User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/2018/June

Get consensus
Regarding your suggestion here, two quick questions, a)Why do I need to get consensus for something that has been in the article for ages (that is for Translation of Almah as Virgin) b)How do I get consensus? Through talk page or should I look elsewhere? Cheers. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on consensus. The fact that something is in one article does not automatically mean it belongs in another.  Personally, I don't think this belongs in Criticism of Christianity at all. It might be worth mentioning the issue of the Virginity of Mary and why it is (or isn't) significant, but the technical discussion belongs where it is-- in its own article.
 * Yes, you should go to the article's talk page to discuss the issue. Just inserting the content over and over is  edit warring and against Wikipedia rules.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  19:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * ok, will do. Thanks Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems there is no objection. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Redoing Source Exaggeration
Hello, On your recent edit to Young Earth Creationism, you undid one of my edits. I made that edit because it exaggerated the original source. The source from where the citation directs to states: "Most 'Creation Scientists' including the Institute for Creation Research promote the above beliefs. Their arguments are detailed and often refer to scientific evidence, but may use it incorrectly."

I find that citing that to use the words "though often framed with pseudoscientific misconceptions" is a gross exaggeration, and that my words represent the source better. This is not the first time I've had to explain this. Here's the last place: User talk:SummerPhDv2.0.

I'm not pushing my POV, I'm representing the original source. I ask that you let me redo my edit. Thank You, Plaba123 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Plaba123