(I have relocated these very precious kindnesses from others to the top of my talkpage, so they will never be lost or forgotten. I am very grateful for each one.)

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your well-chosen words at Talk:Christian ethics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Phenomenal job on History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance! Your deep grasp of the scholarly literature and your tireless commitment to addressing my large number of comments and generally improving the article is very impressive! Thank you for all your hard work! DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your diligence at Biblical criticism and elsewhere. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your praises played by Moop Mama, more on my talk, or the Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Thank you again for your kind comments and friendly gesture. You are a fine example of a Kindness Campaign member. History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 04:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Feel free to take over the 'Gerda's newsletter' idea. I'm going to re-focus on maybe starting a Kindness Campaign newsletter :)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You definitely deserve this for your work on History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance! HouseBlaster (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

A year ago ...

"What do you mean, I can´t rewrite the entire article!?"
... you were recipient no. 1915 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Christianity Barnstar
		You deserve this for your herculean efforts to improve Biblical criticism and respond to the comments at its recent FAC. As Gog mentioned in the closing note, with some additional work it will have a good chance at passing next time around. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fruits[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Dear Jenhawk777, I award you The Christianity Barnstar for all your hard work in WikiProject Christianity-related articles, especially your recent creation of Evolutionary theodicy. Keep up the good work! Your efforts are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you Jenhawk777 for the message that you left on Gerda's page for me. Truly, the volunteers of these huge projects like WP, LibriVox, DP cannot go the extra mile without people like Gerda and you, who inject fresh energy into the volunteers. The kind words are our only salary, and fortunately we all can pay each other a lot. :) Qapisce (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September songs

		The Original Barnstar
		For excellent work on Theodosius I and Massacre of Thessalonica Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Forget about the email, the issue doesn't matter anymore as of now. I regret having reached you in such an inopportune moment, best of wishes and hopefully nothing bad happens. Avilich (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich My mother died yesterday afternoon. I think I'm still in a bit of shock. I am at her house and will be for awhile. Have you read the quick-fail review of Christianization? It's a really bad job, but I can't answer right now. That too sucketh. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences for your loss (and, I suppose, for that rather rough review). I imagine you'll be quite busy for the next few days or weeks. Avilich (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich Thank you dear one. I am and will be quite busy trying to close up her affairs and house. I have answered the reviewer several times, but they just keep getting it backwards. Their last reply included an analogy that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding: Let's say that I was writing the Wikipedia biography of Nazi Germany. Military expansion is among the primary topics of Nazi history. So what you're saying is that I could write the entire article about that and not mention the Holocaust or anti-Semitism once, as long as I made it clear in the lead? Obviously this would be insane, but this analogy aptly demonstrates what you've done here.

I responded of course. Your claim that this analogy aptly demonstrates what you've done is nonsense. This analogy is crap. You begin by defining the topic as a "biography of Nazi Germany" which is by definition a broad history - much broader than a sociological view and nothing I did in Christianization. It's also a crap analogy because there is no contemporary scholarship contradicting the historical interpretation of a "biography of Nazi Germany" - as there is with Christianization.

An article on the sociological view of how German society of that time developed Nazism and anti-semitism, that focused exclusively on what aspects contributed to the holocaust, and did not discuss the rest of the military history and battles that did not matter to that limited subject, would be comparable, but that isn't what you suggested is it? You begin by suggesting a broad history, then compare history to sociology, and conclude with a criticism of sociology for not being history; this is what you have consistently done throughout this entire review. Can you not see that?

