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

Disambiguation link notification for April 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Penningby castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viborg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Israeli legislative election, 2015[edit]

You deleted a post I made, calling it WP:NotNews, but as I told User:Number_57, this is erroneous. Kahlon saying he would decide "after all the votes are counted" is redundant. Coalition talks have been in play since March 25, and Netanyahu recently got an extension until May 6. The overwhelming reason a government wouldn't be formed by then and hasn't formed yet (disagreements with Kahlon) should also be noted.

Only conceivable violation of WP:NOTNEWS would be point 2, but given that "information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate", more information regarding the coalition as they affect the outcome of the election would fall under that umbrella.

Ferociouslettuce (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Please do read the Edit History first and compare versions before undoing lengthy edits. I didn't introduce ANY new thought (shame on me :)), but only rearranged existing material (thus discovered repetitions which I eliminated and you reintroduced; why?), and where others "hinted" that the Temple hasn't been where tradition and scholars place it, i.e. Temple Mount, I added in plain English WHO brought up this "theory": the Waqf, and even them only during or after the 1940s (see Islamic Council brochure edited and repeatedly re-edited during the Mandate since the early 1920s onwards). So, where's the POV? Ooops, none there... I made clear where some EXISTING statements from the article are heading (the Temple was elsewhere), which was NOT clear for a reader unaccustomed to the constant propaganda war surrounding the Temple Mount. I also summed up that terrible paragraph (Josephus, Rabbinic view and scholars differ on dates) which reads like an IQ test; but left the rest as is, to avoid aggressive counters--no such luck though, as it shows.

Beating around the bush and writing in an opaque manner helps no-one. I did expect some discussions, but your "undo the whole thing" reaction with an argument that doesn't match the facts of my edit, took me by surprise. I worked quite a bit to make the article slightly more useful to the common reader, who needs plain explanations in the first 5 sentences, not delicate hints & nuances spread over the whole article, and I don't like being "erased" like that with an explanation that seems to indicate a misreading of my edit, and disregard for unquestionable corrections (see removal of extensive word-by-word repetition about the dating). So, please take it a bit easier and with more regard for other editors' time & effort. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Kindly read WP:BRD. When your edit is undone, it's your obligation to discuss it and gain a consensus, not reinserting it.Jeppiz (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Jeppiz. About JarlAxle; perhaps you've found out about him now. Gouncebeatduke actually linked to this page, which tells you all about it. But if you didn't click or hover over it, it'll have just looked like an ordinary userlink. Bishonen | talk 10:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, thanks for your message. I have come across 'Hagger' several times in the past, and Gwarp. I just hadn't heard the name JarlAxle. Quite surprising given that both you and I apparently are part of his "team" according to Gouncbeatduke  ;). Anyhow, thanks for telling me. Best regards!Jeppiz (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Groundless warning and accusation[edit]

There is 'NOTHING' wrong with editing wikipedia and adding non-controvesial text. Please refer to WP:ACCUSE before 'threatening' me with disruptive editing. kazekagetr 18:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

KazekageTR, there is nothing wrong with adding, but that's not what you're doing. All you do is to keep deleting content, without adding a thing, and without explaining why you are deleting it.Jeppiz (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

if you are going to keep up that attitude and back your idea about me vandalizing and violating brd, we could go to dispute resolution, if you would like of course. I guarantee it is the best way to solve these issues without causing them to get bigger. Cause you are keep accusing me keep deleting content, without adding a thing, and without explaining why you are deleting it as we see it in this sentence, 1- I do not keep deleting the content i simply remove a thing that alreay is mentioned, 2- I do not do sth like without adding a thing i added Turkey to that list. and finally 3- about without explaining why you are deleting it you sure about that? for instance what am i doing right now? explaining maybe? Cheers. kazekagetr 18:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, happy to go to conflict resolution. I honestly don't know what you're on about, I've never deleted Turkey, as anyone can see from my edit diffs. You're the one who keeps deleting Russia, and that's all of it.Jeppiz (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
There we go it's WP:ACCUSE again and again. I do not see a violation of WP:NPA nor WP:SOAP. Could you please 'kindly' stop writing to me, i feel harassed and i 'really' don want this issue to escalate cause it seems that you have other issues to attend, your talk page is full with other issues with other users which some of them looks unresolved.

