User talk:Jeppiz/Archives/2016/October

Reference errors on 4 October
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) 00:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Expressen page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=742618041 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%2F742618041%7CExpressen%5D%5D Ask for help])

Lägg ner.
Ta debatten istället för att hota med varningar. Skärp dig. --Marbe166 (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Marbe166, jag debatterar alltid med anvarsfulla användare. Vandaler och troll varnar jag. Du är tyvärr inte kompetent att vara på Wikipedia, du kan inte uppföra dig, inte följa regelverket, och tror du har någon sorts privilegium att göra som du vill. Du är precis den sorts person som inte hör hemma här för du tillför ingenting. Jeppiz (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Visst, första gången gjorde jag ingen edit summary, det var dumt, men kalla mig inte troll eller vandal utan belägg. Det ligger på dig att visa att "current practice" är att (pågående) dopningsfall ska nämnas i ingressen till artiklar. Jag tog inte bort information om Johaugs dopningsfall, jag tog bara bort en från svenska dåligt direktöversatt mening med kvällstidningskaraktär. Jag tycker vi forsätter debattera detta, utan personpåhopp och hot om varningar, på engelska på Talk:Therese Johaug. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Marbe166, du har rätt. Jag beklagar, riktigt lång och tung dag på jobbet idag men direkt pinsamt av mig att ta ut det här. Har strukit kommentaren ovan. Jeppiz (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Det är lugnt, vi har alla våra dåliga dagar. Simma lugnt! --Marbe166 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

fixing Christ myth theory
That page needs a lot of work. I'm willing to help. Anything I should know before I do more? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jonathan. The page is a bit of a minefield, but that's true for most religious articles. There are basically two 'camps'; there is "camp A" who wants to use academic sources to represent the academic mainstream. My guess (in general, not speculating on anyone in particular) is Camp A is made up of people of various beliefs, ranging from believing Christians who (in this one case) has academia on their side, and atheist or agnostic users who simply want the page to reflect current scholarship. Then there is "camp B" who wants to argue that Jesus never existed. There are those in camp B who hold that belief but are prepared to use good sources, so then the only 'conflict' is how much emphasis to give to different views. Then there are the conspiracy theorists who are convinced not only that Jesus never lived, but that there is a conspiracy of Christians both in academia and on Wikipedia who try to suppress the "truth"; this makes them scorn policies like WP:RS and instead happily cherry-pick whatever source, no matter how marginal and poor, they can find. They are not many, but rather persistent. In other words, the usual situation of two sides (seen on 'Jesus', or basically any 'Israel-Palestine' page etc.); good people in both camps, but also some who let personal beliefs get in the way of scholarship. The irony is that this is (probably) the one article on Wikipedia in which there are atheists with strong beliefs who scorn academia. It's a bit of a particular situation. Jeppiz (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, I can see how that could be a mess. I think I can help. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Jeppiz, I see at the article talk page that you've made accusations against some fellow editors, stating that you see editors ignoring discussions, "wearing everybody else down", NPOV violations, and ignoring RS. Could you please be specific about which editors you are accusing? Since you are talking about taking the case to Arbcom, I feel I should let you know that I consider these as personal attacks, though I'm not sure who you're attacking. Also, I feel that your remarks above indicate that you are taking a battlefield position. JerryRussell (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC) tweaked JerryRussell (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)