User talk:Jeppiz/Archives/2016/May

Palestine
My suggestion is serious, your personal attacks are serious. You failed to give any reason why you dislike my suggestion, but please do. Unlike most editors here I, seemingly like you, have no relation through religion, ethnicity, racism, geography, or any other way, to the conflict. I still feel my suggestion is fair; Palestine is not a normal state, why is it not a normal state? Because it is occupied by Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Help needed
Please review recent strange edits to Christianity here. Thank you in advance. Baron d&#39;Holbach II (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That edit wasn't particularly strange, since it was undoing a change that was not even a week old. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

List of European cities by population
Hi, please explain why you have been undoing edits supported by references? How is that related to alleged nationalism and other claims you have made in your comments? Denghu (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, if no answer is going to be given, I am going to file a complaint.Denghu (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Caesar's Messiah article
Hello Jeppiz,

I appreciated your participation at the Caesar's Messiah talk page. Subsequent to your last post there, I've continued to work on the page, to comply with Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. I put the entire page in 'source voice', which stylistically feels very stilted to me, but I understand why Wiki editors insist on it.

Are you satisfied with the article at this point, aside from our remaining disagreement about whether I can use Blackhirst and Koster as relevant RS? Or did you just get tired of arguing with me? I'd really like to resolve any remaining NPOV issues, so that you would agree I can remove the neutrality dispute tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryRussell (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

50-100 new admins
of yours; does this mean you'll be throwing your hat into the ring? Someone has to...in order to get these new admins. So, cheers, LindsayHello 15:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lindsay; I did not consider candidating for becoming an admin myself when writing it. Having said that, it's a fair point that it's rather pointless of asking for more admins if not stepping up oneself. My worry is that, for work-related reasons, I have periods of active editing but also periods of very limited editing. I'll give it a thought, though. Jeppiz (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Jesus page
I don't see any reason that the Christian-friendly editors are going to agree with me, but I don't see any reason why you and I can't agree on how to move the page forward. What do you think? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, as you know, I do like many of your ideas and I do agree the article would need a stronger focus on mainstream scholarship. I'm not sure we agree on all points, it seems as if you wants to include more material from the Jesus seminars, whereas I'd argue they were rather far from mainstream scholarship (that is not to say I didn't enjoy the writings of some those involved). The problem, as I see it, is that the articles attracts a whole continuum of users. We have something like this, from one extreme to the other: fundamentalist Christians ( few, and usually give up fairly quickly ) - conservative Christians ( some, but not many firm views and able to present them but not very open to others views ) - liberal Christians ( common, and some make good arguments, some tend to be reluctant to change the article ) - no stance on religion, preferring scholarship ( I'd put myself here, but of course I'm biased about myself. I tend to side with the likes of Bart Ehrman or Geza Vermes ) - not religious, wants the article to be non-religious ( this may be your position, in which case I'm sure we'd agree on most things ) - not religious, wants the article to contradict religion ( this may also be your position, in which case I'm sure we'd agree on some things but not on others ) - mythicists ( far too common, and "religiously" anti-religion. Want the article to deny Christianity, and rely on the likes of Price and Doherty . Jeppiz (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like the page to describe Jesus the way RSs describe him, especially Encyclopedia Britannica. In general, I don't want to use the page to show that Christianity is wrong. Unfortunately, the gospels section has lots of material not found in RSs, and that means we should have critical views on all that material. For example, I'd rather be like Britannica and basically ignore John, but if John is going to be summarized, then the reader needs to know that John is not considered reliable by historians. As for sources, I like Ehrman and Vermes and have books of theirs that I'm happy to use. The Jesus Seminar is useful because it's extremely thorough, and most of its conclusions are mainstream, but I recognize that it represents a minority view. How would you like to progress if we're to give the page a stronger focus on mainstream scholarship? My plan had been to improve the historical views section since there's entrenched resistance to changing the gospels section. But someone merged the gospel accounts, which is contrary to the agreement that we got to a year ago after months of wrangling. I think I can make the case that merging the accounts was a big change made without consensus, so it should be changed back. I wanted to be done messing with the gospels section, but then someone else messed with it and undid the agreement that had been in place. I'm considering a post in the Original Research forum because merging primary accounts into a single account is original research. In addition, people who are well-versed in OR might have more to say about the gospels section. That said, I'm happy to improve the page in any way, and if there's a way you'd like to see it improved, I'd love to work together with you to improve it. Do you have any interest in saying that there's no consensus to merge the gospels? Or would you support me if I worked on improving the historical views section? When I worked on this page years ago, there was a good editor who helped promote good editing and the historical approach, and if you and i worked together I bet we could make real improvements to the page like he and I did years ago. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On the ESSEC Business School page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=722512270 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F722512270%7CESSEC Business School%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for May 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Riddarholmen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stenbock. 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) 09:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)