User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/2020 1

Some issues with current Wiki Quran articles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles Koreangauteng (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

unexplained cooperatin with Anachronist
Anachronist failed to explain his deletion on talk page of women in Islam and you are supporting him without reason. Plaease expalin. Truth is this (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am supporting Anachronist because they are right. Qu'ran quotations are not necessary here. There is already sufficient explanation, supported by secondary sources. Adding quotations is just repetitive.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  17:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you. I am removing quote of jewish scholar thats too reoititive. Truth is this (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked sock
User talk:Truth is this Doug Weller  talk 17:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See my comments on your talk page. I think you might have missed the sockmaster.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  17:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Pepperbeast why are you undoing without expanation
On Women in islam, you undid my edit without explanation, why are you warring without explanation? Smatrah (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see my previous edit summaries. As I explained to User:Truth is this, we do not need lengthy primary source quotations. Wikipedia relies mainly on secondary sources, and in this case, the Qu'ran quotations don't contain anything that isn't already in the article.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  16:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Please refer explicit wikipedia guidelines to supoort your case, as i see Torah, Evangel, Quran and other scripture quoted on the same page and other pages. Further more you also undid my correction of mistranslation of one verse and removed anothor verse, how would you explain these conficting edits of yours. Smatrah (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Smatrah (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

On your Marx
Hi, I am guessing you capped the Marx talk page discussion ... ? Calling here now to hear if apologies are in order; I've never had a discussion closed down on me before (I'm usually civil). I Just found the "ethnically Jewish" issue infuriating for the confusing of ethnicity with religion, I guess it made me a bit acerbic, perhaps. Forgetting the specific article, can we really not be sarcastic towards stickundropping "I am like the water, I search for an opening" prayer mill-like single-issue repetition posters? ..... ok, we can't. Apologies. But ... really? T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I closed the discussion because talk pages are for improving the article, not ranting (from another user, not you) and tangential discussion/snarky comments. No apology. Also, the concept of ethnic Jewishness exists whether you find it infuriating or not.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  11:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thx. For the record, I do not find the existence of the concept of ethnic something-ness (I'm actually ethnic something myself) infuriating, but the conflation of this concept with that of religion, and the more or less thinly veiled urge to lift properties from the one to the other. That said, if I may not apologize, let me at least commend you for your efforts. Best wishes, T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Korangi/Landhi
Hi , Korangi, Landhi, Landhi Town, and Korangi Town are all separate entities but have been merged into one. I don't think this was a productive move because:

1) Korangi and Landhi are not interchangeable, but are two distinct areas. 2) Korangi Town and Landhi Town are actually defunct administrative units like Saddar Town and Lyari Town, and I've been editing those pages today. These were the last two (Korangi Town/Landhi Town) that I needed to take care of today.

I'd appreciate if you'd undo these so that I can constructively edit them. Alishernavoi (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Korangi and Landhi Town that I merged into Landhi were short articles ostensibly about neighbourhoods inside Landhi. If that's not correct and you think something else should be done, you can still access those articles at Korangi and Landhi Town.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  14:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

GOC during the Yugoslav Wars
I think that the the role of the Greek Orthodox Church during the Yugoslav wars could be handled in a much better way, but as a subject it is notable. To this day this is part of the public debate in Bosnia and a subject of research in political science of modern Greece. I made an edit to deal with the notability aspect of the topic.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My objections aren't about notability. My objection is that this is  an attack article.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  20:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are multiple RS on the topic. I added them and i think the article can be further expanded.Resnjari (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Picture in "Religion"
Hi there pepperbeast. I was surprised at your reversion of the picture in Religion. I think you may misunderstand the "consensus" idea. No one needs any consensus to work on Wikipedia. We don't have to ask anyone's permission to do so. Whatever we contribute is not automatically revertible just because we didn't ask anyone if we could do it. Think about it. WhO is there to ask? "Dear Mr. Wales, may I please add a picture to "Religion?". But of course you may have had an objection. However, you did not voice any. You said "nice picture." I'm confused. Is this a too hasty move on your part? Or do you have an objection, and if so, what? Please let us know. I started a discussion on the talk page, so you can tell us there. If you have no objection then I would say there is a consensus of you and me, so in that case, please put it back! If there is one, please let us know so the matter can be clarified for the users. This message is repliable, so if by chance you neglect to reply, we go back to the picture by default. Thanks.Botteville (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe read WP:BRD.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  01:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy
An editor moved Creation-Evolution controversity to Rejection of evolution by religious groups with very little discussion. I tried to change it back, but I don't seem to be able to make the move. Pepper Beast   (talk)  15:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI
I am self-isolating (like a lot of other people) which is affecting my mental health, I am scared about being unemployed and homeless and my parents dying. Please leave me alone. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Mate, I feel your pain. We're all in lockdown here. But if you can't interact with others without swearing at people, it's time for a break from Wikipedia.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  21:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are you calling me disruptive?
I added a photo to a page that needed one. --Count Oblio (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding comments like "While many images of these cats exist without any copyright issues, Wikipedia censors them" is disruptive. Stop it.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  12:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Undo edit Ahmadiyya-Lahore
Hey @Pepperbeast, first of all thanks for the dedicated work to the project. But I don't quite understand why you changed my latest edit of the Ahmadiyya-Lahore Mission. It seemed to me like the previously given information was not quite correct and I added more details. Could you please tell me why you decided to undo those edits? Best, SouthAsiaFTW (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Pepperbeast, unfortunately I still didn't receive an answer to my above stated question. Could you please be so kind and elaborate on your decision? Otherwise it feels like I should re-add the information I had previously included in the Ahmadiyya-Lahore article. Best, SouthAsiaFTW (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I just think it's beginning to wander from the subject of the article, which is the movement, not the details of a translation.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  16:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely get that but as it is now, there is incorrect information on the article page. I then vote to delete the passage about the translation in total.

