User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/2021 1

child marraige of aisha & islam
i give reference's and link then why you rejected or reverted...its give wrong perception to the world... Isbat9 (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Mincemeat & farlouche
Hello.

I recently received this message from you "Hello, I'm Pepperbeast. An edit that you recently made to Mincemeat seemed to be a test and has been removed."

My edit was not a test. My edit was "The mincemeat pie is known, in the French-speaking part of Canada (Montreal, Quebec City, etc.), under the name tarte à la farlouche".

Why would this information be removed ? It is accurate : just control by typing "farlouche" on Google.

Please revert your removal and allow my specific info to remain published.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobosolognot (talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One, it's unreferenced. Wikipedia requires that facts be backed by reliable, secondary sources. Two, filling articles with lists of translations is not at all helpful. This is English Wikipedia. Also, the appropriate place to discuss this the article talk page, not my talk page.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  01:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Specifically, the discussion is at Administrators'_noticeboard.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Albatross
Hi! Can you please explain this edit, where you removed a reference from an FA-rated article without any real explanation? If it's a "self promotion" (which I guess is what your cryptic edit summary implies), it's still a book published by a major publishing house. Remove the url if you must, but not the ref. You didn't replace it with a, so now it appears to be cited by the ref at the end of the paragraph. Which it isn't. I'll leave you to fix that. MeegsC (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it is part an avalanche of WP:REFSPAM promoting Ian Urbina and his project. The book has very little to do with the biology of the albatross, and the chapter cited is actually about the disruption of Japanese whaling. I'll see if I can find a better citation.    Pepper Beast    (talk)  17:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. MeegsC (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Child marriage
Dear Pepperbeast, I just saw that you've undone my revision in the Child marriage article. I think I wrote an explanation for it, but in case I haven't (for which I apologize: I rarely forget that), here it is: due to a minor oversight, the numbers for Burkina Faso are entered twice in the prevalence data table – once by mistake and incorrectly. Namely, even though the numbers in the two rows are different (52/51%), the source for both is the same. I merely checked the reference and deleted the row with the wrong percentage. You can check it yourself. It's not a big mistake, of course, but it's an obvious one, so it's safe to revert back the article to my edit. And I apologize for bothering you here, but I didn't want to just undo your edit there, for fear of being misunderstood. Thanks, --Виктор Јованоски (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I beg your pardon! That's my mistake.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem, of course! Have a lovely night! --Виктор Јованоски (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ahmaddiya
You don't understand Quantum1278 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Conversion therapy
Why did you revert without explanation the edit at Conversion therapy that had been accepted? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Malformed AFD
User:RaziNaama has created an AFD page Articles_for_deletion/Solid_Waste_Association_of_North_America by copy-pasting a different AFD page rather than going through the correct process. So the new AFD page is malformed and contains links to the subject they copied it from, and it isn't listed in any AFD lists. I'd fix this, but I have no idea how. Pepper Beast   (talk)  13:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 14:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry!
Hello Pepperbeast, I'm not sure how I did that, but it obviously was a mistake. I'm probably too tired to be doing this right now. Sorry for the bad revert! ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 02:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries  Pepper Beast    (talk)  02:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The page of Mumtaz Hussain Qadri
You undid an edit I made. Stating an invalid reason. https://www.dawn.com/news/1302289 Here is an official reference to what I’ve written. Make sure you undo what you did Reflexa9 (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. You put refs in the page, not on my talk page, and it's still not a helpful contribution, since comments about the style of a memorial mosque are, at best, tangential to the article subject, and comments about Islamic honorifics are 100% irrelevant.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  17:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove the criminal tag of info box! It is absolutely irrelevant. With respect to the blasphemy laws. It is absolutely no crime for what is mentioned. Reflexa9 (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is the direct link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_in_Pakistan Reflexa9 (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit the info box tag with info box connecter or info box person. Reflexa9 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Correction * edit the info box with information box Martyr Reflexa9 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The edit was corrected. Was having trouble with different tags. The previous statements were incorrect. About the info box. Ignore them Reflexa9 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Askino, Askinsky District, Republic of Bashkortostan
I reverted your move, since thousands of articles on Russian localities have the same pattern, and we need to have consistence. If you attempt to move all of them, please start a discussion notifying relevant Wikiprojects. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is actually codified, WP:RUSPLACE--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected :-)  Pepper Beast    (talk)  16:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem from my side.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Agnosticism
You cannot just undo my changes without giving a rationale. The original article confused many times between implicit/ weak atheism and agnosticism and I, therefore, changed it.

