User talk:Jeppiz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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:

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)


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[edit]

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)

Lägg ner.[edit]

Ta debatten istället för att hota med varningar. Skärp dig. --Marbe166 (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Marbe166, jag debatterar alltid med anvarsfulla användare. Vandaler och troll varnar jag. Du är tyvärr inte kompetent att vara på Wikipedia, du kan inte uppföra dig, inte följa regelverket, och tror du har någon sorts privilegium att göra som du vill. Du är precis den sorts person som inte hör hemma här för du tillför ingenting. Jeppiz (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Visst, första gången gjorde jag ingen edit summary, det var dumt, men kalla mig inte troll eller vandal utan belägg. Det ligger på dig att visa att "current practice" är att (pågående) dopningsfall ska nämnas i ingressen till artiklar. Jag tog inte bort information om Johaugs dopningsfall, jag tog bara bort en från svenska dåligt direktöversatt mening med kvällstidningskaraktär. Jag tycker vi forsätter debattera detta, utan personpåhopp och hot om varningar, på engelska på Talk:Therese Johaug. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Marbe166, du har rätt. Jag beklagar, riktigt lång och tung dag på jobbet idag men direkt pinsamt av mig att ta ut det här. Har strukit kommentaren ovan. Jeppiz (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Det är lugnt, vi har alla våra dåliga dagar. Simma lugnt! --Marbe166 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg 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)