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.

Vandalism observed Kannada page by the user Tirukodimadachengunrur

"Pepperbeast" If just adding some random source to any piece of information qualifies as "sourced information", then what is the meaning of sourced information. I have gone through those attached references and NOWHERE does it attest this information. I'm very much aware of "Iravatham Mahadevan's" works and it's far from what has been claimed here as his findings. This is pure misinformation added by the user Tirukodimadachengunrur, to impose their biased views on the Wikipedia readers. In fact even the writing style does not match with that of the referenced document. It's our responsibility to prevent such acts of vandalism and restore genuine information. I kindly request you to review the sources before restoring it. TrUtHJan (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply Fylindfotberserk In contrast Iravatham Mahadevan talks about Old kannada language's influence on Old Tamil and not vise versa. Here the user Tirukodimadachengunrur has explicitly tried to quote that Kannada follows the structure of Old Tamil which is false. Furthermore this user goes on to add that Kannada retains the words once used in Tamil which is again incorrect. It has been presented in a way that's completely opposite to what has been documented by renowned linguist "Iravatham Mahadevan". In point of fact even the other attached source "the history of kannada" has nothing that supports the claims of the user Tirukodimadachengunrur. IRAVTAHAM MAHAVEDAN's views have been nicely put across under the "History" section of the same Wikipedia page where you can see how the renowned linguist explain why he thinks Tamil retains many Kannada words and not vice verse as claimed by a few editors here. TrUtHJan (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Adultery page

Hello,

I had started to try and rework the Hinduism section on the page as it was bloated, didn't read well and had problems with the sources. However I have seen that these edits were reverse, I thought I would reach out to you here to discuss the section. I am not trying to restate any of the facts, just clean up a number of errors (especially in regards to the sources) and generally make the section higher quality and more legible. I would like to discuss the edits with you here before I make any more edits, to reassure that these edits are genuine and will produce a better article.

Best, Bodha2 (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should take this discussion to the article’s talk page. PepperBeast (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit was a mistake, I have reverted you

I think that this edit [1] was a mistake, instead of engaging with what were valid and constructive points you shut down the conversation. I am at a loss for why you would do that, but anyway I have reverted. Have a nice day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote was appropriate. An article talk page is not the best place to discuss Wikipedia in general or what articles should be created. It was also several years ago. PepperBeast (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name articles

Variations of names are a legitimate addition to articles about the history and usage of said names. Most of the variants are included in name dictionaries. i am reverting your deletions and suggest you discuss it on the talk pages before restoring your deletions. Your edits are disputed. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shia islam: Terminology

I don't believe your recent edit on shia Islam, is constructive. Terminology section is part of the body and should act as a semi full overview. Your edit diminished insight and visibility of the subject. I want to revert it and I'll edit it for clarity if you think it needs more work.

reaching out because I'm watching the page. Bro The Man (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs over at Talk:Shia. PepperBeast (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i realised i missread the edits you made. They are constructive. thank you. Bro The Man (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PepperBeast (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]