User talk:Jenhawk777

		Bravery Barnstar.
		"What do you mean, I can´t rewrite the entire article!? It says, right there, at the top of the ¤%/(%& article, that I should! Can´t you read your own pedia, you strange people!?" But, to my own and I think a few others surprise, you´re still here. We shall make WP even greater!! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha ha!!! That made me laugh!! Thank you! How was I supposed to know people don't mean what they say?!? I'm slow--but if you hit me over the head enough I eventually get it! I have learned a lot--I even learned from the conflicts--and I realize what an unusual first experience mine was, yet I'm not sorry for it. It kind of forced me to do or die--but you saved it--you saved the article--I know we moved on together, and I'm (mostly) proud of what I contributed too, but if it hadn't been for you, none of it would have happened. You stuck yourself out there on that limb and took a stand--you are the one that deserves the bravery barnstar--I deserve the "what kind of idiot are you?" barnstar!  :-) The article is not perfect--you're right--(do you ever get tired of being right?) But it's better than it was and it has enough shape and direction now that someone else can come along behind us and run with it--and I think that's how wiki works right? That article was all tangled up on itself--now it has a focus--a balance--some substance--now the community can see what to do with it if they ever run across it and feel like it. And that was us-- and I'm pretty happy about that. I owe you. If you ever need back-up--call on me. We worked well together I thought--once I figured out "do this rewrite" did not actually mean "do this rewrite".  :-) Thank you again. Hey I have now done my second article--not a single revert--how about that? Jeez I hope I didn't just jinx that! See you around I hope! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
40		Hispanicization (talk)	Add sources
37		Dehellenization (talk)	Add sources
11		Batavianization (talk)	Add sources
22		Divino afflante Spiritu (talk)	Add sources
130		Gallo-Roman culture (talk)	Add sources
1,804		Hebrew Bible (talk)	Add sources
13		Lithuanization (talk)	Cleanup
17		Mark Allan Powell (talk)	Cleanup
209		Ethics in religion (talk)	Cleanup
34		Christianity and animal rights (talk)	Expand
157		Punics (talk)	Expand
56		Persianization (talk)	Expand
322		Christian ethics (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
9		Indo-Aryanisation (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
77		Raymond E. Brown (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
67		Arabized Berber (talk)	Merge
221		Casuistry (talk)	Merge
344		Christianity in the 1st century (talk)	Merge
33		De-Sinicization (talk)	Wikify
78		Jewish assimilation (talk)	Wikify
43		Nationalist historiography (talk)	Wikify
3		Admiral Dewey March (talk)	Orphan
3		Africa Education and Leadership Initiative (talk)	Orphan
3		Ashwell House (talk)	Orphan
16		Illyro-Roman (talk)	Stub
6		Israelization (talk)	Stub
5		Swahilization (talk)	Stub
8		Swedification (talk)	Stub
19		Septem Provinciae (talk)	Stub
12		Belarusization (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 at Women in Red

		An exciting new month for Women in Red! August 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/87|Indigenous women]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/88|Women of marginalized populations]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/89|Women writers]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/90|Geofocus: Bottom 10]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative Notable women, broadly-construed!]] For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Weather in Sweden

I wrote an article about it, we'll see if it sticks: 2018 Sweden wildfires. We're not used to this, we're not Californians. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow--I don't think that's something anyone would get used to. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Awarded for the admirable way you responded, by sympathetically explaining how Wikipedia works, to a new editor complaining about the dismissive rudeness of an experienced and highly POV editor. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow! Thank you so much! This really blesses me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

saving for interview

• [1] -- Revision as of 08:31, 12 December 2017
• [2] -- Revision as of 08:44, 12 December 2017
• [3] -- Revision as of 23:18, 15 December 2017
• [4] -- Revision as of 14:24, 16 December 2017
• [5] -- Revision as of 22:34, 16 December 2017 -- anti-semitism
• [6] -- Revision as of 23:03, 16 December 2017 -- use this one
• [7] -- Revision as of 06:22, 17 December 2017
• [8] -- Revision as of 06:44, 17 December 2017

next

• [9]

but the most interesting is here:

• [10]

a current discussion:

• [11]

Fascinating, Captain

[12] And just a few hours later, someone added Star Trek. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha! Number one reporting! The above is about a University of Michigan study on incivility on Wikipedia. Here's hoping they come up with some ideas that will make things better for everyone. They asked for diffs. I have to pick two! :-) It'll be okay. No worries mate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bible and death penalty

• The Bible and death penalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maybe this new article could be of interest to you, considering the relation to The Bible and violence. As it currently is new and only supported by primary sources, it risks deletion, or needs major work. It's also possible that it would best be merged in the other article. Just in case you'd like to work on it, —PaleoNeonate – 01:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate How very kind of you! Thank you for thinking of me. I will definitely take a look. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The History of Mar Qardagh

Hello, Jenhawk777. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The History of Mar Qardagh".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hhkohh (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Some sort of martial art, is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Why didn't I think of that? It would have been much more interesting to write on! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Somehow when I created the article I missed the fact that there already is one! Letting this one go! Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Motivational Barnstar!

