User talk:AsceticRose

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Revert of Food_studies#Research_questions edit

Regarding your revert of my edit of Food_studies#Research_questions:

• the only explanation you give is "(Reverted 1 good faith edit by DadaNeem using STiki; opinion)"

Could you please give something more substantive-I note the word "opinion"-is that referring to yours or mine? DadaNeem (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DadaNeem, the word "opinion" was referring to yours. The article deals with food issue in general, not in particular. It is not dealing with any specific food item like meat or vegetables or fruits. Rather, it is a generalized handling of human foodstuff. So you can't say What are the ethics of eating meat?, because if you argue about meat, what about thousand other food items, some of them being more critical?

On Wikipedia, we only accommodate well-sourced information, not personal opinion. I hope this answers your question. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 06:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AsceticRose. In your culture of eating it may seem like that, but having been a vegetarian for over 30 years I (and many others) understand that it's more than just a portion of the plate like "the ethics of eating potatoes/or what have you..." but very related to the ethics of eating that preceded my edit. The article ethics of eating meat has substantial food for thought/ research from such renowned scholars as Peter Singer (whose book The Ethics of What We Eat I have in my hand) and Jane Goodall.

So, in conclusion, I stand by my edit with this "well-sourced information". What say you? DadaNeem (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DadaNeem, I see you are still missing the main point. Please look, the article does not name any specific food item, rather treat the issue of food in general. It is not about my culture or your culture; it is solely about the subject-matter of the article. We have to add content to any article keeping in mind what the article is supposed to cover, not what your personal experience is.

Your saying that having been a vegetarian for over 30 years I (and many others)... indicates that you are trying to justify the article's content from your personal experience.

Again, the main point which I already clearly said above is that the article deals with food issue in general, not in particular. If you try to add ethics of eating meat, how can you neglect ethics of eating milk, ethics of eating fish, ethics of eating wine, ethics of eating alcohol, ethics of eating vegetables and the thousands like that? -AsceticRosé 17:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly AsceticRose, I would prefer you preface your comments as your comments ie say "my main point" not "the main point" etc. We are discussing between equals; neither is the judge and jury. DadaNeem (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AsceticRose

	AsceticRose
	can you tell me why you think me as vandal. I want to know VlaudtheOctowhale (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VlaudtheOctowhale, when you talk about any edit, you should provide the diff. Anyway, I guess you are talking about this one.

Regarding your question, the main point is that I did not thought you as vandal. The edit summary I provided was Reverted 1 edit by VlaudtheOctowhale using STiki; unexplained change. Reverting an editor's edit does not mean the editor was a vandal. You misinterpreted it. If you ask me why I reverted it, the answer is you did not provide any edit summary describing your change. So it would be hard for anyone to accept such ambiguous addition. Again, your content was not consistent with the existing content.

I see you are writing about Podocheong, but you are not providing any English reliable source in support of your content, neither in Podocheong nor in Joseon.

Your message came to me as a little bit confusing. If you have objection, you are not supposed to provide an WikiLove message. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 16:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello AsceticRosé, I hope you are fine. Very happy that our efforts at Hijrah seem to have worked out. I discovered that there seem to be a lot of articles related to Karaism which have basically lifted word for word large chunks from the Encyclopedia Judaica. Is that allowed? Bulgarios (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bulgarios, sorry for late response. I was not active on Wikipedia. Word for word copy and pasting is not allowed. However, I am neither knowledgeable about Karaism nor interested in it. Why are you interested in it? -AsceticRosé 13:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking for a project. I can hardly remember what brought my attention to it now. I think a link from an Islam related page. What is the correct thing to do if I find a page which has word for word chunks taken from other encyclopedias in future? Bulgarios (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the word for word texts are copyrighted materials, they can be removed because Wikipedia takes copyright issue very seriously. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The best way to deal with such issue is to read the materials in those encyclopedias/sources and then paraphrase them in Wikipedia articles e.g. rewording is needed. Then, you can cite those encyclopedias as references. You can use Google books to gather more information and sources. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 14:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tips. I have started reading up on the subject but don't think I have a good enough picture of it to paraphrase anything yet. Bulgarios (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New section

complaint: you undid my last post to Chhuckmuck(Orphan) and I wish you to undo it. The acknowledgements will be simplified once the page comes out of Orphan categoryStone Routes (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I just stumbled upon your userpage. It reminded me of something that I distanced myself from. May peace be upon you. Faiz7412 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New section

created new page for Chuckmuck acknowlements can you please post what you took out of Chuckmuck main page please and post it here. Thank youStone Routes (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stone Routes, such acknowledgement page is not within the scope of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia can not have such a page. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 03:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor!
		Hello AsceticRose. Recently you have signed my guestbook! Thank you very much for signing my guestbook. Cheers.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on a RfC in Islamic views on slavery

