User talk:Jujutsuan/Archives/2016 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2016

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: Consensus for inclusion is not required since the page is linked in the article. It is consensus for removal that needs consensus; the navbox needs to stay. Removal is borderline vandalism. I am aware of 3RR and do not intend to violate it. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Jujutsuan, I and others have been monitoring your behavior since your last edit warring block and I'm dismayed to see that your apparent takeaway from the situation is to avoid technical violations of 3RR but to disregard the spirit of the edit warring policy. You are indeed edit warring, and can be blocked for such, any time you repeatedly revert. By my count, you've reverted at least three editors who object to your addition of that nav box. I am not commenting on the dispute or on the behavior of other editors—I'm just giving you a heads up that you are clearly edit warring. First, I request that you cease edit warring on that page and inform you that I will not hesitate to block you if you continue. Second, I suggest that you voluntarily agree to abide by WP:1RR on any page you edit. This is one revert per 24 hours. If you continue to exhibit problem behavior, you will find your edits under wider scrutiny at WP:AN where you may be subject to sanctions such as blanket topic bans from areas where you have had problems, or even a community ban. --Laser brain (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I'll take the 1RR suggestion, but if you haven't seen it already, please take a look at Talk:European_Union#UK_membership_topic_series. I believed I was within proper justification based on relevant policy, but made a point of not violating 3RR since it's not an official exception. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

NTS: Fixed with this edit. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 00:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sidebars

Dear User:Jujutsuan, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article about Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant, and other articles about the Catholic Church in general. I converted the sidebar into a footer because I am going to add a link to the article to the sidebars of Anglicanism, Methodism, Lutheranism, etc. as well. The article would be totally cluttered with sidebars if we used them, rather than the footers. I hope this helps. In Christ and Mary, AnupamTalk 18:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Anupam: Thanks for the explanation. I do agree that the several sidebars would be too much on such a short article. In this case the footers would seem to be the better solution. If the article is expanded (which I hope it will be; it's a little sparse IMO), perhaps it will become long enough to reconsider at a later date. Paschali cum laetitia, Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 19:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Dear Jujutsuan, thank you for being understanding after our discussion about sidebars and footers. I really appreciated your kind response, especially you taking my point into consideration. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Anupam! A pleasure collaborating with you. (While we're talking, are there any articles you've come across in serious need of attention that I could turn to?) Best, —Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
You're very welcome! I was amazed at how quickly we were able to resolve that. As far as other issues, I personally think that the move from Lutheran Marian theology to Luther's Marian theology was a bad decision since it limits the scope of the article. I would personally like to see that article expanded, with examples (and images) of how many Lutherans show their devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Cheers, AnupamTalk 21:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pulse (nightclub)

On 1 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pulse (nightclub), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pulse (nightclub)), 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Omar Mateen

On 1 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Omar Mateen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Omar Mateen, who in June 2016 committed the deadliest mass shooting in the United States by a single gunman, previously appeared in the documentary film The Big Fix? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Omar Mateen), 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant
added a link pointing to American Book Company
Magisterium of Pius XII
added a link pointing to Apostolic letters

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Brexit: The Movie

On 6 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Brexit: The Movie, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Brexit: The Movie, a documentary film advocating that the United Kingdom withdraw from the European Union, was crowdfunded by 1,800 contributors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brexit: The Movie. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Brexit: The Movie), 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Daredevil (season 2)

