User talk:AsceticRose

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Susiedarling (talk | contribs) at 17:26, 21 July 2014 (→‎your message to me: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

Hi

Hi, many thanks for your contributions and Ramadan Mubarak! I just added an image to Holy Spirit (Islam), there are many pages in template:Muhammad, some of them need attention, for example page splitting of the moon is written as if Muhammad (p.b.u.h) really did split the moon, the page even shows an image of a crater in the moon, what do you think?Kiatdd (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear from you again, Kiatdd. Yes, the Ramadan has commenced. The image you added is nice, though images are discouraged in Islam. What is your view? About the article Splitting of the moon, it presents various views of Muslim scholars, and may be balanced. And Muslims believe that Muhammad (p.b.u.h) really did split the moon. The image is from Nasa and must be real. Now, it is not necessary that the shown split-line must be that one believed by Muslims. But Muslims do believe the miracle.--AsceticRosé 04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gautier Juynboll was a professor of Islamic studies, the focus of his research was hadith. Here is a summary of what he has written in page 483 and 484 of his book encyclopedia of canonical hadith [1]:

a person named Shu'ba is common link and may therefore be held responsible for the wording of this tradition...the matn (text) pertains to one of the recognized miracles ascribed to Muhammad of which there is however no trace in sira (of ibn ishaq) an observation that seems to tally neatly with Shu'ba's suggested authorship of the wording. It is surely unthinkable that the compiler of sira of ibn ishaq who died some 10 years before shu'ba would neglect to record a miracle allegedly worked by Muhammad if he had heard of it...In Tafsir Tabari there are several reports about verse 54:1-2 and its association with the alleged miracle. According to tabari two of the reports are allegedly transmitted by Mujahid (d.718)...There are two good reasons for not linking Mujahid with it. Firstly, Mujahid's Tafsir now separately available does not corroborate the mujahid report on this matter from tabari. Mujahid's name is absent from the isnad strand supporting the crucial explanation. Secondly the two reports of Mujahid in Tabari are headed by two consecutive transmitters who are generally held to be unreliable: Mihran Abi Umar and Muhammad Humayd, so identifying the said interpretation with Mujahid is to be rejected.

and here is the most important part of Juynboll's analysis:

the story about the miracle may therefore be considered to have come into existence about half-way the eight century...strictly speaking when the most stringent criteria underlying the concept of tawatur (trustworthiness) are brought to bear it falls far short of that qualification.

Juynboll's analysis says that the story of splitting of the moon virtually didn't exist before mid eight century CE, i.e. around the year 750 CE and considering the fact that Muhammad (pbuh) lived from 570 to 632 CE, we conclude that the miracle came into existence about 120 years after his death.Kiatdd (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian scholar Al-Suyuti in his book Al-Khasais-ul-Kubra has mentioned this miracle. This book is a collection of all the miracles of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that could be tracked down by various reliable sources. A Urdu version of the book is available online. Muslim scholar Muhammad Shafi Usmani in his Tafsir book Maariful Quran has also discussed about this and ruled that this event is true. The relevant part of this Tafsir book can be downloaded from here. From http://www.islamibayanaat.com/EMQ.htm this website, you can download the whole MQ. My comment is that about some remote historical events it is difficult to say what actually happened. So a believer’s notion should be that he believes what actually then happened by the will of Allah. Personally I believe the miracle because the holy Quran in 54:1-2 mentions it and Muslim scholars – whom we rely upon for Islamic sharia rulings – have verified this.
You didn’t say what your notion is about the images.
Earlier, we had a discussion about the importance of Quranic explanation. There is a book The Authority of Sunnah by Muhammad Taqi Usmani. A pdf is also available online. You can read it.--AsceticRosé 10:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Qur'anic exegetes agree on relating 54:1-2 to the story but a consensus may be ignored in the light of evidence from research. Knowledge is about evidence, not consensus. BTW, I found another source, chapter 2 of Cambridge companion to Muhammad(pbuh)[2] by Uri Rubin, pages 39-60, I haven't read that yet but I think we can update page:s.o.m based on Rubin's and Juynboll's works. we will probably edit s.o.m, would you mind adding it to your watchlist.Thanks.Kiatdd (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(p.s. the images in page Muhammad(pbuh) is per consensus, have you seen the consensus page?)

