User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/2018 1

Mujaddid article
user:Batreeq has inserted footnotes to "explain" that many Muslims don't believe that Ahmadiyya Muslims are really Muslims. The claim is true in that some Muslims do believe that. However, I don't think it should be in the article. It's not an article about Islamic sects-- it's just a list of religious reformers. If anything, the footnote undermines the article content rather than supports it. And I don't think this kind of discussion belongs on a general article, any more than we should open a discussion of whether Baptists think Catholics are Christians in the lust of Popes. I've tried discussing this on the article's talk page, and I posted the issue on the NPOV noticeboard, but I'm not getting anywhere. I'm not sure what to do next. Pepper Beast   (talk)  00:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's say someone is doing a research project about Islam and don't know that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad founded a sect which most Muslims consider not a part of Islam. That is why the information should remain. The reasoning "undermines the article content" of why the note should not be there is vague. Can you clarify what you mean? Furthermore, the number of Christian denominations and sects are vastly larger than that of Islam. You cannot compare apples and oranges. In addition, we have discussed this on the article talk page, which I have responded to citing policies and guidelines. Recently, you removed the footnote (here) with the reason "This is against article consensus.", yet now, you stated "I'm not getting anywhere", contradicting yourself. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 00:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Batreeq, this really wasn't addressed to you.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  00:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You mentioned my username, thus, notifying me that I was mentioned on your talk page. Nonetheless, the viewpoints of all those involved in an article dispute are always welcome. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 03:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and marked this as "helped", since gave you information with the benefit of context, something I don't have.
 * A bit of unsolicited advice, if you'll forgive me for it: we do have various methods of dispute resolution. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  04:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. As I stated above, I tried taking this to the NPOV noticeboard, but have had very little response, and I'm not sure what to do next.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  04:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia for fraudulent advertisement.
Pepperbeast as you have noticed, followers of an Indian Godman are trying to use this Anukulchandra Chakravartywiki page as a cheap advertisement. After adding a controversy section with numerous sources and removing blatant misinformation, the edits are constantly being undone and revised by his followers such as Sandippradhan86and others in minutes. I have issued a speedy deletion notice which will probably get removed after some time. What should we do to stop this wiki propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:232B:B9F1:918A:1EEC:8B7B:2492 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not add speedy delete notices to legitimate articles. If you're involved in a content dispute, discuss on the article talk page.  There's also a noticeboard for  neutral point of view issues   Pepper Beast    (talk)  23:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Again his wiki followers have unddone the removal of those advertising materials backed by nil to highly dubious sources and removed the controversy section along with its proper citation(can be easily verified with online translaton). They are doing this for a long time, carefully protecting the advertising nature of the article and removing any criticism. They are justifying this on the talk page by suggesting the person has supposed millions of followers. In real life followers of this Godmen advertise people with this aricle as a verified source. Can this be prevented or not?--2405:205:2406:2A0E:D185:23E7:A4AF:3517 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As expected, User Sandippradhan86 being warned by you and Worldbruce, created a new account WikiLoneCrusader at 14:13, 19 October 2018 from a different ip, revived his old crap and deleted the controversy section with verificable secondary sources. He has done this account duplicity for atleast 10 times to protect his crap in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charbaka (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of historic places in Christchurch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Addington ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_historic_places_in_Christchurch check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_historic_places_in_Christchurch?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Improving the Christianity and Islam article
Hi Pepper Beast,

Thank you for expressing your views on the Christianity and Islam article, as I have done as well. When I first went to read that article, I was hoping to find an article that appeared to me to be neutrally written, hopefully by people of both faiths, hopefully describing the beliefs of those who believed that the two faiths were incompatible, as well as describing the beliefs of those who believed that the two religions might be essentially compatible. Instead I found the article to have apparently been written primarily by Cathoic apologists, not at all describing the beliefs of anyone who felt that the two faiths might be compatible, and not at all describing what seem to me to be the two most fundamental differences between the two faiths. Namely these two fundamental differences seem to me to be:


 * 1) Muslims hold that their Quran was written word for word as the words of God Himself, while Christians do admit that their Bible was written by men who were "inspired by God," but do not claim that its authors were essentially taking dictation from God.  I believe that this is a key difference, and it has clearly resulted in the fact that Muslims have never allowed anyone to translate their book into any other language editions that they consider to be in any way "authoritative editions."  Rather, Muslims only base their sermons, teachings and beliefs on direct readings of the original Quran by those who are fluent Arabic speakers.  Christianity has no such requirement, and accepts translations of the Bible into other languages than the original languages as authoritative.
 * 2) Nowhere in this article was there any treatment of the different teachings of the two "founders" (Jesus and Mohammed) on the subject of forgiveness.  Nowhere did Mohammed teach "resist not the evil doer," as Jesus did.  This to me seems to be a huge difference between the two belief systems.

You are certainly free to leave this article as an article which appears to me to have been written primarily by Catholic apologists, and I will not attempt to make this article as what I would consider to be truly "neutral" again, unless I might first have come to some kind of agreement with you.

I accept your criticism that perhaps my verbiage might have been a bit excessive, but I still feel that what I have described as the "missing points" of the article need to somehow be added in. If you might want to discuss these concerns of mine any further with me, here, on my own talk page, or even via email, I'd be happy to do so. I would however please prefer to keep this as a discussion between just yourself and myself, and not on the article's talk page, until you and I might have first fully discussed what I consider to be the three missing points (two omitted differences and the missing treatment of the beliefs of those who see the religions as compatible), to each of our satisfactions between one another, and at least to the point where we had "agreed to disagree" between one another.

