Jenhawk777
Joined 15 May 2017
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Evensteven in topic Your message a month ago
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
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)
- Your first experience was unusual. For most clued-in editors, once they grasp some of the unusual customs of the Wikipedian people, I'd guess the long-term rate of reverts is close to 1 out of 100 or 200 edits. That's just a guess, but I sincerely hope you find smoother waters ahead. Alephb (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is the one I have been working on. [1][Christianity in civilization] I added about a dozen of the little subsections I guess and no reverts so far. I think this one was just as contentious as Bible a couple years ago, but it's quiet now. If this article hadn't already existed, I was going to create it. I don't know if I will ever qualify as a clued-in editor--but hopefully I will be less clue-less! Do you celebrate the holidays? Happy holidays if you do.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Interesting article
Is the Sky Blue? How Wikipedia Is Fighting for Facts by Redefining the Truth
Possibly of interest
I just added a bunch of articles to the "Bible sidebar", perhaps you would have fun with some of them. [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Very cool! I am definitely going to look at those. The ones on ethics and women especially interest me of course. Thank you. And any other articles you want Arbela'ed just let me know. Something new would be good for me. I am getting heartburn over an attempt to reason with people who don't want 'their' article touched even though it reads like a personal blog. I have been trying hard for cooperation in the talk page. I even told them I wouldn't put anything directly in the article but would work entirely in my sandbox where they could edit and criticize till we came to consensus, but I couldn't even get agreement to that. 80% of the article presents a fringe view with not even a mention of the majority view to reference why it's considered fringe. Not a word. It's very disheartening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- So now I had to start reading that article. This is your fault. I'm Joe Schmoing. We'll have to start a dictionary soon. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- How the heck did you know which article I was referring to?!? You astound me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Remember I told you about the "User contributions" link on the left side of every userpage? The Eye of Sauron is available to anyone who wants it. However, if you should feel at some point that I'm WP:FOLLOWING you, tell me and I'll stop. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- No no! Don't stop even if you are--which I know you are not! I was just totally impressed with your knowhow! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Remember I told you about the "User contributions" link on the left side of every userpage? The Eye of Sauron is available to anyone who wants it. However, if you should feel at some point that I'm WP:FOLLOWING you, tell me and I'll stop. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- How the heck did you know which article I was referring to?!? You astound me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- So now I had to start reading that article. This is your fault. I'm Joe Schmoing. We'll have to start a dictionary soon. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Okay--this is just between you and me--but since I have noted your participation in the article referred to, I would like to ask your personal opinion--am I wrong? Does this article seem neutral to your more experienced eye? I am not asking you to get involved okay? But I trust you. I am beginning to wonder if the problem is that I just don't understand the nature of fringe-theory articles. Are they all like this one? I looked at the article on ID and it seems the opposite of this one. In the article there is one section with a couple of specific responses and there are a few general statements--is that adequate? The length of the article with the number of claims and the omission of responses seems to me to make this view more notable than it actually is. But I could be wrong because I don't know enough about Wiki's standards on parity, neutrality, etc.. Will you tell me if you think I am off base here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Opinion it shall be. I've read the article up to and including "Diversity and syncretism", so there's a lot I haven't read yet. So far, it seems to me that the mainstream view is reasonably well represented. Mythisists have some room to run, perhaps too much in places but not glaringly so. This is one of those topics where there's plenty of published (besides blogs and SPS) material on the topic, so there is a lot non-mainstream that can be added, while mainstream may well have better things to do than comment on every point they make.
- I think FT articles on WP can be very different, depending on several things, including the editors involved. I wouldn't look to ID for comparison in this case (and beware WP:Other stuff exists anyway). I think another historical FT like Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is more similar. Both have loud and eager proponents with published and popular stuff, and they have big holes in the historical record to fill with their ideas, so there is a lot that can be reasonbly described in a WP-article (and the number of editors interested in adding such material can be large).
- I wish you a happy weekend with eggs and such. Tomorrow by this time I intend to be quaffing and gorging somewhere on the Sea of Åland. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Dammit, WP knows everything: Baltic Sea cruiseferries. "The ferries have been criticized because of the low prices of alcoholic beverages which encourage passengers to become drunk and act irresponsibly." Well duh..!
- Ha ha! LOL! Then I wish you a thoroughly irresponsible weekend!
- Thank you for your input. I will check out the Shakespeare article--and please finish reading, since my claim has been that it is the second two thirds of the article that has no parity. What balance there is, is up front. It's actually a good article overall--which I have said repeatedly. If we were to follow one guy's suggestion of creating a second article with the history stuff moved, what is left would be pretty balanced by itself. Anyway, one of the guys has begun making an effort to talk, so perhaps it will resolve after all. Or I will just give up and go away. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
April 2018 at Women in Red
| ||
|
To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or
Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: |
I think we did it
Template:Did you know nominations/The Bible and humor Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- This is fun! Thank you for involving me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Your message a month ago
I have only just now read on my talk page your invitation from March 15. I'd like to say I'd accept such a welcome offer, but I'm afraid I've withdrawn from most Wikipedia activity, especially on topics in Christianity. My recent experience is that the ill will shown by some editors there is not inhibited by the administrators, despite WP policy, and I just am unwilling to participate in the face of destructive behavior. I wish you well, and hope your experience may be different. But I've decided that the distractions here are not worth my time and effort to overcome. Evensteven (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)