Am planning a formal RfC on dispute on ISIS in Islamic views on slavery and am soliciting opinions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_views_on_slavery#Update_on_dispute_on_ISIS_and_jihadist_section --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion for splitting the article at Islamic views on slavery Please weigh in if you have any comment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
134		Critical period hypothesis (talk)						Add sources
179		Rashidun (talk)						Add sources
233		Second language (talk)						Add sources
470		Salat (talk)						Add sources
107		Input hypothesis (talk)						Add sources
26		Metalinguistic awareness (talk)						Add sources
4		Generative second-language acquisition (talk)						Cleanup
471		Multilingualism (talk)						Cleanup
53		George Nozuka (talk)						Cleanup
222		Dust explosion (talk)						Expand
31		Muslim hygienical jurisprudence (talk)						Expand
995		Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen (talk)						Expand
148		Dua (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
19		Ismah (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
3,378		Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
79		Islamic economics (talk)						Merge
101		Ma malakat aymanukum (talk)						Merge
61		Rabigh (talk)						Merge
12		Mut'ah of Hajj (talk)						Wikify
31		Persecution of Muslims by the Meccans (talk)						Wikify
71		Islam and children (talk)						Wikify
21		Identity and Language Learning (talk)						Orphan
2		IDBI Capital (talk)						Orphan
12		Jamia Salfia (India) (talk)						Orphan
17		Hidayah (talk)						Stub
3		Quranic timeline (talk)						Stub
8		Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān (talk)						Stub
32		Sheer khurma (talk)						Stub
4		Du'a Nudba (talk)						Stub
3		Tawus ibn Kaysan (talk)						Stub

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) 03:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muhammad in Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

why you undo all my changes? if you are muslim, i am muslim too. we are brothers. Only ALLAH is the Greatest. Simpleabd (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Simpleabd, everyody is undoing your edits because you are making unconstructive edits. You have to understand this. From Wikipedia's point of view, you are not complying with policies. And from Islamic theological point of view, you are inserting wrong information. Muslims consider the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to be the greatest of all prophets. This is true. -AsceticRosé 05:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may disrespect other contributors.

i didn't disrespect the article. Simpleabd (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to be arrogance.

Prophets of ALLAH have no distinction. i already add source. you search in internet, you ended up finding that all prophets of ALLAH have humble submit themselves to the will of ALLAH The God. the edit is not to mislead Muslims and Non Muslims too in the view in the prophets of ALLAH. Simpleabd (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Simpleabd

I think that this user could be a strawman sockpuppet. He is putting a Muslim mask and pushing un-Muslim beliefs.--67.212.234.157 (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not unlikely. He is currently indefinitely banned. -AsceticRosé 05:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Registered user. We appreciate this, but unfortunately your edit was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you. Ctwabn (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Combine in Half-Life 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Combine in Half-Life 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forced disappearance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daily Star. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forced disappearance in Bangladesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daily Star. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and happy new year

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine^✉

Happy New Year, AsceticRose!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

AsceticRose, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Requesting page assessment

Dear AsceticRose,

I created a page last year within the project scope that hasn't been assessed yet @ Ideas of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez. As an experienced editor with the project, could you please take some time to assess it? Thank you. cӨde1+6^TP 15:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Code16, I still do not know how they assess articles and what criteria they follow (except Good and Featured articles). I never took any serious interest in it. My own article, Islam and humanity, is still unassessed, as I see it. You can raise the issue here, or contact one of the members of Editorial Team. Thanks. ---AsceticRosé 10:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. cӨde1+6^TP 02:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -AsceticRosé 15:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morality in Islam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ansar and Zakar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morality in Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ablution. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morality in Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hajj

