Jeppiz

I know you’re on a wiki break, but if you happen to read this could you contact me if you’ve had failed login attempts to your account in the last 24 hours. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

DeCausa, thank you for contacting me. No, I had not attempted to log in at during the last 30 hours. When I now did, I got an automated message there had been 45 failed attempts to log into my account. Never happened before. Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Do you know when the logins were attempted? (See this and this.) DeCausa (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. So hardly a coincidence that all three of us are victims of an attack. As I had not been logged in for 30 hours, I'm not sure when the attacks occurred. Jeppiz (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

A discussion about the precise formulation of the lede has been taking place at Talk:Scandinavia. Your input would be welcome. Libhye (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I decided to resign because I don't want ArbCom to waste any time talking about me. Would you mind pulling or collapsing your statement because it's now moot, or will be as soon as a bureaucrat actions my request.[1] Jehochman ^Talk 01:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for notifying me, and I respect your decision. I have already struck my comment, and will collapse it entirely within an hour. I hope you decide to continue, or to return after a break. Jeppiz (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

[2] The information is sourced to a reliable source and no synthesis is included, or implied, except in your own mind. If you have a problem with how the source frames it, take it up with them. Wikipedia simply reports what the sources say. 96.255.69.229 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do we have an admin lurking here? This IP has been stable and has engaged in ongoing abuse. Check the edit history to see that most edits have to be reverted. Some had to be revdel. I’ve encountered this IP myself previously. They need a nice long block to give us a break. Jeppiz, if this doesn’t get actioned here, please report it to ANI. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi there, the reason I thought it is probably best not to archive the 'God the Son in intro paragraph' is because the Jesus article introduction is, once again, being edited prematurely by User:Neplota. I thought it would be better to unarchive the discussion and to resolve the issue there rather than to create a new discussion on the same matter. Ultimately the decision is up to you as you are the more experienced Wikipedian and you probably know the best course of action here. Thanks, and have a good night! --Thebighomie123 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Jeppiz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of European Conservatives and Reformists members of the European Parliament, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Jeppiz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of European Conservatives and Reformists members of the European Parliament".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lady Mildred Marion ,his daughter, was a music composer ,famous for Etelinda ,an opera premiered in Florence in 1894 (see wiki about Villa Etelinda in Bordighera) 151.68.185.164 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Jahaza (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Jeppiz, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Gonzalo Lira. Please offer your input there. Thank you. Havradim leaf a message 00:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

You made some comments at a ANI filing involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct on Portal:Current Events and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Carter00000 (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I could have gone that way myself, but I was in a WP:NEWBIES mood atm. To balance it, I got into an EW at pit bull later. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeppiz, I was just trying to open a discussion as to whether ethnicity should be mention in the lead sentence, that is all. I came to that page from the BLP notice board trying to help settle a dispute. I am glad you self reverted my topic. I redacted my last post on here as well. --Malerooster (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC) ps, please do not remove my comments or post warnings on my talkpage. If you like you can ask me to remove something or just post on my talk page without templating me or not, up to you. --Malerooster (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Backatya! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Alltid gott med öl, tack! :-) Jeppiz (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not challenging you, just confused and wondering if I should do something.[User talk:Amr.elmowaled#December 2022 - racist comments]? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Doug Weller: The user has twice already referred to Taiwanese people as "militant apes", which prompted my warning. Jeppiz (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Blocked from that talk page for two weeks. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Jeppiz, because you talked about the genetics section of the Ashkenazi Jews entry in that talk page's Archive 10, you might wish to weigh in on the current "Request new section to discuss Brook 2022 and later studies that confirm or disconfirm it" (related to genetic evidence) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry#Request_new_section_to_discuss_Brook_2022_and_later_studies_that_confirm_or_disconfirm_it which relates to multiple currently undiscussed peer-reviewed sources that could be summarized in some manner on the page Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which has restricted-access for editing. Only three longtime Wikipedia editors have responded with their opinions thus far. 2600:1000:B12B:4B91:AC07:3BE4:2814:D456 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello! What improvement would you consider more encyclopaedic in this case, and why it was not encyclopaedic enough? The two churches are being oftenly confused – particularly now – and a more detailed distinguishing is needed. EricLewan (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

 

Happy New Year!

