User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/2015 1

Christian POV pusher

A Christian POV pusher keeps on inserting a large section of Christian nonsense at the Bart Ehrman page in clear violation of WP:BLP. Similarly on the Richard Carrier page, he makes all sorts of unfounded assertions in violation of WP:BLP. Please help at both of these pages. RosylynGrock (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There's not much I can do about it. PepperBeast (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello how are you, Hope everything is okay. I wanted to know why my edit been removed. Both of my sources are from reliable sources: Eurobarometer and Pew Research Center, both of these sources are even listed in the articale Atheism. The study of Eurobarometer in 2010 is listed in the articale while you removed a new study of the Eurobarometer in 2012, even it's reliable source. -- Jobas (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry- will re-add in a minute. Mostly just needs tidy-up! PepperBeast (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :). Have a nice day.-- Jobas (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Shamanism

Hello Pepperbeast, Have read the book that I inserted onto the Shamanism page? It looks at the standard translations of the Pyramid Texts. The standard translations are full of the concepts presented on the Wikipedia Shamanism page, Texelar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texelar (talk • contribs) 17:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Pyramid Texts

Hello Pepperbeast, I would love to see a page developed on Wikipedia dealing with the possible spiritual concepts in the Pyramid Texts. Even with the necessary conditional clauses and cautions, it would be a useful contribution to the field (see for some recent discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._Parrot). I am not sure that you would interested, but your connection with both the Shamanism and Pyramid Texts on Wikipedia would indicate your input. Texelar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texelar (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Texelar. It's not really an area I have that much interest in, and sounds like a highly speculative article in any case. PepperBeast (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello, I'm JaconaFrere. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mincemeat because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Jacona (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

All I attempted to do was restore the original spelling in the 16th-century recipe. PepperBeast (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mincemeat. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 19:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Enough! All I did was restore the spelling in the 16th-century recipe to the original spelling as used in the source cited. Please make sure you know what you're talking about next time you accuse someone of vandalism! PepperBeast (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Mincemeat shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not involved in an edit war. I *was* involved in a misunderstanding, which all editors involved have since sorted out. I'm going to revert once more, as there is no longer any dispute. PepperBeast (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, then. You know, it would have been really nice if people would check what's going on before lecturing me. PepperBeast (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Corriander article

I appreciate your edit as it does have some validity (all superseded now due to new edits) but your justification of making it "more vague" was the exact opposite of the point of my edit in the first place. Thank you for your edits as they are quite spot on but this time I feel you were in the wrong for reverting my edit. Please be more conservative in the future as the myriad of sources provided on the page supported my edit.

Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhill (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Early Christianity

Hi Pepperbeast,

A little while ago you reverted my edit to Early Christianity, saying "This is the orig. wording. Reverting from unre'f (and slightly unintelligible) change)". However, I looked through the history of the page, and noticed that when that section was first created, by Winterst in 2013 ...Besides, what you changed the section to, "Early Christian areas formerly gave members with a strong sense of community, with mutual religious and material support, until the new leaders came too.", seems to have some issues with the grammar, and the meaning - new leaders is an ambiguous phrase. Is there a problem with expanding the section anyway? I notice that in the past it was larger, and has been cut down.

De la Marck (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no problem with expanding the section, and I never said there was. However, re-wording "Early Christian congregations apparently provided members with a strong sense of community, with mutual religious and material support." to "Early Christian areas formerly gave members with a strong sense of community, with mutual religious and material support, until the new leaders came too." doesn't make any sense, and I stand by my reversion. PepperBeast (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, there appears to have been a misunderstanding. If you look at the history of the page, you will see that the anonymous editor 67.52.164.149 first altered the page, from the original to "Early Christian areas formerly gave members with a strong sense of community, with mutual religious and material support, until the new leaders came too." Then, I changed it back, but half an hour later you reverted it to the ungrammatical section again; without meaning to, as I suppose. Apologies for any inconvenience, De la Marck (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Periyar EV Ramasamy

Hello,

I'm wondering why you undid my changes. I spelled the individual Periyar E.V Ramasamy's name correctly in the article for "Atheism#Other_developments".