Aisha

I looked at reference #20, it shows ten hadiths in english translation, all of the hadiths except one say that Aisha was married at the age of 6. So only one hadith says that she was engaged at 6. As for that one hadith that says she was engaged, the translation is incorrect. The hadith which I speak of is this. (Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234: ) http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/058-sbt.php#005.058.234

Now, if you can read Arabic, you can go to this site and read that same hadith in Arabic and it says married, not engaged. http://sunnah.com/urn/36400

If you cant read Arabic, just copy and paste it into google translate and it will give you the same thing. http://translate.google.com/

Also, you will find that the scholars on Islam QA translated that hadith into married. http://islamqa.info/en/ref/1493

Conclusion:

Clearly the Prophet had a wife, not a fiancee. Out of 10 of those hadiths in reference #20, only 1 said engaged instead of married, and that translation wasn't correct. So the Aisha page should say married instead of "betrothed".

I'd like to finish with a saying from the Prophet himself:

“Whoever lies about me deliberately, let him take his place in Hell.”

108.89.20.139 (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been moved at article's talk-page.--AsceticRosé 10:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al Khasais-ul-Kubra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian (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) 11:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition in the Sayeedi Article

The lead contains the info of conviction twice:

"On 28 February 2013, the tribunal sentenced him to death by hanging for two charges among the eight committed during the 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh.[5][6][7]The tribunal has been criticized as well as supported by international observers.[8][9][10][11] Sayeedi was convicted on 8 charges on 28 February 2013 and was sentenced to death for two of the charges."

check it

-- রাহাত | ✉ 07:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking it...--AsceticRosé 08:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it contained the information twice. I've self reverted it. User:Ctg4Rahat, many thanks for pointing that out, and my sincere apology for the mistake.--AsceticRosé 09:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to you

Would you mind explaining why you edited State of Palestine in the way you did? Your edit summary said you thought the "previous language was better", but I can't see why. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Chicago Style (without pants), first of all, there is not yet a clear consensus at talk-page to change this. Second, I fear you are reluctant to give it the status of a "state" which your previous edits and edit-summaries tell, and your changing the lead has been seen to achieve that.
I see, in a previous version of the article, the article started like The State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين‎ Dawlat Filasṭin),[3][1][2] is a country located in the Middle East bordering Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. I'm not sure when and why that was changed, but in my view, that was better.
Until you guys come up with any alternative and undisputed lead sentence, the present should remain there to clarify that it is a state; albeit I recognize that this sentence might be slightly awkward to read!--AsceticRosé 16:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Ascetic Rose. The edit by Chicago Style was immature one, just trying to put a certain Point of view. Faizan 08:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a POV to call State of Palestine a state. It isn't universally recognized as such, and also has little control of the area it claims. In addition, Hamas claims to be the legitimate government of that area, and has an election victory to back it up.
The lead of the article should reflect the controversy, not ignore it. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not POV, Chicago Style. Rather what you are trying to insert is POV. You wrote … is the state claimed by the Palestinian leadership. Now, is it only the leadership who claims this and not the citizens? Why such disrespect towards a persecuted and terrorized nation? Try to have respect towards others, man. And assume good faith on Wikipedia.--AsceticRosé 08:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read over your comment. Do you really think you should be involved in this debate? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit has been reverted for the 3dr time by another editor! I think you should reconsider your position, CS. Please note that we make discussion on Wikipedia, and not debate. Is there any policy on Wikipedia that prohibits an user from participating in any specific article? -AsceticRosé 09:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You called the Palestinian territories a "a persecuted and terrorized nation". Kind of shows a bias, no? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apply water to your burnChicago Style (without pants) (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Al-Suyuti may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *''[[Al-Khasais-ul-Kubra]]'' which mentions the miracles of Islamic prophet [Muhammad]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ibn Tahir of Caesarea may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • l-ansab''. Dar al-Kotb al-Ilmieh, 1991. [[Arabic language|Arabic]]. 225 pages.<ref>[[Amazon.de]], [http://www.amazon.de/Al-Mutalif-wa-l-mukhtalaf-fi-l-ansab-al-Maqdisi-al-Qaisarani/dp/B004C2LSEO Al-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one

