User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/2016 1

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Descendants of George III and Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Molloy. 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) 09:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

3RR at Mujaddid
Right or wrong, it isn't a good idea to even get to 3RR if you've been blocked before. Doug Weller (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&type=revision&diff=700234316&oldid=700163445

RE your very arrogant 'edit note' to your reversion of my ONLY edit thus far. If you ever use language like that towards me again on the edit table I will simply have to report you. You don't seem to realise how utterly wrong it is, so at some point you will need to be told. It combines incivility with abusing Wikipedia's core values. It leaves a stink and ultimately works against the encyclopedia. It's bullying really. So will you please not do it again? You have no right to say "No." to my edit - or indeed to any editor such as myself. You also frankly have no real right to say what "helps" or doesn't in this area regarding a specific edit like mine (do you realise what that sounds like? It sounds like you have a particular agenda to be frank.)

And it is very-much you who has been "vague" here, not me. You cannot properly tell me what I've done wrong. My new text was not 'vague' - it was balanced. It's about avoiding obviously-biased negative generalisations over what is clearly a collection of different disciplines. 'Naruropathy' is clearly NOT all the exact the same shape of rubbish, so why pretend that it is? It clearly varies! For more here, see my talk page regarding my silly 'warning' (for making one single edit for Christ's sake - I hope you two don't tag-team with each other). Some of the sources used in the article do not use the same encyclopedic standards as Wikipedia (why would they? Sources rearely do). We quote information, not linguistic style or approach. The context is always different for a start.

If you can't see that my edit was at-least well-intentioned then I'm sorry but you must be blind. It was also a perfectly good (and needed) edit in area I can only assume you must hold a certain degree of bias towards (or against it does seem). But that is beside the point. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and therefore must use an encyclopedia approach with fully encyclopedic language. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper, nor even a broadsheet for that matter. It's an encyclopedia. Full stop. So few people seem to understand that here. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edit made the lede suggest that only some "forms" of naturopathy are pseudoscientific and that some "forms" have been shown to be effective. That isn't what the rest of the article says, so for one thing, it's an unsourced assertion, and for another, it brings the lede into conflict with the rest if the article. If you have evidence from reliable sources that some form of naturopathy is effective and scientific, then by all means take it to the talk page/add it to the article. You also might want to have a look at  Weasel Words.
 * I never said that your edit was anything but in good faith, and I don't know why you're suggesting otherwise.
 * While you're here, I'd like to remind you that personal attacks aren't acceptable on Wikipedia, and that threatening to report other editors (even for strong language like "not helping"!) is really un-hoopy and not wp:civil.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  20:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you just cannot treat another Wikipedian the way you did to me. It's insulting and it simply invites criticism - and it's not surprising to me that you respond to my reaction by using WP:Civil and calling it a 'personal attack'. I find that very antagonistic too, and feel you are playing your deck of 'WP' cards here. I'm sorry but it's just not right.


 * It is very obvious indeed that there is no evidence to suggest that 'Naturopathy' is any one thing either way! It's not any one thing at all. It's not using 'Weasel words' to address that fact. You simply cannot make the statement that "Naturopathy is ineffective". You know damn well that there are plenty of crossover areas where herbs etc show varying positive effects on health. In the cases where those 'herbs' have shown unique-enough results to have been taken up by conventional medicine, it doesn't remove them from the world of herbalism I'm afraid, rather-sketchy though that world can certainly be lot of the time. But with a collective term (ie Naturapathy) that covers things as broad a 'field' as homeopathy and herbalism and acupuncture, that's the way it goes. Some of it shows up good at times - you really have to deal with that somehow. And how many herbalists etc are also exponents of homeopathy I wonder? Some are I'm sure, but the article effectively says that all these presumably-crazy people are into the same things by default! You just can't say that.