100 Years of Nobel Prizes

Even assuming it's not vanity press, it's not a reliable source. It falls well short on WP:SCHOLARSHIP and contradicts better studies that appear on the same pages. Whether Shimon Peres or Henry Kissinger liked it is totally immaterial. PepperBeast (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pepperbeast, Sorry but we should not engage in an edit war. I will revert you on these and then we can discuss if it should be removed. The book is not a self-published book and also Baruch is a well established geneticist with +200 research publications, and his study even has endorsements from two Nobel laureates such as Henry Kissinger and Shimon Peres. On top of that the numbers in the book do reflect similar findings to other resources such as the University of Nebraska-Lincoln study in 1998, 60% of Nobel prize laureates in physics from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background and the Jewish Virtual Library listsing that 22% of all Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jews. It does not violate any wikipedia policy certainly not WP:RS. The reason for you removal looks very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mayan1990 (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Dr. Shalev is a geneticist with x-many scholarly publications is neither here nor there. This work is not about genetics and is not scholarly; it doesn't get a free pass. Whether Henry Kissinger or Shimon Peres liked the book is neither here nor there. They were not assessing the book for inclusion as a source on Wikipedia. The Nebraska study is fine. The book is not. It doesn't contain any information about the author's research methods, also contains kooky statistics on things like Nobel Laureates astrological signs, underwent no peer review, and was published by a very, very out-of-the way publisher. Srsly, this is just not up to scratch as a reliable source. PepperBeast (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Since Baruch is a well established researcher, employed statistical analysis and even has endorsement from Nobel laureates, it surely is something to consider when you claim unreliability of any source. You merely are complaining about the book which does support other studies that already established the same data. But like any study, attribution resolves the issue here since every source is entitled to its own opinion. It does not violate any of wikipedia's requirements here. It looks like simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me.Mayan1990 (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Atheism edit

Pepperbeast,

Can we discuss the recent changes I made (which were subsequently reverted) to the Demographics section (preferably on the Talk page)? I thought that the additional information was necessary for context. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen a response in the past day—I'll be editing it back to my version in a few hours or so if I don't receive a response, but again, I'd be happy to discuss the change (I'm a fairly "junior" editor here, but I know all too well the adverse effects of the dreaded edit war), and on the Atheism Talk page. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. What's wrong with the edit is that it's introducing quibbling into the text. It's just bad style, so please don't. PepperBeast (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(No problem. No non-bot individual on Wikipedia can attend to his or her duties continuously.) But it's more than just a "quibble." I think it provides necessary context; after all, the 13% of Americans are a large slice of the population. Can you get back to me on this? Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with adding additional information. I *do* have a problem with in-article speculating about whether belief in a 'higher power' constitutes theism. It's not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. PepperBeast (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well, we've arrived at our contentions now. I do admit, the "speculation" aspect of my addition was the reason why I thought discussion on the edit would be warranted. But the word speculation implies a conjecture (that usually draws conclusions) made without evidence. My addition did not assert that "However, this number is an underestimate, given that 13% of Americans say that they "don't believe in a personal God, but ... do believe in a Higher Power of some kind." Believing in a "Higher Power" instead of a personal God constitutes theistic belief." Instead, I wrote: "However, this number may be an underestimate, given that 13% of Americans say that they "don't believe in a personal God, but ... do believe in a Higher Power of some kind." It may be disputed whether or not believing in a "Higher Power" instead of a personal God constitutes theistic belief."

Also, I said in my edit summary that I thought the first sentence wasn't as up for debate as the second. I think this still holds true, because it doesn't include any questions about whether or not belief in a "higher power" constitutes theism. It simply notes a possible caveat to the percentage of atheists (3%) in the US according to the study, which could be much higher. By the way, the percentage of atheists in the US according the General Social Survey wasn't taken from an answer choice that read "atheist." Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's still WP:OR, and as such doesn't belong in the article. Also, in future, "fuck you" is not an acceptable way to address other editors-- not just me, but any editors. Read WP:CIV and WP:NPA. PepperBeast (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)