Misplaced Pages

User talk:Pepperbeast: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:45, 21 January 2016 editMatt Lewis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,196 edits →Excuse me: ed← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:02, 10 January 2025 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,384,466 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/2024 1. (BOT) 
(772 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=User talk:Beastiepaws/Archives/ |archiveprefix=User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/
|format=Y %%i |format=Y %%i
|age=336 |age=1440
|index=no
|minarchthreads=0 |minarchthreads=0
|minkeepthreads=4 |minkeepthreads=0
|archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved|,{{Resolved|,{{done}},{{Done}}</nowiki> |archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved|,{{Resolved|,{{done}},{{Done}}</nowiki>
|header=<nowiki>{{Talkarchive}}</nowiki> |header=<nowiki>{{Talkarchive}}</nowiki>
Line 18: Line 17:
}} }}


== Not unnecessary ==
{{Talk header}}
'''Welcome!'''


not unnecessary. Some external site might want to link to some particular section. ] (]) 17:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:|, especially what you did for ]|}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
*]kko
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question and then place <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!&nbsp;<!-- Template:Welcome --> ] 23:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


== November 2015 newsletter == == Unnecessary reversion. ==


If some other page want to link directly to , how would it do that? ] (]) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Food and drink/Newsletter November 2015}}
&nbsp;&nbsp;<small>– Sent by ] using ] on 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)</small>
<!-- Message sent by User:Northamerica1000@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Notifications&oldid=690514012 -->


⚫ :What do you see as the value of deep-linking into a list with limited information? ] ] 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. ] (]) 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 ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692013717 -->


] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]&#32; 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.
==Disambiguation link notification for November 24==


Points to note:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (&nbsp;|&nbsp;). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
# '''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 ] 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)


== Convenient tag for a section name. ==
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:57, 24 November 2015 (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)
== 3RR at Mujaddid ==

Right or wrong, it isn't a good idea to even get to 3RR if you've been blocked before. ] (]) 20:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

== Excuse me ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Naturopathy&type=revision&diff=700234316&oldid=700163445

RE your very arrogant 'edit note' to your reversion of my ONLY edit thus far. If you ever use language like that towards me again on the edit table I will simply have to report you. You don't seem to realise how utterly wrong it is, so at some point you will need to be told. It combines incivility with abusing Misplaced Pages's core values. It leaves a stink and ultimately works ''against'' the encyclopedia. It's bullying really. So will you please not do it again? You have no right to say "No." to my edit - or indeed to any editor such as myself. You also frankly have no real right to say what "helps" or doesn't in this area regarding a specific edit like mine (do you realise what that sounds like? It sounds like you have a particular agenda to be frank.)

And it is very-much you who has been "vague" here, not me. You cannot properly tell me what I've done wrong. My new text was not 'vague' - it was balanced. It's about avoiding obviously-biased negative generalisations over what is clearly a collection of different disciplines. 'Naruropathy' is clearly NOT all the exact the same shape of rubbish, so why pretend that it is? It clearly varies! For more here, see my talk page regarding my silly 'warning' (for making one single edit for Christ's sake - I hope you two don't tag-team with each other). Some of the sources used in the article do not use the same encyclopedic standards as Misplaced Pages (why would they? Sources rearely do). We quote information, not linguistic style or approach. The context is always different for a start.

If you can't see that my edit was at-least well-intentioned then I'm sorry but you must be blind. It was also a <u>perfectly good</u> (and needed) edit in area I can only assume you must hold a certain degree of bias towards (or against it does seem). But that is beside the point. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and therefore must use an encyclopedia approach with fully encyclopedic language. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid newspaper, nor even a broadsheet for that matter. It's an encyclopedia. Full stop. So few people seem to understand that here. ] (]) 20:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
:Your edit made the lede suggest that only some "forms" of naturopathy are pseudoscientific and that some "forms" have been shown to be effective. That isn't what the rest of the article says, so for one thing, it's an unsourced assertion, and for another, it brings the lede into conflict with the rest if the article. If you have evidence from reliable sources that some form of naturopathy is effective and scientific, then by all means take it to the talk page/add it to the article. You also might want to have a look at ].
:I never said that your edit was anything but in good faith, and I don't know why you're suggesting otherwise.
⚫ :While you're here, I'd like to remind you that ] aren't acceptable on Misplaced Pages, and that threatening to report other editors (even for strong language like "not helping"!) is really un-hoopy and not ]. ] ] 20:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

:::I'm afraid you just cannot treat another Wikipedian the way you did to me. It's insulting and it simply invites criticism - and it's not surprising to me that you respond to my reaction by using ] and calling it a 'personal attack'. I find that very antagonistic too, and feel you are playing your deck of 'WP' cards here. I'm sorry but it's just not right.

