This is an archive of past discussions about User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the wishes. We are five days away from the winter solstice and I can't wait. the days have grown shorter since the September equinox as the sun, day by day, slipped into it's grave in the underworld, and as in countless years before on December 22nd it will cease it's deadly descent and languish motionless in the grave for three days and on the third it will start to rise again, and eliluia (praise ye ya), so long as the son rises from its grave on December 25th there will be everlasting life. This is what our ancestors saw and thought as they celebrated the event.Oldperson (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I decorated a special kind of Christmastree in the spirit of the season.
What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️
and a prosperous New Year!!
🍸🎁 🎉
God Jul!
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
going against the consensus in the RfD. Please don't do that.
The many editors who have used this redirect (see the "what links here" page for each redirect) have pretty much all attempted to send readers at the Daily Mail RfC, not the perennial sources page (they tend to use WP:RSP when they want to send readers to that page) Many editors have written things like
"per WP:DAILYMAIL, we don't consider that a reliable source."
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Grabergs Graa Sang, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at BLPN. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC
Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, ★Trekker (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi: I'm new to wikipedia editing, and am desperate for some human interaction. Would you like to adopt me?
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
One of WP:s basic general rules regarding talkpages: "The basic rule—with exceptions outlined below—is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." Your own talkpage is a different matter, but there are "rules" there too, see the link. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the above, I had few questions on the same, if you have time that is, Would it be a terrible idea to consider speaking to me on WhatsApp rather than this texting back n forth.
Yep, I prefer to keep my WP-communication on WP (which doesn't necessarily make it a terrible idea), it has advantages and drawbacks and it's how "we" do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
you see why i suggested WhatsApp, i could talk to you about this whole terrible idea thing, but texting back n forth just doesn't do it, anyways enjoy advantages and drawbacks of how you are doing it : )
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry, we've been working against each other here. You're right, of course (though the date of December 11 should be removed) but I was trying to be more accommodating to the poster who says she's his granddaughter. I put it back to 11 December 2006 (not realising that you had edited it - I thought that I had got confused and changed it to to 2007) but added {{cn}}. Then I had prepared a long reply to her post at the Teahouse, but got edit conflicts first from you and then from her, so I bowed out. Perhaps the best thing to do is to remove the date of death entirely - but that might suggest to a reader that he is still alive. Don't know what's best. --ColinFine (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Im sure you have not forgotten me so early. Well i have got something that can be used as a citation to the birth date of Stelth Ulvang. I said that it is on 18th February.
See this [2]. Everyone is wishing him on the exact date. Give your thoughts about it. Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Don't use it. Since he doesn't actually say "today/18:th is my birthday" (I don't doubt it, myself), this is not good enough for our purpose. Per WP:DOB we should not have to infer "that's probably what he means." If a birthdate of a living person is to be included, it should not be a struggle to find it. That's my view, you can get others at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Chris Noth - surname edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, Just reaching out as I've been having a lot of trouble since Feb 19 starting with numerous edits from the IP editor if you may have seen in the edits history.
I feel I am being steamrolled by two editors with longer edit history primarily not willing to deal with one issue at a time instead it creates a lot of confusion. They posted to the notice boards, not me. Not acknowledging my points, or I thought something was resolved like the MOS:SAMESURNAME, since there was no objection after I replied on the talk page with sources, but then today it was back and forth until finally I think there was acceptance. I have said I am open to discussion but they were unwilling, just making mostly hostile blanket comments instead of addressing details. I feel there were a lot of false statements made against me. I really just want to cooperate and deal with things logically and precisely, with the general hostility it creates a lot of confusion and distraction, lack of acknowledgement of things I say. I was disturbed by the insulting comments and now the user who denied that they were personal attacks wants to ban me even though I remained civil. Hoping to find some mentors, advisors or just general support to talk to.
I can see the user who just said he wants to ban me tried to get others involved [[4]]
Hoping to get a truce where we can deal with issues one at a time logically and precisely without insults and getting personal.
-Khawue (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Shakespeare and Star Trek
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
i just wanted to thank you for your info about the search text feature on a page's revision history that you gave me in the teahouse. i hadnt noticed it before, and in fact, any of those search links. out of curiosityToeFungii (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC) do you know of anything/guide that would be helpful for truly understanding the split page history?
my problem is that seeing the side-by-side in the wp markup text is very difficult for me to understand. i think a lot of what i miss relates to sourcing which ive come to understand is critical to wp. if you dont know of anything thats cool as right now ive got time to play around and explore which for stretches is fun. take care.
