User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/2019 1

Revision
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&oldid=prev&diff=881368325, I took that from the Christian section, so if it's considered original research, it should be removed from there as well.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Premillenialism is not the standard mainline theology in Christianity
Please refrain from editing the Messiah article in a manner which assumes Pre-Millienialism is "The Christian Standard" as this is potentially bigoted editing. The majority of Christians(Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Traditional Protestantism) believe in Amillenialism(we are IN the reign of Christ), not Pre-Millienialism. Only a small but vocal minority of Protestants believe in that theology.

You seem to be delibrately editing the article to remove the fact Christians ALL believe he WAS born of the Davidic Line (through legal adoption giving Torah right to the Kingship, and through his Mother's linage) and WAS declared King of the Jews of the line of King David THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

If I have to put new sources in the article to stop you from doing this, I will. Though frankly I shouldn't have to because everyone knows that is what Christianity ALREADY believes. You should grow up and accept this is the belief of Christianity. Colliric (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not "deliberately editing" the article to say anything. I'm just reverting to the current, stable version of the article because you are making changes without providing any references. Please do provide sources if you want to update the article content.  "Everyone knows" doesn't cut it.  Also, stop making personal attacks like "grow up" and read WP:CIVIL.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  04:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Paternity Fraud
Political opinions of specific commentators are not relevant to definitional articles and will continue to be removed accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolutionaryCommunard (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverting without explanation
I don't oppose your revert but I actually didn't write 90 words in the edit summary and tons of words in the talk page to just be reverted without an explanation not even a brief explanation like 1 word that would be enough SharabSalam (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I reverted because the material seemed to more-or-less agree with the sources, and more sources are available.  I did a slight re-edit and additional source at Religion and Sexuality, and will do the other articles when I get a minute.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  21:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

New article Yehuda Melamed
Dear user Pepperbeast. We had some cooperation in the past on Operation Boatswain. Today I opened an article in the English Wiki about a renown Israeli diving medicine expert Navy Captain Yehuda Melamed יהודה מלמד and ask for you assistance. Suddenly appeared a caption that the article would be deleted if I would not provide some references. I did my best and called the man in subject for consultation. Please read the article and see what you may do to better it. Thanks קודקוד צהוב (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --Guy Macon (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Holland Lop Article
Hello Pepperbeast, the claim of the behavior myths section not being encyclopedic is slightly confusing to me. Could you please suggest any edits I could make, or explain more in detail what you mean by this? The article is a work in progress, and I would love to retain that bit of information if possible. Thanks JoshRavi (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi JoshRavi. I think you probably need to have a read of some of the Wikipedia guidelines, in this case WP:NOTGUIDE.  Producing an encyclopedic article about Holland Lops is great, but the Wikipedia article is not and should be a guide to how to care for Holland Lops.  Besides that, phrases like "a known dangerous game to play" are not an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  00:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the "known dangerous game to play" change, but you deleted the ENTIRE section. There were no instructions on how to care for this animal in this section, it was simply providing the popular viewpoint of not judging the rabbit by its breed, which was very relevant on breeder's websites. Thus, I believe that deleting the ENTIRE section was incorrect. JoshRavi (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition, it seems as though you have deleted the vast majority of the behavior section. The information presented there was correct, presented fairly, and played a critical role in the article. I would love to discuss the revision and possibly find a middle ground, however it does not seem to be going in that direction.. JoshRavi (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello once again Pepperbeast! I have noticed that you have gone ahead and deleted 393 characters from the lead section of the Holland Lop. You provided absolutely no feedback apart from - "Tidy up" - that's 2 words used to describe a deletion of 393 characters! I would love to come to an agreement about these changes, however with no communication on your part, my colleagues and I may just begin to undo your changes. Thanks so much for understanding! JoshRavi (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you actually look at the diff, you can see that I removed a guidebook-type comment about feeding, tightened wording to get rid of unnecessary althoughs and hences, and improved wording to make it read more like a summary and less like a sampling of details. Please take this discussion to the Holland Lops talk page.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  21:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Holland Lop history
Please don't edit this article for a week. We are a group of students working on a wikipedia project. We don't mind you adding more information, but please don't delete our work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowsocool (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that. I suggest that if you want to make a full draft without other editor input, you use your sandbox. Also, please take this discussion to the Holland Lop talk page.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  20:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Undoing double move
Another user has moved the Sword Verse article-- first to At-Tawbah, 9 and then to At-Tawbah, 5 without any consensus (or any discussion). I'd like to fix this, but I'm not sure how to revert a move with two sets of redirection and I don't want to make a mess. Pepper Beast   (talk)  23:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. Did you query Smatrah about this? Gryllida (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  08:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Such reverts are handled here: Requested moves. has already made a request there, so this should be fixed soon. – Þjarkur (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Brilliant-- thank you!

Invite
Please feel free to come to a Wikipedia meeting in Christchurch on Wednesday, 29 May 2019.  Schwede 66  22:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Rabwah
Thanks for helping to clean up that mess! DMacks (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I've been watching quite a few Ahmadiyya-related articles, mainly because they seem to be a consistent target for vandals.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  14:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Religion in Pakistan
Hi, I have added references to the text I added to the page. I will be grateful if you could please let me know if I need to add more. Secondly, I can't edit on-page anymore. I have to go to the source now which is extremely inconvenient. Do you know how I can get the rights to edit on page back? Thanks --Ntsheikh (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not an admin, and I have no idea why you can't use visual edit. Refs look basically fine, though I dropped the one from the Catholic School Board as not WP:RS.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  19:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Deprodding of Atel (slang)
I have removed the tag from Atel (slang), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Reversal of edits
Hi Pepperbeast, why have you deleted the content established here, here and here.Please restore.122.171.48.127 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, no, and no. Your content is poorly sourced and barely related to the article topics.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  14:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Photo Glorifying a Terrorist
Hi. You removed a photo glorifying the terrorist Mumtaz Qadri last year (your edit). Now someone has uploaded glorifying the terrorist Ilm-ud-din. Can you do the same and delete the photo there as well? I don't know which tag to use to get it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.214.241.234 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)