:::It is very obvious indeed that there is no evidence to suggest that 'Naturopathy' is any ''one thing'' either way! It's not any one thing at all. It's not using 'Weasel words' to address that fact. You simply ''cannot'' make the statement that "Naturopathy is ineffective". You know damn well that there are plenty of crossover areas where herbs etc show varying positive effects on health. In the cases where those 'herbs' have shown unique-enough results to have been taken up by conventional medicine, it doesn't remove them from the world of herbalism I'm afraid, rather-sketchy though that world can certainly be lot of the time. But with a collective term (ie Naturapathy) that covers things as broad a 'field' as homeopathy and herbalism and acupuncture, that's the way it goes. Some of it shows up good at times - you really have to deal with that somehow. And how many herbalists etc are also exponents of homeopathy I wonder? Some are I'm sure, but the article effectively says that all these presumably-crazy people are into the same things by default! You just can't say that.

:::If there is any fault in my edit at all, it's in trying to keep all of the existing negatives and generalisations intact. Any decent content-writer will tell you that the constant problem with finding the right words is keeping people like you from 'auto-reverting' the changes to their favourite Points and their favourite lines. But if you know something you don't really like is an awkward fact, for God's sake don't just deny it - or demand it has to be merticulously cited either. You should really have a look yourself before you go reverting anything. If you have the energy to revert you should have the energy to examine. You should then be able to confidently say "There is no evidence!" - not "You are not fully citing!". Especially in areas where the citations need to be bland counter-statements relating entirely to Misplaced Pages's own context. They are a nightmare to find because people don't live like that. They record per context. What there most-definitely is "No evidence for!" is your claim of a "scientific consensus" that everything that can possibly come under the umbrella term 'naturopathy' is "inefective"! Yet you compile your out-of-context quotes of generalising statements, and you present your completely-developed and refined conclusion as a commonplace 'consensus' or truth. You actually fail ] when you do that. But you are not alone in that, and it's a sin that Wikipedians get away with all the time in these particular areas.

:::The simple truth is that you just cannot effectively control this whole area (generally called 'CAM') the 'tough' and 'minimalistic' way you want to. It just doesn't work. And I often wonder if you don't exaggerate the enemy here anyway. Some people seem to see anti-scientific 'monsters' where there are simply often-very unwell people looking for possibly-effective medication that actually works for them. It makes me so angry when I see people very-likely to be like this being treated roughly like they are trolls. The only way to stiffle the real trolls (or stop the IP editing in general) is to try to get the ''text'' as right and balanced and as fair as you can. All according to Policy. Which does means at least some element of balance and fairness I'm afraid. Then you can far more-easily deal from there with any of the various IP's and whatnot that may remain. Surely you can see that? What is fair on Misplaced Pages usually doesn't get played with. It's bias ''from all sides'' that messes things up. Currently you are using excessive control (actual textual control too) - and unsurprisingly you have trodden on someone who is willing and able to fight back.

:::And as a coda I'll say that I think that 'CAM patrollers' need to be just a bit more enlightened about IP's and newly-formed accounts too. I expect that many of you tend to see them both as possible sockpuppets and biased fools, but I am sure that most of them are not. And I've been really harrassed by both in the past - so that is not actually that easy for me to say. If you want a lot of them to just go away, endevour to deal with these articles ''properly''. I am sure that a good many the problems 'anti-CAM' patrollers fight every day they essentially create for themselves. A true Misplaced Pages cynic could almost say they like to 'fight the good fight' with an 'ever-present' enemy, and are not really interested in improving their routine at all. But I'm sure that's not the case here is it? ] (]) 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
⚫ ::::I think that's quite enough. If you have any constructive suggestions regarding the Naturopathy article, you should take them to that article's talk page. ] ] 03:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

:::::I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it. ] (]) 00:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

:*Hi, ]. I thought it would be easier to reply here since you left a similarly toned message on your talk page to my lvl 1 warning. I don't think your sentiment is constructive in both messages, and I find it unhelpful to suggest escalating to ANI without discussion with me and ]. I placed the warning on your page because I understood that to be an appropriate action given that I saw that you are not a newbie and that your edits were not constructive on an article that is known to be subject to vandalism and POV pushing. Your edits augmented the language of well-sourced material in ] and Pepperbeast and I seem to be in agreement. ] (]) 20:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

:::Firstly ], I've asked you ''very clearly'' to make your reply to me on ''my own'' Talk page so I can keep our conversation together - it's just yet more bad manners from you to simply disregard that. Secondly, I'll take this somewhere higher - probably ANI, tomorrow if I can. You simply '''CANNOT''' give a Misplaced Pages Warning (of any 'level') for a harmless sole edit like mine. You need to be ''told'' that in no uncertain terms, and clearly from someone you are obliged to respect - ie an admin or hopefully two. You have just got it so wrong here. I wonder what rule book some Wikipedians read sometimes. Not the one I did, that's for sure.