Hello and welcome ToeFungii! I don't have much help on that, I'm afraid, because you're right. Reading the side-by-side diff can be a pain in the ass. As you become more experienced, you'll recognize more of the wikitext, but that takes time. It may help to take a look at stuff like Help:Diff, Template:Cite news and Template:Cite book. Happy editing, and keep asking questions! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Turkish history
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
You look like you're interested in Turkish history. Some of these articles can use the support of experienced editors such as yourself. I noticed that many articles are left with too little information. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.33.53.10 (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I have a narrow interest in a few articles, which I try to keep WP-like, a little. Reliable sources are always welcome. I assume you read the talkpages and comment there if you have anything to discuss. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Precious
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Should we put it in quotation marks? - GA (my initials) are for Good article, - go for it. Look at Psalm 84 which recently made it (especially the longish review). I guess a few more sources wouldn't hurt, and - if there - a few more images, - first impression. From the cabal of the outcasts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
ps: did you see any hint at humor/irony regarding that psalm? At least one comment says that it was all written when the temple was destroyed, so praising the courts of the Lord is bitter irony. - I may go for FA eventually, but not for the next weeks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I just wanted to tell you I am back for a little while, maybe a year, since that's as long as the arbitration ban will last, and I am free and clear for that time anyway. I understand if you don't want to be bothered by me anymore, just tell me you'd rather we went our separate ways, but I did want to tell you how great I think you are, that I appreciate that you always stood by no matter how bad things got, you never bailed on me, even when the fault was mine. So thank you. You're a great editor and a good person and I'm glad I got to work with you for awhile. I hope you and yours are well and safe during all this craziness. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jenhawk777! Hope things are well with you and yours in these strange times. And if I didn't want to be bothered by you, I wouldn't have sent you an X-mas greeting in December, would I? Now, please tell me your feelings on the awesomeness of Shakespeare and Star Trek. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi back at ya'! You can't see me but I am smiling right now. I normally get notifications from Wikipedia and I don't remember getting one from you at Christmas--but I will take it now and sing Jingle Bells for awhile and enjoy. :-) Thank you. The Star Trek article is awesome indeed! I had no idea William Shatner had ever played Shakespeare! That would be why there hasn't been any Star Treks lately--there aren't any qualified Shakespearian actors left! My husband is an original fan and I like Next Gen--which do you like best? I wish they'd bring the franchise back. I miss Star Trek. Are you working hard at anything right now? I've got an obscure article that just keeps getting bigger and I need someone ruthless to come and tell me 'cut this' and 'cut that'! Can you pretend to be ruthless? We are well here--staying home of course. Hopefully this will be over soon. I worry that the world economy will never recover. Things like this tend to cause permanent changes. At least Wikipedia goes on! I am glad to hear from you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
...you do know that Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard are ongoing? The franchise hasn't been this back since 1998. If not, there are 3 seasons to binge. I am currently re-watching TNG (done) and onwards, I'm going to dig in to Picard and Discovery S2 when I'm done with the old stuff. Still haven't seen TOS. Current favorite may be DS9.
