This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jjhake. 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.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
You're welcome. We're glad to have you. --Whosyourjudas(talk) 23:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Columbian Exchange
I'm so happy that someone who actually knows about this found the page and improved it! I was beginning wo wonder why no one seemed to care about de-stubbing the article about one of the most important events in the history of the world. The chart is awesome. Fishal 16:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
dog and shepherd photo
You just uploaded this image; I checked the web site that you cited but I can't find any info that says that this photo is public domain or has been released under GFDL by the photographer. Can you point me to that information and/or put the location with that info into the image's description page? Thanks. Elf | Talk 21:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Scottish villages
The category redirect to towns seems rather weird: for example, Calgary, Mull is no more than a few houses and barely qualifies as a village, but it's definitely a settlement and it seems a good idea for it to fit in a Scottish category somewhere. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion hasn't an entry for Scottish villages so presumably no discussions there. All very odd, please reconsider...dave souza 00:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting villages out - agree that it would be good to have criteria for what's a village or town on the category page, but I've tried looking at these pages and doing a quick google search and so far haven't found anything specific. There may be some particular Scottish definition, but generally in Britain villages can sometimes be bigger than towns and the naming seems to be historic, whether there's been a market or church, or perhaps even local tradition. If you can find a form of words to clarify this that would be great, it may have to come down to finding what's usually used in each case. Two points - I've not heard of the term 'hamlet' being used in Scotland, and the Scottish clans usually grouped houses into "townships" which my dictionary defines as meaning the same as "villages". Also agreed that there should be a consistent format, many thanks for giving this attention...dave souza 23:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dunoille Castle
Greetings from a retired social studies teacher. My wife is some kind of distant relative of Dunoille's MacDougalls. We've been to Dunoille twice. I came across the stub you created for Dunoille and after some research, added some historical detail. If I can learn how to add photos to Wikipedia pages, I may add a photo we have of the view of the bay from Dunoille. If I've made any errors in my research or summary, please correct them.
Are you going to grade our Theology contributions from chapter one in The Turning Points? I don't remember if you said anything about that when you were explaining our groups. Spunkiel19:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Apstolic Fathers Website
Mr. Hake, Ive found another good web site with writings of the apostolic fathers on it. It is www.earlychritianwritings.com
Ha ha, I see you actually listed that one. Well, it makes me feel good that the website I was using has your stamp of approval on it.
Aw articles
Mr Hake
-I could not get in touch with my group, so I edited an article on the Franks, and the history article that never showed up after I did it.
aw (Strongbadsings!!01:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC))
so why didn't u jus call em u kno u got dey number!!!
A tag has been placed on VirtualBank, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
Hello, Jjhake. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
While you have broad latitude about what you place or remove from your own user talk page, changing your post on an article talk page after it has been responded to is considered very bad form. See WP:TALK#REVISE for more details.
Thank you for these corrections and suggestions. I recall reordering items yesterday on the Roland in Moonlight talk page but did not intend to change any substance. I'll not make any changes of any kind in the future. If I don't hear back from User: 103.21.175.59, I'll try asking at WT:WikiProject Categories as you say. I agree that "invoking WP:CAT" is not very helpful to understanding their point. I now have another undo from another anonymous user (User:43.249.196.226) saying simply: "not how it is done you fool." I grant that I'm not familiar with all of the conventions, but I'm trying to learn, and it is disappointing to have anonymous users undoing my work with such unhelpful feedback and reasons given. Jjhake (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Just FYI, I've tried to revert the Talk:Roland in Moonlight page back to clearly and correctly reflect the history of interactions from top to bottom for anyone trying to help. I've also left another comment for User: 103.21.175.59 on a talk page for them as well as on the Roland in Moonlight article talk page. Jjhake (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Not all books are notable. It might strengthen this article's likelihood of success if other reviews are included
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|GorgeCustersSabre}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
See the added templates regarding notability and citaions, and please add additional pertinent categories
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|GorgeCustersSabre}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
@GorgeCustersSabre: Thank you for the suggestions. To get started on some of these improvements, I have just added a citation in the "Themes" section and a new "Reception" section with five citations. I'll keep working on this. Addition suggestions much appreciated. Jjhake (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to David Bentley Hart, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Bentley Hart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
@Helloheart: thank you for this review and feedback. I'm new to this process and will review everything to ensure that recommendations are implemented to my best ability, but please do let me know if I seem to be missing anything. Jjhake (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
@Helloheart: Thank you for the ongoing work. I see several initial updates with categories completed but have not noticed more for a few days. It looks like a time-consuming set of tasks, but let me know if I can support the work in any appropriate or helpful way. I'm not that experienced with Wikipedia but enjoy learning. And this author is someone that I know a lot about as a topic of interest to me for several years. Jjhake (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
An article you recently created, Alexander V. Khramov, is not suitable as written to remain published. It appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself. Onel5969TT me18:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@Onel5969: btw, I don't have any relationship with Khramov, and I'm not a paid editor. I'm interested in his career and ideas, but I don't think that constitutes any conflict of interest. I don't know what I can do about that impression that you have but please let me know if there is more to clarify there. I do see issues in the draft with verifiability and general notability, so I will work on that as I am able. Jjhake (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I wrote to Khramov about a year ago after reading some of his journal articles in English. When I had the idea recently that he seemed notable for a short article on Wikipedia (and this only because some other Wikipedia editor with no connection to me or him added a wikilink with his name when no article Khramov existed yet), I asked him if he would release a photo into the public domain. Jjhake (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
@Onel5969: I've added three more citations and one more fact noted about Khramov in a book by Edinburgh University Press. There are more secondary sources that I'm finding and will add, but this article draft seems to meet standards and is ready for review. Any help with feedback and with moving through the review process much appreciated.
@Bakkster Man: letting you know here as well as another editor who I don't know and who might be able to help impartially with this draft article review process. Jjhake (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Alexander V. Khramov, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Where do you see that phrase in secondary literature? It also sounds like a wider topic than the atemporal fall of Adam which gets mentioned most often in secondary sources as "meta-historical fall" (as well as metaphysical, supramundane, atemporal, and pre-cosmic fall). Jjhake (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Your categories of biblical cosmology vs. physical cosmology do make great sense to me as a way of talking about the context of a meta-historical fall. However, the relationship between these two concepts is a larger topic (beyond just the question of the human fall), and I don't know that you could make an encyclopedia article out of the comparison of these two kinds of cosmology or the history of debate between them. Each one might make an interesting article of its own, and these articles could reference each other with some contrasts. But that project would require investigating what else exists already on Wikipedia of course, and these are massive and challenging topics that would be more work to do than I have time for any time soon. However, you definitely have me thinking about how best to represent the relationships with these categories very briefly within the existing article on a meta-historical human fall. Thank you for the thoughts. --Jjhake (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Glad to help. Just thought that broadening the scope of the title may protect it from being accused of being 'too narrow a focus' or WP:MAINSPACE or wp:weight. At the same time I fear my alternative title has issues of its own such as wp:original or wp:synth (i.e. I'm concerned: what's stopping anyone from creating an article "Relation between the early history of QR codes and the sixth symphony of Bach"? There must be a reason for the article to exist by itself rather than being strewn over various articles.) FatalSubjectivities (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I’m pretty sure the article is clearly notable by Wikipedia standards. A few experienced editors have agreed. I think it’s best to keep it focused on the long tradition of understanding the human fall as coming from outside of time and space as we know them now and as resulting in the empirical world that we know now by means of our biological senses. Jjhake (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