:::Also, if you could see that I wasn't a 'newbie', then why on Earth did you point me to the 'Beginners guide to referencing'?! How does that help anyone here? How does a giving me a Warning actually help? It's just the act of a bully isn't it? Both of you. I'm afraid that you've heavied on the wrong person here. I am also rather worried that you both 'tag-team' irresponsibly too - and in a very-negative way for Misplaced Pages. So I'll see you both somewhere else too.

:::As you can see, it is my opinion that behavior like yours does not help Misplaced Pages at all. It's foolish, souring, unkind and basically hinders the 'project' I'm sure you claim you support. In my view your attitude risks upsetting and completely putting-off new editors (how can that be good?), as well as turning away older ones stepping back in and having a look around, which happens not-infrequently I'm sure. You need those people to come back, not turn away again shaking their heads. This subject is also an area where many people who get involved are simply not well. I suspect that this type of behaviour has become far-too prevalent too, and it was always around. To be frank, I'm not so sure that the job or 'label' of "Patroller" is a good one for just anyone on Misplaced Pages to have. Perhaps it should be given and potentially-removed, like rollback? It can be argued - though not to any legal effect I'm sure - that 'heavying' (I'm struggling for a better term) on normal everyday people like this is effectively a manner of online bullying. Some people will come here entirely in good faith, and they must be just so shocked at how they are treated. Is it fair if they are unwell? And is this really how Misplaced Pages wants to present itself? Does anyone ever think like this here apart from me? Why do things never seem to change? ] (]) 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

::::*Hi, ]. I am sorry if the warning irked you. I understand level 1 warnings to be pretty low consequence, so please interpret it is as such. I did not see that you specifically asked me to reply to your talk page. Sorry if I missed that. I think this is a matter that can be resolved through respectful discussion between you, me, and ], to the extent that he/she wants to continue. We can always move to your talk page or mine if you wish. I think you are approaching this issue very aggressively, so I please ask you to assume good faith and be respectful. How else can we come to a mutual understanding? ] (]) 09:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

::::::I realise that your warning on my Talk page was basically following the lead of Pepperbeast's edit note (wisely?), and I do see Pepperbeast at a different level of rudeness - but it seems clear to me that there was no call for anyone to dish out a ‘Warning’ to anyone here. Not even an admin should ever give a talk-page warning for one single well-meaning edit like mine, esp a decent one. It simply abuses the warning system. It poses a threat that I will go straight to 'Level 2' if I continue. But continue doing what? Making another similar (ie harmless) edit? Obviously I immediately felt compromised, and given the subject I felt I was being bullied too – ie effectively being told to steer clear. I will be reporting PB because I don’t think he acts in the right manner as a patroller, and it will be interesting to see the responses to that. I just never could accept being be spoken to like that to be frank, and my temper on here just goes I'm afraid. It's a Misplaced Pages thing - I don't have it in real life. But people are obliged to recognise their peers in real life, and they are obliged to treat them respectfully. I’m perfectly fine here when people treat me fairly anyway. It's these areas, you get to see a 'them vs us' attitude that immediately fails the 'Good Faith' policy designed to make these articles work. People here so-often say 'assume good faith' to other's (esp as a response to criticism), but how often to they set out with it themselves?

