User talk:Jeppiz/Archives/2014/October

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 and  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)


 * 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. Feed back  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)


 * 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:. 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 &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:52, 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  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)
 * 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.&mdash;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 Arbitration/Requests/Case 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—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Paris
Your debate are making the headline of majors frenchs news papers. Some comments and links here : fr:Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/14_octobre_2014 78.227.131.149 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Salut Jeppiz,
 * J'ai vérifié tes dires quant aux vues touristiques des autres villes. Il y a un gros bémol : les photomontages de la plupart les capitales sont représentées avec des bâtiments de pouvoir : palais royaux de Londres et Madrid, Reichstag à Berlin, Maison Blanche, Diète Nationale de Tokyo, palais de la République à Rome, Palais Carondelet à Quito...
 * Note que le bâtiment en premier plan de la Tour Eiffel sur l'image française est l'école militaire, faute de mieux sur une même image... v_atekor (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah bon, j'y avais jamais pensé mais c'est plutôt vrai. Par contre, pas pour Rome, Piazza della Repubblica n'est pas un palais et n'a rien à voir avec le gouvernement. Si quelqu'un veut inclure l'Élysée, il faut juste le proposer puis voir ce que dissent les autres contributeurs.Jeppiz (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, merci pour vos notes. J'ai laissé un mot sur le discussion au Bistrot, et j'en ai profité pour lancer un appel aux éditeurs qui veulent contribuer à améliorer l'article anglais... il y manque des contributeurs qui ont des vraies connaissances de Paris, et un point de vue 'locale' y sera un bienvenue aussi ; ) THE PROMENADER  18:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Jeppiz : je pense qu'il y a 2 photos qui s'imposent : le métro (carte, ou bouche de métro) et une vue de l'Élysée ou de l'AN. Je pense qu'il faudrait également un bâtiment de la seconde partie du XXe siècle, que ce soit un bâtiment du Corbusier, ou un bâtiment plus célèbre, centre Pompidou, musée du quai Branly, colonnes burens... (ah non je les détestes celles-ci!) etc. Enfin, même si ce n'est pas très touristiques, il y a beaucoup de monde à Paris, ce n'est pas du tout un désert, on peut ajouter les Grands Magasins, qui sont certainement représentatifs... et plus agréable que 25km de bouchons sur le périph'.
 * @Promenader : je te donnerai volontiers un coup de main, l'article en français est très complet, on peut l'utiliser comme base, mais... je parle mieux espagnol qu'anglais, tu devras passer derrière moi pour corriger. v_atekor (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, et même avec plaisir ; ) THE PROMENADER  21:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Plutôt d'accord avec toi v_atekor, j'avais proposé l'inclusion de Pompidou moi-même il y a quelques semaines déjà. Le musée du quai Branly ou l'Institut du monde arabe seraient deux autres possibilités bien qu'ils soient probablement moins connus que Centre Pompidou.Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Très bon l'IMA. Je pensais à l'opéra Bastille et à la BNF et à la géode de la cité des sciences, mais l'IMA est vraiment meilleur. v_atekor (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Paris Bis
Looks like they're already planning to disrupt the editing process even before the article is unlocked. Anon from Colombes-Puteaux, already familiar with those involved, pushing the exact same photo: Discussion:Paris. Are you an admin, Jeppiz? Anyhow, it's locked, but the talk page is still open. I'm not getting involved for now. THE PROMENADER  22:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am really, really, really curious about why any Statistiker-related issue never gets any admin attention. Behind-the-scenes mails (to hapless admins who happen to be on ANI at the time), or... IRC chat (is there even an admin channel)? There are much 'noisier' cases on that page, and they are usually open-and-shut in a matter of days. I really can't explain it. THE PROMENADER  11:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not jump to any conclusions here. In my experience the admins do the best they can, but Wikipedia is active and some cases get less attention. I've never seen any special bias in any way and I don't think there's any in this case either.Jeppiz (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't proposing to do anything; I'm just venting ten years of repetition, all gone now. Okay, thanks. I'm back to work. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  12:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee,  → Call me  Hahc  21  20:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Tajik People
Those man are ethnic Uzbeks born in the territory of Uzbekistan. I am a historian and i am correcting inaccurate facts. I did give a reason and revert back your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy.neon (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 3 days for edit warring, no comment on the content - did you see his talk page? Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dougweller. No, I did not see that much of the talk page, though a quick look told me there were quite a number of warnings from before.Jeppiz (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)