User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång

↓ Jump to bottom of page ↓

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 14:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell

A page you have edited has been involved in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If you wish to take part please click here. Some of the editors working on it have been accused of being sock puppets including myself, information on that can be found here. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don´t think I have anything to contribute at this point. Is it really ALL people that goes to hell in these books?Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama

Hi. I have read your latest response on the Obama talk page and wanted to let you know that I have responded to it. Look forward to further discussion.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.220 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I owe you a drink

Please read my reply to your posting(s) today at the Talk:The Godfather page. No hard feelings I trust? Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 18:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A desperate act from this user to placate you, don't be fooled. Him and Ring are continously backing each other up, look at Ring's history, a continous edit warrior. The discussion on Godfather is an old one (look at the talk archive) and was unresolved, I came back to it after a period of trying to put similar plot edits in other film articles, and opened an RFC so that others can see the behaviour of these two. To my amazement, though unsurprisingly, they now support the inclusions you were putting forward which I and darkwarriorblake tried to earlier, but this is again just to cosy up and prevent them from seeming obstructive. Look at how they responded to me on the talk page and the talk archive. --JTBX (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the beer, no hard feelings. Consider me placated. ;-) JTBX, I´m not a very passioned editor, and I choose not to comment further right now. Good luck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Cheers! All the best! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 18:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem dude. --JTBX (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That´s the best kind of problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand that...lol. Right now I'm assuming (perhaps foolishly) good faith towards Ring and GGJ despite their attacks against me for no reason other than trying to edit an article.--JTBX (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC) I would appreciate more of your input, but if you don't have the time, completely understandable, bye.--JTBX (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång – Ha,ha! It is the best kind, isn't it? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but your page is still on My watchlist and I paid your User page a visit following a revision today. Could not resist translating, "Ur Mattoidens sånger, 1914. Dikten tillhör de "nedanförmänskliga visor" som med ett ytterst avskalat formspråk vill uttrycka djurs, växters och, som här, urbergs innersta väsen. Dikten skrevs mot slutet av Frödings liv. På Wikipedia finns en artikel om Gråbergssång ... From Mattoidens songs, 1914. The poem belongs to the "below human ballads" that with an extremely stripped-down form language expresses animals, plants and, as here, primary rock essence. The poem was written towards the end of Fröding life. On Wikipedia there is an article about Waste rock song ..!"

I don't understand the "Waste rock" bit though. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 16:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Waste rock refers to Gangue, which is a possible translation of gråberg (that I was completely unaware of). In context though, Fröding is talking about This, i.e. grey mountains and stonehills. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you the two hyperlinks; very informative. Pretty photograph of the dry stone wall too. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 16:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

... and we like 'hearing' you. So don't stop! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 16:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings!

Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

• Your contribution this morning on my Talk page is splendid. Thank you very much.
  May I say, "iechyd a lwc dda i chi ac yn eich blwyddyn annwyl nesaf." –
   – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 14:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  

Wow, google translate really impresses sometimes. Health and good luck to you and your beloved next year as well! I should try to visit Wales sometime.

Blackadder : Have you ever been to Wales Baldrick?

Baldrick : No, but I've often thought I'd like to.

Blackadder : Well don't, it's a ghastly place. Huge gangs of tough sinewy men roam the valleys terrorising people with their close-harmony singing. You need half a pint of phlegm in your throat just to pronounce the placenames. Never ask for directions in Wales Baldrick, you'll be washing spit out of your hair for a fortnight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, have you seen this gem? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7702913.stm Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You are priceless; the Blackadder quote had me laughing out loud ("lol") but the link is too much. My ribs still hurt from laughing. Thank you for such a gem. How did you find it? It is dated Friday, 31 October 2008.
Oh, you should come to Wales. It is so different from England.
Amazing, Friday, 31 October 2008 – would you mind if I gave my best pal on Wikipedia, Martin, a link to this strand? I would do it indirectly via "your contribution this morning on my Talk page".
Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sharing is caring. I don´t remember when I read about the sign, but it´s hard to forget. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That's lovely. (as we say in Wales) –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 23:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Ideas.
Message added 22:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello there!

Check it out Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Ideas#Apocalypse. Regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 17:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I´ve responded on that page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. You have new messages at Talk:Warren_Kinsella#Ignatieff_supporter.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Glad Påsk också!

Ja. Det var mitt sätt att säga: Det är inte den enda källan... In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Well done.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Why only Ghosts here ?

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I wonder if you can reply me, why I find GHOSTS ONLY over here? No real names, real people, emotions? Can Ghosts run Wikipedia better than actual and real people ? Dr Muhammad Ali (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! And welcome to my talkpage. Well, there are plenty (but a minority) of people that use their own names, like Suzanne Olsson, or the fellow writing above on this page, Gareth Griffith-Jones. At least I think they do. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. I also think they are real people. My username is a line from a poem I´ve liked since highschool. I generally prefer anonymity when I post on different web-forums, there´s a kind of freedom (that I try not to abuse) in having such discussions in their own separate world, so to speak. Even if you dislike what I write, you won´t stop by and spraypaint my house. Or write mean things about me that my boss finds when he googles my name. Well, you still may, but at least it is a little harder. I, and I think a lot of people with me, would not edit Wikipedia if we were forced to register with our actual names. One can call that spineless or whatever, but I can live with that. I think Wikipedia (also democracy) benefits from allowing people to comment under alias.

Emotions. Yes, I´ve heard of those (joke). Here´s how I see it. We (editors) are very very different, as are our motivations to be here. We are allowed to edit this quite amazing site on the agreement that we make it better. To do this we use rules and discussions, often about things we care GREATLY about (take a look at the discussions at Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship for example), and sometimes consider more important than life itself (we also take offense for very different things). For these discussions to accomplish anything, it is often necessary to approach them in a cool and detached way. This may make some of us seem a bit like Vulcans (or just rude) at times, but it is, when all is said and done, often helpful. Many things need and should be said, but often Wikipedia is not the place for them. They belong in personal blogs, articles, books or other forums.

Well. I think this is the longest text I´ve ever written on Wikipedia, so I hope I understood your question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, we have not communicated before, so please do forgive my typing here. But I would mention that I read that in the last month a Wiki-user who used his real name and participated in an Afd received a letter from the attorney of the person whose page was deleted claiming various damages. The other Wikipedians who did not use their own names in the Afd received no letters. So there are good reasons. History2007 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This diskussion, right? And please feel forgiven ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It is all over the web in fact, even the ACM website. I think he should have told them to call the official Wikipedian law firm - pretty well known firm in fact. And thank you for the forgiveness. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I read that blogpost, interesting stuff! I hope they back off. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should get the official Wikipedian law firm to send them a letter to back off, or else... History2007 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, So lively and so lovely a discussion. I now believe, it very much in order to work in cognito, at least as Editors on Wikipedia. (And I have learned how to 'indent') :-) . Regards , be well. Dr Muhammad Ali (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You too! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, perhaps a few days to late now, though :P Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is another interesting discussion concerning anonymity. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

And perhaps another one... History2007 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I confirm that I really am Gareth Griffith-Jones –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the french story is really bizarre. I thought it was an april fools thing first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it was on April 7. Yet, it was funny in a way because they are now mentioned here. Reminiscent of you know who, of course... History2007 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station is now available in 28 languages. Sweet! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have worked out the OBITUARY comment now ... see my Talk
Well done!
— Gareth Griffith-Jones|The Welsh Buzzard|—09:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Lena (actress)

Heya! I was interested in getting your thoughts on how Lena's name should read in the intro sentence. I changed it to Lena Kumar in the article per her request, but have also noticed that the name Lena Abhilash has much stronger sources and is used more frequently. Was thinking of something like: "Lena Abhilash, known professionally as Lena Kumar, or Lena, is..." ? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That works for me, I looked at Martin Sheen to have something to compare to. I´m assuming that Lena Abhilash is her "legal" name, but I have no idea how that works in India. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, she claims that "My official name is Lena Kumar", so maybe that should be "Lena Kumar, or Lena (previously Lena Abhilash), is...". Then again, "official" can mean several things. It´s not crystal-clear, this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It is puzzling, I agree. Lena Kumar, aka Lena Abhilash is documented to be married to Kumar Abhilash, but we're being asked to delete mentions of Kumar Abhilash. Reasonably speaking, if she came into notoriety as Lena Abhilash, and if the reliable sources support Abhilash, then maybe Lena Abhilash is a reasonable name to start the lead with? Alternatively, if we can find a birth name, it would also seem reasonable (a la Madonna (entertainer) or Roseanne Barr) that Lena's birth name be mentioned first, then her other names. "Lena Birthsurname (known professionally as Lena Abhilash, Lena Kumar, and Lena) is..." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Today is a holiday, so why shouldn´t I spend some of it googling an Indian actress I never knew existed until yesterday? This strange willingness is what´s makes Wikipedia go round. From what I can see in the articles sources, "Lena" wins by far (and the one-name-thing seems fairly common among indian actresses), and one source call her "Lena Abhilash".

