| Revision as of 10:36, 4 March 2023 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,378,455 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/2023 1. (BOT)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:17, 1 January 2025 edit undoRiteze (talk | contribs)384 edits →Convenient tag for a section name.: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App talk topic | ||
| (137 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == |
== ] == | ||
| I think this was kept but ]. Do you want to nominate this again? ] (]) 19:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Not unnecessary == | |||
| 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.) | |||
| not unnecessary. Some external site might want to link to some particular section. ] (]) 17:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 2 You reverted "conversely", to "even instead of it." The latter seems very absurd and grammatically incorrect. | |||
| == Unnecessary reversion. == | |||
| 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. | |||
| If some other page want to link directly to , how would it do that? ] (]) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 4 you used "These difficulties <ins>pressed</ins> families to betroth their girls, irrespective of<ins> her</ins> age," instead of "These difficulties <s>pressurized</s> 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 <ins>pressed</ins> families to betroth their girls, irrespective of<ins> '''their'''</ins> age" | |||
| ⚫ | :What do you see as the value of deep-linking into a list with limited information? ] ] 17:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| 5 you used, "It <ins>may</ins> <ins>be</ins> connected." instead of, "It <s>is</s> <s>partly</s> connected". The first one is rather not in an encyclopaedic tone as "may be" suggests confusion. | |||
| ::Since there doesn't exist any independent page/section on Purva Ashadha Nakshatra, other pages are forced to link to the information where it is present. Thus, an anchor is necessary at this point, if another page want to link to this particular nakshatra. ] (]) 17:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :::You don't have to make precise links to everything. If the information's not there, it's not helpful to the user. ] ] 22:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::There are not only (wikipedia) users who browse these pages, but external websites might also want to make links to necessary information present there. ] (]) 02:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :::::There is nothing to be gained by deep-linking to information that isn't there. ] ] 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::There is important information about Astrological leader, Deity, Symbol, Indian zodiac, Tropical zodiac and more about the entity. ] (]) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :::::::Where is it you want to link ''from''? ] ] 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::. ] (]) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::OK, no. Don't add unnecessary anchors to Misplaced Pages to suit the needs of your own web site. ] ] 03:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::There might be many others who might be trying the same. ] (]) 03:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::And? Why don't you just put the information on your own page? ] ] 04:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::If a copy of information from wikipedia is placed in one's own page, it will result in duplication of information. Moreover, readers will be deprived of timely updates to the information as and when they take place. ] (]) 04:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Well, I'm sorry, but deleting anchors that nothing on WP links to is just normal housekeeping. WP editors aren't responsible for your web site. Either maintain your own information or link in a sensible way. ] ] 05:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Can you suggest any other way (which you think is sensible) of linking? This and its peers are significant topics, each of which deserves an anchor of their own, irrespective of weather they are linked to any external website or not. ] (]) 10:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == January 2025 == | |||
| 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 <s>'''''<u>such</u>'''''</s> 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. | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. | |||
| 7 "Such fears and social pressures have been proposed as causes that lead to child marriages<s>. '''Often more than one of these are involved in such circumstances'''</s>'''.''' 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. | |||
| Points to note: | |||
| Please think and discuss about these things. ] (]) 08:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;''' | |||
| #Too much detail; this is what wiki links are for. "One of" is fine, but further comment is unnecessary. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| #Because converse is the wrong word and "even instead of it" is accurate, if a little clunky. | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.''' <!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] ] 05:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #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. | |||
| #"Pressurised" is just awful English. Airplane cabins are pressurised. People are pressed or pressured. | |||
| #"Partly connected" isn't any less ambiguous, and loses the sense of not applying in all cases. | |||
| #Fair enough. | |||
| # Unnecessary verbiage that adds nothing. | |||
| ⚫ | ] ] |
||
| == Convenient tag for a section name. == | |||
| :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? ] (]) 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. | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| :::thank you very much! ] (]) 11:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| A simple convenient tag was added to a long section name which contained some special characters too. is not constructive in this sense. ] (]) 13:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == 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/search/?title=Mujaddid&action=history | |||
| Let me know your opinion on this. ] (]) 08:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :: |
||
| :::This is sloppy moderation. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:12, 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. ] (]) 09:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:17, 1 January 2025
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
Dutch exonyms
I think this was kept but consensus seems to have changed. Do you want to nominate this again? Bearian (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Not unnecessary
This is not unnecessary. Some external site might want to link to some particular section. Riteze (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary reversion.
If some other page want to link directly to Purva Ashadha Nakshatra, how would it do that? Riteze (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- What do you see as the value of deep-linking into a list with limited information? PepperBeast (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since there doesn't exist any independent page/section on Purva Ashadha Nakshatra, other pages are forced to link to the information where it is present. Thus, an anchor is necessary at this point, if another page want to link to this particular nakshatra. Riteze (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- You don't have to make precise links to everything. If the information's not there, it's not helpful to the user. PepperBeast (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are not only (wikipedia) users who browse these pages, but external websites might also want to make links to necessary information present there. Riteze (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is nothing to be gained by deep-linking to information that isn't there. PepperBeast (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is important information about Astrological leader, Deity, Symbol, Indian zodiac, Tropical zodiac and more about the entity. Riteze (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where is it you want to link from? PepperBeast (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- From here. Riteze (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, no. Don't add unnecessary anchors to Misplaced Pages to suit the needs of your own web site. PepperBeast (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There might be many others who might be trying the same. Riteze (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- And? Why don't you just put the information on your own page? PepperBeast (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- If a copy of information from wikipedia is placed in one's own page, it will result in duplication of information. Moreover, readers will be deprived of timely updates to the information as and when they take place. Riteze (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sorry, but deleting anchors that nothing on WP links to is just normal housekeeping. WP editors aren't responsible for your web site. Either maintain your own information or link in a sensible way. PepperBeast (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you suggest any other way (which you think is sensible) of linking? This and its peers are significant topics, each of which deserves an anchor of their own, irrespective of weather they are linked to any external website or not. Riteze (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sorry, but deleting anchors that nothing on WP links to is just normal housekeeping. WP editors aren't responsible for your web site. Either maintain your own information or link in a sensible way. PepperBeast (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- If a copy of information from wikipedia is placed in one's own page, it will result in duplication of information. Moreover, readers will be deprived of timely updates to the information as and when they take place. Riteze (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- And? Why don't you just put the information on your own page? PepperBeast (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There might be many others who might be trying the same. Riteze (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, no. Don't add unnecessary anchors to Misplaced Pages to suit the needs of your own web site. PepperBeast (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- From here. Riteze (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where is it you want to link from? PepperBeast (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is important information about Astrological leader, Deity, Symbol, Indian zodiac, Tropical zodiac and more about the entity. Riteze (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is nothing to be gained by deep-linking to information that isn't there. PepperBeast (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are not only (wikipedia) users who browse these pages, but external websites might also want to make links to necessary information present there. Riteze (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- You don't have to make precise links to everything. If the information's not there, it's not helpful to the user. PepperBeast (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since there doesn't exist any independent page/section on Purva Ashadha Nakshatra, other pages are forced to link to the information where it is present. Thus, an anchor is necessary at this point, if another page want to link to this particular nakshatra. Riteze (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
January 2025
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bluecoats Drum and Bugle Corps. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Convenient tag for a section name.
A simple convenient tag was added to a long section name which contained some special characters too. Your edit is not constructive in this sense. Riteze (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)