User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/2018/March

Spice
I would like to invite you to reconsider [your revision (WP:OR)] and not ignore supporting reference given in the deleted part. I agree more and better references are desirable, and every assertion should be referenced. Whether the references should be in the section about general spice usage, in the page of the relevant spice, or in both, should require careful considerations. If you do not agree to the mentioned alternative purposes spices may be used for (assuming you think spices are used solely for antimicrobial purposes - the one already in the article) then I suggest you add a moderating sentence and not delete valid content (avoid risking your deletion to amount to WP:OR). Or are you against a section title for spice use? Why? Cobanyastigi (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this on the Spice talk page  Pepper Beast    (talk)  21:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

With the recent revert without replying the issues raised on talk page you have shown that you are being a disruptive edit warrior. You have already made 3 reverts and it is unlikely that anyone will support your irrelevant editorializing. The article get lots of improper edits from new users and some of them happen to be completely wrong. Lorstaking (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The person who was obsessed with this misrepresentation of source is now indeffed as a sock and happens to be same person who added this content years ago, this account has been blocked for socking as well. And there was no comment by this sock that how the source contradicts his edits or addition of OR. I had also added a better source. Better if you don't resume this again. Lorstaking (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

With the recent revert without replying the issues raised on talk page you have shown that you are being a disruptive edit warrior. You have already made 3 reverts and it is unlikely that anyone will support your irrelevant editorializing. The article get lots of improper edits from new users and some of them happen to be completely wrong. Lorstaking (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The person who was obsessed with this misrepresentation of source is now indeffed as a sock and happens to be same person who added this content years ago, this account has been blocked for socking as well. And there was no comment by this sock that how the source contradicts his edits or addition of OR. I had also added a better source. Better if you don't resume this again. Lorstaking (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing

 * As it says on my user page, I am an atheist.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  17:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you always edit ahmadi pages and no other religions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The millenial (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I edit pages related to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shamanism, and folk religions. I also remove vandalism wherever I find it.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  17:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If you edit the islamic pages, you must have knowledge regarding the faith. If all muslims believe ahmadis are non-muslims then why do you, as an atheist, remove such statements on the islamic and ahmadi pages. Calling an ahmadi a non-muslim is not vandalism, it is the truth. You don't understand it because you are an atheist. Sorry for the rant but just stating my perspective as to why I believe ALL pages on Wikipedia claiming ahmadis to be muslims should be edited according to what is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The millenial (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm following Wikipedia's policies. Don't lecture me, and don't vandalize any more pages.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  18:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am also following Wikipedia's policies... this is my last post, not trying to be annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The millenial (talk • contribs) 18:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia policy that says you should insert fake death dates into biographical articles or call people you don't like kaffirs. The Ahmadiyya issue has been discussed extensively. Whether or not you're "trying to be annoying" changes nothing.    Pepper Beast    (talk)  19:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Luis Gabriel Aguilera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page McKinley Park ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Luis_Gabriel_Aguilera check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Luis_Gabriel_Aguilera?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks!...
... for reverting I don't remember making at all and would never have made on purpose. I must have been drifting off to sleep. --Thnidu (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries... I thought it must have been some minor misadventure rather than intentional.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  08:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)