Comparing google results for ""lena kumar" actress" and ""lena abhilash" actress" seems to STRONGLY favor the later, and keep in mind that our article calls her Kumar on the word of a wikipedia-user only, that´s not good. There is also a FB-page for Lena Abhilash that`s probably her. So we should not call her Kumar in our article for now, and not reinstate it until we have some WP:RS on it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Man, bummer holiday! I think you and I are on the same page on this. I saw your Talk Page note, as well. And now I shall take up no more of your holiday! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Dispute over Swedish royalty

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång. This is from a recent report at WP:AN3. What do you make of this passage from Svenska Dagbladet: "Nu blir han en del av kungafamiljen, men om han även blir en del av kungahuset är ju inte klart. Titeln återstår att se, den meddelas enligt riksmarskalken först i samband med bröllopet, konstaterar Elisabeth Tarras-Wahlberg." I tried out the Google Translator, and it seemed to think that O'Neill's relationship to the 'kungahuset' was not yet clear. Is that what 'inte klart' is saying? You can probably read this better! Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, but that has since then been made clear, see [1] (he´s not a part of kungahuset). The strange thing is though, Tarras-Wahlberg seems to be wrong about him becoming a part of the (extended) royal family. She was spokesperson for the royal family for a big part of my life, and I would normally take her word for it, but this [2] should be the best WP:RS source on the subject. It sounds strange that the kings son-in-law is not a member, but that´s how these things can work, it seems. Note for example that the kings sisters are royal family, but not their spouses. I hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I´ve raised the question here [3] as well, since the swedish article says he IS a member of the royal family, unsourced though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The quote above from Elisabeth Tarras-Wahlberg says "Nu blir han en del av kungafamiljen, men om han även blir en del av kungahuset är ju inte klart". If we can trust that, would you read her as having said he is definitely in 'kungafamiljen' but his status in 'kungahuset' is still not clear? EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What she says is "Now he will become a part of kungafamiljen (called Current members and Extended family in Swedish Royal Family), but if he will also be a part of kungahuset (called Current members in Swedish Royal Family) is not clear."

• Yes, she is saying that he is definitely in kungafamiljen, and she should normally be trusted on this subject, but according to the website maintained by the court she is wrong (as in he is not mentioned as a member of kungafamiljen). Could be because a lack of updates, but that seems unlikely.
• Yes, she is saying that his status in kungahuset is still not clear, and that was true when she said it. It is no longer true since the court issued a pressrelease that made it clear (he´s out). Glad Midsommar! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

So, unless the court web site is updated, we should still not say he is in the kungafamiljen? EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, we shouldn´t. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Supervolcano (disambiguation) was accepted

Supervolcano (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Lugia2453 (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

Christmas dinner

Machinima of Santa Claus's reindeer filmed in Second life

Imploring that Gråbergs Gråa Sång enjoys a sumptuous Christmas holiday and a naughty New Year! First play this → →

Now play this!
I dare you to tell me that you did not smile.

Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 02:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Diolch yn fawr. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Diolch i chi hefyd! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

African American lead straw poll

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:African American#Straw poll. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

Somalis in the United Kingdom

Hi. Thanks for adding the infoformation about khat now being illegal in the UK to the Somalis in the United Kingdom article. I knew it was being made so, but the legislation had passed me by. I have restructured the section a bit to try to make it flow a bit better. I hope you don't mind, and please do feel free to make further edits or revert my changes if you don't agree. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw your edits and heartily approve! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Please do feel free to lend your views on the discussions underway on that article's talk page. We could do with more voices. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

New DOB RfC

If you wish, please join in. —Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And now for 2016

A view of Lake Bondhus in Norway, and in the background of the Bondhus Glacier, part of the Folgefonna Glacier. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

NG

I haven't looked at that article for awhile. It seems more is afoot than mere puffery. I suggest we take the discussion to the relevant talkpage to inform interested editors.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Élizabeth Teissier

Right. I've added a filmography, and eyed over the biography - there's a bit more in the French article, but it's uncited, and the only thing I can find mentioning it I think stole the Wikipedia content from the French article. The French article has more biography, but mainly because it uses the list in reference 5 as article text, and includes a summary of the sociology degree. One possibility might be to add the filmography to the biography section. (I've now done so) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Adam Cuerden! The current shape of the article seems much better to me, and it´s a positive surprise that so many of "her" movies are bluelinked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think part of it was fixing up the structure of the French Wikipedia article once all the uncited or simply bad bits were removed. There's so much more material in the French article criticising her failed predictions; A lot of it seemed to be borderline original research or had no real prominence. I'm sure it's correct, mind, but it needed cut down. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

this is an interesting article -

Here: [4]. It's about the former boss of the person we were discussing. One may or may not use it to draw one's own conclusions about things. LavaBaron (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

African Americans

Please see the talk page. Reverting a third time would violate Wikipedia guidelines. Eodcarl (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Talkpage it is, Eodcarl. If you´re refering to WP:3RR you´re wrong, i reverted you once. You, however, didn´t follow the essay WP:BRD, and it´s often a good idea to do so. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Fixed it, thank you ! How does the overall report look ? Sagecandor (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sagecandor, it seems reasonable to me. Like in the very recent one (you should probably try to stay off AE for awhile after this one, advice worth every penny you paid for it) you´re generally short and to the point. I think your "TL;DR" summary gives a good explanation why you see this as a continuing problem. Editors with similar interests will run into each other on different topics, but nobody wants the feeling of being stalked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, by "stalking" you I´ve now learned of Rhinogradentia. Charming! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

All the best for 2017!

Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saturday Night Live parodies of Bill Clinton has been accepted

Saturday Night Live parodies of Bill Clinton, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Submission for your fictional porn list

Logjammin' from The Big Lebowski ("The plot is ludicrous; you can imagine where it goes from here. -- He fixes the cable?") ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire Todays list-gem: List of planet killers. I´m very pleased, it had Futurama on it. And, of course, List of names for the biblical nameless. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

HOLY SHIT PETER STORMARE IN A PORNO!!! The universe just exploded. And there´s a t-shirt. [5] And it´s sourceable. [6] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire Well, we´ll see if this sticks: [7]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, the heading which defines the topic is going to need to be reworded at minimum to stay there or else it sounds like it's a whole other topic, and it invites a list of random fictional porn, which is beyond the scope of that article. It could stay there as long as you limit it to parodic references to the parody-porn genre in mainstream TV and film.

Strictly yes, but since the article's topic is porn based on mainstream film/tv fiction, a subsection on mainstream film/tv fiction based on porn is not totally outlandish. I think all the current examples have pornparodies themselves, which also makes it a closer topic. And, should it swell with lots of good sourced material (needn´t happen, the section should be fairly small per UNDUE), then we have an article (or list, if that´s better). Finding sources for fictional porn is a small enough field as it is, finding sources for "parodic references to the parody-porn genre" will be next to impossible, i think. The Friends-cite doesn´t do that, for example. Though it´s obvious to many people, it´s OR territory. We´ll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems far from certain that what Friends did counts as a parody btw: [8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

German Occupied Territory

I completely agree with you: It´s a fine text, but if you add this to "Background" that section will be very France-heavy. " Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Is it possible, Henia Perlman, to post this at Talk:German-occupied Europe, which is I assume is the related article (as there is no German-occupied territory article) and has been part of an ongoing discussion about putting info about French North Africa / Tunisia there.

That way, anyone following the article talk page can be part of the discussion. Thanks so much.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a talkpage watcher!? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and Carole is right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur with that. Irondome (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

re Books on Trump

In case you weren´t aware of this early masterpiece ;-) [9] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but do you think that one is "notable" for Wikipedia's WP:GNG ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it´s not serious. The series of books had it´s fanbase, was even translated to swedish, but this one is pretty much forgotten. It´s in Donald Trump in popular culture though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay haha cute thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"Colourful" doesn't necessarily mean orange

Re this: Millions of articles, and you had to link to that one. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch, thanks for a good chuckle. I didn´t make that connection, just thought "people will recognize this article". It´s not a bad look, but they need to work on templates at the bottom of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 You owe me bigtime, casting the deciding vote and all that. Congratulations, and please don´t leave the Teahouse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For patiently helping out new editors. —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on your Barnstorm award. As a new editor, I certainly appreciate your help! Juliet Sabine (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Mediumship and Gustaf Fröding

Re [10]: yeah, we also have a substantial wikipedia article about mediumship. And you can buy medium ships on E-bay![11] Unusual to see a username from Fröding, btw! Bishonen | talk 11:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC).

Mm, de flesta wikipedianer föredrar Geijer.[12] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, How do I do an UNDO?

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. On a page I'm working on, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liposuction, someone undid several hyperlinks I had added to help clarify some of the dangerous outcomes of liposuction; they used this code ~ WP:OVERLINK to explain their reason for the undo. Although the words are common, with regards to liposuction, they may not be benign. Bruising and bleeding, for example, can be life threatening due to these adipose removal procedures. In any case, I am learning about the over-links. I see on the liposuction page, several places that hyperlinks are used that seem superfluous to me and others I have spoken with about this. One is that the word French has a hyperlink. Another is that the word model also has a hyperlink. I would think it would serve to clean up and clarify a page by removing these tangential hyperlinks. Is this something I would bring up on the Talk page, or is this a minor edit, that I may do myself, with an explanation citing WP:OVERLINK?

Also, I wonder if you might clarify for me this: are three small edits within a twenty-four hour period all that is allowed? Some day I have time to edit, and others I do not. It would be more time efficient to make more than three small edits in a day. Thank you so much, Juliet Sabine (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Juliet Sabine! WP is full of nuggets of wisdom like WP:OVERLINK, and as a new editor, you'll probably encounter even more. Let me give you another: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Do as many small or big improvements to articles as you think is reasonable (only time will give you a feel for what is "reasonable" in different WP-areas), and if they stick, all is well and good. If you're reverted and disagree with that, slow down and talk. Large-ish changes to (for example) a medical topic can be a good idea to discuss beforehand. Being reverted is part of life on WP, even Jytdog gets reverted ;-) It´s important not to WP:EDITWAR, that´s where the "three edits", WP:3RR comes from.