My current WP-interests have drifted into obscure Turkish history, which I have felt needed defending against recent pop-cult (happily there are a few likeminded editors). But I may take a look at History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance at some point. I may not know anything of the topic, but that hasn't stopped me from telling you what to do before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't know that! It's back and I've been missing it?!? Aaarrghh!!! I will check both of those out immediately. I love binging tv so this is perfect now that we are all stuck at home. You can tell me what to do all you can stand. You are always kind and never mean about it. I've never once left crying after hearing from you--except maybe in gratitude. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Now I am bummed! Discovery and Picard are only available here on a CBS special access that we don't get. It's a subscription service and we already pay for more of them than we should! My husband was not happy at my suggestion that we watch Orville, because, he says, they are making fun of Star Trek and he finds that offensive! He generally has a better sense of humor than that, but I guess Star Trek is sacred ground and no one is allowed to ridicule it. :-) So now I'm making fun of him... Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion on Kosner was interesting. I could see both sides but I think I land with Coffee. We are an interesting--and often cantankerous--people aren't we? (I, along with the rest of the world, absolutely loved Mandalorian and can't wait for its return!). I love sci-fi. :-) Oh. And thanx for the picture. ;-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The Kostner thing is very much grey area. Having some sort of ((())) thing going on at WP is very unpleasant, but it's far from obvious that is the case here. Then again, WP sometimes focuses on ethnicity/ancestry and such more than I'd like, but some people consider it hugely interesting. Oh well, it is what it is. I had to see the Mandalorian because of the above discussion, but it was good. I'm an SNL fan, and the bag-punching outrage was pretty funny. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Ertugrul
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I admire your tolerance towards all the Editors who tr to include unsourced content in the Ertugrul page. I'd like to let you know, that if I ever get hold to some good sources for Ertugrul, I'll try to help your efforts on this article. And of course, at first: only with your consent.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, good sources would be welcome. But please don't feel you have run good-faith edits past me first. Happy to let you know my opinion of course ;) Do you know the language? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
History of Christian thought on tolerance and persecution
Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
Okay, here it is: [6]. When and if you have time, and if you want to, I would love for you to take a look at it and be as critical as you are able. I had a copyright scare and believe I have now fixed all of that--my method was apparently flawed so I learned something from the experience--but I didn't like it!! :-) But if you want to check--I don't know how--that might be a good idea! I don't intentionally copy but I would transfer things to my sandbox and work on them there and apparently fail to recognize that I hadn't changed everything. So I'm not doing that anymore!! Such a puppy, I know. Anyway, I value your contributions when and if you make them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Ha ha! For real! And yet you still showed up to help. That is so you. You are the greatest! So far, you are the only one who has answered. I guess the others have left WP or lost interest in the article. The tags were dated 2012, so that isn't surprising. That means it sat that way for 8 years! That's just wrong. :-) I fixed the citation needed that you left--they were in the body just not the history--pure laziness on my part. I got tired of messing with the history section and stopped and went to the body, leaving 3 or 4 of the history sections completely undone and the rest only partially done. There are now some inconsistencies between those sections and the body because of that, and I will get back to properly fixing those now. I just got tired -- the thing is so huge and complex. The topic should have been narrowed at the start. It's really multiple articles. So, it's not 100%, but I really needed input from someone who knows how to curb my excesses-- I do have a tendency to go on and on--and on--at times--so perhaps skipping the history section and going straight to the body? It would be a huge help. Hopefully that will help prevent hypoxia and the dizziness that so often accompanies the climbing of great heights--for both of us!! Thank you thank you thank you!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey! Do yo think you can come up with an appropriate lead sentence? Everything I think of is a paragraph long... ;-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
If you feel too overwhelmed by the sheer size and weight of this I fully understand. Please don't feel obligated in any way. I respect your opinion, we have worked well together on some complex religious stuff in the past, you are good at pulling me back down to earth, and so of course I had to ask you. I do not in any way mean to pressure you. I hope you do know that with certainty. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I see you have called for help now too! I was going to ask if you knew someone, so I'm in complete agreement. I got so excited when you showed up I felt sure I would get a "Down puppy!" in response. I know things are really bad when all I get is a 911 to others. :-) I took out the historical background--since there isn't really historical background to tolerance since it wasn't a concept until later--it was only each era that had its own historical background, so that's where it is now, and it's shorter. But it's possible to trace the development of both concepts in this article--tolerance declines and persecution increases--things really went to Hell in the middle ages didn't they? Which accurately reflects what the sources say is the history of this progression. The church has spent a lot of time being in conflict with itself because it has conflicting internal values--but I can't say that of course, that would be OR. I'm just observing between you and me. Anyway, it's been an interesting article to work on. I genuinely think it's improved. I hope others agree. Thank you for trying, for asking others, and just for being the person you are. I'll stop pestering you now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Lure? I'm thinking it's more like the opposite... That's alright. One of my undergraduate majors was philosophy. I'm kind of used to the blank response from people when I get going on something... It is pretty heavy. It's not everyone's cup of tea--more like hemlock for most... :-) I just wanted an outside view on the lead mostly because I'm not very good at leads. And if you haven't keeled over from brain freeze, tell me if the High middle ages is confusing. Thank you. You are a gem. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, you reverted my removal of information from Diriliş: Ertuğrul about Esra Bilgic receiving negative comments. Though it was sourced but I removed it because it is least relevant to this article and more about Esra Bilgic herself. The comments she received were on her random Instagram picture and are more related to her own personality and as said about her behaviour outside the series. The only relevance to series is because she's the actress in the series. So that's why I think this information don't merit this section. Thanks! USaamo(t@lk)18:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources are alright but point is relevance. The section is about the series' reception, not about actors life. It was what about her behaviour outside the series which is least relevant to the series' reception. USaamo(t@lk)10:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Relevance is also important to add something and I think something about personal behaviour outside least merits to be on a series' encyclopedic article. And as to adding on Esra Bilgic, it may be considered if it is notable enough to be there. USaamo(t@lk)10:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
That website is blacklisted because it doxxed an editor; and the information related to that doxxing is also present in the article you mentioned on the talk page, so it isn't the best idea to draw attention to it on-wiki. I've blanked your comment on Talk:OpIndia for that reason. Vanamonde (Talk)15:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
That editors active on that article may be targeted is a valid concern, but that's something that can be communicated without reference to a specific article, and can be done on their talk pages. I don't think you were editing in anything but good faith, but drawing attention to specific OpIndia pieces isn't the best idea. A link to that article was suppressed just yesterday, for context. Vanamonde (Talk)16:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I meant editors in general, not doxxed ones. If nothing else, it hints at why there is a sudden spike in readership. I have no problem with the blacklisting, but removing mentions like my note at the talkpage seems like bowdlerizing to me, denying it exists doesn't help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
It's one thing to say "OpIndia takes an active interest in Wikipedia" and quite another to say "here's an article about Wikipedia on this blacklisted website" which contains information doxxing an editor. You do realize if you had posted the link it would have been suppressed, and posting the title isn't very different? @Primefac: you looked at the suppression of this link when I raised it on the OS mailing list; do you think it's a good idea to post the title of the same article to Talk:OpIndia? Vanamonde (Talk)18:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, there is doxxing in this article too. I shouldn't have missed that, but I did (I wasn't that interested, apparently). Apologies, your removal was fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Just replying to the ping above, but saying "it's on X site with Y title" might involve the extra step of manually typing in the URL, but it's only one step removed from just posting the URL. So yes, I'd say suppression is reasonable (with the caveats mentioned regarding "general statements"). Primefac (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the great article you started
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just wanted to show this to you. You said that you wanted some sources which talks about his profile just like SLCW did. And so here i found one which barely talks about his association with The Lumineers. Please be kind enough to have a look. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
One last thing. Everybody is voting in the conversation while you just left a comment. So it'll be really great if you could give your judgement too, about keeping or deleting the article. Pesticide1110 (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article Eric Easton has passed the good article review; see Talk:Eric Easton for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SchroCat -- SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there, Grabergs I noticed that you deleted the date of birth of Joey Maggs. That was used from Find A Grave. I am confused as to why you changed it again to 1967-68 if the website the of photo of the tombstone says 1969? What does not make sense is why did you say check Find A Grave.com? Find A Grave is a reliable source.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Talk:Intelligent design, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
You are receiving this message because you are invited to take part at Wikipedia:Advice for newcomers where you can provide advice that will help our newcomers in the future. It is not a discussion forum, just a place where you say what advice would be helpful to our future editors. I would like to get at least 100 editors to take part in this so please feel free to spread the word to other editors as well. I look forward to seeing what you say to newcomers. Interstellarity (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
For the Swedes
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
We have an editor called Rumpa007. I'm just saying. And with cool names like that, our custom of repeating users' names over and over (signing and pinging) really comes into its own.[8]Bishonen | tålk22:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC).