Jeppiz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Care to explain why? It's a scholarly work, as I've explained (and as the reviewer in Nature explains), the novel is only ~60 pages out of ~140 and is written as an illustration of the preceding points. Strecosaurus (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is not a scholarly work. It's s layman's musings. Jeppiz (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

How so? The "Nature" reviewer says otherwise, I have also asked a professional apologist at "Reasonable Faith" to give his opinion, and, quote, he called this "advanced atheistic arguments" and called Yeskov a "decent atheist apologist".

Anyhow, can you explain exactly why you think it is completely marginal? I mean, there is evidence to the contrary? Strecosaurus (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The author is layman with no academic expertise in this area. That's a fact, not an opinion. Jeppiz (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes (in fact such experts are solely Western phenomenon, as far as I can tell - say, there isn't one in Japan either), and yet, the recommendation in Nature - to quote, "After that Es'kov demonstrates what a specialist accustomed to analysing fragmentary and not very reliable data can do even in an area outside his normal domain. He does it brilliantly" ought to make one take it a bit more seriously than as obviously trash. Strecosaurus (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

In particular, read it, and decide firsthand if it's trash! :) Strecosaurus (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nobody said it's trash, just that it isn't WP:RS. Obviously there are lots of prominent non-Western academics in every field, so hard to understand your comment about that. Jeppiz (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I understand then what prevents its inclusion in the corresponding articles? (And fwiw it *is* the most popular explanation among Russophone atheists, and the single most famous counterapologetics work in the entire culture there!) Strecosaurus (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empty_tomb&diff=1132690820&oldid=1132649011 Strecosaurus (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz. Thank you. —Cinderella157 (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not relevant to my purpose for being here, just FYI: your declaration that "Autochtonus [sic] languages"...is less neutral and certainly less scientific" (than 'regional') is both strange (neutral? Neutral vis-à-vis what?) and inaccurate. 'Autochthonous' (and transparent cognates) to describe languages is used in normal scientific discourse with a precise meaning, as in "South Tyrol in the north of Italy is characterized sociolinguistically by its three autochthonous language groups, German, Italian and Ladin..."

A few titles of scholarly articles: Language Contact and Language Conflict in Autochthonous Language Minority Settings in the EU / Autochthonous language communities and the Race Relations Act / Combining immigrant and autochthonous language rights: A territorial approach to multilingualism. Many more could be cited.

But my purpose here is to try to avoid the rudeness of reverting and eventual edit warring by coming to some consensus regarding the misleading and somewhat confusing use of 'regional' to label Italy's innumerable autochthonous languages. 'Local' works well. Simple and comprehensible, and completely avoids sending the ingenuous reader off expecting that s/he'll find some great linguistic difference between e.g. Lombard Cremonese and Emilian Piacentino, but not between Lombard Cremonese and Lombard Varese, quite distant from each other. You're right that 'regional(e)' is bandied about quite frequently, even among experts. The difference between ingenuous usage and expert usage is that the experts know they're not being empirically accurate, and they can clean it up quickly and easily for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia, for example.

I've tweaked the text a bit to something that's both accurate and comprehensible. If you don't find it acceptable, we can try to reach consensus on the Italian Language talk page. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Am i the only one who shouldn’t do an edit warring or the rule applies to everyone ?