On the specific, go ahead and de-link as you judge is best. I agree on "french". "Model" is IMO more grey-area, in context it´s not useless, but far from essential. I considered changing it to "patient", but "model" hints at why it had an impact. To quote the sitcom Absolute Power: It´s my duty as a reporter to inform the public of this horrible new disease... especially if it´s started to affect celebrities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I'm sure I'll ask more as soon as I have time. Juliet Sabine (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I have another question about editing. Here is the situation, I'm considering putting the following on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liposuction page. I wanted to make sure that I'm following protocol as I am on a learning curve on Wikipedia. -- "There is a photo in the upper right hand corner of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liposuction page that is captioned, "Suction-assisted lipectomy of bilateral outer thighs." When people search "liposuction" on the internet, this photo shows up. The visual results shown are not typical of a spectrum of long-term results post-liposuction. The photos appear to be promotional and non-objective, put up by Otto Placik, who was banned from editing on Wikipedia. Adipose tissue is an important endocrine organ. Animal studies have repeatedly shown that, among a wide variety of animals, the removal of fat in one depot results in both increased fat volume and number in other depots. It seems as though those who profit from these procedures ignore this data. A University of Colorado, well-respected study - - confirmed this “weight redistribution” phenomena in 100% of the women. People commonly suffer from over-resection and uneven resection due to liposuction, which is documented. I propose we get a variety of photos that show a spectrum of results, including disfiguration and that long-term AT (Adipose Tissue) redistribution, since short-term results do not last. I propose these photos are taken down until this is discussed and resolved. Thank you." Juliet Sabine (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Additionally, how do I get my references to show up as hyperlinks? Thanks again. Juliet Sabine (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Goodmorning Juliet Sabine! Looks fine for talkpage to me. That particular image is the WP:LEADIMAGE. Articles don´t have to have one (can´t always), but the general sentiment is that it is nice if they do. You may guess from that link that what is a good/the best leadimage can be difficult to agree on. For example, WP-articles such as african-american used to have a collage of notables, but after long discussions editors decided that screw it, this is a waste of time, fiat MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. The leadimage at Muhammad also took a bit of discussion [13].

These are extreme examples, most often it´s much easier (somebody is WP:BOLD and that´s that, or anything inbetween[14]), but a discussion about what is a "natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see" for Liposuction may take time and patience, and the result may be a disappointing no consensus = no change at this time (or of course, a consensus that the images are good enough/best available). But I say go for it, the WP:COI "angle" deserves to be looked at. If you have any images to suggest as replacement, that could help. If you like, you can put a "I started an image-discussion at Liposuction, I welcome your input." message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine as well.

Your dailydot did turn in to hyperlink, but the software automagically puts it at the bottom of the page [Insert nov 22: now moved upward with a clever piece of code by PaleoNeonate]. On a talkpage you can just [15] or interesting article if you like, but we don´t put links like that in the text of an article. More at Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Link. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

And thanks for that article, interesting! I´ve put it on Wikipedia:Press coverage 2013 and Talk:Labiaplasty (This article has been mentioned by a media organization). Ah, 2013, the year of Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station#Controversy_over_French-language_version_of_Wikipedia_article... Good times... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

One more thing, BTW, the animal studies. Unless you have a solid source that discuss/connects these animal studies to human liposuction, don´t bother with that part. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your help very much. Is it okay if I ask you more questions in the future? If so, should I start a new thread? I just added the link to the study so it shows up in the footnotes too. There are other images on the liposuction page that can be used. Since Otto's photo's have been deemed to be promotional on other pages and he was banned as an editor, would that not be reason to get have this photo removed from the page? Would it be reason to have it removed from the archives? Of the twenty-nine liposuction pages I found from around the world, Otto's photo is used on four of them. Juliet Sabine (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Another question, a few months ago the whole Liposuction Talk page was deleted. Do you know why this action would have been taken? It erased this discussions and objections that were up. Would that page be achieved anywhere? Who makes the decisions to erase the history? Juliet Sabine (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You´re welcome to ask, if I have nothing to say, I´ll say that. WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to ask, and you´re likely to get more input than just one editors opinion. New thread is good if it´s a new(-ish) topic. Either way works.

WP:COI/WP:PAID/WP:ADVOCACY stuff is a bit complicated. It is, as the article you linked show (see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for many more examples) a BIG problem. But it´s not automatically forbidden per se, though there are a bunch of rules and restrictions involved. People like Otto can in theory add "good stuff" to WP, and he probably did to some extent, that´s why he could do it for so long. So, is this image mostly WP:PROMOTIONAL for Otto and others in the profession, or is it more a good WP:LEADIMAGE in an area where "free" images are rare and hard to come by? I have no idea. It can be a baby and bathwater thing. I´ll tell you this though, neither Doc James nor Jytdog are any friends of Otto´s actions. Read their userpages if you haven´t, they´re pretty interesting.

Not deleted I think, archived per Help:Archiving a talk page. I´m guessing Jytdog (see the talkpages "view history" tab) saw the talkpage, thought "This should be archived" and did it. See the "Archives: 1" in the big yellow box on the talkpage? The "1" is a link to the current archive page. That talkpage is now archived automatically, threads without comment for 60 days will be archived. If you want to refer to old discussions again, you can of course do that, "As I noted at Talk:Liposuction/Archive_1#dangers..." or whatever. Some subjects are discussed more than others (Talk:Donald Trump). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I want to put a few phrases in brackets to show that I have new pages planned for each topic. I have seen that those words are then hyperlinked in red. What is the WP code that I write in the description of the changes to explain this action? For example, I plan to make a page for lidocaine toxicity, and another for post surgical weight gain, (that is due to liposuction), as currently there are no references for these terms. Thank you, Juliet Sabine (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. A WP:REDLINK is meant to be read as "somebody should create this artcle, please do that", more or less. There is, as far as I know, no extracode to indicate "I intend to do this soon." In your case, I would read Wikipedia:Your first article, follow the directions to create a draft, and start writing. At some point you might want to ask for input, like "how does this look", Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine is a good place for that. You can also look at WP-articles on similar topics and try to "copy their style". Try to find WP:GA and WP:FA, they´re the best to "copy", though those articles are generally quite extensive. Getting your first WP-article accepted is a challenge. A little more on that here:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_624#Article

I note that while lidocaine toxicity doesn´t have article, lidocaine does. Perhaps you should start with writing a section in that article? Again, I know nothing about the subject, and from what I see at google books [16], WP:GNG shouldn´t be a problem for your article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, how do I approach, (on The Talk page, perhaps), an unsourced line that reads like a talking sales points of those who profit from the procedures? The whole line, (under Complications), reads,"Puncture of an internal organ: since the surgeon cannot see the cannula, sometimes it damages an internal organ, such as the intestines during abdominal liposuction. Such damage can be corrected surgically, although in rare cases it can be fatal. An experienced cosmetic surgeon is unlikely to puncture any internal organ." It is not, however, proven that an experienced cosmetic surgeon is unlikely to puncture any internal organ; this line misleads the public to trust a group of surgeons classified together only by sake of their longevity. Liposuction power tools increase risk for organ punctures, as do surgeons who are careless and unskillful, no matter how many years they have been in the field, or what their credentials are. The risky procedures rely on a surgeon using their "blind hand" to guide the cannula -- organ and viscera puncture is a clear and serious complication of this surgery, the quantifier of leading people to believe that some type of certificate protects them is incorrect and seems biased, not neutral. Also, while technically the cannula is the instrument that punctures it is the surgeon who does the puncturing -- it's worng to use the passive voice in this case. Juliet Sabine (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Here´s what I would do: Remove "An experienced cosmetic surgeon is unlikely to puncture any internal organ." with an editsummary like "This is unsourced, but it also seems like WP:OR and sounds like a salespitch making a statement on human health" If someone reverts, try to talk about it, but I don´t think anyone will. And I see that the leadimage has changed. Pinging Juliet Sabine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I see one thing at Liposuction you can do if you like. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is meant to be a summary of the body of the article. Basically, nothing in the article should be only in the lead. You could move the bit about Dujarier from the lead to "History", or leave the lead as it is and expand on Dujarier in that section.