I got nothing of course. Every time I demonstrated their error they just pretended that discussion didn't take place. They failed the article because it was sociological and not historical. Next time I list it, I will be sure and list it under sociology as well as religion, but not history. My mistake. I will wait a while though. This has been a bit brutal. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk, my sincere symphathies and condolences. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you my friend. I still haven't quite wrapped my mind around it I think. I keep thinking I'll ask her something, and then it hits me. She has a huge house, and going through her things feels like invading her privacy. I am glad we finally resolved things on Bible. I was beginning to despair there, but I thank you for your perseverance in working that out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through my mother's belongings too. It was hard and I feel for you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Empathy always helps lighten any load. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As you may know, I usually do biographies and conflicts, the scope of which is easy to define and much more straightforward than a process such as CRE, so I may not be the best person to deal with or opine about broad-subject articles such as this. That said, my original impression, going by the natural meaning of the title "CRE", is that the article is supposed to be a description of the process, explaining whether it was violent, rates of and reasons for conversion, its enforcement, how it affected communities and the wider politics of the empire, and so on. I'm unsure of what use a strict distinction between history and sociology would be here: there's obviously a sociological aspect in the sense that you're studying these changes in society, and there's a historical aspect in that you're recording and analyzing events, if only to contextualize the sociological part. This particular reviewer thought that there was not enough "history", though his misunderstanding of the "Edict of Milan" and the "Edict of Thessalonica", and his failure to suggest how to incorporate an analysis of them into the article aside from an overblown explanation of their importance, casts doubt on his capacity to judge on his own how much "history" is good enough to begin with. Those are my initial thoughts, feel free to point out anything you think I'm wrong about. Avilich (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avilich you are absolutely correct in your assessment imo. I was using sociology in an attempt to get him to see that his focus on historical events was the problem. He couldn't see that talking about causes - "how" - it was done, just didn't require a great deal of that. He came with a bias. He called sociology garbage. And I don't think he read the whole article because both of those Edicts are actually mentioned - just not by name - and he didn't recognize them by description. It was neither a well done review or a fair one. Thank you. I appreciate your support, and what seems like a fair evaluation of that article, and your sympathies about my mom. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since a third GA nomination probably isn't feasible for the time being, you could try WP:Peer review. If you manage to get a satisfactory result from that, the next GA nominator will no doubt be more reluctant to declare a failure. You evidently worked hard on all of this, and, if nothing else, you know how to find out what and where the good sources are, which I can attest after cleaning up your references section all those months ago. You've seen, however, from both failed nominations, how difficult it is to review a broad subject such as this (whatever the shortcomings of each reviewer), and to me an arbitrary milestone as GA isn't worth all this hassle. Not meaning to sound discouraging with that last remark, of course. Avilich (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich I put it through a peer review before nominating it for GA in the first place. I made the changes they recommended. I even made the changes commenters made on the talk page. I like everything to be GA if I can get it there, and these huge broad subjects are my norm. Graebergs even posted a pictorial on my user page about that. :-) I will leave it for now of course. It has been a huge hassle and very frustrating. I don't quite understand the emotional response it has produced. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you were already one step ahead, I see. Well, don't let this unfortunate turn of events upset you much, as you already have enough to worry about now and you have enough reason to be proud of your work if peers reviewed it and found it satisfactory. Avilich (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right of course, and that is good advice. I will follow it. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for taking over the review of Talk:Devil in Christianity/GA1 and for your general effort in GA nominations! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. I am genuinely happy to do it. I am enjoying it. Right now, I too am being impeded by RL, but I will get back to it soon. Thank you for so graciously allowing me to step in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christianization of the Roman Empire[edit]

Can't say I thought that review gave fair time to the subject. I hope you're not disheartened, and if I can help in any future work just let me know. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ActivelyDisinterested Thank you so much for that. I can't tell you how much that means to me today. I am disheartened for other reasons but that review just makes everything worse. And I don't have time to answer it right now.Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April Editathons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228 Online events: New: Gender studies | French overseas territories New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Temple (LDS Church) on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know ...[edit]

Don't miss that section on the Main page today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the GAN page[edit]

[1] Won't work, Legobot erases all edits. You need to make any edits to the GAN template on the talk page. (t · c) buidhe 05:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I tried. That didn't work either. Can you buidhe fix it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You really have 2 options: either add a mention to the |note= parameter, or else close the review and start /GA2 with yourself as the reviewer. There is otherwise no way to get credit for the review. (t · c) buidhe 06:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you know, when I answered the second opinion, I thought I should have closed it then, but it was a second opinion, so I didn't. Then I was left with it. There is no note = parameter that I see. Oh well. I will finish the review anyway. The article deserves it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe The real question is, once I finish, do I have the power to promote or fail? That's what matters. This has taken months, and she has persevered through it all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes because it's abandoned. (t · c) buidhe 21:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe Oh good! I will go ahead and finish up then. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk777, you edited the WP:GAN page again today. Please don't. The bot will take care of things, and nothing is so urgent that it can't wait for a max of 20 minutes for the next bot run. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset I'm so sorry! I thought it said that if it reflected what was on the article talkpage that it was okay. You're right of course, there was no urgency, but I didn't know anything about how often bots run. I do now, so I won't do it again. If I am understanding correctly now, you are saying that if I change it on the talkpage that the bot will come along and make that change on the nominations page in 20 minutes?

