This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
i give reference's and link then why you rejected or reverted...its give wrong perception to the world... Isbat9 (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello.
I recently received this message from you "Hello, I'm Pepperbeast. An edit that you recently made to Mincemeat seemed to be a test and has been removed."
My edit was not a test. My edit was "The mincemeat pie is known, in the French-speaking part of Canada (Montreal, Quebec City, etc.), under the name tarte à la farlouche".
Why would this information be removed ? It is accurate : just control by typing "farlouche" on Google.
Please revert your removal and allow my specific info to remain published.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobosolognot (talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Specifically, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#REFSPAM_and_MEAT_for_Ian_Urbina,_likely_PAID. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Can you please explain this edit, where you removed a reference from an FA-rated article without any real explanation? If it's a "self promotion" (which I guess is what your cryptic edit summary implies), it's still a book published by a major publishing house. Remove the url if you must, but not the ref. You didn't replace it with a ((cn)), so now it appears to be cited by the ref at the end of the paragraph. Which it isn't. I'll leave you to fix that. MeegsC (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Pepperbeast, I just saw that you've undone my revision in the Child marriage article. I think I wrote an explanation for it, but in case I haven't (for which I apologize: I rarely forget that), here it is: due to a minor oversight, the numbers for Burkina Faso are entered twice in the prevalence data table – once by mistake and incorrectly. Namely, even though the numbers in the two rows are different (52/51%), the source for both is the same. I merely checked the reference and deleted the row with the wrong percentage. You can check it yourself. It's not a big mistake, of course, but it's an obvious one, so it's safe to revert back the article to my edit. And I apologize for bothering you here, but I didn't want to just undo your edit there, for fear of being misunderstood. Thanks, --Виктор Јованоски (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
You don't understand Quantum1278 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Why did you revert without explanation the edit at Conversion therapy that had been accepted? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
User:RaziNaama has created an AFD page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solid_Waste_Association_of_North_America by copy-pasting a different AFD page rather than going through the correct process. So the new AFD page is malformed and contains links to the subject they copied it from, and it isn't listed in any AFD lists. I'd fix this, but I have no idea how. PepperBeast (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Pepperbeast, I'm not sure how I did that, but it obviously was a mistake. I'm probably too tired to be doing this right now. Sorry for the bad revert! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
You undid an edit I made. Stating an invalid reason. https://www.dawn.com/news/1302289 Here is an official reference to what I’ve written. Make sure you undo what you did Reflexa9 (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Remove the criminal tag of info box! It is absolutely irrelevant. With respect to the blasphemy laws. It is absolutely no crime for what is mentioned. Reflexa9 (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Here is the direct link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_in_Pakistan Reflexa9 (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Edit the info box tag with info box connecter or info box person. Reflexa9 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Correction * edit the info box with information box Martyr Reflexa9 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The edit was corrected. Was having trouble with different tags. The previous statements were incorrect. About the info box. Ignore them Reflexa9 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I reverted your move, since thousands of articles on Russian localities have the same pattern, and we need to have consistence. If you attempt to move all of them, please start a discussion notifying relevant Wikiprojects. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
You cannot just undo my changes without giving a rationale. The original article confused many times between implicit/ weak atheism and agnosticism and I, therefore, changed it.
For example, I changed this: 'If the question is "Does God exist?", "yes" would imply theism, "no" would imply atheism. Agnosticism, however, is an umbrella term meaning without knowledge, which can cover a range of views that do not fit into those categories.'
For the following reasons: This is false. Theism is believing in a god whilst atheism is not believing in a god. Therefore it is a true dichotomy as there can only be A or not A, where A is a belief in a god. Therefore the statement 'can cover a range of views that do not fit into those categories' is false. There is nothing in between atheism or theism that agnosticism cover. You can be an agnostic theist/atheist or gnostic theist/atheist.
I also changed this:
'An agnostic would often hold the view that humanity in general does not have the information or sufficient grounds to make such claims and may see multiple possibilities, rather than holding one concrete belief. They may on the other hand, just say that they themselves are uncertain of the existence or nature of God until proven otherwise.'
For the following reason: This is just confusion between implicit atheism and agnosticism. 'uncertain of the existence or nature of God' - agnosticism is not about a belief in the existence of a god. 'does not have the information or sufficient grounds to make such claims' and 'until proven otherwise' - common implicit atheism rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itayy12 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)