ReedBlower, no problem, and since you've found the Teahouse you're off to a good start! You may get lucky with questions like Talk:Common_wood_pigeon#Hi, it depends on what editors have it on their WP:WATCHLIST, but the last edit on that page before yours was 6 years ago, WP has many more articles than editors. For such questions, you can also consider asking at any of the Wikiprojects mentioned at the top of the talkpage, or as mentioned at the Teahouse, WP:REFD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there Gråbergs! Hope all is well! I've been trying to find where exactly the first "legend" emerged around "Halime" being a wife of Ertugrul (and mother of Osman), knowing only it originated in the last century, and have only come up with Hayme Ana being mentioned in traditional fiction as Osman's mother. Because of that, I think it's best that we don't include "mother of Osman I" in the lead, because there's nothing to support it.....what do you think? Teavannaa (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The tomb is another piece of the puzzle I've been trying to figure out! According to Cemal Kafadar and all the other historians, her tomb did not exist prior to Sultan Abdulhamid's "recovery" of it. It was without name back then, until decades later (it was named sometime post-1918, after the Sultan died.....probably a lot later, since the scripted name on the tomb is in modern Turkish) and I haven't been able to find out so far exactly when it was named "Halime". Whereas for the tomb of Hayme Ana, it was named as soon as it was restored (in the 1880s/90s). Teavannaa (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. You have new messages at Talk:Diriliş: Ertuğrul. Message added 20:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ianmacm, hello! It was pointed out to me a while back that according to Wikipedia:Press coverage, WP:PRESS 20 etc is sort of dedicated to "wider than one particular article", so lately I've been more restrictive about what I personally add to that page. However, I wouldn't bother to argue if someone else added this, it's way beyond "passing mention", and I think it fits hand in glove at Talk:The Pogues, so I added it there [11]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Special Barnstar
Thank you for welcoming me to the Wikipedia community! Having someone reach out and give me resources to learn how to navigate the site was so helpful in figuring out how this all works. Atomic.madness (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much Atomic.madness! WP has tons of resources, good advice and no-no:s, but finding them is not easy for a new editor. Be WP:BOLD and see what happens, and don't be too surprised if someone reverts you sometimes, it happens to everybody. Based on your userpage, you're off to a good start. Mine began like this: [12]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Dansk tilbagetrækning fra EU på dansk
Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
I had done it what you wrote on Wikipedia:Teahouse about Hjælp:Nybegynderforum and I recived many comments from Danish Users about it. But still no Users started it. Do Gråbergs Gråa Sång know a seconde solution for this? Wname1 (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I have never written and spoken Danish, except on Hjælp:Nybegynderforum. Do you know a third solution for this?:-) Wname1 (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Shakespeare is quite possibly more quoted than even the Bible on any subject you care to imagine. Whether Will himself had any conception of Islam beyond a mythical stereotype of "Moors" I am less certain about. I don't recall a lot of critical or scholarly focus on that connection, but I may just have not been paying attention. Context? --Xover (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Couldn't help but notice since this is right above me. :-) I'd say "Othello" proves he did know about Moors, and not in a mythical way, but in an entirely "woke" one. Shakespeare was so far ahead of his time it's scary. I'm sure he was actually from the future and went back in time to write the plays he had read here--oh wait--time paradox! Of course that's a necessary aspect of time travel right? From your friendly talk page stalker Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
You'd enjoy Othello, I think. It holds up very well, and has contemporary relevance. Superficially it seems a little simple (great drama, simple plot), but it has layers and can be viewed through multiple critical lenses. Othello himself is a relatively straightforward character, but Iago has fascinated and mystified critics for centuries. All sorts of motivations can be ascribed to him: mere jealousy; racism; anti-Muslim prejudice; avarice and desire for advancement; revenge; or simply being a pathological shit-stirrer, a sociopath destroying lives for his own amusement. He is one of the great timeless dramatic characters that actors would kill to play. Case in point, when Kenneth Branagh was on his movie adaptation of Shakespeare kick, he cast Laurence Fishburne as Othello, but kept Iago for himself (Othello (1995 film)). Neither Fishburn's nor Branagh's performances are much more than merely workmanlike, but the film is a decent adaptation and representative of the play. If you're not the kind of geek that has to read a critical edition first I would recommend hunting it down as a good introduction. --Xover (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable summary of the issue (including the cited article in The Economist). There is some more information about Elizabethan attitudes and knowledge about Muslims (and Jews) in the "Character sources" section of the article on Jessica in The Merchant of Venice (last three paras in particular). Muslims, Jews, and even Indians were known, and there were even small delegations and enclaves at various times in London. But people in general had their conception of these groups from mediæval exemplum, legends, and possibly sensational reports in various current events publications (books and pamphlets; there weren't really newspapers or magazines at the time). As The Economist notes, there was a popcultural fad for various stereotypes of "Muslims" during Shakespeare's lifetime, but the depictions were all about as realistic and nuanced as Fox News' summation of Bernie Sanders' political