User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/2023 1

Deprodding of List of people known as the Accursed
I have removed the tag from List of people known as the Accursed, which you proposed for deletion. Valid navigational aid. Nominate it for deletion instead.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Removal of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from the list of Mujaddids
1. One can check the page on Ahmadiyya where it is clearly established that the Ahmadiyya community believes Mirza Ghulam to be a Prophet (one who is in communication with God) 2. One can also check that the definition of Mujaddid (Reviver) is one who is not a prophet and is therefore Mujaddid is not in communication with God.

Requirement: There has to be a case where it has to be brought forward that one can be both a Mujaddid and also a Prophet at the same time from within the Islamic sources that are outside of Ahmadiyaa community for Mirza Ghulam to be included in this list.

Conclusion: The reference links added to establish Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a Mujaddid(Reviver) is actually saying Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be 'non-legislating' Prophet, and it is established that Prophet and Mujaddid are Mutually exclusive terms. So, the entry Mirza Ghulam Ahamd is either a Mujaddid or a Prophet and he cannot be both and therefore needs to be removed.

Ref: 12:43, 28 November 2022‎ Pepperbeast talk contribs‎ 22,768 bytes +1,233‎  Undid revision 1124320872 by Jssyedmadar (talk) updated since your last visit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujaddid&action=history

Let me know your opinion on this. Jssyedmadar (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He is considered a mujaddid by the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, and that's all that really matters here.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  12:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is sloppy moderation. Jssyedmadar (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim on the page is retained, but it is also necessary to add the criticism on why he is neither widely accepted as Mujaddid, nor as a non-legislating Prophet within Islam in general. So, if you have no access to knowledge on this matter, I would ask of you to study the references before undoing the changes. Say if you still wish to proceed and undo changes, I would just point out that your moderation is deficient as it ignores the facts on the ground and is practically biased and whimsical. Jssyedmadar (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please take this discussion to the article talk page. Keep in mind that Ahmadiyya has already been discussed exhaustively on Wikipedia. Singling Ahmadiyya out for exclusion is not WP:NPOV  Pepper Beast    (talk)  16:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes the discussion has been initiated in the talk page, the entry is retained but under a separate section.
 * I undid your changes as it doesn't give the full picture that the claim of Mujaddid in Islam by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is rejected by the Government of Pakistan and the Organization of Islamic Co-operation. These entities hold legal validity and discarding their views as unimportant is taking a biased approach. Jssyedmadar (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Pepperbeast, I am begginner123456. I would like to take some suggestions from you, as I am new user. But first of all, I would like to ask you something about the revert you made to my edit on child marriage article. Thanks for correcting many of my wrong points, but I also have noted some things.

1 One of the holy books of the Hindus, was reverted to the Hindu holy book, but the former was more correct as Hindus have many holy books (including The Bhagwat Gita, Puranas, Upanishads etc.)

2 You reverted "conversely", to "even instead of it." The latter seems very absurd and grammatically incorrect.

3 You deleted the line line telling about how marriage is viewed as a way of increasing wealth and power and removed a citation that I added to prove it.

4 you used "These difficulties pressed families to betroth their girls, irrespective of her age," instead of "These difficulties pressurized families to betroth their girls, irrespective of age." But I think we should use their, with girls as it is plural. therefore the correction is, "These difficulties pressed families to betroth their girls, irrespective of their age"

5 you used, "It may be connected." instead of, "It is partly connected". The first one is rather not in an encyclopaedic tone as "may be" suggests confusion.

6 You reverted "Other fear of crime such as rape, which not only would be traumatic but may lead to less acceptance of the girl if she becomes a victim of  such  a crime." to, "Other fear of crime such as rape, which not only would be traumatic but may lead to less acceptance of the girl if she becomes a victim of a crime." "Such" should be added to show that only a category from all the crimes is being referred to.

7 "Such fears and social pressures have been proposed as causes that lead to child marriages . Often more than one of these are involved in such circumstances . Insofar as child marriage is a social norm in practicing communities, the elimination of child marriage must come through a changing of those social norms." In this para the underlined line was removed but it is a necessary one.