SouthAsiaFTW (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Christians
You may see the thanks I send you. I didn't knew about vandalism. Just see the examples of people articles redirected to non=people articles. Crusaders to Crusades, Nazis to Nazism and Explorers to Exploration. Why not Christians to Christianity? I have to use both links in christian articles. --ANONYMOUS USER2003 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether or not that's relevant, we do not just redirect articles willy-nilly. You can propose a WP:Merge, but I don't really fancy your chances.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  21:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Greeks
I am going to edit Greeks and give the Greek flag as primary image. Is it vandalism? --ANONYMOUS USER2003 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Gráinne Ní Mháille
I must take exception to your characterizing my addition to the Cultural Impact section of the Gráinne Ní Mháille page as "vandalism", which it certainly was not. Also, there was a notation of "no WP:RS", by which I suppose you are saying that my giving the title of a genuine album -- of which I have a copy -- is not a Reliable Source. Please explain your thoughts on these; thanks!

Silverhill (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting the bit about "vandalism"-- certainly not from me. You might want to read up on reliable sources and primary sources.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  22:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I remember a red "Vandalism" label as part of the original notification that I got, along with a notation that the objection was from you, so it seemed that you were the one to ask about it. In my Notification history, interestingly, that label no longer appears, so I remain puzzled as to who (or what? a bot?) applied it.

Thanks for the heads-up about sources, though. I was not yet well enough acquainted with some of the intricacies thereof. Silverhill (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Your recent editing history at Gráinne Ní Mháille shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''You are quite right about sourcing, but quite wrong about reverting without taking it to the talk page. By making your point at the talk page, you can involve more editors and develop a consensus. That will never happen through reverting.'' RexxS (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop undoing my changes
Hey @Pepperbeast. Stop undoing my changes. I've given very clear reasons for all of my changes and they are all sufficient. It seems like you're purposely undoing my changes for politically motivated reasons. The original section of the articles I edited were incredibly biased and gave misleading impressions of each topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krao212 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your changes because they seem to be WP:POV and are unsourced and/or out-of-step with the sources provided. Stop it, and read WP:RS.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  17:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Revert Reverted on Persecution of Ahmadis
Small note: Hi. I'm about to revert your revert as BBC have now published an article. Taimoorahmed11 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Religion in pakistan
Hello sir, you are removing a content which is important in history. You cannot remove this points as they are important. Please stop removing important historical facts. Anonymous Bond (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sir, please reply. You are not responding. Anonymous Bond (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop edit warring. Your content is in the article. There in no need to copy the identical content into the lede.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  06:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop reverting facts.
Hey @pepperbeast, Sir, Wikipedia is a place for facts. Why are you not accepting facts? I did add a citation for proof. Why are you not accepting facts? Please do not remove facts Anonymous Bond (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Cousin Marriage > Prevalence > United Kingdom
I removed the following line { The debate has been prompted by a Pakistani immigrant population making up 1.5% of the British population, of whom about 50–70% marry a first cousin.[119] } as the reference given says:

[1]- "Research in Birmingham in the 1980s suggested that 50-70% of marriages within the Pakistani community were consanguineous." [2]- "In the Bundey study, consanguinity was identified through taking a family pedigree to the baby’s great grandparents where consanguinity existed in the pedigree, or to the grandparents where no consanguinity was present in the pedigree, in order to identify related individuals in the pedigree who had married." [3]- "The majority of consanguineous unions were in births to Pakistani mothers, where the prevalence of consanguinity was 49.9%. This consanguinity rate is comparable to the analysis by Bundey and Griffin in 2008, which site the prevalence of consanguineous marriages in mothers giving birth from the Pakistani community currently as 50‐70%."

Bundey mentioned in [3] is the research referred to in [1], in which 956 Pakistani women took part in the late 80s/1990 in Birmingham. In this sample of 956 Pakistani women there was a 69% prevalence rate of consanguinity. As stated in [2], 'consanguinity' was not defined as limited to first-cousin marriages only. "The family history consisted of taking a pedigree which extended to the baby's grandparents if there was no consanguinity, but which included at least great grandparents if consanguinity was present. If there was more than one consanguineous marriage among the baby's ancestors an attempt was made to note them all, for the parental and three preceeding generations." - The 1990 Bundey report.