stances.Shakespeare wasn't so much "woke" as being the first truly humanist playwright. Hamlet gets all the psychoanalytical literary criticism, but all his greatest plays have in common a focus on, and genius-level insight into, people as people, as human beings, rather than as mere stock characters straight out of central casting. Hamlet is a revenge drama, but the protagonist spends all his time in mental anguish over whether he's doing the right thing, and agonising over whether he's just imagined his father's ghost; Shylock, though imbued with all the (negative) stereotypical traits of jews, is treated with insight and humanity, and allowed to express a real set of human emotions and perspectives (warts and all); and even in the History plays, the Kings and other main characters come across as actual human beings, with desires, hopes, and flaws.You could say Shakespeare was as racist as the rest of Elizabethan England, but he was not bigoted or prejudicial: he had an immense insight into the human condition, and allowed each person their individual humanity no matter their background an circumstance. For an uneducated, rural, ruthlessly commercial and popcultural producer, this is nothing short of astounding. Not that he didn't produce some clunkers or phoned it in at times, but his predecessors and contemporaries were all mired in two-dimensional cardboard cutouts and rigid adherence to Classical rules for drama (the Unities, in particular). --Xover (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Every one I have ever known undersells the character of Othello. No one ever seems to see past the simplistic seeming plot and ask themselves why? Why is this overwhelmingly successful man, who has beaten all the odds, and risen to a position of prominence in a society not disposed to easily or automatically think well of him, why is this man who therefore must be intelligent, wiley, and accomplished, who is markedly handsome according to his description, why is this man who seemingly has everything going for him so easily duped? As a general, would he not know about strategy designed to hoodwink your opponent? All the generals I have known spent years studying strategy. Is that not why chess was designed? Would he not understand chess? Why doesn't he believe Desdemona genuinely loves him? Why did Shakespeare make this a play, his only play, with a black main character? I think it's because he understood--deep down--he created Othello with this internal contradiction in his character because it is the fact of his being a Moor in a white racist society that has made him into a man incapable of believing he could ever just be loved for himself. He was afraid to ask his wife of Iago's accusations. He was easily led into doubt and fear because it was already there inside him--always. He was a man alone--always. Shakespeare knew. Othello is the most tragic of all his characters.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: That's a very modern and relevant lens to view the character through. I'm not necessarily convinced it reflects intent on Shakespeare's part, except to the extent that he seemed to view all his characters first and foremost as human beings (including the characters that serve as villains or that he intends to caricature or ridicule). Othello is a stereotypical hero and "The Great General" archetype. He is brave, intelligent, witty, skilled, and has great accomplishments. But Shakespeare really doesn't imbue him with a lot of depth. There's jealousy as a character flaw—which is almost inextricably linked to self-doubt and feelings of inadequacy—but one need not posit that Shakespeare understood and wished to shine a torch at the effects of systemic racism. Jealousy is one of the great tragic human character flaws. Shakespeare exoticises Othello, but as a character he could equally well have been any nationality or ethnic group. The choice of a Moor for the character, and Venice as the setting, has more to do with a need to appeal to popular tastes (both were in fashion), and to enable telling a story with comfortable distance for the audience. Romeo and Juliet, Much Ado About Nothing, and any number of plays set in "exotic" locations could just as well have been set in England; and Othello could equally well have been Welsh, Scots, or Irish.But I think your interpretation would be an obvious one for a modern stage or movie adaptation. There are any number of ways a director could emphasise this aspect in order to comment on modern issues, even without resorting to gimmicks (liker gender-swapping or race-swapping, moving the plot to a modern setting, and so forth). In fact, in that sense, that Othello should be playing all over these days; especially in light of the long long history of the role being played by white actors wearing blackface (Welles, Gielgud, Olivier, Hopkins, …). Sadly I suspect the jealousy and murder of Desdemona would ring too close to the modern racist stereotypes of hyper-sexualized and angry black men unable to control their baser urges. They are too intrinsic to the plot to be de-emphasised or cut, and would tend to fatally undermine the opposing aspects. And the emphasis on Iago—who, as mentioned, is really the main character of the play—would be hard to avoid being another instance of backgrounding the black character. But I hope a skilled director takes on the challenge: it need not speak to all aspects and all things in order to be a great comment on our times. We should get to a place where we have enough representation, and enough positive representation, of non-white characters that depicting one black character with typical human failings does not read as and reinforce systemic racism. --Xover (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: What a wonderful response, thank you. I love talking literature and hardly ever get to do it anymore. I would disagree with your assessment of course. As you say, Shakespeare treats his characters first and foremost as human beings. It is he who makes the point of showing Othello's aloneness, that he has no close friends to discuss this with, to tell him don't be ridiculous man, Desdemona loves you. He only has subordinates--and his own imagination. And I would object to characterizing him as a stereotypical; compared to Shakespeare's other military characters, Othello is unlike them. And while the Joker was a wonderful foil, Batman remains the main character as does Othello. But one of the neat things about discussing fiction is there is no 'right' answer. We can both see what we see and that's okay. The fun is in the exchange and I thank you for it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion
Hey Grabergs! I started out trying to scroll down to the bottom of your talk page and gave up. :-) Haven't heard from you in a while. Last was, you were going to read pagans, and then I didn't hear from you again, and it's making me paranoid. I'm afraid you hated it so much you feel like you can't tell me the truth and are avoiding me. Please tell me that's just the craziness of "cabin fever" from being home all these months. I would hate to think you felt unable to tell me anything. You know your opinion is important to me. If you don't want to read it, that's cool--but please tell me that and put me out of my misery! I hope you are well and not dealing with some real life emergency that I have now made all about me. Forgive me if I'm being an idiot--well not if--just please forgive me and let me hear from you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jenhawk! Damn, I did say that, didn't I? Honestly I forgot about it, apologies. I'll take a look. No emergencies, apart from the standard global. There is a Jump to the bottom of page link at the top, put there by an editor who didn't want to scroll either. I may have to archive at some point, but I'm used to the un-archived version. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes dear one, yes. I'm so glad I'm only crazy and not right! Thank you! (You know I am just teasing you a little about your talk page, right? It's perfectly okay!) Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, if this a long page, who made it long? Hint: ctrl-f "jenhawk" or see [14]. This is why I like the unarchived form, history becomes so visible (well, the parts of it I didn't actually delete). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Quantity has a quality all of its own? It's actually getting slow to edit now, so since we're busily nudging… :) --Xover (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I looked at the link--is that for pagans? You wrote most of it? That can't be true. It was filled with problems that you would never do. What page does it refer to?
@Gareth Griffith-Jones: Hi Gareth! I think I've lost the bubble here--which happens to me more and more these days--what kind of editor were you? You couldn't possibly be as clueless as I was when I first got here! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hah ha! I used to love the Pointer sisters and danced to all their songs and sang along! I will jump from now on without complaint, I promise! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Now I get it Grabergs. I'm a little slow some times! I have written almost as much on this page as the owner--but you know that's only because I love talking with you and your other friends so much. Everybody comes here! You're like the coffee shop in Friends. :-) CoffeeShop Amsterdam IBIZA, Coffee shop in AmsterdamJenhawk777 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the alert that this article had blown up again. I gave it a month semi-protection this time. I thought semi-protection might be enough, as I don’t think I saw disruption coming from autoconfirmed accounts this time (since Balolay has been blocked). I'm not able to follow the disagreements about content there, so please let me know if we get any new editors that look suspiciously like Balolay. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I read the entire Dune series years ago but haven't even looked at a Frank Herbert lately. Hey have you seen the Danish tv show "Rain"? It's sci-fi and kind of cool--dystopian. But they don't quote Bill! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
How do I get to be a part of welcoming newcomers? How do I find them? Where is the template? I had such a miserable first year, I really want to make things better for others, and I see up above in the massive amount of data floating overhead that you know how! Puppy needs to do this! Please help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Jenhawk777 I'll add that many "welcomes" will give no response whatsoever, and that's fine. Many people conclude that there are funnier stuff they can do on their device than editing WP. It's still good to try, you being my shining example of that. Other times you fail in a O_O way. That was written by a COI-newbie, whos' attempt at an article got attention from regulars and then was kept. Culture-clash major. Well, at least I'm in good company. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, whaddya' mean so far! You are always reasonable, it's one of your most annoying I mean endearing qualities. You are absolutely in the right for making those corrections. Genocide is a modern interpretation, and the word is nowhere in the Bible. Using the actual wording is not only more accurate, it's more powerful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
That's what I thought too! "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" speaks for itself, doesn't it? And thanks for chiming in on the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Are crayfish the same as American crawfish? They look similar. We have similar parties here in the summer--we call them crawfish boils and there's potatoes and corn on the cob and other stuff cooked in with them. It sounds like great fun and good food. I hope you have a great time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