Thank you, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, for your help and the links to pages that will serve my edits. I just made the edits that we spoke of above -- we'll see what happens now. There is much to improve on this page. I'm taking it slowly. And, yes, the leadimage has been changed. I don't know if I'm doing the right thing by alternating our conversation indents back and fourth or not; If I keep indenting further, that allows less and less space on each line for text Juliet Sabine (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You´re welcome, Juliet Sabine. Indenting isn´t that important with just two people, but when multiple indenting becomes annoying you can always OUTDENT. One aspect of using indenting is that experienced wikipedians see it as professional and polite "good manners". Like all "cultures" we have a bunch of unspoken stuff (actually, much is written down somewhere, but where is impossible to know for a new arrival, learning by doing and asking is the way). Minor thing, you never need to "ping" someone on their own usertalkpage, the user get´s a notice just for the comment being made. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I just moved a shorter a portion of text and from the Recovery section to the WP:LEAD section of the Liposuction page. I'd like to make sure the source is cited correctly. I can't see to get the paragraph I want to open up by clicking on edit source. Can you help me? The source is cited once in the Recovery section at the end of this last paragraph: "The suctioned fat cells are permanently gone, however, the study done at University of Colorado Denver entitled, "Following Suction Lipectomy: Defense of Body Fat and Patterns of Restoration," found that fat came back for all participants after it was suctioned out; it took some time, but it all returned despite maintaining the previous diet and exercise regimen. At 1-year out, overall body fat returned to the same level as before treatment. While the fat returned somewhat to the treated area, most of the increased fat occurred in the abdominal area. Visceral fat - the fat surrounding the internal organs - increased, and this condition has been linked to multiple life-shortening diseases such as diabetes, stroke, and heart attack." Thank you! Juliet Sabine (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems a little moot now per [17] (but you know where the talkpage is). I think I agree with Jytdog here, the lead already states "Evidence does not support an effect on weight". As a crude rule of thumb, it´s often unnecessary to mention specific sources/studies in the lead. Actually, in a stable, well-developed article cites in lead are not mandatory per WP:LEADCITE, but Liposuction is not that, so don´t start removing them ;-). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Puck (A Midsummer Night's Dream), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Buckley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I have heeded the word of the robot overlord. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

RS (sax)

Thank you for the invitation. I'm tending to focus on Australian-related music, at the moment, and will be unable to participate.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I´ll ping you if I see anything suspicious at NG again... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, and thanks for asking! I don´t promise to start doing this quickly, muchly, or at all, but it could be interesting. And I do have at least 500 non-deleted mainspace edits. Should I apply per the tutorial-page? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yea go a head and apply for the permissions. No need to start out fast or slow, do as little or as much as you like. Even someone who runs through the new page feed sorting stubs or adding Wikiprojects is very valuable, and these are fairly easy jobs if you install the right scripts (see the Tutorial page)— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

For all the times you did not lose your patience and were kind and tried to help me as a new editor.

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For all your help on the Bible and violence article. I greatly appreciate it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

for working with someone so clueless all the way to the end. Thank you.

The Teamwork Barnstar

Thank you, Jenhawk! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Need help removing and replacing a picture

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I suggest removing the LEAD PHOTO from the Liposuction page that seems like WP:OR and a visual sales pitch as it doesn't show anything about liposuction. I suggest replacing it with the photo in the suture section of that page that shows the cannula inserted to what they say is 80%, which shows more of the process than a surgeon in goggles and scrubs. I don't know how to exchange pictures yet. Is this something you can help me with? Also on the breast reduction page, there are before and after photos that are promotional and misleading. I have taken a snapshot from a video of the procedure in process from that media section of that page and have it ready to replace the LEAD PHOTOS, but I also don't know how to do that. Thank you. Oh, I just this response!

Pictures are normally just [[File:imagename.jpg]] links (that are turned into an inline display by the software), but there's some amount of magic when templates (or the <gallery> tag) are involved. I agree the top one is promotional, the one you suggest is a bit graphic. I'll comment further on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems you got help on the liposuction talkpage, Juliet Sabine. I've never in my wikilife added an image I didn´t find on Wikimedia Commons, so I´m the wrong person to ask about new images. You can start at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Donating_your_photographs and/or Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. I do know, however, that WP is in most cases very very unwilling to use images that aren´t "free", that is, actually donated by the copyright owner or in the public domain. If you own the copyright to the video in question, such an image may be used (subject to the usual editorial consensus), otherwise I think wou´re wasting your time in the long run. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, when you copy power~enwiki's message like this (hyperlinks, date and all), it looks like they themself commented on this talkpage, this can lead to confusion (it confused me, I wanted to use "thank" on the view history-tab, and couldn't find their edit!). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, as always for the lessons that are adding up and helping me to navigate a bit on Wik. So sorry about the confusion with powrer-enwiki's message! It was late and I did it quickly, still very much learning how to nagative here. Juliet Sabine (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Pertinent info

I thought it possible you might be interested in knowing about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jytdog_Ban_breaking/request_of_Enforcement_and_further_actions

So when do you think removing those tags will be appropriate--I mean--I'm not too excited or anything--maybe just a little...  :-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I often check ANI as a source of WP-entertainment. Generally wouldn´t go there myself unless I received a legal threat or something. I remember once when Jytdog was accused of ethnical insensivity for using the phrase "that´s greek to me", that was fun.

Now, you seem to have this opinion that just because I, voluntarily, in a public forum, say that I will do something, I should actually do it!? Most unreasonable. Anyway, stay tuned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you agree?

Jytdog is removing everything I've written. Do you agree it's bad?Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Well Jenhawk777, that was a bit like an angry diety rising from a golden box, wasn´t it? Good job on keeping your cool, I do like it when people stay polite [18].

I don´t really know what to recommend, except time and patient editing/discussion. If you think it´s a good idea, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle you could certainly reinstate all or some of the sections removed. I know you've reached out to people and noticeboards for more input on several occasions, but the response has sadly been pretty lukewarm. A regretful fact of life on WP, people will edit what they damn well please when they damn well please (actually, that can be helpful as well). I wish Aleph would participate but I think he sort of burned out on Exodus awhile back. Who knows, maybe later. I think others are watching and maybe some will be spurred into action. You and Jytdog (again, apparently) are currently the ones who cares, for good and bad. I have some interest in the parts I find interesting, but when I find this area to bothersome I'll happily edit Lucifer (TV series) or Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump for a while and maybe come back later.

About the stuff currently under Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Moved_here_for_improvement. I find the "herem" bit rather interesting and on-topic, something like this should have a place in the article since there´s a lot of herem going on in it. My WP-radar asks "Who is Eric Siebert and why is he first in this?". Chamas and Shalom starts with long quotes from something, this is rarely good (and I noticed that "Non-violence and Shalom" as written is just one long quote). I have no knowledge about if the sources used are "to religous" or not. Jytdog may have a point or part of one, but here my ignorance kicks in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Since you questioned those parts, I removed them, and then replaced those sections on the page. Definitions should be there and should represent the source material on them. A definition will be a definition will be a definition no matter the source but I told him I will change to his dictionary if he prefers. It won't matter I'm sure. If he reverts them again after my trying to cooperate, I will attempt posting an Rfc, but it will only help if third parties actually show up. I don't know how long I can endure the bullying no matter how much I care, but I will try. An angry god indeed...  :-) One person showed up and asked 'Jytdog why are you so angry?' and after his response I doubt they will return. I know how they feel. And that's how he always gets his way. My sense of responsibility toward that is limited though.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article. Sidebars are not productive. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, if we wish to discuss article-content on my talkpage we will do so. If there is reason, it can be brought to the attention of the relevant talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course people can use user talk pages all kinds of ways. Sidebars held there about article content are generally not productive as they lead to false sense of consensus, formation of GANGs, and otherizing, especially when "social media" chatting gets mixed in. Further, things that get worked out there are not part of the article talk page history, making it hard to figure out where consensus was developed for people who come to the article later. But sure people are free to do that. I just asked that you discuss content at the article. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don´t think you have to worry about false sense of consensus in this particular case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Arne & Carlos

Hey Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Hate to seem persistent or annoying but just wanted to follow up regarding the discussion on Arne & Carlos' talk page. Once again, the article was originally a stub which I was tasked to update and now that the deletion review is over, I was hoping some of the changes on this draft could be implemented, or at the very least, have the article updated so it is no longer classified a stub. Please let me know if I provide you with anything to make this easier but your help would be much appreciated. Any advice would also be very helpful. Thank you. JacobMW (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello JacobMW, there´s no harm in asking. I understand your position, but this is not my normal area of interest I won´t promise to do anything right now. They seem like nice guys though, for some reason the image makes me think of Anders Jacobsson and Sören Olsson. One thing I remember from the deletion-discussion (they survived that, that´s something), was that they´re supposedly on "permanent display" at National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design. If you can find a good source for that (not their webpage), I think it´s worth adding. If you haven´t, consider also asking for help at the talkpage of the norwegian WP-article (check the article-history too, BTW, perhaps there´s active editors to ask), and/or some fitting noticeboard there, perhaps Torget. Small thing, you don´t need to ping an editor on their own talkpage. Good luck och God Jul! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being so kind and helpful! Appreciated. JacobMW (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Rfc

Will you vote? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC) Oh and--I did what you suggested. I posted it around. Thanx for the idea.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Bible and violence, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tamar and Gath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Again? Fixed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas, hope you're having a relaxing time during this period and that next year will be even better for us all here.★Trekker (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you *Treker, God Jul och Gott Nytt År to you too! No trouble from the DI-thugs I hope? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Nä, allt är bra. :) Tack.★Trekker (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Men då så. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Heddwch ac ewyllys da

		Compliments of the season Wishing you all the best for 2018 — good health, sufficient wealth, peace and contentment
		Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 18:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Gareth! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

request review

If you get a chance--I made those changes, and now also have a decent Hebrew source--can you take a look? Just skim!! [[19]] Then I can get moving on the new references. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It´s at Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Survey. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 01:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, PaleoNeonate, same to you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

attempt at closure

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Hi! I am responding to the note you put on the Bible and violence here instead of there because I am confused! You are asking for agreement that I should put that stuff back--but I already did! Was I supposed to do this first? Did I screw up? Should I quick go take it back out?!? I put out --like, a notice there, saying I was going to put it back based on the comments--that I had made all the changes everyone suggested and unless someone objected I was going to reinsert. I waited for a week or so, no one objected, so I did! It's there under Terms. Have you not looked at the article itself in awhile? Or am I misunderstanding? Is this about the headings I removed? I did that for Jytdog it was one of the things he criticized. I'm a little at sea here--help!Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 I swear I´m not drunk, but somehow I missed that it was back in the article. Embarrassed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hah! :-) Okay quick--go erase that so no one else will know! It comforts me to know someone as competent as you can make mistakes like I do! So thank you for that--I'm sure you did it on purpose just to boost my confidence here because you are so kind--right? :-) Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Erased it, but they will know since I pinged them :P But this explains why I couldn´t find the text in your sandbox any longer. That should have been a clue. Oh well, live and learn. Even the Sun has spots. And if your confidence rose as much as mine sank, you´re on amphetamines right now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