@Favre1fan93, MPJ-DK, Adamstom.97, and Cwmhiraeth: Hello editors. I noticed that Daredevil (season 2) was nominated and promoted for DYK. I see Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97 listed as having promoted it to GA status, but my name is not. I had GA-reviewed and passed it, and participated in the improvement process during the review. Is there a way to add the appropriate attribution at this point? Thanks either way. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 13:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jujutsuan, having looked at the history of the article I see that you did indeed edit the article in the course of your review. However I do not think that reviewers of Good Articles qualify for credits when the article is listed at DYK. You will need to create or expand an article of your own, according to DYK rules, or improve an article and nominate it for your own or joint GA first. All the best. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Template talk:Christian mysticism, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. _Though you meant these kind of edits in good faith, please, absolutely please do not touch other editor's comments for any reason. WP:TPO clarifies this in every detail possible. And don't tell anyone to relax, that only irritates editors even more. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If you don't like relaxing, how about reading? WP:TPOC, which you cited, lists "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments", including "Sectioning" and "Section headings". Additionally, WP:REFACTOR#Resectioning lists the type of edit I made as entirely appropriate. So what gives? Or are you just intent upon objecting to any and all instances of refactoring no matter how commonsensical? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan, WP:REFACTOR#Resectioning is neither policy nor a guideline. Also, you keep moving discussions entirely per WP:TPOC, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." Tahc's edit summary already expresses aggravation, I've also had pings last month about you doing the same thing. You apparently are already making this a bad habit. Avoid this kind of behavior, even if you mean it in good faith. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Judecca, please read what you quote: "to change its meaning". I did not change its meaning, I simply organized it logically to keep a single discussion under a single heading. So WP:TPOC doesn't apply. And the resectioning section of that guideline supports my edit. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan, You've been warned in the past by other editors, stop refactoring comments, Also, stop falsifying WP:RTP as a policy, it's an WP:ESSAY. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually it's a how-to page, and not inconsistent with WP:TPOC. Which indicates that it's not something I must avoid. There's nothing substantive in these "warnings". I'm not edit-warring when someone objects; that's sufficient concession on my part. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 22:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Also I notice that you didn't respond to my argument, but rather resorted to an appeal to some faux authority. Just throwing that out there. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 22:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan, I didn't say you were edit warring, neither did I say you were purposely being disruptive. I know your edits are in good faith, but that's not how other editors see it. It's irritating for those editors having a dispute with you and see their replies or entire discussions being moved by you. It's not constructive, at least try to pay attention to how other editors feel about you moving their replies. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gospel of John

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gospel of John you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gospel of John

The article Gospel of John you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gospel of John for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You have improved so much as an editor since you first came in my path. Thank you so much for your contributions to Christian-related articles! ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 04:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, CookieMonster755! Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 04:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Catholic mysticism

Template:Catholic mysticism has been nominated for merging with Template:Christian mysticism. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Your GA nomination of Gospel of John

The article Gospel of John you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gospel of John for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

John's Gospel

I noticed your nomination and the question to Ian. Thanks for stepping forward. There is no defined queue, - reviewers come as they like, - you will need five supporters and no opposer within four weeks. Perhaps look at some other nominations to get a feeling for it. Good luck. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I took a quick look: please get rid of error messages in the reference section, often caused by different years, or misspelled names. For FA, you want to separate sources used inline from external links. Compare my latest FA Requiem (Reger). Another concern: alt= for all images, describing the image to someone who can't see it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Could you be more specific regarding the error messages? I had gone through the references pretty carefully to fix them up during the GA review, and I just double checked and don't see any; and the external links are in a separate section already. I'll throw in an alt text for each image; repeating the caption should do, no? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Last question first: no, repeating the caption often doesn't describe the image to someone who may be blind and should still get an idea of what the image shows. Look at FAs, go in edit mode where the images are, and read examples. The other: I see a red error message for ref3: "Harv error: link from #CITEREFChiltonNeusner1995 doesn't point to any citation." I see several green warnings, first "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBrown1965." Now I don't know if perhaps a ref should point there but has a spelling error, or if no ref should point there, - then it should have no ref=harv. Some templates seem to create ref=harv, - what I do then is: use it once. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I fixed note 3 (wrong year), and I understand what to do with the images' alt text. But what mode are you in that you see these "green warnings"? They don't show up for me in viewing mode, the visual editor, nor the source editor. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

More precisely: Laser Brain pointed out that it is not simple counting to five, but that the quality decides. Sorry for a little sloppy wording, - trying again: first you need at least five supporters who have to be sure about the quality, then a delegate will look and have a final say about the FAC. If it fails, it can be tried again, after dealing with the concerns and some time (which happened in the case mentioned above). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note

