User talk:Jeppiz: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:43, 8 October 2014 editJeppiz (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,031 edits →Your constant reverts ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:16, 11 October 2014 edit undoCinteotl (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,603 edits Request for ArbitrationNext edit →
Line 89:		Line 89:

	:My "constant reverts" (one revert, to be precise) are due to your constant policy violations. The sources are written by experts in the field, whether you like them or not is irrelevant. As is your claim that "most" historians have not taken a position on the historicity of Christ, there is not one single subject that "most" academics have taken a position on. You're deliberately violating ] to push your own ].] (]) 13:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)		:My "constant reverts" (one revert, to be precise) are due to your constant policy violations. The sources are written by experts in the field, whether you like them or not is irrelevant. As is your claim that "most" historians have not taken a position on the historicity of Christ, there is not one single subject that "most" academics have taken a position on. You're deliberately violating ] to push your own ].] (]) 13:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

			== Request for Arbitration, Historicity of Jesus ==

			You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
			* ];
			* ].

			Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> ] (]) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:16, 11 October 2014

Welcome!

Hello, Jeppiz, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Talk pages are meant for discussions on the article, not on the editors

I'll ask you to keep in mind Misplaced Pages's WP:PERSONAL policy: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to European Conservatives and Reformists may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

After the the group was described in the media as [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Subdivisions of Switzerland may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Lucerne]]), ''Amtsbezirke'' (]), ''district'' (in French) or ''distretto'' ( and part of ]). The Bezirke generally provide only

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Paris

Thanks for your heads-up, and glad that you've been keeping an eye on that page. Could you tell me a bit more about your suggestion? Cheers. THEPROMENADER 23:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I got your message on the Paris talk page; I thought you were suggesting doing something personally, that's what confused me. I'll consider it, though. Thanks! THEPROMENADER 23:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm going to take you up on your advice. Ten years of repetition is killing me. THEPROMENADER 19:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Done, sir. THEPROMENADER 19:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(after looking a Paris talk page) Yeah, well. I really don't know what to say about the lack of attention the article, and the three pleas for help on admin boards, is getting. In my mind I'm imagining a flurry of behind-the-scenes e-mails sent to battle-fatigued admins who had the bad luck to leave a comment in any of them, and that they get so tired of it that they don't even want to look any more. That would fit with the 'usual' patterns, anyway, and that's the only explanation I can come up with. Do you know of any way to check on this? Paris-article complaints have always been left ignored or to stagnate, and I'd really like to know why. But thanks for your input these past days. THEPROMENADER 18:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks to go at this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Sesto Elemento (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Strange edits

Thank you for your lessons. --. HombreDHojalata. 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OOPS

Sorry about that revert on ANI... misplaced finger whilst scrolling on phone. Given the topic under discussion there, a couple blunt reverts only adds to the interest though - right? Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Tgeairn, I saw see it but you reverted instantly so no harm done. These things happen to us all. Cheers Jeppiz (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Thank you, but you should ask someone else — I'd be happy to help, but given the canvassing page's attacks on Christian editors, they would then start flaming me because of the {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Presbyterian}} and {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Calvinist}} on my userpage. If I were to get involved, it would probably only worsen the situation. Would you like me to find another admin for you? Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Thanks, you're absolutely right, I only know you as an admin and didn't check that out. If you could find an active and uninvolved admin with some time at their hands it would be most helpful.Jeppiz (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your section on the talk page ended up swaying into a completely different direction as people are now debating far more than just the simple sentence. Nevertheless, the sentence has been fixed. You can compare both iterations so you can see why the latest one does not violate weasel despite conveying a very similar meaning. Feedback 23:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Need Help

Hello,
Can you please go to my Talk Page and make it such that all the citations I have given are collapsible and not hidden? I'm in the middle of of mild family emergency and I don't have the time to address your well-founded concerns. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Historicity again

It seems that as Fearofreprisal was making his grand exit, other editors stepped in with the same POV, the same confrontational attitude and the same confrontational tone. Fearofreprisal admits on his talk-page that he also uses other usernames. Do you perhaps know how to check for sockpuppets, without contravening any WP:CIVIL rules etc? Wdford (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Wdford: I reported it at ANI. Sockmaster or not, he is highly disruptive. Would you mind taking a look at the article, I'm done for now.Jeppiz (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Historicity of Jesus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Jeppiz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I find the block exaggerated after repeating an edit once. When I first discovered a massive content removal I restored the page and explained why in detail at the talk page. When the user just ranted in response, I did revert once . When he still continued I left it, but I continued edited the article unrelated to those edits. Sure, I made a format error when editing and reverted myself to fix the edit . That was not edit warring with anyone, just reverting myself to make sure the format of my edit was correct. I explained that edit as well at the talk page, and got support from several users. I can accept that I should not have reverted the edit I did, but would dispute that one reversion is edit warring. Doing a large number of different edits to a page is not edit warring, it's reverting to the same version (or a very similar) that is. Jeppiz (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I trust Phil's judgement, and having read this discussion I'm not entirely sure, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. All I'll say is please watch your reverts, especially on controversial articles. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

For the reviewing admin's information: I count 1, 2, 3 (although it's debatable as to whetehr that counts toards 3RR as it was consecutive to #2], 4 reverts in the space of a couple of hours on a controversial article that has only recently come off full protection. Since full protection didn't solve the problem, I see little choice but to start blocking editors, and accordingly I blocked Jeppiz and Mark Miller, who appear to be the main parties to the edit war at the moment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Sorry, but that is not accurate. 1 and 2 are the same as 3, I just pressed the button too fast. And 4, that's nonsense. That edit is a completely new edit, I did not revert anything. After having restored the page once (1+2) and then reverted once (3), I moved on and edited the article in 4. It was not a reversion in any way. Once my edit was reverted, I did not repeat it but continued on the talk page. So my argument remains, I restored once (1+2), then reverted once (3). After that I continued editing Misplaced Pages by making new edits. HJ Mitchell, is it possible that you were a bit trigger-happy? Initially you even blocked another editor on the page, someone who had not reverted even once, and above you erroneously count one of my edits as a reversion.Jeppiz (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@PhilKnight: So the fact that I pressed the wrong button and accidentally split my revert into two instead of one is blockable? Or which three reverts are you referring to? And if that counts as blockable, what about the much heavier edit warring on the very same article ?Jeppiz (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Having double checked, I agree you only made 2 reverts. In this context, I've undone my decline. Sorry about that. PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@PhilKnight: Thank you for agreeing I only made 2 reverts. However, I remain blocked.Jeppiz (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I've left the blocking admin a note on his talk page about this. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it.Jeppiz (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Your constant reverts

Re: this edit. The problem with the article is that the sources are poor and and make broad, unsupportable claims. Do not attempt to insist that every source be quoted literally. It's a very normal editing process to take biased sources and reduce the scope of their claims to something that approaches reality. Most historians have taken no written position on the historicity of Christ at all.—Kww(talk) 13:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
My "constant reverts" (one revert, to be precise) are due to your constant policy violations. The sources are written by experts in the field, whether you like them or not is irrelevant. As is your claim that "most" historians have not taken a position on the historicity of Christ, there is not one single subject that "most" academics have taken a position on. You're deliberately violating WP:OR to push your own WP:POV.Jeppiz (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration, Historicity of Jesus

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.
Thanks, Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)