And what was that You don't need to like me at all thing? I believe i sense a WP:SOAP violation, or am i wrong, Anyways, ta ta! kazekagetr 19:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You're obviously just here to disrupt, and should learn the different before personal talk pages and article talk pages. The latter are for discussing how to improve articles. Oh, and please stay off my talk page in the future.Jeppiz (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Let bygones be bygones[edit]

After reading your allegations about me on the admin page I feel deeply insulted and wronged. But I also realized that I have insulted you, understand that I didn't mean your country when I said "an undemocratic country...", I was referring to a hypothetical country but I guess I didn't write that clearly, I do recall that it was not a reply to you through. Also I am not a nationalist and all the other things you called me. I am as much a nationalist as you are, obviously. I believe that policies such as WP:FYROM are meant to be disputed and not kept as laws written in stone. Please accept my forgiveness for any insult I gave you. I do hope you understand that you have also insulted me. Leventopoulo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)leventopoulo

Leventopoulo, I appreciate it very much, though no need to apologize. We all things we feel passionately about, and usually those things are exactly those where we should be extra careful. Personally, I tend to avoid editing my favourite areas, precisely because I feel strongly about them. All the best Jeppiz (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus[edit]

It was not my intention to alter a quote - I understand that is a complete no-no - I had intended to remove it entirely, so I don't know what happened. There seems to be some resistance to the notion of removal anyhow so I am currently just discussing the matter. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


What on earth is going on with these random obscenities and racists slurs that keep being posted on this page? Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Grandmothers and eggs[edit]