		The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar
		For your high level of motivation on the Talk Page of Ethics in the Bible and getting other editors engaged in improving it! Airborne84 (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! This made my day. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hello, Jen. Per your request, here's some first impressions of the proposed structure in your sandbox for that Ethics in the Bible organization. First off, I've never in my life planned out an article in any kind of detail, so this is just my two cents and I'm not convinced of any of it. Consider it brainstorming more than a firm opinion. You should probably consult someone with better experience in article construction, like whoever whipped Biblical criticism into shape.

Anyhow, I'm betting someone or other will wind up demanding a lead if you try to write an article without one, but no need to worry about that now, because a lead is easy to whip up -- it's essentially writing an outline in reverse.

The Short History of Jewish Ethics looks like a particularly smart source. Not systematic or deductive, I think, really hits the nail on the head. For the most part, it seems like the Bible starts with specific issues and gives discussion of philosophical/abstract ethical issues a secondary place. That seems to be a general feature of the Bible and thought about it -- the Bible seems to start with loads of detail and specifics and narratives and genealogies, and then later, people come along and produce systematic theologies or summaries or what have you.

With that in mind, I'm going to suggest (but not insist on) moving the whole five-point structure around. The bulk of biblical ethical stuff is in the applications itself. What if that section were first, although not necessarily called Applications'. Maybe it could be called Biblical texts or Themes or something. Maybe the History section could go next, because it sort of naturally works from the history of the biblical text itself and moves out toward the history of the reception of the Bible. I do hope the Talmud gets a mention in there, and some of the Catholic philosophers like Aquinas. And maybe Luther and Calvin and EP Sanders if there's space. Maybe Theological Concepts after that, followed by the overview section, perhaps tweaked slightly to be something like Comparison with other ethical systems, or something. And then the Comparison with other ethicals systems would seem to lead naturally to the criticism section.

My concern is that if you begin with overview, the article might seem to be about ethics in general, and only get the Bible after a while. While if we start with applications, we'd jump right into the main topic and then move outward to commentary and related concerns. But there's more than one way to skin a cat, and I haven't done a ton of recent reading in the kind of sources you'll be dealing with, so that's just my two cents. Alephb (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

OMG! This is brilliant, absolutely brilliant, and I agree and love everything you said and the reasons for saying it! It's wonderful and stupendous and I am going to do everything exactly as suggested. I can't believe I didn't think of it!! Ha ha ha!! See--this is why consensus works so much better than just jumping in and taking over. I would not have thought of it on my own--I think like a philosopher first and foremost--I've tried breaking the habit, but I majored in it because it's who I am and not the other way around! So honestly, I would have missed this completely, and it is perfect. I am going to go re-do the sandbox right now! This is so exciting! When people work together Wikipedia creates a product that is better than anything else out there--am I right or am I right? Thank you Aleph! This is so awesome! Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You are right! Wikipedia does work best as a team sport. Glad I could help. Are you aware of WP:GTP? Alephb (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That is hilarious! And yet it only seems right to me... All paths do eventually lead to philosophy.  :-) Thanx for telling me about that! I will take it as a personal validation of course. As it should be! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Stay Away

If you are actively editing I'll try to stay out of the way (until you are done). Editor2020 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please--that's not necessary. There is so much to do on this page there is room for multiple editors without us getting in each other's way at all. I did a kind of bizarre thing by adding headings without content -- and I am a little stressed about it! The entire history section is just hanging there! The whole article is half empty--and even where I have things, there is nothing at all to prevent you from adding whatever you feel is appropriate. I've seen your work. This article would benefit from having you on it. There is not a single subject here that is completed--not in my mind anyway. Please DON'T stay away! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Editor2020 Chances of me being done with that page in less than a few months are very slim. I will probably work some every day, but it is a complex and extensive subject. Take that into consideration when making plans to participate or not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a general outline for your rewrite, or are you doing it on the fly? Editor2020 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I do have an outline--that's why there are empty headings. Per discussion with User:Alephb you can find and read if you are interested here: [13], we agreed to put Biblical themes at the top as most pertinent to the subject as defined by the title. The outline is easy to see in the content box:

Contents 1 Ethical themes in the Bible 1.1 Political ethics 1.1.1 War and peace 1.1.2 Criminal justice 1.2 Human life and personal relationships 1.2.1 Creation Ordinances 1.2.2 Women, marriage and family 1.2.3 Sex 1.3 Economic ethics 1.4 Environmental ethics 2 Theological foundations of ethics in the Bible 2.1 Creation and its implications 2.2 Conscience 2.3 Covenant and tradition 2.4 Salvation and the Holy Spirit 3 Comparisons with other ethical systems 4 Criticism 4.1 Euthyphro Dilemma 4.2 Moral relativism 4.3 Evil and God's benevolence 4.4 The Old Testament 4.5 The New Testament

Primarily four areas: themes, theology, comparisons and criticisms right now. This originally had a "History" section as well--but it sat there glaring at me every time I opened the article, so I removed it until I--or someone else--steps up to write it. I had "The history of biblical ethics" divided by 'ages', and there is a 'lot' of material out there on that. I'll bet it would take a month all by itself to properly research and write-- even keeping it short! I am not up for that until I have finished on these ethical themes--which right now are kicking my butt! These are ALL still extremely malleable and subject to being moved, deleted, altered, or whatever. They are just a guide. I actually moved stuff around on Biblical criticism while it was undergoing GA review! I had to apologize profusely for that one--but he did agree it improved it!Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Editor2020:I think I may have to eliminate comparisons to other ethical theories--it would maybe make a nice article on its own--because themes is getting long and looks like it might get longer. Maybe ethics majors shouldn't be allowed to write articles on ethics. :-) Criticisms absolutely has to be included, and really, theology should be too. I am trying to keep it short, but the thorough and broad part is kicking me in the pants right now. What do you think about removing comparisons and then not putting history back in? Jenhawk777 20:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

For climbing that FA-Everest

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	Please don't die on that hill, unless you really must! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Bless your heart. You always know how to make people smile. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! I'll respond to some of your specific points at the FAC, but you might find this guide helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria! I will check it out. I had completely forgotten about Gunkel, and haven't been able to find anything useful by reverse imaging so far. But it is after midnight here and I have been at this for hours, so--I will pick it back up again tomorrow! Good night and take care! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ethics in the Bible, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Murray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you bot! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

thanks

Hi Jenhawk777. I got your message on J Milburn's page and I've come here instead so as not to bother them. I just wanted to say that I think both of us acted fine, and there's really no problem for anyone to worry about... our back and forth is mostly the nature of participating in FAC either as a nominator or a reviewer. Nominators don't have to implement suggestions just because a reviewer criticized; I think that does happen fairly often, where the nominator says to themselves "this is easier than debating whether the criticism is valid"... so it's good that you stood your ground on certain issues. I only continued because I felt the position was worth defending, not out of a rabid desire to criticize or anything. I am very glad if you think the suggestions turned out to be constructive. Outriggr (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Outriggr I just saw this! Thank you for responding! I know! I thought it was worth defending too! I ended up with 'egg on my face' anyway! (Do I get a point--maybe half a point--for admitting error? Okay maybe not.)  :-) I'm glad there are no hard feelings. That relieves me greatly. I am hoping you won't go 'walkabout' ('wandering off') as your comments were pertinent and good--and right--as it turned out. The article deserves either support, or correction until it does deserves it, because it's an important article that should be among Wikipedia's best. No other commenters have shown up. I'm trying not to stress, but this is my first experience of FA, and I know the percentage rate for passing on first attempt is very, very low. I don't want it to fail because of me. Anyway, thank you again. I can easily see why Gerda says you're a class act. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Someone added a that to something I wrote on ethics--and all I did was thank them. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Outriggr Is it copacetic for me to ask--or is this another of my faux pas--that the "review continues" phrase at your review at the Biblical criticism FAQ either be struck or completed? Please forgive me if I am sticking my foot in my mouth with this, but it implies more is coming, and well, you get what I'm saying I'm sure. Jenhawk777 19:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not really sure where to go with respect to my own participation in the review so I will probably just leave it be. I might think about it more before I strike it, but soon. I will say though that the FAC process takes time, and in the case of the complex topic you've chosen, if it stays open it will probably be for 40-80 days. I think most would agree that the more 1) abstract/conceptual and 2) broad the topic, the longer it takes to get reviews and consensus. I won't speak of "difficulty", lol, just that you are brave to make such a difficult topic your first(?) FAC! [Trying to find examples of either broad or abstract FACs, the best I can do in 2018 is [14] (very broad, for FAC) and [15] (very conceptual, for FAC).] Outriggr (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

No one explained that! 40-80 days! I thought it had the same kind of time frame as a good article review which is about a week! I was totally stressed because I'm already past that! Okay, so then, huh! How about that! I should chill out, and move on to other work for awhile. Thank you so much for explaining. It makes a huge difference--I might even find a little sanity again! I knew it was a difficult topic, of course, and part of that difficulty was boiling complex concepts down into short simple phrases--a real struggle--as you so aptly homed in on in a couple places. But blunder on in there--that would be me--pick the most difficult topic out there and go for FAC without having a clue what you're actually doing! But I can honestly say I've given it my best. Now, I will trust to the process. Wikipedia has great people. What will be will be. This has been a tremendous learning experience for me. Thank you so much for all your input. I won't bother you anymore. Jenhawk777 02:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not preparing you for FAC often taking months. Is there a word such as downset (opposite of upset)? - I just returned from refreshing days completely away, - gives perspective! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I was going to say lucky you, but what I should say is smart you! We should all do that occasionally. It's 100 degrees here right now, day after day, I am staying inside in the air conditioning--where the computer is. You owe me no apologies Gerda--really no one does. I should not have assumed. It will all turn out--or it won't. From what Outriggr says, it looks like the nature of this subject will work against it. My first FAC--I would pick something like this! Hey! I finished Bulgaria! I went through the prose and there were only a couple rough spots really. I think he's working on it. And you were right. It's been a joy helping someone else--a real bright spot in a somewhat stressful week. So thank you for that! How does one go about finding the list of FA candidates, and is there nowhere I have to sign up, or pass the test, or learn the secret handshake or anything? Maybe there's a dance... that's what Grabergs would do... :-) Jenhawk777 06:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

A simple "sorry" is no apology (for me), just seeing that I missed something (which happens a lot). The list of nominated FACs is where you might expect it, at WP:FAC. No there's no secret handshake ;) - we do offer mentoring, but I thought J Milburn did that for you. Just shake the hands of those you meet there, as you have done, and you will be fine. When the review is over the article will be better than it was at the beginning, and that's all that counts (for me). - Btw, GA isn't any different, the reviewer has all the time in the world, and questions and answers can go for a while, - just at the end of the review, you can be given a 7-days-period for fixes. - Enjoy. The song on my user page says "go out and seek joy", and the author told it his wife, - they had lost children in the 30 years' war. It tells me to actively seek joy especially when it's not easy to find. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Good advice. Josh did mentor me. He was amazing and wonderful. But there should definitely be a secret handshake for reviewers. Jenhawk777 07:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Why secret? You could openly invite people to the FAC, perhaps on a project talk rather than individually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Gerda you're a hoot--it's a joke--various fraternities and other clubs have secret handshakes to identify members from non-members--who is "in" and who isn't. It was a satirical way of commenting on FAC being inclusive instead of exclusive. Sorry--I know humor doesn't really communicate well in this medium. But then--maybe I'm just not funny huh? :-) That was obviously a joke--because no way that could be true--right? :-) (Humor!) Jenhawk777 07:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There are editors who think that there's a FA cabal, and no chance entering - I disagree, although - at least in the past - there may have been some truth ;) - we founded an anti-cabal, DYK? In that past, 2012. The FA and TFA process has grown, since. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Sorry for the break in the conversation--it was 2 in the morning here and I just got up and went to bed without a word to anyone!! I thought I was being so funny with the secret handshake! The joke's on me I guess--it never occurred to me there might have ever actually been such a thing! Boy--do I still have a lot to learn about Wikipedia! Jenhawk777 18:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I was trying to discourage you or be discouraging, or make assumptions about your knowledge... just trying to help/inform is the only motivation. As I get older (or some other trait changes :-) I feel an increased chance of being misread on WP. But we've almost become stuck in a "I didn't mean--" loop! All good still, I hope! (After I posted the previous message, I noticed the bravery barnstar at the top of your page--so I'm not the first person to point it out!) To answer your question about previous FACs, they are at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log (the ones that passed) and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations (the rest). Outriggr (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Outriggr, hey! I know we haven't known each other more than a few days--in somewhat stressful circumstances--for me anyway--but you asked at the very start if I would take your comments in good faith, and I said yes. I meant that. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt here on Wikipedia, because we all have a common goal--making Wiki the best it can be--and toward that end, I have even learned to value those that have personally attacked me, because they taught me. Nothing you said was personal. It wasn't even discouraging. It encouraged me to hold on. And it was information I needed that no one else had given. That was immensely helpful, and I have no doubt whatsoever that it was your intention to help--and it did. So yes, all is good, the difficult is good, and meeting new friends is good, and accomplishing goals is good, and in my mind there is no misunderstanding between us because I think well of you, and well, at least you don't hold anything against me! :-)