I have just had the most surreal experience. I have been working on buffing up Biblical criticism in order to finally finish it as an FA, and in doing some additional research I ran across an article published in October of 2019, titled Biblical Criticism in the Contemporary Homilectic Praxis from an African Journal called the Journal of Religion and Human Relations. Grabergs it is copied almost completely from my Wikipedia article. I found exact word for word quotes without any attribution from the first sentence of my lead--which I have now changed--to most of the rest of my content. I know that if I can access the history of the article, I can show that I wrote it before October 2019, and the FA that is archived shows how hard I worked to come up with that stupid lead sentence! But now it's out there--so it will show up on a copyvio--and Grabergs, they copied me! I didn't copy them! What do I do? What do I do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Here it is: Ohaeri, Nnaemeka Ndubuwa, and Effiong Effiong Uye. "Biblical Criticism in the Contemporary Homilectic Praxis." Journal of Religion and Human Relations 11.1 (2019): 83-104. After page 85, it is about 85% my work--word for word. I started work on the article on May 31, 2018, and it went to FA review in October 2018. This article was published a full year later in October of 2019. But it has to pass copyvio to be FA and I haven't checked but this article should come up as a violation--or something--I don't know because of the dates. I have reworked almost the entire article but some parts of it I can't change at will! Help me Obi wan Kenobee, you're my only hope.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if you've heard of WP:CITOGENESIS before, but it's a thing. Now, if you want to contact the publication pointing out Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, that could be fun, but that's up to you. If they're serious they should care, but who knows? If you do, just make damned sure WP wasn't copypasting the stuff in the first place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I have templated the crap out of everything everywhere! This is not citogenesis. I have contacted the publication, I thought they should know. I included my links for when I started writing it (May 2018), and when it went to FA (October 2018), the year before the journal published it in October 2019. If you think earwig is not happy, you should see me right now. Thank you for your help. I knew I could count on you. So good morning to you and it's good night for me--it's 3 in the morning here. I've been too upset to go to bed. I will go now. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I could claim this is proof my work is Journal-worthy except I'm afraid their standards aren't too rigorous if they published it without checking it. But I like your positive spin! So you mentioned something on Gareth's Talk page about thinking there might be an additional tag of some kind? This kind of thing must happen a lot I'm guessing so there must be tags, how do we find them? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I found another one! [21] I can't find a date for this one, but it just showed up on the copy-vio today, so I think it's new. I have put out requests to the computer gurus here asking them if they can find a date for it, and if they can't or won't, I don't know what to do. I don't know how else to prove it's a backwards copy. Is there any way to protect this article from being copied or am I just going to have to run the detector every week?!? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
What is that page supposed to be, anyway? I tried archive.org but no help there. No, not that I can see. WP stuff is sort of meant to be copied, Wikipedia mirrors etc. However, it would seem reasonable that if someone claims something like the .cf thing is a copyvio, they should be able to show some sort of date of publication. So I don't think that'll happen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Jenhawk777 - I went to that paper but did not find any attribution to you or Wikipedia. See WP:C because the author of that paper may well be in violation of your copyrighted work by their failure to attribute it. AtsmeTalk📧15:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Atsme You are absolutely correct, it is a copyright violation, but as the tichanlorsmagboa site has no author, and no date, there is nothing I can do about it. The one published in a "reputable" journal was dated and had authors and a publishing date, so that was easy to deal with using the template Grabergs told me about, but I didn't know what to do with this one with no date. I'm scared to death of Dianna coming along and blanking the whole thing, but I posted about this to her as well. I am trying to be super careful and running copyvio every time I write now because I have had a couple problems from not being careful enough--so now I am finding these other problems instead! I swear, if it isn't one thing it's another! Forgot to sign! I'm still a little flustered! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Jerm found a date I can use!! He is my hero of the day! I am so relieved! Thank you guys for all your sympathy and support in this. I have been completely freaked out by it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Autopatrolled granted
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~Swarm~{sting}19:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Grabergs I'm having a hurricane! It lands in the morning--right in my lap--but rains start tonight. I am praying none if the big trees around my house fall on it! Keep us in mind. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Greetings ! I was wondering if you know the differences in the rules between square pichenotte and carroms. I have seldom played either game, as you know, I am round pichenotte (croquignole0 player. Also, do you know where to buy a high quality square pichenotte board ? I have asked many people, and no one seems to know. No need to reply, but do you live the the States or elsewhere ? Are you part of a pichenotte club ? Thank you ThreeVictors (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it best to delete the PICHENOTTE entry.
Although some of what is on there is correct, it is of very limited scope and limited value.
If a credible editor or team of editors can do some research and bring forth an accurate
and inclusive entry, it would be great. The current entry lacks citations and credibility.
AQJP seems a defunct and archived website and yet it is the only cited website and reference.
I hope that can change if a credible editor or group of editors researches the word and brings forth an accurate, useful and inclusive entry. Thanks. DVQuebecDVQuebec (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
Hello! Your submission of Shakespeare and Star Trek 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) 21:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
the good article review; see Talk:Eric Easton for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SchroCat -- SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
