User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/2013 1

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

Hello, Beastiepaws. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hello Beastiepaws. Thanks for joining the new project! Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not sure how much use I'm going to be, but the project looks interesting. PepperBeast (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of information

Next time you remove valid information, please leave an explanation. Doing so without explaining is usually deemed disruptive. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello Beastiepaws: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at WP Brands – Lists compiled for project banner tagging using AnomieBOT

A discussion is occurring at the talk page for WikiProject Brands at Proceeding with automatic project banner tagging using AnomieBOT regarding moving forward with automatic talk page tagging with the project's banner using AnomieBOT. All members of this project will be notified with neutrally-worded notifications about this discussion, and please feel free to contribute to it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Do not remove sourced material

Please do not remove any verified and accurate information on the article titled "Criticism of Christianity". Original research is essentially editing that includes the following:

The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement: "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed. Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material. "No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. For questions about whether any particular edit constitutes original research, see the NOR noticeboard.

Acts 4:32-5:11 subsequently reads as follows and my edit does not differentiate from the standard passage in any transfigured way:

"The Believers Share Their Possessions"

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

"Ananias and Sapphira"

5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events. Nashhinton (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Mate, I'm not criticising the accuracy of the quotation, but your comment "Incidentally, the Bible seems to support collectivism, with two people murdered for refusing to sell and redistribute their property and possessions to the early church. " is still original research-- that is, it is your own opinion based on the Bible quotation, not an opinion backed up by any published source. PepperBeast (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree because I read the text for what it says. How would you understand and change the sentence? The passage talks about the believers sharing their possessions and property to the church (verse 32 of chapter 3 and I quote: "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they SHARED everything they had.") That's economic COLLECTIVISM, it was a primitive form of egalitarian communalism. The early LDS church created an egalitarian system of communalism called the United Order and it was essentially based upon descriptions of Christian collectivism as mentioned in this exact passage. Nashhinton (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Read Acts 4:32-5:11 in its literal form again. You either incidentally removed the source due to dogmatic reasons or because you're largely oblivious to the literal relaying of the passage in its most systematic and proper contextual meaning. Nashhinton (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm not criticising your analysis. The issue is that it is your own analysis. Your own opinions don't belong in Wikipedia. PepperBeast (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think your opinions are the reason why you reverted such material. Your opinion "A" disagrees with Fact "B" because of either

A) You have a misunderstanding and incomprehension of Fact "B" because you're unaware of its proper context and literal meaning, or

B) You have a dogmatic concern of possible divulged material that is in contrast to your worldview. Thanks. Take care. Nashhinton (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Kindly desist from personal attacks. They have no place here. PepperBeast (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I was not trying to attack you, I was simply stating my feelings on the reason why you keep reverting my edit. If there was any offense, I sincerely apologize. Sorry. Take care Nashhinton (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Reversal of my edits on Basil Page

Hi Pepperbeast, May I know why did you revert my change on the basil page? Basil is a herb of Indian Origin and I mentioned its native name in the native script which is Devnagari. What's wrong with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharm0us (talk • contribs) 09:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it because there is no reason to clutter the article lead with translations. PepperBeast (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Needs You!

Hi there Pepperbeast! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?

If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?

First off, go here and add {{Tick}} (Y) next to your name if you're still part of the project.

Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.

You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)

— The Potato Hose 18:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)