One revert per 24 hours applies to abortion. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Thank you, though I'm aware of the sanctions. My reverts were spaced a bit more than a day apart (excluding my self-revert of a dummy edit, which I do not believe applies to the limit). Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Topic list

Jujutsuan--
  1. I'll let you know that it is very difficult get many people to watch Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list, much less gain any new WP:CON. (You can see the many pages that have been proposed over the years and not been added... why don't you look at them bring any of them up?) For us two to have another long disscusssion of your attemped tangents with little reciprocal communication will not draw more editors to the page-- it will tend to drive any away.
  2. I consider you sacred tradition idea there dead on arrival. There are a number of unrealted reasons not add it, and there no pressing reasons to add it; I mere pointed out the one obvious reason.
  • For both these two reasons I have no plans to contiune your discssion there. I only tell you this as a courtesy to you, not to anger you. tahc chat 18:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tahc: I understand not wanting to drive editors away. I would be interested to know what those 'unrelated' reasons would be, though; it seems a real detriment to the reader and to editors to not be able to include such an important, if undeveloped, article in {{Christianity}}. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 19:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

What's Up?

I'd be interested in your take on the Abortion article. It seems to me that there are a bunch of editors there who are basically dead set on excluding as much info as they can which tends to tilt against easy access to abortion. Motsebboh (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Motsebboh: I haven't been involved with that article long enough to have a good feel for the editors, but the insistence upon excluding that study would seem to indicate that you're right, and it's really not that surprising. I'm not sure how much more reliable it gets than UChicago Law School. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Spider-Man Unlimited (video game)

On 21 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Spider-Man Unlimited (video game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the video game Spider-Man Unlimited was frequently updated to synchronize with events in the broader Marvel Universe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Spider-Man Unlimited (video game). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Spider-Man Unlimited (video game)), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Russian gay propaganda law

Hello! Your submission of Russian gay propaganda law 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! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Christ article, needing work

Greetings, friend Jujutsuan! I know you are a wonderful editor and work hard at articles relating to Christianity, but I would like your opinion on a matter regarding the Christ article. Before my edits (revision here), I though that the introduction was too vague and did not focus on the background of the title Christ and its meaning, so I made some changes to the introduction (this revision), to try and focus more on the translation of Christ from Messiah, and what the Christ is. I wanted to know what you think. Do you think it looks good? Needs some more info? Or needs to be corrected? Even though I still made those changes, I believe the article as a whole needs fixing and working on. Maybe you would like to do it with me? Let me know! ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 20:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that the introduction really needs to talk more about the role of the Christ (Messiah), and than later on why Christians believe him to be the Christ/Messiah of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Right now, it vaguely states that the Messiah is the savior and redeemer of the Jewish people and mankind. But I feel like it needs to talk more about the role of the Christ, and than later on more about Christians believe Jesus to be the Christ. The only difference between Messiah and Christ is the translations. They both mean anointed one, and are a title for a savior and redeemer of the Jewish people. I think the article (intro) should cover more about how Christ (meaning the Messiah in Christianity) is fundamentally different than the Messiah in Judaism and Islam, such as the Christ being the Son of God/God of Son. Your input? I don't want to spout too much. Thanks! ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 21:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
Regarding the "why" of Christian belief in Jesus as the Christ, the article Christian messianic prophecies might be helpful as a starting point.
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
Hello, CookieMonster! That looks like a very good edit to the lead; I just now made a little tweak to it so it would flow a little more smoothly. I think for the moment at least that's good for the lead. Once the rest of the article is fixed up a bit we could reassess. I would be glad to help out with the article! I agree with your second comment, though I'm not sure right now how much of that should be in the lead vs. just in the body. Let me take a closer look. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, I'm working on fixing up and expanding Gospel of John. It was recently promoted to GA status, but miserably failed a subsequent FA nomination. Would you like to help me out there as well? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help and your wonderful friendship! I really am appreciative your work! Yes, I can also help you on Gospel of John. I will check out the talk page later. Will be back on later to work on both articles. Cheers! ;) ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 21:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@CookieMonster755: I believe that Christ#Etymology and origins should be renamed "Usage", and whatever etymological information is there added to the etymology note in the lead. I don't see enough content to merit a whole section on etymology. What do you think? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me Jujutsuan, and I like your edits. Personally, renaming usage sounds un-professional and it does not sound like it would be in an encyclopedia (in the tone it is in). Besides, Etymology and origins just talks about the word Christ itself. It does not talk about where the word came from (Messiah) and the background of what the Messiah is (in Judaism, the origin of messianism), and I believe it should, to enhance the article. I believe it should be renamed "background" with a subsection that talks about the Etymology of the word, and a subject for the the origin of the role of the Messiah in Judaism, where Christ (and Christianity) come from, and that's it for background. What do you think? We both would need to take some time to rework that whole new section out, but we could do it. How about that? Cheers, oh... and thanks for signing my guestbook, yo! Cheers, ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I like the idea of calling it "Background", although I still don't think there's enough etymological info to warrant a section or subsection. It's pretty much all in the note already. But otherwise I agree that's the direction that section should take. [Yo ;)] Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you. Remove the etymological, and we should had background of what I said above, plus Old Testament prophecies, Christian messianic prophecies would help like you said. Cheers, we will work together over the next few days! ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 02:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, "usage" is a technical term in grammatical analysis; see Usage. As for the section's content, I would say that as it stands now, it is mostly about usage:

  • The word Christ (and similar spellings) appears in English and in most European languages. usage
  • It derives from the Greek word Χριστός, Khristós (Latinized as Christus), used in the New Testament as a description for Jesus. etymology, redundant with note
  • English-speakers now often use "Christ" as if it were a name, one part of the name "Jesus Christ", though it was originally a title ("the Messiah"). usage
  • Its usage in "Christ Jesus" emphasizes its nature as a title.[10][9]
  • Compare the usage "the Christ".
  • The Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible used the word Khristós to translate into Greek the Hebrew mashiach (messiah), meaning "anointed."[17][18] background
  • Khristós in classical Greek usage could mean covered in oil, or anointed, and is thus a literal translation of messiah. etymology, belongs in the note
  • The spelling Christ in English became standardized in the 18th century, when, in the spirit of the Enlightenment, the spelling of certain words changed to fit their Greek or Latin origins. Prior to this, scribes writing in Old and Middle English usually used the spelling Crist - the i being pronounced either as /iː/, preserved in the names of churches such as St Katherine Cree, or as a short /ɪ/, preserved in the modern pronunciation of "Christmas". background
  • The spelling "Christ" in English is attested from the 14th century.[19] background
  • In modern and ancient usage, even in secular terminology, "Christ" usually refers to Jesus, based on the centuries-old tradition of such usage.
  • Since the Apostolic Age, the
[...] use of the definite article before the word Christ and its gradual development into a proper name show the Christians identified the bearer with the promised Messias of the Jews.[20] usage
You have a good point. How about two sections. One for the usage of the name/title Christ, and a background section about the historicity of the title/role of the Christ/Messiah and the prophecies of the Messiah in Judaism in which Christianity believes. How about that, my friend? Sounds good to me. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 02:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan, friend! Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 02:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

CookieMonster, would you mind taking a look at the RM discussions on my user page? Most of them could use some more editors to help clear up the consensus. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing, my friend! I will look at your RM discussions and see what needs to be done ;) ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 18:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Taking the new sig for a test drive... what do you think? juju (hajime! | waza) 06:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I love it, my friend! It's quirky yet professional with a nice taste of red, to represent the Blood of Jesus the Christ. Oh, and friend, please check out this requested move and leave your thoughts about it there. Thanks! Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 17:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gospel of John

Hello! Your submission of Gospel of John 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) 13:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologize

I apologize for threatening to report you to the admin. noticeboard without any due cause. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 19:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I had completely forgotten about that! All water under the bridge, my friend. juju (hajime! | waza) 22:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: American Gods "edit war"