Thanks, One passer by (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Your edits don't seem to address any particular concern, but just do a lot of muddying. Three "generally"s and a "typically" in a simple statement don't make it more "neutral"; they just make it verbose and unreadable.
 * The place to discuss concerns about content or neutrality is on the article talk page.
 * I absolutely will not enter into a private email discussion.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  19:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * OK then, in that case might you be willing to try discussing these things in a two-party-only discussion section of the article's talk page? I've found that reaching an agreement with another editor (or even simply reaching an agreement to respectfully disagree with another editor) often becomes simpler and easier in discussion areas that are clearly labelled for two-party-only discussions.  Once we either both agree to respectfully disagree, or we come to some other agreement, or else either one of us stops responding in a timely fashion, then the two-party-only section of the article's talk page becomes closed.  Interested?  If you may have no interest in any of my proposals for how we might be able to discuss this one to one, that's OK too.


 * Thanks,
 * One passer by (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can decide that an article talk discussion is for particular parties only, nor should you. The whole point is to get input from other editors.    Pepper Beast    (talk)  01:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought the point of talk pages was to improve user communication, not merely to take votes. There is no policy that prohibits one-on-one sections of article talk pages, is there? One passer by (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about taking votes? We, as editors, don't have the power to tell other editors they can't participate in a talk page discussion. How would you even?   Pepper Beast    (talk)  02:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that we don't have the power to "tell" other editors not to post in a section of an article talk page, but we do have the power to "request" other editors not to post in a given section of a talk page.

Such a one-on-one discussion section on an article talk page could easily be accomplished by simply titling the discussion section with something like One on one discussion section about X (This discussion section is reserved for a one-on-one discussion between y and z, and will be closed either when both y and z agree to close it, or when either one of them reasonably withdraws from this conversation.  Please respect this request for a one-on-one conversation in this section of this article talk page, and please feel free to open up additional group discussions below if desired.  Thanks.)

I've done as much before on talk pages, and other editors have always respected the request. One passer by (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Am going to bed just now, but I will check for your reply tomorrow AM. Thanks, One passer by (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, if you currently don't want to relate as an equal with me, and try to engage in the type of constructive, mutually respectful, and honest dialogue that tends to develop in one-on-one dialogue, that's OK. Bye then.  Perhaps someday later. One passer by (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Look, mate, you're actually being really rude.  I've been nothing but respectful to you.  I'm still willing to engage in discussion of the article content, jut not to try to exclude other editors from the conversation.  Please take your suggestions to the article talk page and stop trying to insinuate that I'm doing something wrong.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  18:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I apologize if my hope to have a one-on-one dialogue with you about the article, and my hope for all of the things that I believe such a dialogue would tend to foster, might seem rude to you. Admittedly my request to go one-to-one on an article talk page is a bit unusual, and I thank you for not dismissing it entirely out of hand thus far.


 * It’s no secret that Wikipedia's editorial environment has resulted in a ratio of something like 1 female editor to every 20 male editors. I strongly believe that this sad ratio is due to the fact that textual electronic communications within groups is a new media for which new and effective norms of ettiquite have not yet been developed.


 * In my view, electronic textual communication with groups is a good example of where human culture and ettiquite is still trying to catch up with human technology. Ever go into an IRC chat room with several people and try to have a truly meaningful in-depth conversation with anyone?  How about the Twitter-sphere, or Reddit?  Even Facebook has been proven to cause many unforseen negative impacts on society, despite the fact that that environment seems to have been designed to try to foster more “meaningful conversations” than the Twitter or Reddit environments.


 * The Wikipedia editorial environment is no exception, and is certainly not immune from many of these same types of problems. I believe that the certain level of anonymity that electronic textual communication necessarily includes tends to foster a certain matching level of natural apathy towards those with whomever one might communicate.


 * As a solution to this “tendency towards apathy," I believe that it is only by finally developing some kind of a new “countering ettiquite” that our society will one day be able to succeed in escaping such “automated apathy.” For myself, when I’m anonomously teletyping to another human being, I sometimes feel a certain mind-numbing sense of frustration, and of being merely a cog in some huge mindless, faceless matrix, and I suspect that I may not be the only one.


 * So, to make a long story short, I would be most happy to engage in a one-to-one conversation with you on the article's talk page as I have already offered, but otherwise, I will be happy not to. I leave the choice in your hands my friend.


 * Thanks for bearing with this rather long winded explanation for why I would require such an agreement on your part first.


 * Yours, One passer by (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Pepper Beast,


 * I will make one last appeal to you to please accept my offer/ request to enter into a discussion section on the article talk page which would be requested for a one on one conversation, and which would also be based on the premises of equality, mutual respect, and article improvement, and not on any questions of right or wrong, more experienced or less experienced, etc.  If I get no answer here from you within 48 hours, I will unfortunately have to interpret your decision not to reply here as your “no.”


 * I am not in any way saying that you are not following the current “cultural norms” of Wikipedia editors. I am merely saying that perhaps these “norms” themselves need to be carefully looked at for what they are.  No, I do not find the current “WP norms” of acceptable behavior in the WP-editor-sphere to be particularly conducive of much genuine mutual respect or egalitarianism amongst editors.  The great hesitation that you are now apparently showing to be willing  to engage in such a direct dialogue with me is the prevailing attitude that I find here.


 * I had hoped that perhaps you might be willing to try something slightly different, but apparently not. So, thank you for at least not kicking me off of your talk page.  Still hoping that you might agree to this by two days from now, but happy too if not.


 * Your friend,


 * One passer by (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Enough. Your fixation on me is downright bizarre and making me really uncomfortable.  Please stay off my talk page.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  17:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * K,One passer by (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)