 * If there is any fault in my edit at all, it's in trying to keep all of the existing negatives and generalisations intact. Any decent content-writer will tell you that the constant problem with finding the right words is keeping people like you from 'auto-reverting' the changes to their favourite Points and their favourite lines. But if you know something you don't really like is an awkward fact, for God's sake don't just deny it - or demand it has to be merticulously cited either. You should really have a look yourself before you go reverting anything. If you have the energy to revert you should have the energy to examine. You should then be able to confidently say "There is no evidence!" - not "You are not fully citing!". Especially in areas where the citations need to be bland counter-statements relating entirely to Wikipedia's own context. They are a nightmare to find because people don't live like that. They record per context. What there most-definitely is "No evidence for!" is your claim of a "scientific consensus" that everything that can possibly come under the umbrella term 'naturopathy' is "inefective"! Yet you compile your out-of-context quotes of generalising statements, and you present your completely-developed and refined conclusion as a commonplace 'consensus' or truth. You actually fail WP:No Original Research when you do that. But you are not alone in that, and it's a sin that Wikipedians get away with all the time in these particular areas.


 * The simple truth is that you just cannot effectively control this whole area (generally called 'CAM') the 'tough' and 'minimalistic' way you want to. It just doesn't work. And I often wonder if you don't exaggerate the enemy here anyway. Some people seem to see anti-scientific 'monsters' where there are simply often-very unwell people looking for possibly-effective medication that actually works for them. It makes me so angry when I see people very-likely to be like this being treated roughly like they are trolls. The only way to stiffle the real trolls (or stop the IP editing in general) is to try to get the text as right and balanced and as fair as you can. All according to Policy. Which does means at least some element of balance and fairness I'm afraid. Then you can far more-easily deal from there with any of the various IP's and whatnot that may remain. Surely you can see that? What is fair on Wikipedia usually doesn't get played with. It's bias from all sides that messes things up. Currently you are using excessive control (actual textual control too) - and unsurprisingly you have trodden on someone who is willing and able to fight back.


 * And as a coda I'll say that I think that 'CAM patrollers' need to be just a bit more enlightened about IP's and newly-formed accounts too. I expect that many of you tend to see them both as possible sockpuppets and biased fools, but I am sure that most of them are not. And I've been really harrassed by both in the past - so that is not actually that easy for me to say. If you want a lot of them to just go away, endevour to deal with these articles properly. I am sure that a good many the problems 'anti-CAM' patrollers fight every day they essentially create for themselves. A true Wikipedia cynic could almost say they like to 'fight the good fight' with an 'ever-present' enemy, and are not really interested in improving their routine at all. But I'm sure that's not the case here is it? Matt Lewis (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's quite enough. If you have any constructive suggestions regarding the Naturopathy article, you should take them to that article's talk page.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  03:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Matt Lewis. I thought it would be easier to reply here since you left a similarly toned message on your talk page to my lvl 1 warning. I don't think your sentiment is constructive in both messages, and I find it unhelpful to suggest escalating to ANI without discussion with me and Pepperbeast. I placed the warning on your page because I understood that to be an appropriate action given that I saw that you are not a newbie and that your edits were not constructive on an article that is known to be subject to vandalism and POV pushing. Your edits augmented the language of well-sourced material in Naturopathy and Pepperbeast and I seem to be in agreement. Delta13C (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Firstly Delta13C, I've asked you very clearly to make your reply to me on my own Talk page so I can keep our conversation together - it's just yet more bad manners from you to simply disregard that. Secondly, I'll take this somewhere higher - probably ANI, tomorrow if I can. You simply CANNOT give a Wikipedia Warning (of any 'level') for a harmless sole edit like mine. You need to be told that in no uncertain terms, and clearly from someone you are obliged to respect - ie an admin or hopefully two. You have just got it so wrong here. I wonder what rule book some Wikipedians read sometimes. Not the one I did, that's for sure.


 * Also, if you could see that I wasn't a 'newbie', then why on Earth did you point me to the 'Beginners guide to referencing'?! How does that help anyone here? How does a giving me a Warning actually help? It's just the act of a bully isn't it? Both of you. I'm afraid that you've heavied on the wrong person here. I am also rather worried that you both 'tag-team' irresponsibly too - and in a very-negative way for Wikipedia. So I'll see you both somewhere else too.