Over my ridiculously large number of years here I have found that an AfD works best when left alone. Attempts to engage in dialogue with those with whom one does not agree muddy the waters. Unless you change your mind and withdraw one, my advice is to treat it as a "Fire and forget" process. Fiddle Faddle 12:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I already came to that conclusion. The thing is, at first I wasn't 100% I was right, and I really wanted to help the user try to make a relevant case for notability. The more they tried, the more convinced I became there is no notability. I haven't bothered to respond to any of the latest flood of posts there.Jeppiz (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Wise. As with most things here, WP:ROPE applies. I just replied on their(!) talk page and added a comment to your SPI. We seem to have a lack of admins. Fiddle Faddle 14:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm currently writing my first post on WP:AN in almost forever. Not about this particular issue (which of course is a very small one) but the larger issue of backlogs building up everywhere, eventually even feeding themselves as unaddressed gets taken to new forums. Thanks for your very helpful input!Jeppiz (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I am out of there. I suggest you lose no more sleep over it. When they will not listen nor hear then our work is pointless. I was trying for one thing at a time. First referencing, then WP:PROF was to follow. Let the AfD take its course, and enjoy doing something else. Have you thought of joining the WP:AFC review folk? Fiddle Faddle 22:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Timtrent, you've been amazing. I'm afraid I got a bit frustrated with the SPA even though I tried to guide them, but you kept it factual, no-nonsense yet polite and helpful all time. Can't believe how much time I've wasted on such a trivial issue, but what I'll take with it me is your example, which I'll try to follow better in the future. This is not a message I write often, but I really cannot express enough how impressive that was! Keep up the excellent work!Jeppiz (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I accept your praise, and am humbled by it. What I try to do is to keep emotion 100% out of the entire dialogue, and to focus relentlessly and politely on the facts that I hope the other person will understand. By ignoring everything else except that set of facts I can, generally, control the situation to a useful conclusion. I cut my teeth here in WTC demolition conspiracy theories, working relentlessly to remove POV from one article. This was a long while ago and while US emotions were very raw. I was one of those instrumental in bringing order out of chaos in that article such that it is, today, reasonably well balanced. I learned never to get emotionally involved when I want to 'win' (if winning is what we do).
In the case of the current fiasco I have been unable to make a connection with the editor despite trying disproportionately hard. There are times to cut one's losses. My opinion of the article is that it is there to create notability. I do not see it to have been proven. I could also be wrong. I don't ever mind being wrong here.
I'd like you to take a second thing away: How to analyse references in public, impartially, and unemotionally. I Practice that at AFC a great deal. Sometimes it helps to list them as I have at the AFD. Again, if you are my grandmother and I'm teaching yo to suck eggs, I apologise!
The AFD will play itself out in a few days. Quite possibly the article will be in a decent shape by then. But do not even revisit it. Practice not caring.
Bizarrely I was involved with another instance of editor shepherding at the same time as this one. If you check my contributions history for one, Lion126 you will see that was resolvable. Fiddle Faddle 22:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to add to the good advice from my colleagues. I've concentrated on work at AfD for 8 years now. Sometimes my opinions were not supported by the decision because I was knowingly trying to see where the actual consensus would lie; sometimes because I was opposed by several other good faith editors who felt differently; often because I was overwhelmed by people with COI; and sometimes because I was wrong. The only possible thing to do is to go on to other issues. There are probably a hundred thousand WP articles unwisely accepted in earlier years that need deletion, and more COI work arrives daily. It's more productive not to spend too much time or energy on any one of them. It's also important not to work only on deletion processes--it builds up a unduly b;lack and white cast of mind. Perhaps 90% of the articles here that should stay in WP, but essentially every one of them needs improvement. As suggested, AfC is a process where help is always needed, but there as at AfC it is essential to avoid getting into personal quarrels. Some people can be helped , some cannot. When they cannot, a sensible person just lets things take their course. There's no point in insulting them or raising issues of competence. You came very near NPA here--near enough that I was thinking of giving you a formal warning. . It isn't worth it, and it's never necessary. The regular contributors here at AfD and elsewhere are by and large sensible people, and once you've made a good argument, they'll understand. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DGG, good honest advice like that is always welcome. I had already said I'm stepping away from it, and now also struck that part. Completely unnecessary and bit embarrassing, frankly. I appreciate you taking the time to tell me. Getting worked up is never a great idea, and it's good to be reminded about that once in a while. Jeppiz (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello, concerning the article "Arab Palestinian". There is no proof of any Canaanite word, in the "Palestinian dialect" as it is called nowadays. In the opposite, there is indeed evidence of Hebrew vocabulary, and not only israeli hebrew, we talking about a dialect that was spoken soon before the Israel presence in the west bank. I recommend you to look at the book written by Jonas Carl Greenfield, Al Kanfei Yonah. It is not about politics. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alazarerec (talkcontribs) 04:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Your AFD summary[edit]

I know you did this in good faith. I did something similar once. I was criticised for it rather loudly, and I'd rather like to suggest that you remove it quickly and quietly. I have several reasons:

  1. It makes it look as if (eg) my opinion counts for more than a user with fewer edits. It does not. I and they have the same weight, as do admins, bureaucrats, stewards, members of WMF, Jimbo Wales etc. Each of us is one editor, with one opinion, and pour opinion, when policy based, carries the day
  2. It makes it look like a vote, something it is not
  3. It does you a disservice in the eyes of others, despite your having done it to be helpful
  4. It can be seen as seeking to influence the closing editor unfairly

Please nip back in and remove it rather than striking it out Fiddle Faddle 12:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, good advice. As you say, I only intended it to be helpful in all the mass of text, but you're no doubt right.Jeppiz (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to delete this section including my comment Fiddle Faddle 13:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's done[edit]

I'm guessing it'll still be up, but probably not resolved, by the time you get back. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, I'll take a look and comment right away.Jeppiz (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Marseille#Largest groups of foreign residents: How long a list is long enough?[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Marseille#Largest groups of foreign residents: How long a list is long enough?. Thanks. Worldbruce (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)