For example, I changed this: 'If the question is "Does God exist?", "yes" would imply theism, "no" would imply atheism. Agnosticism, however, is an umbrella term meaning without knowledge, which can cover a range of views that do not fit into those categories.'

For the following reasons: This is false. Theism is believing in a god whilst atheism is not believing in a god. Therefore it is a true dichotomy as there can only be A or not A, where A is a belief in a god. Therefore the statement 'can cover a range of views that do not fit into those categories' is false. There is nothing in between atheism or theism that agnosticism cover. You can be an agnostic theist/atheist or gnostic theist/atheist.

I also changed this: 'An agnostic would often hold the view that humanity in general does not have the information or sufficient grounds to make such claims and may see multiple possibilities, rather than holding one concrete belief. They may on the other hand, just say that they themselves are uncertain of the existence or nature of God until proven otherwise.'

For the following reason: This is just confusion between implicit atheism and agnosticism. 'uncertain of the existence or nature of God' - agnosticism is not about a belief in the existence of a god. 'does not have the information or sufficient grounds to make such claims' and 'until proven otherwise' - common implicit atheism rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itayy12 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. You are inserting your views into the article as though they are matters of fact. You are changing the lede to bring it into conflict with the article body. You have not provided a reliable source for your claims. What you inserted was full of spelling and grammatical errors.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  14:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The opposite, I am removing a false view that agnosticism can cover views that do not fit to atheism or theism. And it is not a view that there can only be A or not A and defining theism as believing in a god and atheism as not beliving in a god is the definiton in Wikipedia as well as in any other respectable dictionaries. When something is not A, it is everything but A, so if A is a table, not A is everything but a table. Because atheism is not believing in a god, it is everything but believing in a god. Thus there is nothing in between believing in a god (theism) and everything but belieivng in a god (atheism). Also, I am removing the view that agnosticism can be described as if it is implicit atheism. This is a common confusion. Itayy12 (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia: Theism - the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities. Atheism - an absence of belief in the existence of deities. In other words, not having/possessing a belief in the existence of deities. There is nothing in between having belief A and not having belief A (A = belief in the existence of deities). The Oxford definition of agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. As you can see, it is not implicit atheism. The Wikipedia definition of implicit atheism is 'the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it'. Therefore, an implicit atheist does not have a belief in a god but also does not claim that a god does not exist (rejection of theism). Whilst agnosticism is not a belief about the existence of a god, but rather a belief about knowing the existence of a god (see Oxford definition or some parts of the Wikipedia article that do not confuse it with implicit atheism). Itayy12 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty well-referenced regarding different uses of the term "agnostic". You don't get to put your overriding opinion into the lede because the Oxford Dictionary agrees with you.    Pepper Beast    (talk)  15:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also Cambridge English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Britannica. I did not find even a single dictionary that says that agnosticism is a belief about the existence of a god rather than a belief about knowing the existence of a god. The Wikipedia article confuses agnosticism with implicit atheism. This confusion usually stems from people thinking that not believing in a god translates to believing a god does not exist, and therefore they prefer to say they are agnostic and not atheists. The Wikipedia page follows in many places this confusion (probably because this confusion is common and the Wikipedia article is written by many people). Itayy12 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want sources, then all the information I gave can be found in: Tautology (logic), Atheism, Theism, Implicit and explicit atheism, Agnosticism (every reliable dictionary). No information I gave is my own personal view. If you can point to what is my own view then I would be happy to hear. Itayy12 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I said Dichotomy but I meant Tautology (logic). I changed it. Itayy12 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cambridge Dictionary: agnosticism: the beliefs of someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists[...] (emphasis mine)
 * Merriam-Webster: agnostic: [...] one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god (again, emphasis mine)
 * Britannica has an interesting article on the subject. It certainly doesn't say that there's only one way to think about agnosticism.
 * Pepper Beast   (talk)  18:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is fair. But what do you think about the article giving a false definition to atheism as if it means beliving a god does not exist and saying agnosticism can cover views that are not atheism or theism? My changes on this part were valid. The formal definition of atheism, including in Wikipedia, is not having the belief in deities/ gods, or not theism. Saying that agnosticism can cover beyond theism and not theism is just not true for reasons of tautology. Whoever wrote this simply had the confusion of atheism as an affirmative belief that there is no gods. Itayy12 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say about a subject, not THE TRUTH. If you think that the way you think about atheism and agnosticism is the only correct way, and that Wikipedia should agree with you despite what reliable sources say, you are just plain wrong. I added a welcome message to your talk page that contains some useful links to Wikipedia article guidelines. I hope that helps you to contribute to Wikipedia.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  13:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)