Your edit is not good. We don't comment out sections. Either you tag them or you remove them. And you are not supposed to remove a tag as long as the issue is not resolved. Please also see WP:BRD that you should not redo an edit that was reverted without first discussing and obtaining consensus. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, your point and edit both are unclear. Removing a section can be worse, because we will lose the data thus. However, it can be done anyway. A tagged section may not be appropriate for a good-class article. And your edit undid a legitimate edit. More care is needed. -AsceticRosé 15:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Debresser, you were wrong in suggesting to remove the section because it has a source attached to it. Without first being sure, we can't remove a section which has a reference. We still don't know how far they are correct. -AsceticRosé 16:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. How will removing a section result in data loss? There is always the edit history. Moreover, if the data is not reliable, then it is not a loss.
2. I repeat. We do not comment out things on Wikipedia. Either we have it or we don't.
3. "A tagged section may not be appropriate for a good-class article." Then either the statement must be sourced, or the article can not be good-class. It is as simple as that. What is not okay is removing a tag without resolving the issue. And if that was done in order to keep the good-article status, then that is precisely the opposite of what should have been done. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AsceticRose. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some dates needed

Hi, I noted your request for dates from Fazlur Rehman's Chronology of Prophetic Events. I will look them up and send you the info as soon as possible after New Year. If you have not heard anything from me after Epiphany (Three Kings' Day), please remind me again. AstroLynx (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here are the dates as you requested:

* Battle of Badr: 16 Ramadan 2 AH = 16 December 623 (Friday) [pp. 55-56].

* Battle of Uhud: 11 Shawwal 3 AH = 29 December 624 (Saturday) [pp. 60-61].

* Battle of the Trench (end): 1 Dhu'l-Qa'dah 5 AH = 24 January 627 (Saturday) [pp. 65-66].

* Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (setting out): = 1 Dhu'l-Qa'dah 6 AH = 14 January 628 (Thursday) [p. 70].

* Preparations for Mecca (setting out): 6 Ramadan 8 AH = 29 November 629 (Wednesday) [p. 72].

* Entry in Mecca: 18 Ramadan 8 AH = 11 December 629 (Monday) [p. 72].

* Battle of Hunayn (arrival): 10 Shawwal 8 AH = 2 January 630 (Tuesday) [pp. 72-73].

* Battle of Tabuk (setting out): Fazlur Rehman notes that the various dates mentioned are very confused and suggests 1 Jumada al-Ula 9 AH = 19 July 630 (Thursday) [pp. 75-76].

* Farewell Pilgrimage ('Arafat): 9 Dhu'l-Hijjah 10 AH = 8 March 632 (Sunday) [pp. 77-78].

* Death of Muhammad: 12 Rabi' al-Awwal 11 AH = 8 June 632 (Monday) [pp. 78-79].

In his reconstruction of the events during Muhammad's years in Medina, Fazlur Rehman assumes that 3, 6 and 9 AH were intercalary.

For details, you should perhaps try to get a copy of Fazlur Rehman's book. AFAIK it is still available and it is certainly not expensive. AstroLynx (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hegira into Muhammad in Islam. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, thank you for your message. The content I copied from Hegira was actually prepared solely by me. That is, in Muhammad in Islam, I've added my own content. I'm not sure if still I should attribute this to the copying page. -AsceticRosé 00:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's technically not required if you're the sole author, I usually do it for clarity's sake. I've already added the attribution for this particular instance. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I got the point, and thank you for your effort. -AsceticRosé 01:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks AR for the page assessment cӨde1+6^TP 02:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also ask you for some tips for improving the page? I think that it could use some more primary sources, as the weight right now is heavily in favor of secondary sources. More material details can be added from primary sources I think. Do you think that would help improve the rating? Thanks cӨde1+6^TP 13:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Code16, I again took a look at the article. I think it is not about source, rather it is about style, clear-cut presentation of the subject, completeness of the topic, good language, and punctuation. I see the article has enough sources though you can use some primary sources to support the content, but to not elaborate the existing content. The article is on an abstract issue, so elaborating content will only fool the readers. Rather you should focus on the following points: 1) The article should reasonably cover the topic, and should not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. 2) It should be well-written in a clear-cut way avoiding ambiguities or unclear content. 3) More wiki-links, proper punctuation, and good structure are important. It can also have a short 'Background' section having information on thinker and some background information on the topic. I think some little efforts can improve its rating. -AsceticRosé 05:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed input AR, much appreciated =) I'll free up some time in the coming days/weeks to start fixing/improving the article using this guideline. cӨde1+6^TP 13:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

Hi, just letting you know that the Jerusalem page is under DS. You can't reinsert a reverted edit without seeking consensus first. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sir Joseph for letting me know. -AsceticRosé 15:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query related to warning

Hey I recently added an informative link to Wikipedia Hajj article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajj. The link i added was informative (http://www.ilinktours.com/how-to-perform-hajj), relevant to topic and as per the policies of Wikipedia. You removed it without clarifying the reason. Kindly point out the mistake.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andolini7110 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Muhammad in Islam

