User talk:Pepperbeast

Archives (Index)

2012 1 2012 0 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 1 2017 1 2017/April 2017/May 2017/July 2017/September 2017/October 2017/November 2017/December 2018/January 2018/February 2018/March 2018/June 2018/August 2018/September 2018/October 2018/November 2018 1 2019 1 2020 1 2021 1 2022 1 2023 1 2024 1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Spinach vs Popeye

Hi Pepperbeast—I'm a longtime animation scholar with the book credits to prove it, but I'm not here to brag... I'm just trying to establish my credentials.

I edited "Spinach in popular culture" today to correct the citation and source for Popeye's theme song (it's not just a catchphrase as indicated, has a different official spelling, an author, and a citable original source).

However, after I made the correction and added the citation via a new note, I found you undid my changes a few hours later, with the comment "Revert good-faith. Article has enough tangential trivia."

But it's not tangential trivia—I was trying to correct the spelling of the phrase and cite its origin and author. I was working on some unrelated E. C. Segar (Popeye creator) research for a new book, noticed the misspelling and lack of source and thought it should be clarified and added. Isn't more accuracy better? Ramapith (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's tangential trivia. Popeye is just barely relevant to the subject of spinach. The name of the composer of Popeye's theme song is a couple of degrees less relevant. PepperBeast (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello

You can explain me about your edits. And I can explain you too about my edits. We can cooperate to do more constructively. --Haoreima (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Next, etymological explanation exists in many articles. Though not too much elaborate, we need some explanation, like word origin, etc. You will see about them more in academic articles. Because anyone from any parts of the world don't know what it means.
• You should not remove Template:Infobox Sanamahist term.

I need to explain more. You can retain these things.

• I think you are not well exposed to Meitei culture. You commit multiple spelling mistakes in Meitei names. Please take care that too. Because I can't recheck all of them, as those spelling mistakes are mostly found in the middle of the paragraphs.
• Sometimes you remove parts of names of "proper nouns" (Meitei names, might be because you forgot them).
• Please don't remove Meitei language reference websites. Because they contain more information which backs the information on the article, that the English language references missed. I always care for WP:REFBOMB. And in most of the cases, I don't violate this policy.

Btw, please don't think otherwise. I am telling you these all because of the purpose of the welfare of the Wikipedia and us. --Haoreima (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The etymology is completely unnecessary here. It's three perfectly ordinary words, and I've used the Lang template to mark up the translation. I would argue that the vast majority of articles do *not* need etymology sections, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to include something.

The infobox is likewise superfluous. We have language templates. There's no need to roll your own.

I'm absolutely happy, nay, delighted, to have Meitei spelling corrected. Likewise, the English grammar in some of what you've written is close to unintelligible. I hope you understand that I'm trying to make what you've written understandable.

Otherwise, I'm mostly trying to cut down on WP:OVERLINK and replace duplicate references with named refs. Occasionally, I do encounter some ref bomb, and I remove it where I encounter it, and I will continue to remove external links if they're very tangential od turning into a WP:LINKFARM. PepperBeast (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. But please retain Meitei language references. They are more important as they contain more information. Haoreima (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Bro! Thanks for your edits in Nongda Lairen Pakhangba. Please don't use the term "Meiti" or "Meitie". I have already explained in my edit summary that it's a dirty term to insult the Meitei people. It's either "Meitei" or "Meetei", that're the formal spellings. Meiti means this in Meitei language. Due to very closeness in spelling, some people willingly use the dirty term to insult the community. You might have done due to not knowing about it. But please remove the term from wherever you added in the past. I removed some as soon as I saw your past edits. But I can't look into your every single edits. Thank you. Regards! :-) --Haoreima (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

A correction

Hello brother! Thank you for your edit in Loiyumba. The Meitei spelling you added is wrong. If you rely on Google Translate, please abstain from doing so. The correct Meitei spelling for Loiyumba is "ꯂꯣꯢꯌꯨꯝꯕ", it's ancient version "Loiyumpa" is ꯂꯣꯢꯌꯨꯝꯄ, and alternative spelling "Loyumba" is ꯂꯣꯌꯨꯝꯕ, its ancient version "Loyumpa" is ꯂꯣꯌꯨꯝꯄ. Thank you.

Thanks for the correction! PepperBeast (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I've used the spelling and transcription exactly as it appeared in the image I replaced, but I've corrected the lang template from mti to omp. This is per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. PepperBeast (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Please use {{lang-mni|{{script|mtei|xyz}}}} most of the time. Sometimes, if you are not sure if the term is ancient Meitei (Old Manipuri) or modern Meitei (modern Manipuri), then it's better to use "lang-mni" instead of "lang-omp" in any case. Because mni simply means Manipuri and neither ancient not modern. On the other hand, omp specifically means Old Manipuri. Regarding script, mtei is the only option for both ancient and modern! :-) Haoreima (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

One question! Do you know how to read and write Meitei script? How do you write Meitei spellings? I just feel curious about you. Using Google or any technique? Haoreima (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm only learning... sometimes, I can copy a word from Manipuri Wikipedia, or, if there's an image of the spelling, I can usually copy that. I don't know how Google would help, exactly. PepperBeast (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think u are right.

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)

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.

PepperBeast (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

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. PepperBeast (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

thank you very much! Begginner123456 (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Deprodding of List of people known as the Accursed

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia: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. PepperBeast (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This is sloppy moderation. Jssyedmadar (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)