Since the page Kaaba adds the quote of "Eduard Glaser", regarding the black stone, how about if we add the quotes of any different authors that i have suggested in the page? Because they probably hold as much credibility in there point of view. Capitals00 (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an opinion disputed by other scholars. Even Eduard used the phase may have been. I've already presented my arguments there. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 17:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

help!!

can you help me by correcting wiki-table / hereBaltistani (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What help do you need? I don't see any table. You are about to create a new article with probably a wrong format.--AsceticRosé 10:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Baltistani, I've partially solved it. --AsceticRosé 10:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ThanksBaltistani (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Job in Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mansura (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) 10:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assalam- o - Alaikum

Hello, I have just answered (well I hope) your question on the rollback talk page. Prabash.Akmeemana 21:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, AsceticRose, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Faizan 06:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

سوسان

هذا مملکتی و انت عرب انا لا اقول شی ء فی تاریخ القوام العرب بل انت یقول فی تاریخ الاقوام الایرانی بلا معرفه انت اجنبی فی تاریخ مملکتی هل انت محتاج بالعلم فی تاریخ مملکتی قل لاصدقائک الفارسی لبحث فی اقوام الترکی الایرانی انا من ازربایجان واراد لیتغییر تاریخ الجعلی الفارسی الشونیستی اقراء فی وب سایتی www.sumerturk .blogfa.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.186.128.55 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit in Balance (game design)

Hi, I saw that you reverted this edit from an anonymous user as a good faith edit. What was wrong with that edit? If it's not obvious what is wrong with an edit that is reverted, it's good practice to write an explanation of why the edit is reverted in the edit summary field. —Kri (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kri, actually the edit didn't seem to me consistent with the previous information, and it was without any citation. If you still think that was correct, you can restore it, or may tell me to do so. Thanks. --AsceticRosé 22:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Please remember to leave a motivation whenever you revert someone else's edits in the future, though. Well, I understand that you question the correctness of the statement, it actually seems incorrect to me. However, I think the sentence could have been reformulated instead of removed, as it had a point. As for the consistency, it referred to the first-move advantage which had previously been mentioned in the paragraph, so it was definitely consistent with the previous information. As for referencing, the template {{fact}} can be used if a claim needs a citation, so the sentence desn't have to be removed. I will see if I can weave in komidashi in the paragraph in some useful way without making any claim that's dubious. —Kri (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --AsceticRosé 04:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Muhammad

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jeppiz (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no edit war, rather a misunderstanding. This message was unnecessary. And the issue in now resolved!--AsceticRosé 06:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Re:Jeppiz) Actually user:Amatulic violated 3RR and can be reported to 3RR noticeboard, It is okay to remove unsourced or poorly sourced content as AsceticRose did. That's really nice of AsceticRose not reporting Amatulic. Kiatdd (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the article of Mecca

Hi....

so you reverted my edit in "Mecca" article for some reason, you showed the opinion that says that book was a 10th century product, and I showed the other opinion that says it's a 3rd century BC product