So you didn't read it for awhile--all that shows is you're not as OCD as I am. That's a virtue. To err is human--let yourself be human every now and then--otherwise I will start believing you are a robot--and then I'll know I'm inferior.  :-) Hey do me a favor and send Alephb that video of Jean Luc and singing "make it so" will you? I used it on the talk page with him and he needs to hear it. He so deserved it too! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Besides--how many mistakes of mine have you caught by now? You don't bust a gut--you just tell me to fix it. Treat yourself as well as you treat others--please. You deserve that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:52, 11 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:[20]. The goal is to make a better article than at Conservapedia: [21]. 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)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33

Well, there´s a first. Coffee, which edit/edits of mine prompted you to leave this alert? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, guessing from your recent edithistory, something of a carpet-bombing kind of thing? Or more directed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll notice in the message this doesn't mean you've done anything wrong, it is only because you have edited in the topic area and need to be aware of these. (But, yes... a carpet-bombing strategy of sorts to make sure no one is left out... I have to do this every once in a while.) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Good enough. I did notice that, I was aware of the DS and have seen these messages before (but not on my talkpage!!!). However, since I edit in the area from time to time, it still reads like I did something now that made you feel you had to warn me. Wikipedians can be subtle and quick to anger (you probably know that). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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 [22]. 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 [23] 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)

Tom Cable

I have removed any references to the name of the Wikipedia account which is alleged to be Cable's wife, including links to off-wiki sites which include the same information. Such references, including links to off-wiki pages which include the personal information of an editor who hasn't disclosed it on-wiki, are violations of the outing and harassment policies. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

While I understand the aspect of the username-thing, suppressing links to reliable sources like The Wall Street Journal even in talkpage-discussions seems against the spirit of WP to me. Oh well, it´s a somewhat complex situation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Outing is something which generally gets a strong strong reaction as can have the effect of severely chilling the editing environment for everyone. So, generally (there are exceptions), any page or link which connects a Wikipedia editor with an identity will be removed and suppressed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I´m good with that when it´s blogs, forums , Daily Mail and whatever. In the WSJ case? Seems wrong to me. Not using it per UNDUE is a valid position, but redacting the links themselves is just weird. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, you may note that I removed the username from the article myself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

However, the requirement is that editors are not linked to an identity unless they do it themselves. Given that, it doesn't matter which page is being linked to, the content of the page matters. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Still weird, principles clash. In this particular case there was also a sort-of off-WP disclosure in sources.

However, for completeness sake, there's still "This article has been mentioned by a media organization" and Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018. If we're going dark, let's go dark. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Callanecc!. I have, again, found a couple of news (broadly speaking) articles linking a username to a person, that I am considering adding to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018 (they are "press" but not BLP-acceptable). So, my question is, does this ES [24] fulfil the OUTING requirement in our old discussion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit of an unclear area that is best to avoid - while the user identifies herself by a name it's not necessarily specifically as a person. In any case, WP:BLP applies everywhere not just to articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:55, 6 December 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)

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)

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: [25]. 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[26]. 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 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)

help please

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

Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! There are other wikis out there – Wikipedia is just one of them.

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 [27] 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)

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! [28] 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)

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)

Precious

humor and the bible

Thank you for quality article The Bible and humor, for adding precision with excellent edit summaries, for demanding better sources and adding them, for "Thanks for a good laugh" and "We shall make WP even greater!!" - Brian from Sweden, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Brian..? Ok, I think I get it. Thank you, kind stalker! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we put it in quotation marks? - GA (my initials) are for Good article, - go for it. Look at Psalm 84 which recently made it (especially the longish review). I guess a few more sources wouldn't hurt, and - if there - a few more images, - first impression. From the cabal of the outcasts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

ps: did you see any hint at humor/irony regarding that psalm? At least one comment says that it was all written when the temple was destroyed, so praising the courts of the Lord is bitter irony. - I may go for FA eventually, but not for the next weeks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Well, I say so on my userpage (damn you dig up stuff), so I can only blame myself. Thanks again! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Never read it before, but I guess you could read it that way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1912 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2019 (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[29]). 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.[30]. 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 [31], 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: [32]. 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 [33] 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" [34] my focus was that it should be something that could be accepted per WP:GNG. The next day, when it looked like this [35], 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)

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: [36] 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)

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)

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)

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 [37] 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)

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)

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)

In other news

I am shamed in the face of Neil Gaiman [38]. 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)

FA nomination

Now underway for Biblical criticism. Wish me luck! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely! Based on the previous discussions, you'll need it! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ouch! Thanx for the confidence! Having a bad day?! Go write something nice!  :-) Puppy is growling... Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant because of the process, not your eminent self, Jenhawk777. But fine, if you don't want it, I'll take it back. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It was ambiguous enough I thought I could get away with giving you a bad time about it as though that was what you had meant. It was just a little teasing. I didn't mean to upset you. The process is terrifically picky--but it's legitimate about me as well--I think I am not detail oriented enough for this. Having to be sure all the isbn's are in the same format and all the references have all the same information--it's batty! It's not about content as near as I can tell. And of course you are absolutely right--I need all the luck I can get. So far no one has made a single comment on it. Nominations do die from lack of interest. I'd rather go down trying though I guess. Don't be upset with me, okay? I was just playing with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm still upset from the Neil Gaiman-thing above... ;-)

Don't be too blue--it was someone else's work he was unhappy with. If he's not actually a Wikipedean--which he clearly isn't--he would never think to check who started the article. You are still incognito with him I think. You could show up and fix it and take the credit though! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

And now I'm accused of Copyright infringement!! Don't be surprised if I go OT on something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Your stars are clearly misaligned--the universe is definitely out to get you. I have never before seen anything but well-deserved praise and admiration of you posted anywhere! This is bizarre! Well, if it counts for anything, those of us who actually know you and have worked with you know this is all BS and still admire and appreciate you. For me--this is actually kind of nice--since it means you can understand a little better what it has been like for me--because after all, it is all about me. LOL! That's a joke. :-) I am not rejoicing at your misfortune--honestly--this is by way of saying I can totally relate and know that it's very difficult to prove you did not intend something. Even with diffs. You will come out the other side of this--just like you helped me to do--because the reality is you are a really good person and a good Wikipedian. Answer as you must and trust that things will naturally rebalance themselves at some point.

But that isn't what I came to talk about! Someone finally showed up at FAC Biblical criticism!! They have comments on images--at which I suck! Four of them need those US PD tags you figured out how to do--so can you explain it to me so I can go do that and fool them into thinking I know what I'm doing? The other comments on images I haven't a clue about! I'm trying not to panic! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Grabergs where are you?? I need you!! Well handled below by the way--very sophisticated and not OT at all!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Jenhawk. I'll take a look tomorrow, time for bed, soonish. Misaligned stars can be realigned with a long enough lever, and to quote General Melchett, if nothing else works, a total, pig-headed, refusal to face facts will see us through. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

And BTW, pinging someone at their own talkpage has no effect, just writing there gives a "ping" in itself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Well jumping up and down and screaming wasn't working. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Also a good one: When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I did a little on the images, hopefully the other stuff will sort itself out, probably dead easy when you know how. What you need is a go-to-person who is a genius at Commons, sadly I don't have one (but I have one for Australian music, and one for Shakespeare). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Good to know! I can quote Shakespeare reasonably well, but by no means at the genius level! And I have an Australian friend that makes music--but that's the extent of my knowledge there--so nowhere in the same universe as genius! I posted the question at the Teahouse and they posted an info page at my talk page--which did not directly address any of my issues. I knew someone had gone and added tags--how does one do that by the way--or where can I find some instruction? If you know--see--you are my genius. :-) I thought it was Gerda since she posted there--and I did some too--so who knows if too many cooks spoiled the pictures or not. I guess the reviewer will answer at some point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

From the first episode of Lovejoy:

"You forgot your meat yesterday." "Ah! Now the winter of our discontent is made glorious summer by this loin of pork." The Bard, like a certain Book, pops up everywhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I loved Lovejoy! One of the best things ever on TV. Ian McShane is a brilliant actor and one of the most underappreciated out there. He should have won every award possible for his work on "Deadwood."