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Muhammad in Islam you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Muhammad in Islam

The article Muhammad in Islam you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Muhammad in Islam for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, AsceticRose. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

-[[User:AsceticRose|<font color="dimgray"><b>Ascetic</b></font>]][[User talk: AsceticRose|<font color="orangered"><b>Rosé</b></font>]]  : -AsceticRosé

to

-[[User:AsceticRose|<b style="color: dimgray;">Ascetic</b>]][[User talk: AsceticRose|<b style="color: orangered;">Rosé</b>]]  : -AsceticRosé

—Anomalocaris (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Late clarification) In fact, not an ANI case. -AsceticRosé 15:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, 2017 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2017 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2016 Rohingya persecutions in Myanmar. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2016 Rohingya persecutions in Myanmar. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bad message I think! -AsceticRosé 16:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is indefinitely banned now. -AsceticRosé 16:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Muhammad in Islam

The article Muhammad in Islam you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Muhammad in Islam for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! -AsceticRosé 01:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Combine in Half-Life 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Combine in Half-Life 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:A Barnacle in Half-Life 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:A Barnacle in Half-Life 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Humpty Dumpty page

Hello AsceticRose, I read that you just reverted a change I made on the Humpty Dumpty page showing its presence on the Finnegans Wake. I made this contribution because there was a specific section about Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking-Glass", so I thought it was analogous. Could you please let me know why you thought the edit was not constructive? Thank you! Plurabilities (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Plurabilities, I reverted it because you added some bizarre lines like The fall (bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntqnner-ronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthur-nuk!) which looked highly unusual. -AsceticRosé 18:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AsceticRose,

thank you for your feedback. Your concern is definitely valid, so I understand where you're coming from. Nevertheless, those bizarre lines are exactly how the book goes, you can check it out yourself here on this link: http://www.finwake.com/1024chapter1/1024finn1.htm The garbled word is a representation of a thunder, which is by itself a reflection of the Fall of Man (and Humpty Dumpty himself!) Plurabilities (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plurabilities, I checked the source. Yes, the strange line is in fact a part of the text. I also went through the Humpty Dumpty page again. I see that a reference to Humpty Dumpty in James Joyce's 1939 novel Finnegans Wake was already present in the article. I rather recommend that you elaborate the already-present text without adding a new section for Finnegans Wake and without quoting the text from the novel. I'm somewhat averse to quoting the text in the article because the reference to Humpty Dumpty in the novel is indirect and the quote will look unfamiliar to most modern readers, I believe. I fear that if you add it back, others may revert it. A good idea is to discuss the issue on the article's talk page whether to include the quote or not. Thus, the actual decision I leave to you and the other editors of the article. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 01:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I disagree with you - I believe that including the quote could spark the interest of readers through the unfamiliarity you mentioned - but I do agree with you that there's value in discussing this at the talk page. Thanks for your hard work as a Wikipedia editor! Plurabilities (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plurabilities, it is true that as Wikipedia editors, we do hard work. And it is pretty nice to get some recognition for that! -AsceticRosé 18:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please only use Huggle properly

Please don't misuse tools. Such as you did here, where you took names out of alpha order, etc. And where you failed -- though reverting an editor - to leave an edit summary, as you should, that explained why. If you were simply not familiar with why you should leave an edit summary when reverting an editor, please read this .. WP:FIES.--2604:2000:E016:A700:ADC9:260A:22E8:2C8A (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My revert was correct. I see your edit has again been partially reverted. In disambiguation page, we do not add so many details as you added. Again, your own edit summary was ambiguous and unclear. So, instead of teaching me, you take lesson first. -AsceticRosé 18:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Capitals00 (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on Forced conversion. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.

Also avoid making these edits.[1] Capitals00 (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like you have now violated WP:3RR with your 4 reverts. But I think that you have made 4 reverts because of your misunderstanding that you can revert sock's edits as many times as you want, but its no more a case when someone else has reverted or restored edits of a sock. (WP:BANREVERT) Also that IP is not a sock like you may already know now. I had checked for the information around and I found the information to be verifiable and I was going to add sources but like I have already said on talk page that your reverts are making it hard to contribute. Either you should self revert or reach to a compromise version soon. Describe on talk page if the information is hoax and which parts are WP:UNDUE and be quick since you are already under 4RR. Capitals00 (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AsceticRose. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AsceticRose. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello AsceticRose! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]