Because it looks like Triggerhippie4 is doing exactly that here, he even reverted me three times

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1138259782 Tezak habra 2 (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nobody should edit war. You're the one who tries to push new content into the article, the onus is now on you to first gain a consensus to include it before continuing to edit war. In the absence of such a consensus, it stays out. Jeppiz (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hej - you may choose not to answer this question and I fully understand. You presented an analysis of different methods of peer-review on the basis of your own research area, but indicated you do not work in the subject area of the Grabowski and Klein (2023) article. Do you mind indicating in what subject area you do work? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hej Goldsztajn, thanks for your question. Indicating my field would make it relatively easy to identify me so I will pass. It is different enough that I have no academic competence at all related to the Holocaust in Poland (nor to the Holocaust, nor to Poland), so my participation is limited to the academic review process. Jeppiz (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Tack! No problems, fully understand. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you give a source for these specific sounds? I've looked at various sources (for example https://archive.org/details/breton-contemporain-grammairedubreton/page/n143/mode/2up?view=theater) and have to conclude that there are differences between dialects. Ideally this should be mentioned, but I don't feel like I know enough on the topic (for now) to do this. So what exactly are these diacritics intended to mean? Also: nothing I looked at says that [t] changes to [h] in spirantisation, so I assumed this was a mistake. Exarchus (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jeppiz,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeppiz! You recently commented upon an RfC I started on Talk:State of Palestine. It was, I think, the first time I started an RfC. Several comments indicated that it was not done well. Perhaps you could help me learn from a mistake?

The context was a recent discussion a few sections above (Talk:State of Palestine#Statehood), mostly between another editor and me. It seemed we were talking past each other and I was frustrated by the lack of progress in the discussion. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that anyone reading that discussion would at least understand why an RfC was started.

The instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC clearly say "Open a new section" and "give a brief, neutral statement". I tried to properly follow these points, but it seems that as a result most or all editors then missed the context of the preceding discussion.

Could you please help clarify to me what I should have done instead, or what I could have done better? –St.nerol (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi St.nerol. Sorry if my short comment was unclear. Normally, RfCs follow a long discussion of many users. I can think of many examples where it could be started after just two users discussing, to attract attention to niche articles that see little interest. State of Palestine is not such an article, as loads of users watch it. An RfC start should be short and neutral, and this was done well by you. In this particular case, though, the question was dead in the water. If the article is named "State of Palestine", then it is already clearly implied by the title that Palestine is a state. Furthermore, it's also good to look at archives before starting an RfC to see if a clear consensus already exists. In this case it does, no doubt explaining the low interest in the first discussion. I am sure you started the RfC with the best intentions, and you did follow the general instructions. In this particular case, it was the lack of consideration to the established consensus from previous long discussions that was problem. Again, I understand that that was not intention on your part, so I say this just to explain why most users questioned it. Jeppiz (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the considerate reply. I feel that several comments in the RfC misunderstand or misrepresent my intentions and views. From what I understand I'm not permitted to reply to or clarify anything, since it was speedily closed?

For example, there is the false claim that I have asserted that Palestine is not a state. But I have not asserted this. Can I somehow point this out?

From what I'm reading, Palestine seems to be partially a state. Question dead in the water or not, is it settled by a name? Perhaps you know that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire! :) -St.nerol (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Heavy day indeed, thank you for your reasonableness. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I know you already self reverted, but please use a lot more care than you did here. New editor posted a comment, someone replied asking what changes to the article this translated to, new editor replied with specific proposed changes to the article. It was article content focused (not "somewhat more tangential") from the first reply onwards. VQuakr (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, you're absolutely right. I read it way too fast and should have read it better (which is why I self-reverted almost immediately, but better would of course have been to leave it in from the start). Jeppiz (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, happens to all of us. Happy editing and New Year! VQuakr (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sound advice. Thank you. I had such a nasty experience a few years ago on this platform due to a harsh & unforgiving comment I hardly get on Wikipedia to edit any more. And when I do get on to gather information, I don't look very hard for fear I'll find something that needs editing—something I continue to loathe. This is EXACTLY what WP:DIS warns editors to avoid. Fionaussie (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply