problem. It's trying to be two separate things at once.
  • First off: Imho this article would benefit from some section retitling. I do understand that the current headings represent an effort to treat Judaism with respect, but the result is the opposite. It fails to recognize that Judaism does not call its scripture by the term "Bible" and hasn't for centuries now. Bible is an ancient term that was used by the Jews before Christianity, but when Christians started adding their scriptures, the Jews differentiated theirs with a new term that they have used for almost two millennia now. The term "Bible" has evolved into a Christian term - and that discussion is omitted from this article entirely. Currently, people who use the term "Hebrew Bible" are generally non-Jews. It's not really respectful to them since it reflects us rather than their own tradition, and that completely overlooks Judaism's own separate path, and I find that insulting to Jews.
    • The "Bible" is a phrase that refers to the Christian Bible for both Jews and Christians in our current day. Therefore an article titled simply "Bible" should reflect that current usage and focus on one and not the other and quit trying to be two things at once. There is already an article titled Hebrew Bible that should be summarized as simply as possible in this one.
      • That would also mean the main divisions of this article are not titled appropriately according to those who do use it - which would be Old Testament and New Testament. That's insulting to them and their traditions as well.
  • This problem is reflected in content. In etymology it equates 'holy scripture' and Bible, and for current Jews, that's a big mistake. There should be a discussion of the above. What's there now overlooks 2000 years of development of the term. There should be something about the middle ages and current usage.
  • Removing redundancies would be good. There's too much in this article on the Hebrew Bible which has its own page. This section should be a summary of that article not a duplication of it. There is also a good bit of duplication between background and several of the other sections. Move that and consolidate it into background imho.
  • Higher criticism should be titled Biblical criticism with the link, and it needs rewriting badly. Someone with an agenda wrote that section. It can't even see neutrality from its position and is completely non-encyclopedic.
  • I would like to see the lead expanded. It should mention something about when it began, which books are thought to be the oldest, what books were considered controversial, and then have the part about the current versions being approved as official. That can be done in one or two sentences.
I know there is much more to be said about bringing this article up to the encyclopedia's standards, but I have a doctor's appointment and can't do more right now. I will come back later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I've copied it there. Editor2020 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Have you looked at the version of Bible before I reorged it?Editor2020 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Editor2020 A long time ago. I thought it needed a complete overhaul. You seem to have accomplished a lot of what it needed. You've done good work. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Editor2020 (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Editor2020 You're welcome. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Jenhawk777. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is wp:rx.
Message added 06:06, 29 January 2022 (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.
SN54129 06:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

in friendship

January songs
in friendship

Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics is on the Main page, DYK? - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much Gerda Arendt and Happy New Year to you as well. Hope you had a wonderful holiday season this year in spite of everything going on. We traveled, and saw family, and had lots of fun, but I was gone from WP for nearly two weeks and neglected to send out greetings here. I'm sorry. It doesn't mean I value you any less, it just means I can only remember so many things at once! My brain isn't what it used to be - or maybe it is and that's the problem! :-) Anyway, happy new year to you and yours as well and thank you for thinking of me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Jen, - new pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
... and still more --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt Thank you. This is well timed for me today. And appreciated. You are such a ray of sunshine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

February with Women in Red

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

  • 69. Harrington 1999, pp. 119–120. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation.
  • 70. Spencer 2002, p. 89. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation.
  • 71. Collins 1984, p. 28. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation.
  • 72 Seow 2003, p. 3. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation.

I have just edited the Bible article to what I would have done if I had edited this previously. Did this solve the issue? Editor2020 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Jenhawk777/Archive 6. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Kpddg (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

You may like this one

[1] According to WP, it's a sort of sitcom/interview combo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång That was hilarious! I'm sure Star Trek made him more famous than he would have been otherwise. I mean really, how many Shakespearean actors have most of us even heard of? But fame is not necessarily a good thing either - but he gets paid for showing up on those talk shows! Is that a real talk show or a parody itself? At any rate, it was great. Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
According to The Kumars at No. 42, the characters were scripted but not the guests. Oh, and the guy who plays the host married the girl who plays his grandma. Here's from another series by some of the same people: [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:Third opinion

There's no section at Talk:Bible with the heading "Content from three sections was removed". I assume that was meant as a description so I changed it. I'm not sure what thread/section at Talk:Bible you were actually meaning to link to though, I guessed Talk:Bible#Levivich's_complaints, but please correct if that is not right. ––FormalDude talk 21:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude Oh dear. I've never done this before and didn't know what I was doing. Can I list two sections? But at least the last one, yes. How do I fix this? Thank you for your help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I see you fixed it! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
No problem. ☺ ––FormalDude talk 21:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

