User talk:Jeppiz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Jeppiz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! bodnotbod (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

Please don't feel badly or think you took a harsh tone! I am used to a lot worse here on wikipedia, from stubborn users who will not listen to others' opinions/ideas and revert edits without good reason. Thank you for being civil and I appreciate your feedback! --user:Neddy1234

Please talk to Fdom5997[edit]

He does not seem to know anything about the Cornish language, and keeps changing my tables on my Cornish phonology draft. Maybe you could persuade him to read a few of the books in the references section of the article before coming along and messing everything up. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tewdar (talkcontribs) 19:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

Hello Jeppiz. What were you referring to in this comment, where you said that one party was '100% right'? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. I was wrong. I thought then that it was plain wrong to claim Italian as a language of Bosnia and Romania as nobody speaks it natively. I thought Springpfühler was right it should not be in the article, but I disapproved of the edit warring. However, I later discovered it was not as clear-cut. Davide is right that both countries do award Italian some limited recognition. It turns the debate from a right vs. wrong debate to a de facto vs. de jure debate. I can understand both arguments. Both users act in good faith, convinced they are right and with some good arguments. In other words, I'd never accuse anyone of them of vandalism or bad faith editing. Had that been the case, I would have acted months ago. The edit warring, and sometimes rather aggressive tone in edit summaries, is the problem. Sorry for having been a bit repetitive, but wanted to make it clear nobody is obviously right in this debate, contrary to what I first thought. Have a nice day, Jeppiz (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit to Sir Geoffrey Boycott page[edit]

Hello,

I see you reverted my edit to the summary of Sir Geoffrey Boycott's entry. Can you please provide me a date as to when the "despite a conviction in 1998 for assaulting his then partner" footnote was added? I am assuming it is recently because that has been in the news over the past few days due to his knighthood and has been heavily politicised.

I removed that part of the summary as it is covered in his "personal life" section, and that the completed sentence of "Since retiring as a player, he has pursued a successful career as a cricket commentator, despite a conviction in 1998 for assaulting his then partner" suggests that the two are mutually exclusive.

Considering people like Mike Tyson was convicted of rape in 1992 and served three years in prison and does not have this mentioned in his initial summary. Should I edit his page to say "Tyson returned to the ring in 1996, despite a rape conviction in 1992." Chris Brown was convicted of domestic violence and does not have this mentioned in his initial summary. Should I edit that too? Same with Charlie Sheen, Sean Penn, Tupac Shakur - all were charged with and convicted of domestic violence or sexual assault, but do not have this footnote in their summaries. Assuming what us Wiki editors are striving for is consistency across our platform, do we add these footnotes to these celebrities' pages?

Cheers. Spittinchips (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The sentence was added on to the end of the lede recently by an anon editor whose other edits are vandalism. It was a bold edit and you were well within your rights to revert it. The next stage should have been for a discussion to have been started, not to revert again. You have done the right thing but the onus was not on you. Jeppiz I am afraid I think you've got this wrong.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)