I love that you can quote Shakespeare back to me. You rock. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You are so right, the only better Ian was Ian Richardson. And I haven't even seen Deadwood... I guess I must. He was great (of course) in a West Wing episode, can't find anything on YT but I found this [39]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Before making that call on superiority, you should see his performance in Deadwood. He was astounding. Be prepared for mucho foul language! That may be what put some off--I am still upset he didn't get more awards. His character in Deadwood is complex--does Shakespearean soliloquies for heaven's sakes--even talks to a skull in the first season! McShane acted out passing a kidney stone in the third season--absolutely believable--thought he would give himself a heart attack! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll watch a few Deadwood, you watch a few House of Cards (UK TV series). And get ready to hear Shakespeare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, several minor actors in Lovejoy turn up in HoC. Also in Jeeves and Wooster. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I have looked everywhere and can't find it. We get every tv channel known to man, I thought; we get BBC America and Netflix and Amazon Prime--all of which should have that show somewhere--but right now, it's nowhere to be found. Is it old? My husband and I love Brit tv--but not the comedy so much--comedy doesn't travel all that well apparently. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind! Found it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777. Saw the discussions at the Teahouse and BC, but haven't so far come up with anything constructive to add, sorry. But over to the important stuff, I've now seen Deadwood. Good bordering on unpleasant (Hell on Wheels (TV series) was pretty good too, but haven't seen all of it), I got the impression that they were never sure about continuation, all seasons ended so cliffhager-less. Calamity Jane wasn't totally unlike what I remember from Calamity Jane (Lucky Luke). Similar language, though in the comic it is of course in "grawlixes". Still think Francis Urquhart is a more enjoyable villain. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It's okay. I can't think of anything constructive to add either. That is a perfect description of Deadwood! Good bordering on unpleasant--I did warn you! Language was overkill I thought. Still, Ian McShane was brilliant though don't you think? Thank you for this. A normal ordinary conversation is quite lovely. I appreciate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure he was (but IMO even better in Kings), also Jane and Wu, who I feel made the most of "cocksuckers!". I watched this without subtitles, and some of the english was a little unclear to me (not Ian's, of course). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course not Ian's! Watching without subtitles--you know I use subtitles when I watch British tv?  :-) I don't know exactly how great actors do what they do, but it sure is impressive at times. Speaking of impressive, the discussion at the tea party closed out with an apology from the big dog, then he went and struck the things he had posted on my talk page and apologized again. Pretty impressive of him I would say. I tried to be gracious. :-) It was not my intent to cause him trouble-. All is now forgiven as far as I am concerned. Perhaps that chapter of my Wikipedia career will now close forever! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

O_O Wow, that was unexpected. Dammit, I saw that thing in the history, thought "huh, couldn't he wait a few hours for her to get a ref?", but it didn't occur to me that Jytdog didn't read it that way. Many of us use ref/cite/source pretty interchangably in discussions/edit summaries (at least I do), I guess that didn't occur to him at the time. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources: "A citation, also called a reference,[1]..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

And speaking of British TV, this is one of my favorite classics:[40] Also, try to watch "Enemies Foreign and Domestic" for obvious reasons:[41] I think he's alluding to a meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that! I just went ahead and apologized for being too ignorant to know the difference. He would not have had to wait hours either--I was going for the ref--I mean citation :-) --immediately. But I don't think actually putting it there would have made any difference at the time. He was mad. I had the audacity to revert HIM! And as we know from my bravery barnstar--that kind of move is so like me! Well, this time it worked out. Being in a public forum instead of a private one made the difference I think. I have since offered to have him remove the paragraph he finds inadequate and let him rewrite it as he sees fit. That way it won't add length or make it seem as though the Jews get more attention in the article than anyone else, which is a lot of what I was worried about. It's already so freaking long!! Maybe this will be sufficient. We'll see I guess! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Since you know about the Bard, you may enjoy these quotes too:[42]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Upstart Crows must have been hilarious! I think I will use these! If you ever see me write "I am Puck!" you'll know why! I was also impressed with your correspondent: I think it's something about the culture, and possibly the kind of people the task attracts, that leads too many of them into some kind of "I'm the last line of defence before armageddon" mindset. Pity that, because as you said the job is important and many (probably most, even, but I'm not in a charitable mood :)) are just quietly getting on with it. But the bad apples do a lot of damage, particularly in scaring away new editors. So--I am not the only one! I loved User:Xover! Gerda says most conflicts here are caused by simple misunderstandings. I will keep that in mind too--but once they have dug in--proving that becomes a huge effort. At any rate, I will be referencing FSNEP for the rest of my life now!

Hm, if I get a chance I might make a comment at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard about treating the FSNEP-community fairly. And yes, Xover is one of the great Wikipedians. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha! That would be hilarious! Sign me up! Hey--could you introduce me to Xover? Is that weird?  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, Xover. Xover, Jenhawk777. She enjoys the small, simple things, like turning Biblical Criticism into a Featured Article. Also Shakespeare and Star Trek. Luckily for us all, the two have been known to overlap. Xover is a selfidentified gretten gammel mann. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Well who doesn't love grumpy old men anyway? They are mostly good hearted people who just get tired of the world beating them over the head for it! I love Gråbergs and he respects you and I was impressed by your insight (quoted above) and just wanted to say hi. It's nice to meet someone else willing--on occasion--to stand firm against the nonsense. Humor and good will and the occasional flash of intelligence are what I value here! I hope we will have the opportunity to get to know each other better as time goes by. Thank you Gråbergs! Vote for FSNEP! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Christ on a crutch! Lit.crit. and theology?!? You must have an extraordinary constitution: my eyes glaze over halfway through the colophon in either field. In any case, very nice to meet you Jenhawk777! Nobody with The Bookworm on their user pages can be anything but splendid people!
But despite Gråberg's subtle, but far too kind, compliments, I'm mostly just the resident grump. I know a little bit about Shakespeare (historiography and biography mostly) and related topics, and have some passing familiarity with Commons, but am always happy to help out when I can (never hesitate to ping me if you think I can help in any way). Oh, and when you're out dumping buckets of blue paint over innocent defenceless women (very strange hobby, but, hey, I don't judge), if you should happen across one specializing in feminist/gender/queer-theory approaches to Shakespeare… I really rather desperately need some help in that department. For some "unfathomable" reason our play articles are a little sparse on coverage of those. --Xover (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Colophon, colophon... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No, avoid Wiktionary for this. The Colophon these days usually appears in the front of the book (not the end as it claims), sometimes even before the title. Similarly for newspapers, magazines, and journals: the colophon typically appears on the inside front cover, or in the front matter preceding the table of contents (and says stuff like "Set in Comic Sans using Adobe InDesign" etc., around where they tell you who the editor in chief is). I've worked bit with books as old as 16th-century and can't, off the top of my head, recall a single instance of a rear-matter colophon. I'm sure they exist, and may even be the norm for all I know, but in my small sample size I can't think of a single one. You need to go back to mediæval manuscripts, exemplum, illuminations, that kind of thing, for a rear-matter colophon to be the norm. --Xover (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course I've seen those, but I never knew they had a fancy greek name. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Everything has a Greek name, but it's only fancy because it's in Greek. Useful, though, in the extremely few instances it's relevant. --Xover (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I just learned that Shakespeare invented french women.[43] Long version:[44] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear! And I'll bet he didn't use the phrase as synonymous with kickie-wickie either! I'll bet it meant something else! That was hilarious! I love Shakespeare. I don't understand people who don't. Just the Greek I guess... :-) So Xover, yes, I do philosophy, religion and literature on occasion, because my real love was the study of ethics, and there is nothing that examines human moral conflict better than its stories. It's one of the reasons I so admire the Bard--he understood human psychology--especially moral psychology--before there was a field of scholars telling us all how crazy we are. Shakespeare knew! But see above--where you are talking about publishing--that was Greek to me. I have some depth of knowledge in my field--and am a real ignoramus in others! I know nothing of programming! Which definitely creates some problems here on occasion.

I am attempting to do my bit to dump blue paint where I can!

Yes, the Bookworm is one of my favorite paintings. I have a copy hanging by my desk. I like paintings that reveal things about human nature--therefore I am also a big fan of Rembrandt--but the bookworm tops my list. I am so glad to find another fan of it! I recognize the beauty in the light of the impressionists, but I love the darkness in Rembrandt. The man in the golden helmet is my favorite work of his I think--the image of long-suffering. It makes me weep just to look at it!

I will go looking for some alternate views of Shakespeare, but what I would find would be sources probably--not people. Does that work? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, and somewhat apropos, Shakespearean coinage, that. It's from All's Well That Ends Well in act 2, scene 3. It's from Parolles, a braggart soldier with a dirty mind, who is arguing that Bertram, his master, should go off to war rather than stay at home with his new-wed wife:

“

He wears his honor in a box unseen
That hugs his kicky-wicky here at home,
Spending his manly marrow in her arms
Which should sustain the bound and high curvet [curvet = "leap"]
Of Mars’s fiery steed. To other regions!

”

There's loads to unpack in there too. Honour and marrow connote the essence of a manly man, and Mars is, of course, the god of war. So staying home with your wife is portrayed as the alternative to being a manly man (going off to war). But box is also Elizabethan slang for a woman's vagina; the manly marrow is slang for a man's ejaculate; and spending oneself is the act of ejaculating. In other words, in the subtext here Parolles tips over the line from mere sexism and gender stereotypes into full on misogyny: to stay home and consummate the marriage means wasting the essence and energy of manliness that should have sustained Bertram in the war. He should be off enjoying the spoils of war, and spending his marrow in "other regions" (warfare then was even more Not Nice™ than now), instead of making love to his wife at home in an unmanly way. JSTOR has about 12 articles that cite this speech: I'm pretty sure I could write a standalone article about just these five lines!

References

And, yes, my fascination with Shakespeare partly revolves around his uncanny ability to formulate a theory of mind for all manner of character. It's why, I think, his characters have such depth to them, even the ridiculous ones (the Porter, Dogberry, etc.). Even for a case like Iago, where scholars and critics are still arguing what his motivations were, it is abundantly clear that Shakespeare knew exactly what drives Iago: it's just everyone else that hasn't figured it out yet.

In the visual arts I'm more partial to the Pre-Raphaelites; Millais and Ford Madox Brown in particular. Rembrandt is mostly too dark for my tastes (like Fuseli), though the man in the golden helmet is rather spectacular. But have you noticed that his self-portraits tend to be better lit than his other portraits? There's some nice psychoanalysis at a distance to be done there I think. In any case, the Spitzweg exhibits the same insight that we just lauded in Shakespeare and Rembrandt, albeit with a humorous expression. It just hits my self-image so well on so many points, on days I'm feeling charitable towards myself. :) But the visual arts are not my field, so I'm more at the "Oooh, that looks pretty!"-level of art appreciation.