No edit war is happening - information is in an incorrect place in the article and is written and discussed both poorly and incorrectly. I made changes that agree with what the other user mentioned in their prior edit only for that to be reverted. Not cool. Don't appreciate getting a "warning" for taking the time to fix a poorly written section of an article that doesn't even use the reference correctly. See my edit notes for reasoning instead of blindly undoing things. No policies are being broken with the second round of changes especially, and including production notes in a Premise section is laughable at best. I'll wait to make further changes for the time being, but do note I'm not attempting to start edit wars, I simply want information where it belongs instead of blatantly incorrectly displayed somewhere else. Thanks. Maridiem (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Maridiem: I'm not that dumb. When you moved the paragraph, you also reinstated your WP:SPOILER removal, which constitutes a second reversion, which places you on track for an edit war warning. It's just not immediately obvious in the diffs, because that part of the edit isn't highlighted since the whole paragraph was deleted and reinserted elsewhere. juju (hajime! | waza) 17:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: Except for the minor fact the article is being quoted directly. Nowhere in the article does it directly address the death of Wednesday. I used the *exact* quote from the interview, which Gaiman himself said of course, in the VERY SOURCE referenced. Additionally, that remains irrelevant as none of that is the premise of the show. If you can find me an article about a show that talks about the production of he show and major plot details in a section named Premise I'd love to see it. None I've found, such as the page for the television show iZombie even goes into detail about anything but the - shockingly - premise of the show. Additionally the paragraph was not deleted and reinserted elsewhere, which you'd know if you even bothered to read what was changed. The paragraph that WAS NOT premise was removed. Details of the short interview were added to PRODUCTION where it belonged, using a quote directly from the article. Adding a "spoiler" that isn't even in the source article is just stupid at that point. We can stop this silliness. My changes fit exactly what AlexTheWhovian seemed to agree with in their edit notes, and your stepping in was both unnecessary and incredibly unhelpful, making the page worse in the process. Maridiem (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
(1) Then you should have explained yourself in your edit summary (something like "correcting information to conform with source"). (2) It was a warning, not a report, so chill. (3) Absent of any reason to believe otherwise, which you failed to provide (see [1]), your edit appeared to be classic edit warring. (4) It was rewritten and moved. Let's not play semantics. (5) See, when you explain yourself and discuss things, most problems disappear. (6) AlexTheWhovian thanked me for my reversion, so... make of that what you will. (7) Tone down the butthurt. It doesn't do you any favors. juju (hajime! | waza) 19:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
1) I did. The first sentence in there is "No matter what, nothing that was added to the premise was a premise.", which is accurate. Production details are not a premise, as AlexTheWhovian acknowledged. 2) Sorry, shitty day mostly, and frustrated with how difficult it is to fix an article that is an easy fix. 3) I made an effort to go beyond edit warring after noticing how hard ATW was essentially edit warring already. Went ahead and moved and adjusted text, adding a new section, and verified other article's "Premise" sections line up with what I was thinking they were. ATW's last edit notes included the line "Move it to production, if you will", so I went ahead and did that as part of the changes. 4) Fair enough. 5) Agreed, appreciate it. 6) They've been essentially edit warring for a few weeks with several users who were simply deleting text (which I did make the mistake of doing, and went about fixing), so it doesn't surprise me at the least :P 7) And yeah again, sorry about that. Combination of a stressy day and a bad storm set me in a bad mood and I do apologize for that. Wasn't my intent there. Maridiem (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
No hard feelings. juju (hajime! | waza) 20:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Have a great rest of your day, and thanks for putting up with me! Maridiem (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vultum Dei quaerere

Hello! Your submission of Vultum Dei quaerere 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! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Catholic Church stubs has been nominated for discussion

Category:Catholic Church stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dawynn (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Triggering

Hello! Your submission of The Triggering 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