 * As you can see, it is my opinion that behavior like yours does not help Wikipedia at all. It's foolish, souring, unkind and basically hinders the 'project' I'm sure you claim you support. In my view your attitude risks upsetting and completely putting-off new editors (how can that be good?), as well as turning away older ones stepping back in and having a look around, which happens not-infrequently I'm sure. You need those people to come back, not turn away again shaking their heads. This subject is also an area where many people who get involved are simply not well. I suspect that this type of behaviour has become far-too prevalent too, and it was always around. To be frank, I'm not so sure that the job or 'label' of "Patroller" is a good one for just anyone on Wikipedia to have. Perhaps it should be given and potentially-removed, like rollback? It can be argued - though not to any legal effect I'm sure - that 'heavying' (I'm struggling for a better term) on normal everyday people like this is effectively a manner of online bullying. Some people will come here entirely in good faith, and they must be just so shocked at how they are treated. Is it fair if they are unwell? And is this really how Wikipedia wants to present itself? Does anyone ever think like this here apart from me? Why do things never seem to change? Matt Lewis (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Matt Lewis. I am sorry if the warning irked you. I understand level 1 warnings to be pretty low consequence, so please interpret it is as such. I did not see that you specifically asked me to reply to your talk page. Sorry if I missed that. I think this is a matter that can be resolved through respectful discussion between you, me, and Pepperbeast, to the extent that he/she wants to continue. We can always move to your talk page or mine if you wish. I think you are approaching this issue very aggressively, so I please ask you to assume good faith and be respectful. How else can we come to a mutual understanding? Delta13C (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I realise that your warning on my Talk page was basically following the lead of Pepperbeast's edit note (wisely?), and I do see Pepperbeast at a different level of rudeness - but it seems clear to me that there was no call for anyone to dish out a ‘Warning’ to anyone here. Not even an admin should ever give a talk-page warning for one single well-meaning edit like mine, esp a decent one. It simply abuses the warning system. It poses a threat that I will go straight to 'Level 2' if I continue. But continue doing what? Making another similar (ie harmless) edit? Obviously I immediately felt compromised, and given the subject I felt I was being bullied too – ie effectively being told to steer clear. I will be reporting PB because I don’t think he acts in the right manner as a patroller, and it will be interesting to see the responses to that. I just never could accept being be spoken to like that to be frank, and my temper on here just goes I'm afraid. It's a Wikipedia thing - I don't have it in real life. But people are obliged to recognise their peers in real life, and they are obliged to treat them respectfully. I’m perfectly fine here when people treat me fairly anyway. It's these areas, you get to see a 'them vs us' attitude that immediately fails the 'Good Faith' policy designed to make these articles work. People here so-often say 'assume good faith' to other's (esp as a response to criticism), but how often to they set out with it themselves?


 * I can always overcome anything with proper discussion though. I do like to keep my reponse under what I reply to though. I'd rather use my Talk page (or the main Discussion page) if we are to discuss the article and the need to be as balanced as is reasonable in this area (it don't mean a level scale), rather than have it display needless negative bias in the name of ‘toughness’, or any unwarranted 'medical machismo' of some kind really. You can call it the 'Not the Truth' thing if you want - which was surely created to force people's attention to policy in places like this, and avoid lingering bias. I've always said that policy and guidelines alone should write absolutely everything on Wikipedia, but there's too much compounding bumf. WP's become a bit become like a religion - it's got solid fundamental rules, but there is much else in addition you can in the end take it anwhere. The exaggerated Toughness here just increases the negative or otherwise IP interest, and it defeats any sensible purpose you can think of. As long as there is a will for actual improvement, these things are always just about the right wording, and often about finding some or better refs too. I think it’s often about avoiding the protection of what can be very awkward 'anchor phrases', and simply being willing to genuinely improve. I was very conscious in my edit to keep a number of existing 'points' in. My edit (perhaps not perfect) was certainly a lot-less problematic than the existing (and current) one, but it can become an awkward patchwork when you are dancing around clearly-protected Points. I didn’t actually read the rest of the article at that point I must admit (I wasn't indending to make the edit originally) - I didn’t feel I needed to for such an obvious phrasing issue though. If it is true that there is no reference at all in the article to any of the proponent's (or 'positive' or whatever) arguments at all - eg the various uptake of natural products by pharma's over the years, then the article has rather become a 'hatchet job' to simply discredit the entire term I would suggest. Even if that was the Scientific Consensus of Truth, it's not very Wikipedian, because Wikipedia is supposed to represent a fairly-weighted (ie balanced) view of a subject using the best sources it can find - it's not supposed to be about anyone's sense of truth.