Thanks for offering to look into sources on Shakespeare lit.crit. lenses, and I'll take any help I can get in that department, but I'm mainly fishing for someone with an interest in that field that I can go to ask for pointers to seminal studies or surveys when I'm working on a particular play. For instance, a while back I was embroiled in an edit war over the "Feminism" section in The Tempest and had need to quickly dif up a couple of good overviews to summarize and cite. But having essentially zero familiarity with those critical approaches, I ran into a brick wall trying to search for something. In any case, if you should run across a literature major specializing in feminist/gender/queer-theory and an interest in Shakespeare or Elizajacobean literature, I would appreciate a hint! --Xover (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What a lovely response! Thank you. I agree--if there's a subtext in Shakespeare--which there almost always is--it's almost always about sex! There are shallow people in Shakespeare--but there are no shallow characters. He is like Picasso in my thinking. He can communicate a whole world in a sketch of a few lines--it doesn't have to be a fully developed painting. In those instances, the things he doesn't say carry as much weight as the things he does. It's like the Bible to me in that you can study it (the Shakespeare oeuvre) your whole life and still find new things in it the next time you read.

'Oooh that looks pretty' is actually the best response to art there is! Even when we can't explain why it appeals to us, the fact it does appeal--and that we ever contemplate why--is part of why art exists in the first place. Art is a way to communicate our own feelings about the world we live in--and ourselves --after all. The artist always ends up in his art. And I include Shakespeare in that generalized term 'art.' Rembrandt's self-portraits (what's up with how many there are???) are lighter than his other paintings! Maybe he wasn't a 'dark' person, he just saw the dark in life. That would be me too. See--just like you--it hits my self-image right where I live. And it's pretty. :-)

I will keep my eyes open for someone who might be interested in that area. Chances are not high! It's been a lovely chat, thank you--now for that coffee! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 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). —PaleoNeonate – 22:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Just adding: Breitbart is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 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 [45] is the supposed copysource, correct? I'm not sure what it is, actually, but it says "Published on Oct 18, 2017".

This [46] 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] —PaleoNeonate – 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)

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)

Wilensky

Fika it is.

OMG! Can I steal that quote?! I love it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I stole it from Stephen Fry and I doubt he'll mind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Do me a favour; print the quote here, please. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 09:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones, long time no see. It's on my userpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones, you may want to see this:Talk:The_Bible_and_humor#Humor/Humour. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Great observation. Oh, so true. Wishing both of you a lovely weekend. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 11:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Haha! Hi Gareth! Nice to meet you! You are the second nice new person I have met here on Grabergs talk page. It's becoming my local hangout--now if he'd just offer good coffee... I think that's the greatest quote I have ever read! I may have it made into a plaque! And thank goodness it doesn't require British spelling! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

As long as you do not mean this plaque.
I have been conversing with our charming host for several years, since 2012 I believe. Keep safe. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 15:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

As immortalized in item 4 on this talkpage. Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Gareth I'll have you know I just had my teeth cleaned! LOL!! Grabergs is the best--with or without coffee. I have been on WP a little over a year and so far it's been a bit of a wild ride for me. I am thankful for the wonderful people here who far outnumber the others. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, ha! Gotcha! One language and so far apart. Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 18:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"There even are places, where English completely disappears... In America, they haven't used it for years..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A little ado about mostly nothing

Jenhawk777, I learned at List_of_VeggieTales_videos#King_George_and_the_Ducky_(2000) that Bathsheba has been reimagined as a rubber ducky. Sort of changes how you look at [47], doesn't it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You kill me. You absolutely kill me. I adore you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have had some local weather, I hope everything is alright with you and yours. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Only a little hurricane. Much ado about mostly nothing. Thank you for asking. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Mmm. Hurricane Florence upgraded to a Category 4 Storm as Hurricane Gordon moves inland. When will it reach you? Cheers!, Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 09:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Living on the Gulf of Mexico means keeping an eye on the weather during hurricane season, that's for sure. It sounds so banal--hurricane season--like watermelon season, or football season or something--not at all banal when they hit though. We are about 45 minutes inland and not right on the water thank goodness. Hurricanes have a tendency to wipe all the ground next to the water completely clean--of everything. Biloxi is still rebuilding from damage done ten years ago. It used to be the only place in the US that could boast of no natural disasters was Hawaii, but with the volcano erupting, there's nowhere left! Disasters happen everywhere! I guess we will all have to move to Wales! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Jenny I have replied to this on my Talk (did not ping) Cheers!, Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 14:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

shoot me now

It turns out this time that Jytdog was in the right about that stuff fitting better in Historical Jesus. I am eating crow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, humility is good for the soul according to some philosophies. That's one of the recurring things about Jytdog, he's often right regarding content/what WP:s approach to it should be. Another is that when other strongminded/convinced/whatever editors come in contact with him, sparks and fur will occasionly fly. IMO, he is trying to keep that in check, but edits an awful lot in difficult areas and stuff happens. The current ANI is quite typical, and what I see in it are also some stunningly old grudges.

As for BC, you wrote 79,3% of the current text in it (and did you notice it's a really long article?) and GA:d it, so you are the master builder and Jytdog is a really forceful interior decorator. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't keep a watch on the ANI board so I don't know what's going on. It seems like he is always involved in some ANI or another--but I will learn from that--no grudges. None at all at any time for any reason. I tried being philosophical, then using humor--and lastly--I will just pretend to be a grown-up. (humor) I think that is working for me. I honestly do not harbor any bad feelings toward him, and I honestly do respect him--enough I considered his position and changed mine accordingly. I felt for awhile that there were hard feelings from him, toward me, but I think we are getting past that now as well. Perhaps now that he is seeing more of what I write--and now that I am getting more experience here--his initial opinion of me is modifying a little. Maybe. I hope. And you're right of course--a little occasional humiliation is good for the superego... or soul...as the case may be. I like the analogy! A really forceful decorator! That's brilliant! I've had a decorator or two I should not have listened to! Jytdog is not one of them. I think I will learn to ask more questions and take more time to review everything before responding to him in the future. I think I have too much of a knee-jerk reaction to him because of how we started off. I need to get over that and deal with him differently. This last confrontation was my fault. I've apologized--I hope he will not hold it against me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Cultural depictions of Belshazzar) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cultural depictions of Belshazzar, Gråbergs Gråa Sång!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Congratulations on this well-written and well-referenced article.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I Am the Very Model of a Biblical Philologist

Jenhawk777JytdogAlephb, you have to see this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I am still laughing. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Uproarious. Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 14:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

And if any of you have any brilliant (and well-sourced) ideas for The_Bible_and_humor#The_Bible_as_material, that would be great. Modern stuff sure, but right now there's a 400-year hole in it. I googled Gilbert and Sullivan, but the result was weak. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The Philistines were Canadian! Who knew? That was hilarious! OMG! Thank you! I needed that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This [48] was pretty funny too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That's hilarious! Alephb (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

You know, I just wanted to come and say how much I appreciate you. The longer I am here, the more I do so. When I get off into the ether, you always call me on it. But you do so with the expectation that I will fix it--that I will want to. You treat me with respect, assume I want to do a good job, and am capable of NPOV--after I get a handle on my enthusiasm over some new book or author. :-) You recognize my weaknesses, but it doesn't make you blind to my strengths. You seem to trust me to do the right thing in the end, no matter where I might start, and I never want to let you down because of it. You never denigrate and often directly help. If there were some way to really effectively say how wonderful it is to be on the receiving end of all of this, I would send up fireworks, bless all your descendants, hire a plane to write it in the sky, anything that would actually accomplish saying how wonderful I think you are. A barnstar is entirely inadequate. There are no barnstars that communicate all you are and do. You make Wikipedia better. You certainly make everything better for me. Thank you for hanging in there with me--even when I go off the rails. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Jenhawk. Compared to many others I'm a quite lazy editor, but try to help within my ability when I can be arsed to. So hang in there, WP is VAST. Your presence on WP has certainly prodded me to do stuff I never tried before, and I've done more and better because of it.

Speaking of blind, do you find it funny that we edited The Bible and humor for weeks but never talked about adding the opinion of a comedian? And I confess to Pythonism on my userpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha! I do find it funny--but I find most of us funny in one way or another.  :-) Well that would be me and my funniness--always with my nose in a book! The whole smell the roses thing only applies to me if the roses are in a scented book! I never even look at Youtube unless you send me something! I have never noticed laziness on your part--although, hey wait a minute... you did let me do much of humor... no even that doesn't count--that was a gift. Nope sorry, I am completely blind to any flaws you might have. :-) I am not required to have a NPOV about that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

More Bible

Jytdog/Jenhawk777, incase any of you are looking for more Bible-articles, I added three more to the Bible sidebar: [49]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Somewhere down the road I may jump in on sex in the Bible since I am doing a ton of research on it for ethics. It's actually a pretty fascinating subject. Right now I am stuck in reference Hell on BC. I was clearly a very bad person in a former life... Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Also that article does a really bad job on the topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Well you know I'm a sucker for cleaning up bad articles--when I am not creating my own. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

To complete the theme of Sex & Drugs & Rocknroll, we should also have The Bible and Music (though we do have History of music in the biblical period). Anyway, I guess I'll add some images of naked ladies to the article, and then expect you to write some text to them, that has worked for me before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

That approach has gotten me in trouble before! But you always make me smile. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, worked for me ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I tried sex on a bible once. It was just kinda lumpy and uncomfort- oooooooh, sex IN the bible. Nevermind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

God I love a man with a sense of humor. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

the thanks you just sent me

Would you care to step in? The newbie seems dead set on edit warring, and apparently doesn't know the difference between teleology and theology, so... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this for Grabergs or me? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I hardly either, so... :/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

But it was done anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Bummed

It looks like the FAC of Biblical criticism is going to fail because of some wrong page numbers and stuff in references. I am bummed. I will not renominate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That does indeed suck. Real mother of a topic though, and you did get the GA. FA-badge or not, the article has greatly improved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It is better than it was when I started on it, that's for sure. Making sure that over 150 references are all capitalized the same, and all use the 13 digit isbn, and are all readily accessible and so on is just more detail oriented than I actually am. I found it debilitating. I needed Aleph. Ah well. Such is life on Wikipedia.Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for your recent help at the teahouse, re. my press coverage question! I appreciate it! SunnyBoi (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

 Swarm  talk  23:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

If you're in need of a project...

