User talk:AsceticRose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

2023 and others[edit]

Fictional events from cultural works are not real events, so exits an expecifics articles named: Works of fiction set in... that I'm helping to expand. (see also: Works of fiction by year) --VityUvieu (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

What you are doing may be right VityUvieu. However, you should first seek with other editors' opinion on the respective articles' talk pages as it appears to be a sensitive change. You can revert my two edits, if necessary. -AsceticRosé 17:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

your message to me[edit]

Thanks, from susiedarling for your message. I fail to see what you mean by not constructive, when you interfered with my edits of scouting Australia. I edited the history section. It was not constructive before my edit as the page was about scouts Australia yet did not contain info about the beginnings of scouts Australia, and made only shallow references. I have read much about the subject thank you, and I happen to be a neice of the original Australian founder, Mr Charles Smethurst Snow. Perhaps you should stick to subjects you know about dear. If I continue to see the work of my uncle omitted and lied about, I will make a complaint to its head person. Thanks

You, Susiedarling, totally blanked the page here that contained 29 references. I restored it here. You don't have the authority to blank a page. It is clearly unconstructive. Probably you will be benefited from familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia rules and policies (like Five pillars of Wikipedia, community consensus, assuming good faith, What Wikipedia is not) before making any more such edit. Also note that threats do not work in Wikipedia. It is only the policies that work here. Thank you. --AsceticRosé 16:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
A look at your talk-page shows that you are regularly blanking sourced pages/sections or adding unsourced materials to various pages at your sweet will. This is the time to stop it or you risk being blocked. -AsceticRosé 16:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

From susie darling

I will look at how to include sources. A much better response. And I will decide what is relevant for the history of my family members,thank you. As for your claim all on wiki is real, what rubbish. You allow people who are in business to gain ground over others by spreading lies, and by omitting details in order to favor themselves. Omitting is a form of fraud. (source,Family law Act.Australia) You are not Allah, and cannot always tell what is a lie and what is not. I suggest your efforts are also put to further studies, perhaps the good book. I am just wondering, where you said constructive, perhaps you meant constructed, as in'your page could have been better constructed'

Recent Edit[edit]

My recent edit (on Coutinho) was removing an opinion. There is no place for an opinion on articles. I also added more information to a paragraph that was irrelevant to make it reasonable for the paragraph to remain instead of being removed. Your edit will be undone.

Congratulations from STiki![edit]

STiki Barnstar of Merit.png
The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, AsceticRose! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please DO NOT undo changes to George L. Rose page.[edit]

I am updating Mr. Rose's page to correspond to the present state of his life and accomplishments. Whatever changes I made and am going to make over the course of the next day or two are relevant and present a more complete picture of George L. Rose continuing charitable work and other endeavors. Since you are not in possession of that information and I am, you are not in the position to judge its relevancy. My computer device crashed which perhaps may account for work in progress. When I complete my work on this page together with appropriate citation, then if you still so wish, you can chnallenge what is written. Meantime please hands off.

GLR9763Glr9763 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Glr9763, try to provide reliable sources in support of your change, and always leave an edit summary sothat others understand what you are doing. Happy editing. -AsceticRosé 03:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Rape by Gender[edit]

You undid my changes to the Gender and Rape article based on the pretext that they were vandalism and were not sufficiently explained. If you examine the Talk page for that article, under the section entitled "14 Assertions about the number of male-victim prison rapes exceeding the total number of female-victim rapes." you will see that I explained the reason for removing the Daily Mail assertion, as its figures a) do not accord with DoJ statistics about sexual assault; b) compare two different kinds of incidents under the pretext that they are equivalent. They are further contradicted by an analysis performed by Stephanie Zvan here *http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/02/12/mras-still-wrong-on-prison-rape/.

The footnote [3] that I edited just a few minutes ago was changed because it compared two numbers that were derived using different methodologies, and because it is contradicted by the Zvan analysis.

I am reverting your changes. If you can justify your reasons for leaving the Daily Mail quote in the article, please add them to the Talk page of the Rape by Gender page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holymadness (talkcontribs) 16:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Holymadness, Daily Mail is a reliable source. But the source you mentioned is a blog which is generally not considered on Wikipedia a reliable source. -AsceticRosé 15:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. It routinely publishes false information and misrepresents the content of peer-reviewed research. In this case, its article misleadingly distorts the conclusions of the 2011 DoJ report I linked to in the Talk page of the article, and is contradicted by a 2013 DoJ report about the incidence of female sexual harassment. Again, if you want to defend the Daily Mail's claims, you are free to do so in the Talk page of the Rape by Gender article.Holymadness (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


PCB Piezotronics[edit]

Hi I am trying to add content into Wikipedia about PCB Piezotroincs. I wanted to refer back to PCB's website, I'm not sure where the information would come from besides their site. I read in the rules that your not supposed to use a companies website URL, but I looked at Bruel & Kjaer's page and almost all of their references refer back to their own site. How are they doing this without there content being deleted? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emsobieraski (talkcontribs) 18:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Emsobieraski, thanks for contacting. A company's official website is sometimes used, but you must find third-party sources to add information. You can do it by searching Google. If Bruel & Kjaer's page information come from only their own site, it is a mistake and probably will be deleted by someone. Your addition looked like an advertisement which in not accepted on Wikipedia because Wikipedia's goal is not to promote anything/anyone but to uphold information in a neutral way. Headings like "What does PCB mean?", "What is Piezoelectricity", "Who are PCB's Customers?", "How are PCB Sensors Use?" are not accepted in any encyclopedia, and can be converted to Meaning of PCB, Piezoelectricity, PCB Customers, Use of PCB Sensors respectively. Comments like We consider PCB customers to be our friends... must be avoided, and should be written in a neutral way. You can look Apple Inc. for example. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 04:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

New section[edit]

I am Manya and I know my personal life better than you. If paparazzi had wrong information about me, you do not need to change my information. I am a US citizen now and if you do not leave my page alone, I will gave to take legal action. ----

Dear Manya, here on Wikipedia, we go by reliable sources. I reverted your deletion of some texts because they were sourced. If you think you were right, please provide reliable sources in support of your edit, or discuss on the article's talk page. And be sure that legal threats do NOT work on Wikipedia. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 17:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources you have cited are from film news that is inaccurate. I know how to take action, be it wiki or whatever. You are intruding into my private life. I am not going to put my marriage certificate and birth certificate on file to prove my point.You said " If you think you were right, please provide reliable sources in support of your edit." In the USA, date of birth and private information is confidential. Do you think anyone will have media/public sources to support such facts? I am Manya and you are talking about me! Do you think you know me better than myself just because some media articles write whatever they want? Lets see what works legally when you try to edit false information about me on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manyabjp (talkcontribs) 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Manyabjp, on Wikipedia, reliable sources mean books, newspaper/journal articles etc., not private certificates. There should be some newspaper articles which you can use in support of your editing. You can discuss on the article's talk page. No, I don't know you better than yourself, but On Wikipedia, we make edits following its own rules. An wiki-article is not your property. Again, threats do NOT work on Wikipedia. Let's try. -AsceticRosé 18:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

As I read the guidelines, anything that infringes copyright may be deleted. As a writer with 40 years experience, I take copyright infringement seriously.

On the other hand, I reasoned that massive deletions would be mis-characterized as vandalism, and the article would be reverted. And comments on the talk page are taken as seriously as someone reporting to the customer service desk that the restroom is filthy. The whole point of the sign asking shoppers to tell customer service that the john is filthy is that it's cheaper to post a sign once than to keep cleaning the john regularly. There's usually ample evidence that the john hasn't been cleaned in a month.

So my notice that the page in violation of 17 USC is disruptive, but the notices that say "citation needed" are not? Why do I get the feeling that if I checked the page history, I'd find that the thief who put that page together with all that stolen content was you?

Kindly remove your foil-lined hat and defecate in it before returning it to your head. It's vandalizing pages like this reversion that gives Wikipedia such a slimy reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.193.238.99 (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

rv[edit]

Where's the vandalism in this? 93.139.61.85 (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

First, you did not explain what your edit was about. Why were you putting the word Serbian all over? What is your reference? -AsceticRosé 12:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I was not putting it all over, I was putting it there where it ought to be. The page is about linguistic borrowings and influences that are part of the Balkan Sprachbund. Some of the examples only apply to very specific forms of Serbo-Croatian and not to all or even majority of Serbo-Croatian. I added Serbian there were the examples can only be true for the Serbian standard language and for Serbian colloquial language, and where they're not true for other standard varieties of Serbo-Croatian.
As for reference, Serbo-Croatian grammar and Comparison_of_standard_Bosnian,_Croatian_and_Serbian#Infinitive_vs._subjunctive are quite exhaustive and the latter link in particular shows that the things that I marked as Serbian are part of Serbian but not of other varieties. 93.136.1.243 (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit to the "Mirror Image" page, today[edit]

Hello, I have just noticed that you've removed my "improvements".

I thought my changes were quite helpful really. Please contact me sometime. There's no hurry to do so. Robert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert James 2014 (talkcontribs) 13:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robert, thanks for coming here. It was removed for several reasons. Your added content was unsourced. For scientific information, we need to provide reliable sources. Second, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, its language should be encyclopedic. Sentences like Look at the photograph of the pottery vessel, and For example, look at a page of writing and then turn it... are not accepted. Rather, the previous language was neutral which you changed. Again, you should not write This article is about images in plane (flat) mirrors. You should not create too many single-sentence paragraph.
Of course, Wikipedia appreciates your contributions. However, we have to do so following the policies. See Five pillars of Wikipedia, neutral point of view, no original research, providing reliable sources, What Wikipedia is not. -AsceticRosé 17:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Your message to me about my contribution to the "Mirror image" page.[edit]

Hello Ascetic Rose,

                 Thanks for your message. Editing this page was my first attempt at editing Wikipedia.

As I suspected, it's just too much hassle, from my point of view. It will be a very long time before I try again.

                 Perhaps you could put a note on this article suggesting that it requires improvement.

Best Wishes, Robert.

PS: I can't do the acute accent on Rose on my computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.235.65.1 (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

hello[edit]

Welcome ascetic rose, finally you are returned among us. Wikipedia needs users like you. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.186.199 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Okean Elzy[edit]

Hi, You reverted an edit by me as "Vandalizm". Why do you think the detailed announcement of a local tour from last year is so important? This is dated information, as there is no hint if this tour actually took place. And an Ukraine-tour isn't something special for a ukrainian band. E.g. this year according to their website they have concerts in USA and Europe. This would have been much more noteworthy. Unless you gave some reasons, i plan to revert your revert in a few days. Thanks. Арвед (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was not a vandalism. After careful observation, I agree it can be removed. Thanks Арвед for pointing that out. -AsceticRosé 15:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

New section[edit]

I originally posted an article about a minor that editors have marked for deletion. After viewing the comments that were harmful i removed the proposed article. Maybe I did it wrong but I was trying to obey the guidelines and was complying with deletion. Maybe you can help me due to the circumstances as the minor subject should not be injured by the process in which they are not involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanford2000 (talkcontribs) 16:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stanford2000, you must not blank a page in any circumstances. Blanking a page does not delete it. You can add more information on it. And most probably, the page will be able to avoid deletion. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 02:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)