Please think and discuss about these things. Begginner123456 (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Pepper Beast   (talk)  14:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Too much detail; this is what wiki links are for. "One of" is fine, but further comment is unnecessary.
 * 2) Because converse is the wrong word and "even instead of it" is accurate, if a little clunky.
 * 3) Because it's repetitious. The preceding sentence says almost exactly the same thing. Also, your ref is about medieval India, which isn't very germane.
 * 4) "Pressurised" is just awful English. Airplane cabins are pressurised. People are pressed or pressured.
 * 5) "Partly connected" isn't any less ambiguous, and loses the sense of not applying in all cases.
 * 6) Fair enough.
 * 7) Unnecessary verbiage that adds nothing.


 * Thank you for explaining the edits. As I am no a native speaker I would like it if you could elaborate point 2 a bit (upon word usage.), also, by fair enough in point 6 do you mean that the edit is fair enough? Lastly, should "one of" be added in point 1 so as to avoid misinformation? Begginner123456 (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The word conversely is used to introduce a statement or idea which reverses one that has just been made or referred to, so it's not appropriate here.
 * Yes, your edit in point 6. was actually fine, and I've put it back in.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  19:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you very much! Begginner123456 (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Panthoibi
Hello bro! I saw you have been editing Panthoibi a few days ago. It seems like your editing isn't complete yet. If it's so, kindly please complete it. Because I am going to edit that page later and I don't want any overlapping of edits. I am saying this because I saw some paras which you removed (explaining in your edit summary as moving to another section) and haven't yet been put to another section. I will wait for you. With regards! :-) Haoreima (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't wait on me! There's more work to be done, because the Ancient Texts section is really hard to read, but I need to do some reading myself before I do anything with it.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  12:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Please explain Special:diff/1162008387
According to WP:RBK, in principle, any undo/rollback should be with a explanation, but you did not. This photo is actually not related to the topic (it is just a photo of him, even not related to this quote), and may also break WP:BALANCE for it may make people more focus on incompatibility opinion. Anyway, I think you need to explain this undo. クオン · 翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 12:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * “Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.” from MOS:IMAGES, which is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. --クオン · 翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Professor Dawkins is one of the best-known (if not the best-known) writers on the incompatibility of science and religion. He absolutely is significant and relevant. Your claim about balance is nonsensical, and veering towards WP:CENSOR.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  12:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I think you did not explain how this photo is not just "decorative" (What information does this photo offer? How Dawkins looks like?). Secondly, Dawkins is of course an influential person in this topic, and his opinion should be included. The point is that, this photo is not relevant. I think your argument is a bit vague. Besides, I think your accusation of WP:CENSOR is very impolite and broke WP:AGF.--クオン · 翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 13:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Relationship between religion and science. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! クオン · 翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 18:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.クオン · 翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 19:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Deprodding of Cyber Slam
I have removed the tag from Cyber Slam, 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! TartarTorte 13:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Deprodding of Back to Front TV
I have removed the tag from Back to Front TV, which you proposed for deletion. The digitaltrends.com citation looks like solid coverage from a reliable source. Feel free to take to AfD for more opinions.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Deorphaning articles
Hello, Pepperbeast. I believe we've met before. I've seen your efforts to decrease the backlog of orphaned articles. In that matter, I'd like to give you a quick thanks for doing so. I have never met an editor as willing as you. Let's kill that backlog together, Tarantula TM  (speak with me) (my legacy) 14:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC).
 * Gosh, thanks. I really appreciate the support! The backlog must go!  Pepper Beast    (talk)  14:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay
Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics.  Schwede 66  09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

 * Hello, we need experienced volunteers.
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
 * If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
 * Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
TWOrantula TM (enter the web) 19:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of Conversion Therapy
Good evening, it I, Chumchumlol (talk) I've come because of your message threatening me potentially being '''blocked from editing "without further warning" in the near future. And perhaps my claims were OR: Original Research based but that was because I didn't understand the formatting of Wikipedia like I now do and to this day I still don't understand how this website works. I now know discussions must be held in the talk page and I was indeed not vandalizing any articles whatsoever, I was simply adding onto the scientific data. Shan't be mistaken no longer. Sincerely, Chumchumlol (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)