WP is about to try something new for beginners, a "homepage" tab, you can activate it and see how it looks at the bottom of Special:Preferences. Appears with user/talk tabs on top left. Everybody now gets a "mentor" to ask questions, a wise (well) Wikipedian who added their name here Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list. I just did, and thought you might like to join the experiment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What? Me? A wise Wikipedian??!! Are you pulling my leg? This is another example of Gråbergs Gråa Sång's off-the-wall humor, right? I barely hold my own most days, get regularly assaulted for things I am not - like an inerrantist - and rarely win any disagreement even when I am the only one with sources!! I don't see how I could possibly help anyone, honestly, but you, yes, absolutely. You'd be great. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I think you'd fit phenomenally well. The flock needs you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång In order to have someone around to beat up, right?! I'll think on it, but I am somewhat flabbergasted at the suggestion! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm hoping it'll be fun and inspiring. I'm told current mentors get about 1 question/week, but that may increase somewhat. Off-topic, I stumbled on Bud (dog) recently and learned some fun American history while improving the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
...but despite the odd disagreement, you manage to have an impact anyway... And that's in a month. On that article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång As it stands right now, yeah, but you-know-who has already told me they intend to revert everything once I'm gone. That impact may be relative and fleeting. I think the article is improved, but hell, what do I know anyway? I'm apparently an inerrantist and just didn't know it! I'll go check out Bud. Maybe it will cheer me up. Things have been difficult everywhere this month. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathons

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

tfa

February songs
frozen

my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Thanx for the pic. It made me feel cold! I live in the semi-tropics so I don't have to! On your talk page is one of my all time favorite pieces of music. I love Bach. And you too! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thank you - also pictured the church where I first sang the piece, the day before my grandfather was buried - it helped! - For warmer climate: click on the songs - vacation pics. - The frozen pic was taken last year when we were shocked/frozen that Flyer22 Frozen died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
:-( Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
you have a heart! - Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much lovely wonderful Gerda Arendt and Happy Valentine's Day to you as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Prayer for Ukraine

stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt I didn't realize at first that I could listen, then when I did I was quite overwhelmed with how beautiful and touching it was - a beautiful prayer for a people in need. Thank you for sharing that Gerda. I am deeply touched. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I took the pic in 2009, and it was on the German MP yesterday, with the song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Christianization of the Roman Empire

The article Christianization of the Roman Empire you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Christianization of the Roman Empire for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Christianization of the Roman Empire

Can't say I thought that review gave fair time to the subject. I hope you're not disheartened, and if I can help in any future work just let me know. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested Thank you so much for that. I can't tell you how much that means to me today. I am disheartened for other reasons but that review just makes everything worse. And I don't have time to answer it right now.Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for taking over the review of Talk:Devil in Christianity/GA1 and for your general effort in GA nominations! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
You are most welcome. I am genuinely happy to do it. I am enjoying it. Right now, I too am being impeded by RL, but I will get back to it soon. Thank you for so graciously allowing me to step in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Email

Forget about the email, the issue doesn't matter anymore as of now. I regret having reached you in such an inopportune moment, best of wishes and hopefully nothing bad happens. Avilich (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Avilich My mother died yesterday afternoon. I think I'm still in a bit of shock. I am at her house and will be for awhile. Have you read the quick-fail review of Christianization? It's a really bad job, but I can't answer right now. That too sucketh. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Condolences for your loss (and, I suppose, for that rather rough review). I imagine you'll be quite busy for the next few days or weeks. Avilich (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Avilich Thank you dear one. I am and will be quite busy trying to close up her affairs and house. I have answered the reviewer several times, but they just keep getting it backwards. Their last reply included an analogy that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding: Let's say that I was writing the Wikipedia biography of Nazi Germany. Military expansion is among the primary topics of Nazi history. So what you're saying is that I could write the entire article about that and not mention the Holocaust or anti-Semitism once, as long as I made it clear in the lead? Obviously this would be insane, but this analogy aptly demonstrates what you've done here.
I responded of course. Your claim that this analogy aptly demonstrates what you've done is nonsense. This analogy is crap. You begin by defining the topic as a "biography of Nazi Germany" which is by definition a broad history - much broader than a sociological view and nothing I did in Christianization. It's also a crap analogy because there is no contemporary scholarship contradicting the historical interpretation of a "biography of Nazi Germany" - as there is with Christianization.
An article on the sociological view of how German society of that time developed Nazism and anti-semitism, that focused exclusively on what aspects contributed to the holocaust, and did not discuss the rest of the military history and battles that did not matter to that limited subject, would be comparable, but that isn't what you suggested is it? You begin by suggesting a broad history, then compare history to sociology, and conclude with a criticism of sociology for not being history; this is what you have consistently done throughout this entire review. Can you not see that?
I got nothing of course. Every time I demonstrated their error they just pretended that discussion didn't take place. They failed the article because it was sociological and not historical. Next time I list it, I will be sure and list it under sociology as well as religion, but not history. My mistake. I will wait a while though. This has been a bit brutal. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Jenhawk, my sincere symphathies and condolences. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you my friend. I still haven't quite wrapped my mind around it I think. I keep thinking I'll ask her something, and then it hits me. She has a huge house, and going through her things feels like invading her privacy. I am glad we finally resolved things on Bible. I was beginning to despair there, but I thank you for your perseverance in working that out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I've gone through my mother's belongings too. It was hard and I feel for you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Empathy always helps lighten any load. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • As you may know, I usually do biographies and conflicts, the scope of which is easy to define and much more straightforward than a process such as CRE, so I may not be the best person to deal with or opine about broad-subject articles such as this. That said, my original impression, going by the natural meaning of the title "CRE", is that the article is supposed to be a description of the process, explaining whether it was violent, rates of and reasons for conversion, its enforcement, how it affected communities and the wider politics of the empire, and so on. I'm unsure of what use a strict distinction between history and sociology would be here: there's obviously a sociological aspect in the sense that you're studying these changes in society, and there's a historical aspect in that you're recording and analyzing events, if only to contextualize the sociological part. This particular reviewer thought that there was not enough "history", though his misunderstanding of the "Edict of Milan" and the "Edict of Thessalonica", and his failure to suggest how to incorporate an analysis of them into the article aside from an overblown explanation of their importance, casts doubt on his capacity to judge on his own how much "history" is good enough to begin with. Those are my initial thoughts, feel free to point out anything you think I'm wrong about. Avilich (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Avilich you are absolutely correct in your assessment imo. I was using sociology in an attempt to get him to see that his focus on historical events was the problem. He couldn't see that talking about causes - "how" - it was done, just didn't require a great deal of that. He came with a bias. He called sociology garbage. And I don't think he read the whole article because both of those Edicts are actually mentioned - just not by name - and he didn't recognize them by description. It was neither a well done review or a fair one. Thank you. I appreciate your support, and what seems like a fair evaluation of that article, and your sympathies about my mom. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Since a third GA nomination probably isn't feasible for the time being, you could try WP:Peer review. If you manage to get a satisfactory result from that, the next GA nominator will no doubt be more reluctant to declare a failure. You evidently worked hard on all of this, and, if nothing else, you know how to find out what and where the good sources are, which I can attest after cleaning up your references section all those months ago. You've seen, however, from both failed nominations, how difficult it is to review a broad subject such as this (whatever the shortcomings of each reviewer), and to me an arbitrary milestone as GA isn't worth all this hassle. Not meaning to sound discouraging with that last remark, of course. Avilich (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Avilich I put it through a peer review before nominating it for GA in the first place. I made the changes they recommended. I even made the changes commenters made on the talk page. I like everything to be GA if I can get it there, and these huge broad subjects are my norm. Graebergs even posted a pictorial on my user page about that. :-) I will leave it for now of course. It has been a huge hassle and very frustrating. I don't quite understand the emotional response it has produced. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, you were already one step ahead, I see. Well, don't let this unfortunate turn of events upset you much, as you already have enough to worry about now and you have enough reason to be proud of your work if peers reviewed it and found it satisfactory. Avilich (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
You are right of course, and that is good advice. I will follow it. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Temple (LDS Church) on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you know ...

Don't miss that section on the Main page today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey Gerda Arendt sorry for the delayed response. I'm a little out of it these days. Thank you for this. It's kind of you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
May songs
no response needed, ever! - going to sing evensong tomorrow and next Saturday, then Auf dem Weg durch diese Nacht! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt perhaps not needed, but your extraordinary kindnesses deserve acknowledgement. Wish I could be there to hear you. Break a leg! As they say on the American stage! (But don't really... ) It was my birthday yesterday. I was 29 again... First birthday without my mom. First of many of those firsts. Going to be a long year. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
take some of the flowers and the rainbow for your birthday, with the best wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
and here's a strong woman --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt the link is to an archived page but I am unsure what part of it is your talk. Is it the 2022 friendship at the top or is it at the bottom where new stuff goes? Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
perhaps I don't understand the question - it's my talk as it is now, but tomorrow it will look different, therefore the archive. The pic on top should be obvious, I'm always extra proud when a pic I took makes it to the Main page. Further down you can read "My talk goes like this", explaining how the images following are connected to my life and my articles. The video of the music is at the bottom of the orchestra article, the other at the bottom of the violinist's article. Both highly recommended. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt Ahhh - you mean your talk page. When you said, "I like my talk today" I misunderstood. I thought you had given a talk - a speech or something - and it was recorded and I could see and hear you, and when I couldn't find that I got lost. I am caught up now. Thank you dearheart, and thank you especially for sharing those with me.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
happy we could clarify, and sorry for sloppy language - didn't we talk about a newsletter once, and I said my talk (page) is my newsletter? - nothing new there today but new flowers and archiving, but two people recently died who will (hopefully) come up --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

YES!! A Gerda newsletter for all of us who love you to keep up! That's what we need! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Well done

Hu Nhu has given you a Sugar cookie! Sugar cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Sugar cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Your tireless and difficult work regarding the Francis Drake article is impressive. I doubted that, under the circumstances, such editing was possible. Please continue. 

Hu Nhu (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hu Nhu thank you so much! I have neglected you and I apologize, but I have been mostly gone or prioritizing helping the newbies. You remember how overwhelming things can be at first! I have not been back to review Drake for quite awhile because I have been caught up in two long long overwrites. It amazes me how often unsourced articles are also the most biased ones - but I will get back to Drake eventually. Thank you for your good thoughts. They mean a lot to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jenhawk777/Archive_6&oldid=1210851312"