User talk:Jeppiz

jesus myth theory

hey asshole, my addition was not vandalism, it was context of why the mythasists reject the scholarly opinion. leaving it as it was and is again it just a blatant attack on the theory from someone with an axe to grind.Jiohdi (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Jeppiz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! bodnotbod (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Please don't feel badly or think you took a harsh tone! I am used to a lot worse here on wikipedia, from stubborn users who will not listen to others' opinions/ideas and revert edits without good reason. Thank you for being civil and I appreciate your feedback! --user:Neddy1234

fixing Christ myth theory

That page needs a lot of work. I'm willing to help. Anything I should know before I do more? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jonathan. The page is a bit of a minefield, but that's true for most religious articles. There are basically two 'camps'; there is "camp A" who wants to use academic sources to represent the academic mainstream. My guess (in general, not speculating on anyone in particular) is Camp A is made up of people of various beliefs, ranging from believing Christians who (in this one case) has academia on their side, and atheist or agnostic users who simply want the page to reflect current scholarship. Then there is "camp B" who wants to argue that Jesus never existed. There are those in camp B who hold that belief but are prepared to use good sources, so then the only 'conflict' is how much emphasis to give to different views. Then there are the conspiracy theorists who are convinced not only that Jesus never lived, but that there is a conspiracy of Christians both in academia and on Wikipedia who try to suppress the "truth"; this makes them scorn policies like WP:RS and instead happily cherry-pick whatever source, no matter how marginal and poor, they can find. They are not many, but rather persistent. In other words, the usual situation of two sides (seen on 'Jesus', or basically any 'Israel-Palestine' page etc.); good people in both camps, but also some who let personal beliefs get in the way of scholarship. The irony is that this is (probably) the one article on Wikipedia in which there are atheists with strong beliefs who scorn academia. It's a bit of a particular situation. Jeppiz (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I can see how that could be a mess. I think I can help. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I see at the article talk page that you've made accusations against some fellow editors, stating that you see editors ignoring discussions, "wearing everybody else down", NPOV violations, and ignoring RS. Could you please be specific about which editors you are accusing? Since you are talking about taking the case to Arbcom, I feel I should let you know that I consider these as personal attacks, though I'm not sure who you're attacking. Also, I feel that your remarks above indicate that you are taking a battlefield position. JerryRussell (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC) tweaked JerryRussell (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jeppiz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hungary

Okay, I discuss the last edit in Hungary article with you. What is your exact problem with this edit in the demographics section? This edit is absouletly "wikipedia compatible", with more than 35 reference, with more than 50 wiki interlink to support the figuers, and with pictures which are already used in another articles about Hungary. The previous status of demographics section of Hungary is absolutely ridiculous, which consists of only a couple of sentences without meaningful information content. Especially if you compare it with other countries demographics section. So why hurt you if I improve the article about Hungary? With a lot of work, with a lot of information and references, complying with all the rules of Wikipedia. What do you want from me and from this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andras0401 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jeppiz, I would like to signal this edit: [1]. The page Merano was moved to Meran by Gryffindor. This user had already tried convincing you and others to move the page, but the consensus reached in the talk page (Talk:Meran#Move request) was to keep the page as it was for various reasons. He waited almost a year and then moved the page against the consensus and without asking anyone. I noticed it just yesterday and decided to let you know because you were one of the users who dealt with that issue. I hope that you or someone else will move the page back to its previous name, according to the consensus expressed in the talk page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.95.8.200 (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)