 * Giving the article a quick scan now, it looks the hatchet-job approach may have become the case. I can see at least one misappropriated ref just stopping at the UK section ("Naturopathy is not regulated in the United Kingdom. In 2012, publicly funded universities in the United Kingdom dropped their alternative medicine programs, including naturopathy.[87]" Despite the article's headline, if you read it properly it never actually claims "alternative medicine degree programs" (which it what it covers) have been dropped by them all. You can certainly still find them (just a quick search lead me to ), but it may well be that are becoming less prevalent now, or as specific degrees at least. Do you see what I mean? It's the cynical loosening of language to drive home a general point. But this spare and 'Tough' approach to these articles just doesn't logically work, and there really is no 'scientic consensus' to combine all these differing things as one mass too, fully-negatively or otherwise. Depending where they are speaking from, scientists are often colloquial in their language (and in this area they can certainly use broad terms), but ultimately their game is science - not being OTT, biased or illogical. The idea of any "scientific consensus" regarding this 'negative mass' approach is actualy Original Research: it uses a bunch of refs to draw a new conclusion that is basically unsound. Surely this article has contained balancing info at some point? If we can get some in now, maybe then the Introduction can be a bit more sensible without anyone calling foul on grounds of ‘style.’ I currently hear the warped logic of Wikipedia gone wrong; There is nothing in the article to suggest any element of these independent things that isn’t 'fully ineffective', so insert "This is an ineffective thing full-stop" as a definitive statement in the Inro, citing the average subjective and non-encyclopedic quotation or two on either the group as a whole or aspects of it, which supposedly amounts to a 'scientific concensus' of general opinion that we need to use as a guide to style.


 * Looking back at that example, it's not correct for Wikipedia to state "Natuopathy is not regulated in the UK" either (the line prior to the example). For a start, the term covers different 'diciplines', so how would that statement work? It's Original Research again isn't it? So we must try and phrase it better. And then here we realise it isn't true anyway - these things clearly are subject to forms of regulation in the UK, either directly British or set by the E.U. (it will both of course). And of course this particular statement isn't sourced anyway. But it's the whole attitude behind it that's the problem. Now I've seen the standard of the article, I'm not especially happy to be told my Intro change doesn't fully fit in with the rest of the thing. I suspect that the article has become very over-controlled over time, in a debilitating process that's left a variety of these kind of misinforming statements lying around. But improvement will only happen if you a) actually allow it, and b) actually allow it to actually start. Warning-off passers-by, and then suggesting they come back with the 'perfect combination' of article-wide material or nothing else leads to.. what? Nothing but more article rot, and it happens all over Wikipedia I'm certain.


