Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

The user is not very active now, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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
	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]

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]

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]

	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]

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]

		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]

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]

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]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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]

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

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]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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]

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]

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]

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]

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. ¬¬¬¬