This was a different circumstance than the one above - we never did get that one figured out - on this one I had done a little whining, and it needed removing. I had embarrassed myself, and now, by removing it, it seems I have embarrassed myself yet again! Mea culpa. Please forgive my ignorance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk777, no problem. The bot runs every 20 minutes, so you should never have to wait longer than that for any change you make to the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page to be reflected on the GAN page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset Thank you. You seem knowledgable about this, and if I may take up a little more of your time, I'd like to ask another question. Just above this was a problem we never could figure out an answer to. I picked up a second opinion which became an abandoned review, but the original reviewer never removed their name as reviewer or put my name on it. When it came time to conclude the review, the bot would only recognize them, and I had to go get them to post the results. Thank goodness they were timely in responding and the article's author didn't have to wait indefinitely - they had already been through a lot of waiting - but neither I nor buidhe could figure out how to change the name of the reviewer at either the article talkpage or the GA page. I tried several things but clearly I am not well informed about how this all works, and none of it worked! So if you have any idea what I should have or could have done in that circumstance, I would appreciate knowing in case it ever happens again. Thanx again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk777, happy to reply. We haven't typically updated the GA review page when a new reviewer takes over from a previous one who has withdrawn from or abandoned the review to officially hand off responsibility for the review. It is understood that the new reviewer has taken over and is now responsible for the review, even if the bot shows the previous reviewer. So there was no need to get the attention of the original (and still listed) reviewer; the decision at that point was entirely yours, and you could have closed the review at that time even though their name remained on the review. (I think I posted something to that effect on the review at the time, but it might not have been until after the closure was done.) This isn't an ideal situation, and perhaps GAN needs a more formal way of reassigning reviews when that happens; it is possible to make a manual intervention on the review page, but it's almost never done—it may be because the history of the review is obscured, but there ought to be a way around it. I hope this helps. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset So here I am demonstrating my ignorance again, but I thought the listed reviewer was the only one who could pass or fail a review. Other opinions are invited but they can't make the final call. So did I get credit for that review after all? I don't suppose it matters a great deal, but I do want to do my part to help others and I know somewhere one of those magic bots keeps track. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the listed reviewer has been active throughout and continues reviewing, then it is true that they alone make the final decision. However, if they have abandoned or withdrawn from the review, they have forfeited their say: that decision passes to whoever takes over and completes the review. The bot may not have given you a credit for that review—it was never programmed to determine a change in reviewers—but you can certainly claim it in your own accounting. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that I can do. Thank you again for your patience. I appreciate someone willing to help others. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose check in[edit]

Hey! Just wanted to check in to say I haven't forgotten about our work on Ambrose. Perhaps we come back to it this summer and push for GA? I have a few other WP commitments in the way, and would like to get them done before returning to Mr. Aurelius Ambrosius. Aza24 (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That timing would probably work out for me. I have no way of knowing, but I do know, not now, and maybe not even then, as it's already been a crazy year. My mother died and my sister stole most of the estate's money. Yeah. It gets worse too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jen, I'm so sorry to hear this, its awful that you had to go through that. Can I offer some of the relaxing music I go to? [2] [3] [4]... maybe it will help. I only reached out about Ambrose so you wouldn't think I had forgotten about the article; I'm totally fine returning this summer, next year, or even later. Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 Thank you for the sympathy. I am surviving surprisingly well I think. Perhaps it all hasn't hit me yet - ask me in a year if I have hired someone to kill my sister... No on second thought, don't ask!! . I am glad to hear from you, always. I'm glad you hadn't forgotten - I did! Music and kindness and the caring of others always helps everything, so thank you, come back whenever you think you are ready, and if I can't I will just explain when I can. Being on WP helps make me feel normal again, it doesn't hurt anything, so this is a good thing. I am working on three things right now though, so when I am done, I will ping you and see where you're at! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Syro-Malabar Church on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April[edit]

April songs

... after Easter and resilience: dance and singing, peace doves and icecream - Freiheit! to listen to, - the livestream has it all, safety announcement, speeches, intermission ... but there's a good legend to find the symphony movement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt Thank you. I needed that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea, sorry. Best wishes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt Thank you dearheart, it's been a long year already and it's only just started. People like you are always a help. WP helps. It gives me other stuff to complain about! I loved the music and dancing. Thank you for thinking of me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dove sono (Where are those happy moments ...?) - concert with Kyiv orchestra and Aleksey Semenenko (quite a story!) tonight, Symphony with war and peace in the subtitle --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have posted[edit]

I posted a note; I'm afraid it might not be what you were hoping for! I am impressed by your academic knowledge, but I do think changes need to be made. We can continue that conversation on the article talk page.

Have you considered working on something small and getting that to GA? It's really hard to start at the top level and work down; it's usually easier to start with the "leaf" articles on the tree and work your way up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No no Mike Christie don't apologize. Your honest assessment is what I asked for. Yes, I have other GAs, though some of them are pretty large too. I have answered your note on the article talk page. I am thankful for this Mike. I don't mind making any and all changes if I can just figure out what changes need to be made, so you are helping me, and I am deeply grateful.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May Women in Red events[edit]

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230 Online events: New: Women in the Ancient World | British Overseas Territories Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest (second month) Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Precious

Four years!

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gerda Arendt sorry for the delayed response. I'm a little out of it these days. Thank you for this. It's kind of you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somewhat interesting to you[edit]

Talk:Historicity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#RfC_on_category_inclusion/exclusion Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx! I went and put in my two cents. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This [5] is completely unrelated, but it's nice when the collective gets a pat on the back. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

email[edit]

finally replied to that last message of yours Avilich (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go look Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]