New Wikipedian

I am new to 'talking' in wikipedia, so please forgive any errors. I am meaning to respond to the proposal to merge 'Biblical Studies' with 'Biblical criticism'. My understanding of the reasoning behind the proposal is that they are similar topics and the former is short. I believe that biblical study does not inherently imply or include bible criticism. One can study the Bible without embarking on any criticizing of/on it. However, if one is participating in criticism of anything, one generally has studied it. Therefore, it is my position that 'Biblical Studies' remain its own wikipedia topic. If there is to be any merging of the two, I believe it makes more sense to merge 'Biblical Criticism' into 'Biblical Studies', for the previously mentioned reason of the implication of study in any criticism. However, since the two are not inherently the same thing, I find it very reasonable to keep the two topics separate. Thank you for considering my view. 74.77.205.236 (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vultum Dei quaerere

Hello! Your submission of Vultum Dei quaerere 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) 22:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Jujutsuan, there are also issues at Template:Did you know nominations/The Triggering. I posted a message here about that, but it was archived little more than a day later. Since you are around much less frequently, I have just taken the liberty of modifying your ClueBot archiving directives so instead of archiving posts after a day, it waits at least a week, giving you a better chance of seeing the posts. You can change it back to 24 hours if you want—or make it even longer—but at DYK, at least, we expect that you will have seen our messages if you've edited since we posted them, even if they have been archived. I realize you're on wikibreak, but I hope you will continue to work on these DYKs so that we don't have to close them as unsuccessful. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonset. Sorry about that. My schedule's been hectic lately; haven't had much time for WP. I've responded to the Vultum entry and the Triggering entry. Best, —juju (hajime! | waza) 19:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Vultum Dei quaerere

On 16 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vultum Dei quaerere, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Pope Francis' apostolic constitution Vultum Dei quaerere amended Catholic canon law pertaining to women's contemplative life? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vultum Dei quaerere. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vultum Dei quaerere), 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Triggering

Hello! Your submission of The Triggering 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gospel of John

Jujutsuan, this is a final call for you to return to this nomination and address the issues that were raised over a month ago back in July, and for which you were pinged over two weeks ago. I hope you can respond before someone moves to close the nomination due to inaction. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Triggering

Hello! Your submission of The Triggering 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! — Maile (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Russian gay propaganda law

Hello! Your submission of Russian gay propaganda law 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Jim Mulcahy

Actually, I just discovered that Jim Mulcahy was not arrested under the LGBT law, but an equally bizarre bill purporting to be an anti-terror law but also bans missionary work outside of religious sites. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Triggering

Hello! Your submission of The Triggering 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Signature question

How did you make the "Please notify with 're'" in your signature, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: The code for my old sig is
'''''[[User:Jujutsuan|<font color="green">Jujutsuan</font>]]''''' (<small>Please notify with {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> | [[User talk:Jujutsuan|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jujutsuan|contribs]])
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs)
The part you specifically asked about is
<small>Please notify with {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small>
Please notify with {{re}}
The code for my current sig, if you're interested, is
[[User:Jujutsuan|<font style="color:green; font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold,Times,serif;">juju</font>]] ([[User talk:Jujutsuan|<font style="color:red;">hajime!</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jujutsuan|<font style="color:red;">waza</font>]])
Best, — juju (hajime! | waza) 20:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Chicbyaccident and Jujutsuan, A friendly FYI about the colors green & red for accessibility. Years back I knew of a co-worker with color blindness who could not see shades of green, and red was a very light shade of brown. So these colors while they look nice to most of us, may be hard to read for people with color-blindness. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 21:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Triggering

Hello! Your submission of The Triggering 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Christianity and Sexuality and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Elizium23 (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Christianity and Sexuality and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Elizium23 (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of The Triggering for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Triggering is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Triggering until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case amendment request

A case-amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality#Amendment request (October 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case amendment request

A case-amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality#Amendment request (October 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Russian gay propaganda law

On 6 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Russian gay propaganda law, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Russian gay propaganda law was blamed for an alleged increase in homophobic attacks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Russian gay propaganda law. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Russian gay propaganda law), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jujutsuan. 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jujutsuan/Archives/2016_2&oldid=1084124042"