I'm so glad you like my barnstar! My first, and I can hardly explain how much it meant to me when I got it. I was brand new to Wikipedia, and unprepared for some of what goes on here. I ran right into a buzzsaw with lots of personal accusations. It was tough, but I persevered, got some support, and finished the blankety-blank article! :-) Getting that barnstar was like a medal after a long battle. :-) I would do just about anything for the person that sent it to me! That's been over a year ago now, and we have done a couple of additional articles together--one that got DYK? I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve a lot, I know, but I do not, do not get pissed off at people who are just trying to do well for others. You are obviously one of the good guys, so you have my promise: I will always give you the benefit of the doubt, and if I think there's a problem--I will just ask you. I am straightforward--no games, no attacks--good faith only--I ask the same in return--and every now and then I get it! :-)

I am glad to know you. We should work on an article together sometime--I don't suppose you're interested in ethics are you? I pretty much only work in the Bible area because that's all I know: philosophy and religion. I'm starting a restructure of Ethics in the Bible that is kicking my butt right now. Like Biblical criticism, it's a big complex topic and I do not have it tamed. It might even be chewing my leg off right now. I could use the help! If not, that's okay too. Take care of yourself. I hope we run into each other again sometime. Jenhawk777 03:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ethics in the Bible, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robin Gill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you bot!Jenhawk777 16:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Signature

I suspect that under Preferences -> User profile -> Signature you have checked the box which says "treat the above as wikimarkup". Take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You're brilliant! How did you know? What does that do? I had no idea I had checked that! I wonder why I did?! Anyway--it's unchecked now! Thank you so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I thought of it because I had experimented with that button way back when...I'm no software whiz, but what it does is to render your signature without any links to your userpage, which (for some reason) stops any ping templates you use from working. Vanamonde (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well thank you again. If you hadn't said something I would have continued on in ignorance! And thank you for all you did on the DYK as well. I have nearly despaired a couple times since it was first nominated. Thanks to you that may finally be over. I can't tell you how glad I am! Jenhawk777 (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 at Women in Red

		September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons! New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/91|Women currently in academics]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/92|Women + Law]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/93|Geofocus: Hispanic countries]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]] Check it out: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Monthly achievement initiative: September 2018|Monthly achievement initiative]] All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#The Endless Night of Wikipedia’s Notable Woman Problem (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Template:Did you know nominations/Biblical criticism

What did you do here? The hook was promoted and the template closed. Why did you open it again? Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea! I went and wrote thank you. That's all. At least that's all I thought I did. I'm so sorry. What happened? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you clicked "undo" on my edit, which reverted the page back to the way it was before I closed it, and then added your thank you. While it's very nice to express gratitude, next time please do it somewhere else. The template page clearly says at the top: No further edits should be made to this page. Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't recall clicking undo on your edit. It would be a singularly unusual act on my part--at least, in the year I've been here I don't think I have ever clicked undo. If I clicked anything on your edit, I would have clicked thank. You know what? I often click on pages listed on my watch list because it's fast and easy. That's the page I clicked on--which from what you're saying means it was an old page--I clicked it, went to edit, added my thanks, and left. That's it. I didn't see anything that said don't edit, or I wouldn't have. That's probably because it was an old version. You have my apologies. It was unintentional. I didn't ignore instructions. I didn't see them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Good thing I saw the nomination open again on the noms page, or else someone else might have promoted it again. In future, please reserve your thanks for editors' talk pages. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I will certainly remember! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why "thank" and "undo" are so close together, - it's a common mistake to click the wrong one, and I can only hope that I always noticed when I did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda. I feel really bad about it. I'm thankful she was paying attention! Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't successful then because I wanted you to not feel bad. I happens to all of us, at least all who are not perfect ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Okay, I'm listening. I won't feel bad anymore. But I will remember! I hope I never actually meet anyone who is perfect--that would really make me feel bad! You are as close as anyone should get! :-) And you always make me feel better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Warning Mistake

You made it clear in this diff that you have a) reverted me and b) argued on talk, without reading the source. That means you have been editing and arguing based on something other than the policies and guidelines that govern what we do here.