::::::I can always overcome anything with proper discussion though. I do like to keep my reponse under what I reply to though. I'd rather use my Talk page (or the main Discussion page) if we are to discuss the article and the need to be as balanced as is reasonable in this area (it don't mean a level scale), rather than have it display needless negative bias in the name of ‘toughness’, or any unwarranted 'medical machismo' of some kind really. You can call it the 'Not the Truth' thing if you want - which was surely created to force people's attention to policy in places like this, and avoid lingering bias. I've always said that policy and guidelines alone should write absolutely everything on Misplaced Pages, but there's too much compounding bumf. WP's become a bit become like a religion - it's got solid fundamental rules, but there is much else in addition you can in the end take it anwhere. The exaggerated Toughness here just increases the negative or otherwise IP interest, and it defeats any sensible purpose you can think of. As long as there is a will for actual improvement, these things are always just about the right wording, and often about finding some or better refs too. I think it’s often about avoiding the protection of what can be very awkward 'anchor phrases', and simply being willing to genuinely improve. I was very conscious in my edit to keep a number of existing 'points' in. My edit (perhaps not perfect) was certainly a lot-less problematic than the existing (and current) one, but it can become an awkward patchwork when you are dancing around clearly-protected Points. I didn’t actually read the rest of the article at that point I must admit (I wasn't indending to make the edit originally) - I didn’t feel I needed to for such an obvious phrasing issue though. If it is true that there is no reference at all in the article to any of the proponent's (or 'positive' or whatever) arguments at all - eg the various uptake of natural products by pharma's over the years, then the article has rather become a 'hatchet job' to simply discredit the entire term I would suggest. Even if that was the Scientific Consensus of Truth, it's not very Wikipedian, because Misplaced Pages is supposed to represent a fairly-weighted (ie balanced) view of a subject using the best sources it can find - it's not supposed to be about anyone's sense of truth.
::::::Giving the article a quick scan now, it looks the hatchet-job approach may have become the case. I can see at least one misappropriated ref just stopping at the UK section ("''Naturopathy is not regulated in the United Kingdom. In 2012, publicly funded universities in the United Kingdom dropped their alternative medicine programs, including naturopathy.''" Despite the article's headline, if you read it properly it never actually claims "alternative medicine degree programs" (which it what it covers) have been dropped by them all. You can certainly still find them (just a quick search lead me to ), but it may well be that are becoming less prevalent now, or as specific degrees at least. Do you see what I mean? It's the cynical loosening of language to drive home a general point. But this spare and 'Tough' approach to these articles just doesn't logically work, and there really is no 'scientic consensus' to combine all these differing things as one mass too, fully-negatively or otherwise. Depending where they are speaking from, scientists are often colloquial in their language (and in this area they can certainly use broad terms), but ultimately their game is science - not being OTT, biased or illogical. The idea of any "scientific consensus" regarding this 'negative mass' approach is actualy Original Research: it uses a bunch of refs to draw a new conclusion that is basically unsound. Surely this article has contained balancing info at some point? If we can get some in now, maybe then the Introduction can be a bit more sensible without anyone calling foul on grounds of ‘style.’ I currently hear the warped logic of Misplaced Pages gone wrong; There is nothing in the article to suggest any element of these independent things that ''isn’t'' 'fully ineffective', so insert "This is an ineffective thing full-stop" as a definitive statement in the Inro, citing the average subjective and non-encyclopedic quotation or two on either the group as a whole or aspects of it, which supposedly amounts to a 'scientific concensus' of general opinion that we need to use as a guide to style.

::::::Looking back at that example, it's not correct for Misplaced Pages to state "Natuopathy is not regulated in the UK" either (the line prior to the example). For a start, the term covers different 'diciplines', so how would that statement work? It's Original Research again isn't it? So we must try and phrase it better. And then here we realise it isn't true anyway - these things clearly are subject to forms of regulation in the UK, either directly British or European. And of course this particular statement isn't sourced anyway. But it's the whole attitude behind it that's the problem. Now I've seen the standard of the article, I'm not especially happy to be told my Intro change doesn't fully fit in with the rest of the thing. I suspect that the article has become very over-controlled over time, in a debilitating process that's left a variety of these kind of misinforming statements lying around. But improvement will only happen if you a) actually allow it, and b) actually allow it to actually start. Warning-off passers-by, and then suggesting they come back with the 'perfect combination' of article-wide material or nothing else leads to.. what? Nothing but more article rot, and it happens all over Misplaced Pages I'm certain.

::::::Incidentally, I didn't start by broaching a ‘possible change’ on the Discussion page (I was actually thinking of leaving a suggestion and then passing on, as I tend to do these days when I come on here), simply because when I looked at the talk page I see a blanket "No." to someone who had politely brought this issue up. So it’s not particularly surprising that I used the primary right to be 'bold' and went ahead and made the edit without discussing it first. I actually took some time to make an edit. What a rotten thing to do, eh? 'Being bold' is vital part of the ‘policy’ of Misplaced Pages. As is 3RR or sometimes even less-RR. But I have to say not 'First and decent edit = Warning'! I've never read about that one at all. ] (]) 00:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:02, 10 January 2025


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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)

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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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)

User talk:Pepperbeast: Difference between revisions Add topic