User talk:Jeppiz/Archives/2015/October

Nothing new ...
Some of us have been on the receiving end of this nonsense for a while .... I'm only glad she has found a new target. BlackCab ( TALK ) 21:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't aware of this user's history but the user does seem to have a nasty habit of repeatedly going after other users. Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Re ANI
Hi. I'm banned (by myself) from ANI at the moment, or I would mention there that I have just blocked the user in question. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC).

Roger Waters
Jeppiz, thank you for your input/patience with editing the Waters article. On a related noted, do you know how to create a TOC for the talk page? Scaleshombre (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(Never mind about the TOC. It seems to have "mysteriously" appeared, maybe when I created the RfC section.) Scaleshombre (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Status of Scientology in France
I think the phrasing in Scientology status by country is fine: "Since 1995, Scientology has sometimes been classified as a secte (cult), for instance in a report of the National Assembly of France.[27] On this basis, a hostile stance is generally taken against the organization". Apokrif (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment but this matter belongs on the article talk page, not on my talk page. And the classification in France is crystal clear and official. Jeppiz (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

list of languages by number of native speakers
We cannot have two duplicate copies of the same content on Wikipedia. Either the content of "list of languages by number of native speakers" and "list of languages by total number of speakers" have to be on separate pages, or they have to on the same page. It cannot be both. Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

variation edit allowed by Wikipedia
hello. How exactly is term "Hebrew Scriptures" a "contentious change"?? That form is a valid term used by Wikipedia many times, with no problem. How is it "not minor" and so "contentious"? You're undoing valid variation edits for "I don't like" reasons, and possible bias (against me). What's the big deal exactly? If you had that article on your watchlist, fine, but why second-guess and revert something like that?? It's linked and is a variation term used on Wikipedia pages a lot. Where's the "contention" exactly? Gabby Merger (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Gabby Merger. If you do an edit and it's reverted, you should never redo it without discussion, I have already pointed you to WP:BRD. And if your eidt has been reverted, it cannot be a minor change as you knowt's contested. It's less than a day that you're back from a block by Bishonen for edit warring and disrespecting WP:BRD, (and you were blocked for the same thing a month ago as well), and you're immediately back to the same bad behavior: edit warring and ignoring WP:BRD to get your own version of the article through. Is there a good reason you decided to edit war again instead of starting a discussion as WP:BRD requires you to do? Jeppiz (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Finnic languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Livonian. 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) 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Explanation
Hi, I read you intervention in the talk page about the French language. I just don't anderstand what I did specifically wrong. I opened a discussion on the talk page, opened two others discussions with the others contributors that kept erasing without any exchange. Do you thing that this action of deleting a conversation is better ? I followed the rules, and try to talk, so I really don't know what actions of mine you don't agree with. The others kept reverting without any exchange, I did on several level. I'm keen on improving, so please tell me what I did wrong compared to the others.--Gabriel HM (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said you did anything wrong compared to others, I directed my comment to all users involved in the edit war, and without taking sides. Jeppiz (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok great, so what did you mean with the affirmation :"While not agreeing with the actions of Gabriel HM, I think the analogy with English is accurate". In order to improve my conduct on WP, what actions that I specifically did you are not agreeing, compared to the others that you are not mentioning? Because, as far as I know I did everything to open the discussion, whereas others are even cancelling my exchange on their talk page with just the motive that they are adm. I thought that they were suppose to lead the way. If you are naming me I must have did something bad.--Gabriel HM (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your edit warring. I don't agree with the others' edit warring either, but in your case I agree with you about the inconsistency between French and English, which is why I mentioned you. Jeppiz (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but for the record I changed the article twice, the others ar just an edit that I cancelled by myself. So I don't call that an edit warring. It is just that in the manner you wrote your intervention on the talk page, it looks like I did  something bad that needs to be denounced. And I don't feel that way. Anyhow, thanks for your intervention. Take care--Gabriel HM (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Exodus "edit war"
Perhaps you can clarify why I'm warned when I make a few small changes which merely implement the normal NPOV principle, but PiCo is allowed to add a massive amount of his own new (and highly partisan) material without any discussion whatsoever, especially since his new material contains flagrantly partisan claims that only one side consists of "scholars" while he dismisses the other side as "apologists"? If I need to gain consensus for routine enforcement of Wikipedia's rules, why doesn't he need to gain consensus for a large addition? GBRV (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

wiki-project Muhammad
Hello, why you remove template of Muhammad wikiproject from articles?--Islam90 (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Islam90, because it appears to be you who assign the importance you want to them. I checked the Muhammad wikiproject and did not find that its assignment of importance corresponded to yours. You are aware, I hope, that you cannot decide what importance articles in a project have. Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)