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That value of openness is very important to us and editing is a privilege offered to everyone. But the privilege comes with a responsibility to pursue Wikipedia's mission and to learn and follow the policies and guidelines. The community gives people time to learn, but eventually restricts or removes editing privileges from people who just cannot get grounded on the mission of Wikipedia, or who will not or cannot follow the policies and guidelines.

Not to mention that doing what you have done, is just unacceptably bad scholarship in any context. Terrible. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC) (striking Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC))

I have no argument with the source. It's a perfectly good source and it says what you say it says. That's beside the point. Everything can't be included no matter how good the source is. If this is added for the Jewish paragraph, it will also have to be added for the Catholic one--which I note you have made no objection about. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

What you have done is fundamentally dishonest. You have not acknowledged that. I have no interest in dealing with this kind of behavior and will be shunning you from now on. See WP:SHUN. Terrible. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC) (striking Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC))

Promises promises. Does that mean you won't be showing up on every page I work on, doing this kind of thing, anymore? Please do that. Please shun me. I have been nothing but honest, I have attempted to explain and even accommodate. Nothing has been offered but demands to have your complete and total way, accompanied by threats and insults. But that is your modus operandi I know, and not just with me. Please do shun me. It would only improve my Wikipedia experience. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

diff ...-will go get the reference now. Shameful. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC) (striking Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC))

What at all is there shameful in copy pasting from what you wrote, in order to be sure what you had said, in your own words, was at least partially included in the article--even though it was not possible to include it all? And since I was copy pasting, I had to do it in two separate chunks, so I was going back for the reference when you reverted. I was making the effort to include your statement, and your reference as well, since you set such high store by it, and didn't get the chance because you are the fastest reverter on Wikipedia. Attempting to meet someone part way and accommodate their concerns is "shameful" in your book? No wonder we always end up here. What is shameful here isn't me--it really has nothing to do with me. Where is that shunning you promised? Perhaps I should take a page from your playbook and say "you are no longer welcome to post on my talkpage?" Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am willing to accept that you meant "get the citation". I apologize for taking that as not reading the source, and all the things that flowed from that for me. I am sorry. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Bless your heart. Don't feel badly a minute longer! I'm sorry too. There are no hard feelings on my part and I hope not on yours. Did you get my suggestion on the BC talk page that you replace the paragraph that's there with yours instead of adding? What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Biblical criticism

On 1 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Biblical criticism, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that biblical criticism was dominated by white male Protestant Christians until the late twentieth century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Biblical criticism. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Biblical criticism), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Singing your praises: 1 September 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

More than 3k views, that's good! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The first 24 hours there was nothing--then it jumped! I live in hope! Thank you Gerda, thank you for everything! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I should have told you that it only comes the following day. - Almost no views for Mag&Nunc, because it was moved shortly before midnight ;) - Well, they are hidden under the wrong name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear! Can it be fixed? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I created it under a name I thought was good, someone moved it saying it was overly precise, it went on DYK that way, and now is back to the name I thought was good. So. all fine, who cares about the stats (1,2k, so far from the 5k required for memory)? - Same thing in German, moved. Nothing serious at all. - Another precious blocked himself. - After the next GA nomination I'll turn to the FAC, promised ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm relieved. I only want good things to happen to you. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, am I reading that correctly? Did it get over 5000 views? Could that possibly be right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No, 5000 is the total, but it did get 3 thou so that's good--nobody diving into the FAC though. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I must have been unclear, 5k is the limit to remembered in the stats, and yours was a lot closer than most of mine, - I guess my little morning song will get a 3-digit result. On a recent bike tour, we rested in this church and spontaneously sang, finishing with that one, - the things that make me write ;) - next should be the place, I guess. I nominated the GA, so all separating me from your FAC is the daily program. I haven't seen any FAC being on DYK, but would be surprised if a Main page reader, going for sensation (mentione Nazi and you get 1k extra clicks), would turn to a review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Snark

Please remove the snark here. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I did. Why did you revert it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A red rose for an outstanding new editor

For being a great raconteur

Diolch, Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 09:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

A million blessings upon you! This was perfectly timed. Thank you so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)