Griffin, referred to in [3] is a 2008 survey of consanguinity in Sparkhill, an area of Birmingham which according to the 2011 census had a female population of 9980. The census tells us 13.48% of the Birmingham population was Pakistani at the time, so we can estimate 1345 Pakistani women in the area. Without details of the methodology, we are unable to deduce the sample size, but suffice to say it is far too limited to be able to claim it true for the entire British Pakistani population.

The sentence I removed was either grossly extrapolated from the reference given or misinterpreted entirely. As I said earlier it is factually incorrect. The 2011 census also put the British Pakistani population at 1.9% (2 sf), so even the first part of the sentence is incorrect. Without including details of the research from which the '50-70%' figure was accrued, the sentence is worse than misleading.

tl;dr - stop reverting the removal of this sentence. It is inaccurate information.

Acupressure
Pepperbeast,

Please stop removing additions of scientific information to the acupressure page. The wiki community is not served by removal of new information with citations. Quackwatch is not a valuable substitute for recent scientific information. Mr. Barrett is not a researcher, or scientist, but a skeptical ex-psychologist who has been less than honest about his credentials according to sources. If you insist on sourcing quackwatch, you should be open to including scientific advancements in the understanding of acupoints as physically identifiable structures in the human body. Did you read the latest research?

For example, in 2014, Rutgers University found that they could reduce sepsis deaths in mice by using electro-acupuncture on acupoints; mice aren't subject to placebo effects.

I appreciate that your intent may be well and good, but we have to open our minds to new research regarding the acupoints and understanding of how such points effect the body's inflammation, opiate systems, etc..

Please let my additions remain, or improve upon their citations and wording, but I see no basis to simply remove any addition to this page simply because it conflicts with quackwatch. quackwatch is not a reliable third party source of information.

Rutgers University would be a reliable source of information, for example.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.15.110 (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please continue this discussion on Talk:Acupuncture, not on my personal talk page, and read WP:V and WP:MEDRS. Single studies do not trump a large body of prior research. And sign your posts.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  16:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Refrain from threatening
Refrain from threatening others. I only put in dubious tag ... to statements that aren't correct. Nothing more nothing less... and that's well with Wikipedia standards also. Azmarai76 (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:EW. No matter how "right" you are, edit warring is not allowed. Take it to the talk page instead. Majavah (talk!) 11:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Varana System: Pepperbeast
Mr. Pepperbeast, I have written atleast 13 papers in top scientific Journal. You should know a introduction should have basic definition related to a topic. It should not use outdated or wrong information. I have corrected the varna system inroduction on the basis of work of modern scholar. 1. Manusmiriti has nothing to do Varna system (as it is a commentary only). So using it as source to define Varna system is meager attempt to misinform the the reader of page. 2. Gita and Mahabharat are far more authoritative than Manusmiriti, No historical writer of Manusmiriti is known. 3. Telling the name of predominant Indian figures (related to different Varnas) is important as it shatters wrong notion of it being a equivalent to caste system. 4. Old Introduction does not involve definition any Varna, neither gives definition of varna system.Which Should be clearly defined with the help of literature. 5. People has been thoroughly misinformed on the varna system due to old introduction. 6. I made it more authentic by adding modern/recent discoveries regarding this system.

It is much better if you verify my changes rather simply giving excesses in order to misinform the reader of page.

An Introduction can not a super short if we have to cover 5000 years of history and multiple view points in known and verified scriptures.

'''I will report to wikipedia about you. If you will revert my change on this topic. Don't try to teach my culture to me. Please don't use your uninformed, nonfactual suggestation for thing which you do n't know'''. '''As far as understand you may be Pakistani origion as your changes even on other topics is attempt to whitewash the Pakistan work. Even when they are published in known work.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by MANGAL (talk • contribs) 10:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please take the trouble to read my (and others') edit summaries before you start filling my talk page. The lede is meant to introduce and summarize the content of the article. If you want to add a big chunk of information to the article, it belongs in the body, not the lede. And while you're at it, you should probably read WP:RS and WP:SYNTHESIS. Wikipedia needs to have material that is backed by what reliable sources say. What you wrote was backed up mainly with primary source quotations.
 * Trying "call out" what you imagine someone's race or national origins to be is a really inappropriate way to behave on Wikipedia, so I suggest you make this the last time. Threatening to report me is not is also not cool and not likely to turn out the way you think.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  11:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
Hi. If my edit was too much detail, surely only the quote edit should be reversed, no? : >> Taimoor Ahmed(Send a Message?) 23:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look-- there's been a storm of vandalism on Ahmadiyya articles recently, and I might well have overlooked it.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  01:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Understandable, I too have been keeping an eye on Ahmadiyya-related articles for vandalism recently. My only problem is that in the Death section, it states he died of dysentry, which I believe is false according to the citation. : >> Taimoor Ahmed(Send a Message?) 13:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, well, there's no need to add a quotation. Just change the cause of death and update the source (if necessary).   Pepper Beast    (talk)  14:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)