 * Incidentally, I didn't start by broaching a ‘possible change’ on the Discussion page (I was actually thinking of leaving a suggestion and then passing on, as I tend to do these days when I come on here), simply because when I looked at the talk page I see a blanket "No." to someone who had politely brought this issue up. So it’s not particularly surprising that I used the primary right to be 'bold' and went ahead and made the edit without discussing it first. I actually took some time to make an edit. What a rotten thing to do, eh? 'Being bold' is vital part of the ‘policy’ of Wikipedia. As is 3RR or sometimes even less-RR. But I have to say not 'First and decent edit = Warning'! I've never read about that one at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you both take your discussion somewhere else, please?  Pepper Beast    (talk)  01:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – March 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Jalsa Salana Editing
Hello Sir/Madame Please do not post exaggerated figures and numbers without proper citation as you have done on the Wikipedia page Jalsa Salana. Otherwise, you will be banned from editing. Proper citation does not include estimations. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolphin245 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I undid your attacks on Ahmadiyya-related articles and insertions of uncited figures. Stop it.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  18:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Barrington
I see you redirected the Barrington article because 'the suburb doesn't exist'. That may well be the case that I got that wrong. Can I ask, though, whether you have any thoughts on the content of the article that you redirected? I don't see you haven't done anything with that content.  Schwede 66  07:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a strong opinion. Maybe it can be usefully added to the Spreydon article.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  19:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Help on article for creation: Britt Marie Hermes
Hi Pepperbeast, I noticed you edit the naturopathy page often. I have written a draft article for Britt Marie Hermes, who is a former naturopath/now whistle blower and I could use your help shaping it up. It was originally rejected due to not meeting GNG and being too promotional. I've added recent sources, but I am not sure how to reduce the promo as it seems to be neutral to me. I think the article now meets WP:BASIC. Thank you. Medicalreporter (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate EL on Criticism of atheism
Thanks for your sterling efforts to rid WP of User:Krshwunk's self-serving EL on Criticism of atheism. The guy is plainly a barrow-pushing axe-grinding religious fanatic. I also suspect that he's using .BlazePhillips as a sockpuppet. -- Jmc (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm not great at this stuff, and I appreciate the support.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  02:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know about your modest claim to be "not great at this stuff" - it seems to me that you've been instrumental in achieving a very satisfactory outcome to this issue. And also to the issue of meat puppetry by his "brother" (a case of "lying for God", perhaps?). Anyway, it's been a pleasure to be on the same page (literally) as a fellow Kiwi - and fellow webmaster, -- Jmc (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Burnside High School is lack of your pictures
Hi there! I'm writing an article about Burnside High School in russian. Could you help me, please? Specifically, I'm looking for a picture of symbolic Burnside High School's cabbage tree spot. Would you like to take a shot and upload it to Commons, please? I'll appreciate your help! Thanks! --Voyagerim (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm nowhere near Burnside High.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  20:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Growth of creationism
Hi there. I think your revert comment is way too strong. I ask you to have a look on the talk page and as well to the actual text of the article - which should be covered by the lede as well. Polentarion Talk 00:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Vaccine Controversies
Pepperbeast, you suggested using the 'talk' page regarding Vaccine Controversies. Where are we to discuss this? The page is very biased and as there exists documented government information (I.E. New Zealand Government Health website, Investigations by US Congress...) the addition these details should not be considered 'vandalism'. The page is called "Vaccination Controversies". A controversy is not just a one sided discussion. It requires viewing other ideas or else there is no controversy... or... it should be considered the work of a dictatorship. Benny Sanders - Toronto, Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyPSanders (talk • contribs) 17:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)   BennyPSanders (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You should discuss changes to the Vaccine Controversies article on that article's talk page.
 * I didn't call your edit vandalism, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
 * You have hugely misrepresented the NZ Ministry of Health. Charlotte Cleverly-Bisman was very much the face of the very successful 2004-2008 campaign to end the epidemic of meningococcal B in NZ through vaccination.  The only reason that meningococcal B vaccine is no longer offered in NZ is that it was more-or-less vaccinated out of existence. It's so uncontroversial, I have no idea why you're trying to make it so.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  19:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Question from Blazearon21
Why have you removed my edit to hijra the source I produced were reliable enough weren't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazearon21 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You deleted a big chunk of the article, broke the page, and tried to insert your point of view as fact. The article seems to be extremely speculative; its only real reference is a study done by All-India Hijra Kalyan Sabha - a study that I can't find anywhere.  Other sources suggest that the main allegation (that the vast majority of hijras are the victims of kidnapping and forced castration) is downright nonsense.    Pepper Beast    (talk)  02:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind can you tell me what sources tell you the opposite(downright nonsense) I'd like to find them.Blazearon21 (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine then what about these sources then mention people who are affected directly rather than being speculative from a time range 1990 to 2015 in news publications of their from many well respected news publications
 * 1) http://m.indiatoday.in/story/determined-group-of-forcibly-castrated-men-file-criminal-charges-against-their-abductors/1/293288.html
 * 2) http://m.timesofindia.com/city/delhi/Eunuchs-not-always-born-but-made/articleshow/1219979.cms
 * 3) http://m.timesofindia.com/city/bengaluru/Teen-undergoes-forced-sex-change-surgery-by-eunuchs/articleshow/3735765.cms
 * 4) http://m.hindustantimes.com/delhi/12-yr-old-castrated-forced-to-be-part-of-eunuch-group/story-wBmUENObCKWwTwhy3U0wCI.html
 * 5) http://m.timesofindia.com//articleshow/50802966.cms
 * 6) http://english.pradesh18.com/news/uttar-pradesh/agra-youth-converted-to-transgender-hearing-tomorrow-876541.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazearon21 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If you find the sources I listed as satisfactory and reliable then please stop reverting the edits or state of point of view on why they should not be includedBlazearon21 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What you have is evidence of a handful of allegations. What you tried to insert into the article was a factual claim that "many" hijras are the victims of kidnapping by a "hijra mafia". Your sources don't back that claim. Please don't add original research to the article.  An allegation is only an allegation, no matter where it appears.  Now, please take this discussion to the article talk page.  It doesn't belong here.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  04:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: November 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)