DYK for Jean Aylwin
|On 4 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean Aylwin, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that actress Jean Aylwin (pictured) inspired a new dress style "in crepe and lace"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jean Aylwin. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
|On 20 June 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Felipe VI of Spain, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.|
When you say "This article is *about* the monotheistic conception of God. You can't just say 'god' with lowercase g and no article," you expose the problem. A concept can't be a proper noun. In fact, your sentence has an article, so why no lowercase "g". I do consider it a minor edit to update the grammar of the God page.
You do bring up a good point however. I should have changed the sentences in the instances were I downsized the case in order to incorporate the necessary article. Indeed, in English speaking, Christian dominated countries, in common speech people are overwhelmingly ungrammatical when they use the term "God" without an article, when referring to the general concept of a god, written or spoken, like you did (in fact, I could have written "the general concept of God" and most people would not have noticed). I believe this because of the frequency with which the proper noun is employed to refer to the specific god of their Christian religion. I hope you will give me the go ahead to try these changes. I will not mark the changes as minor.
Alex, I received your message. I am sorry, I thought it wasn't taking. It happened so fast that I thought it was a glitch and not a rollback. Sorry about that. Chris Abraham (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I hope you are well. I hope you remember me. Click the following link to recall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2014_October_5
The discussion is about the 'Error mitigation' section.
Your recent editing history at Talk:Death of Leelah Alcorn shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Avono (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome.
I wasn't vandalizing the page; merely, I was keeping it objective by referring to Joshua by his birth name and pronouns, as it's better to stay objective when sides are warring over this.