…Hamlet in popular culture desperately needs a cite for each entry, and quite probably also a pruning. I don't mind these articles that are specifically about cultural references amassing trivia (it's a great safety valve keeping that stuff out of the main Hamlet article), but they do need to get cleaned up now and again (and the maint. tags are cluttering up my "to fix" list). In any case, no obligation and certainly no rush; I just didn't feel like taking it on and figured it might be right up your alley. If you do decide to have a go at it, feel free to ping me if you need me to look something up in the Shakespeare literature (or any other reason, of course). --Xover (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Xover, I'll take a look. If you like, take look at Othello in popular culture and find a cite that the rose was actually named after that Othello, I gbooked but only found some "closed" books, and the fact that Othello and Shakespeare are rose-names. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. It looks self-evident that a rose hybrid created in 1986 is named for Shakespeare's character rather than any of its precursors or the modern derivates (the board game etc.), and there are plenty of databases that make the connection, but I cannot find any high quality reliable source that discusses it. I'd say for … in popular culture we can use it uncited as the image caption, but in the main article that would be problematic (and at FAC it would probably be challenged). The only option I can see would be to contact David C.H. Austin and ask him to email WP:OTRS with a statement to the effect that it was named for the play. He's 92, but his sons might be willing to help if he's retired. (addendum: the option to email OTRS for this stuff seems to have disappeared on me. I've raised it at WT:OTRS, but it might no longer be an option, sadly. ) --Xover (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably true, but I was annoyed that I couldn't find a cite. I think at least Othello in popular culture should perhaps be renamed "Othello in art and culture/Cultural depictions of Othello", significant portions fall outside popcult IMO. Perhaps the Hamlet one too, when I'm done with it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"Some might compare it to a Saturday Night Live approach to Shakespeare." These are my people! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Xover, ok, so far I've done plays and films. One thing: in the Star Trek section, I'm guessing I've wikilinked The Washington Shakespeare Company correctly, buy I'm not 100% on that. If you think it's wrong, please correct. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Xover, I fully expect to finish this year. I haven't found an A Christmas Carol/Hamlet cite I like, but I'm sure there are plenty. Take a look, if you feel like it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Xover (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That's the Dickens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way

Any time you see something start with Lorem ipsum, it's generally automatically generated filler text. GMG^talk 14:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Vivere et discere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.

I "read around" a lot on Wikipedia Talk Pages, and get a good whiff of some of the drama, etc... and also that some people seem to resent being "talked to" on their Talk Pages, and it is for this reason I am posting. 1) I want to thank you for you post on the "Emperor" (movie) Discussion page and 2) Want to give you explicit permission (with gratitude in advance) to "stalk" me, follow me around, monitor, surveil and make whatever comments you would like, wherever you would like to make them. One thing I've learned here is that the "bureaucracy" is so complex that no one is going to learn anything without a whole lot of handholding. I see you (and others) as a valuable resource and would like to "green light" whatever involvement you might want to do.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to my talkpage! I appreciate that (WP-drama can be a great spectator-sport BTW, you may find Wikipedia:Dashboard helpful). Since I noticed you at the Teahouse, I've thought on occasion "I wonder if that guy stuck around" and so "stalked" you a little, hopefully in a non-creepy way.

The thing about WP is that small, simple stuff is easy, but when you get into certain topics that has seen a lot of fighting, things can seem hostile, and only time and patience will give you a feel for what can be done in what area. Anything connected to US-politics, for example, or anything related to human health. Israel-Palestine. SAQ. What one needs to enjoy WP in the long run, IMO, is some passion for writing the WP-way, and not to have a narrow focus but edit widely.

I will watch that film at some point, and if you want to join in and add decent cites to/weed out Hamlet in popular culture, feel free! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

Gråbergs Gråa SångThank you for the thoughful edits on [[William Farrar (settler). I am very happy that you caught the problems. One question though, You deleted, with ability to revert, this phrase William Farrar was first granted 100 acres on the Appomattox River, Charles City County, Virginia about three miles from where it flows into the James River. Listed in the minutes of the Virginia Company, May 1625: "Land laid out for ye Company below Shirley Hundred land: Wm. ffarrar uppon Appomatucke River 10.

Your reason was valid, the mention of 100 acres was repetitive, however there was addditional information that doesn't show up in the first mention and I can't figure out how to insert it, but certainly it was repetitive. Very appreciative of your good will and workOldperson (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Oldperson, I reinserted that bit [50], move/trim it to your liking. Small thing, you never have to "ping" someone at their own talkpage, they get a "redlight" anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you but you were correct. Now that I see it, the mention of 100 acres is redundant and it irks me, I just don't know how to clean it up. The author is not a very good editor of his own works. There is information there I think should be left in, but it needs rewording. Another subject. The notice at the top. The project reads like a family history project. I do not think that it does anymore. If so could you inform me of why and maybe what needs to be done. If not could you please remove the notice?Thanks15:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs)

Theroadislong, you added the banner, opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What is a banner.? Where was it added? So much to learn, so little timeOldperson (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The Reads like a family history project template message thing, added here [51]. Gone now, I see. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 08:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you MarnetteD, God Jul and iechyd a lwc dda i chi ac yn eich blwyddyn annwyl nesaf! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Gwin poeth sbeislyd i chi ...

... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi! That is Welsh and translates to: Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019! Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia. Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you and back at ya Gareth Griffith-Jones! Have some glögg in return. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I like Ray's Rules. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

So do I. On vacation, - see pic for January ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you one of those people? Or holding the camera? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

People? I don't see any people on the January pic. Wiesbaden: I took it. Idstein: I am on it, above the conductor's arm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Angola

Could you add the reference in the Angola article please? 22:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you 50.68.237.196 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi 50.68, it (the vote) seems to be well covered in the article now. It's a very new development, so more sources may appear later on.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you email me

- from my user page would be the easiest. Nothing serious, but better discussed in private. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Greensborough College

Hi, I apologize I have forced my edit on Greensborough College after a conflict with your work, because my change was a bit broader than yours. However, that caused restoring the {{refimprove}} template to the article. Please verify if this is correct, and remove it again if not necessary anymore. --CiaPan (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, now I can see you have added the template, not removed. I must have mis-read the ec-diff report. Please ignore the irrelevant comment above. CiaPan (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

CiaPan, seems we were both in tune with the WP-hivemind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Tefillin

Isn't this covered by MOS:FOREIGNITALIC as a non-English term? Editor2020 (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Editor2020, interesting. I'm looking at Tallit and Tzitzit to have something to compare with. "Wikipedia uses italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English." or "Loanwords and borrowed phrases that have common usage in English – Gestapo, samurai, vice versa – do not require italics. A rule of thumb is not to italicize words that appear unitalicized in general-purpose English-language dictionaries." And do those apply to titles anyway? I have no firm opinion, do as you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I think MOS:ITAL hints that they shouldn't be italized in titles, since it separates "Titles" and "Foreign words". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

AHA! Loanwords or phrases that have been assimilated into and have common use in English, such as praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., and i.e., do not require italicization. Likewise, musical movement titles, tempo markings, or terms like minuet and trio, are in normal upright font. If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Tefillin has definitely not been assimilated. So the question is "Should article titles be italicised"? Editor2020 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Per the rule of thumb at MOS:FOREIGNITALIC it has. I'm not saying it's a very good rule, but at least it's easy to follow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, alright then. Editor2020 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Not that hard

That shouldn't be that hard. I am a reasonable fellow. Debresser (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

 ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Lol. See here. Debresser (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... Nah, WP:USERG. Though perhaps we should consider the posters experts on the topic? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF might be of help here, too. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in complementary and alternative medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Natureium (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheeky, cheeky little Antichrist

Alex 21, ZarhanFastfire, something while we wait for the next season of Lucifer: [52] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Daniella van Graas

We have done a 5X expansion. I intend to submit a WP:DYK. I will include all the contributors. Any suggestions for a hook? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Obama Birth Certificate

I will be removing the word "falsely" again in the introductory sentence to the Obama Birth Certificate Conspiracy Theory page. Despite Obama producing his Birth Certificate documentation (I believe he was born in the US) there is no way to know for sure that he was born in the US. Therefore, it is not a matter of true/false whether was he born in the US, it's still a matter of conjecture.

Goldstandard32, on WP, it's a matter about what reliable sources say. If they say falsely/incorrectly/whatever, so do we. If you want to discuss this further, do it on the articles talkpage. Consider the context that despite that assertion he was elected twice. And don't WP:EDITWAR Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)