I just don't see the point of omitting the other opinion, we must tell both sides of the story, I reverted the article again Omar amross (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omar amross, first, your added info said the book about was written in 3rd BCE whereas Moses article says Prophet Musa was born around 1391–1271 BCE. How can a book be written about a person thousand years before his birth? Second, you used that said book as a reference to indicate the book's composition date. This is actually impossible. I'm not sure what you are trying to say by adding the information.
In Mecca article, the early history of Mecca is very poorly & shortly narrated from Islamic tradition, about the fact that it was established by Prophet Abraham and Ishmael's descendants. It wold be better if you can expand that with proper sources. Thanks.--AsceticRosé 04:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I see where you mis-understood my statement, I said that the book was about 3rd CENTURY BCE, Not 3rd MILLENNIUM BCE
Hope I made it clear....besides, I didn't use the book itself to prove the date, it was actually the opinion of Professor Moses Gaster, he was the one who dated the book to the 3rd CENTURY BCE, his book contains translation of the original manuscript, and then a detailed study about its content
the book was titled as "Book of Asatir", but that doesn't mean it contains only an English translation of original content, it contains whole chapters written Professor Moses Gaster where he puts his opinions and the conclusions of his study about this work Omar amross (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


P.S: since we have already explained the misunderstanding concerning the article, I will revert it again
Thank you for your time and understanding Omar amross (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--AsceticRosé 18:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sarai Alamgir may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''Sarai Alamgir''' ([[Punjabi language|Punjabi]], [[Urdu]]: '''سرائے عالمگیر''') (pop. 175, 288 (as per DCR 1998) is the chief town of the [[tehsil]] of the [[Sarai Alamgir Tehsil|
  • Shakreela Shareef, Gorian, Hattar, Jaggu Head, Jaggu, Dandi Nazam, Dandi Bazar, Nakka Bhagali, [[Choa Rajgan,Phullarwan,Bulani,Pirkhana,Rajr Kalan,Bawali, Karyala, Meh kalan, Nai abadi, GIAL BALA

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Urdu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tontogany, Ohio

Hi. I appreciate you removing my edits to the page under a "Good Faith" category. However, these edits are quite factual. Please check my references. The first may not exist as the correct link was lost, but the Full House quote is in fact true. Thank you and Happy Editing!!!

Ipodtouchboy18 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ipodtouchboy18, thanks for contacting me. The edit was reverted because that was not appropriate for Wikipedia. You can see two important policies: reliable sources and guidelines about biography of living persons). Your first source was a blog which is generally is not used as a source. The second portion of your edit had the similar problem: anything that insults or likely to insult a person is generally not accepted without reliable sources. I see your previous edit of similar case was reverted by another user months ago.
Your last two sources do not say anything you added. I'm leaving a message on your talk-page with some useful links. You will find some guidelines by reading them. Cheers. --AsceticRosé 22:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar

Congratulations, AsceticRose! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 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 -- t numbermaniac c 05:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Visakha Valley School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red light (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) 10:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User 96.248.15.44

Hello, I see you reported 96.248.15.44 to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Well he's back and continuing to add in his preferred edit. If I revert again I will be at 3RR so I was wondering if this should go back to the notice board or is some other action the correct way to go? Thanks. --Daffydavid (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This IP seems to be extremely problematic and stubborn. I'm trying to make him/her understand through talk-page. Let's wait and see what happens...--AsceticRosé 10:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution to the saltine cracker challenge was correct. My 1st contribution and you undo it for what reason? How is correcting bad information not constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grndzro (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grndzro, sorry to learn it was your first edit. It was undone because you deleted some sourced information, and inserted your own in a way to appear the previous source supports it. It is not accepted. Second, if you don't provide source in support of your info, how will we know that the edit is correct?
Please try to contact as soon as possible. Eight-day period is long to track down the edit. Thanks. --AsceticRosé 17:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Eida Mubarak

Assalamu Alaikum....

I wish a happy Eid filled with joy & happiness to you, your family, your friends and loved ones

May Allah have accepted you "Sawm" and "Salah" Omar amross (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eid Mubarak

Your comments in that RM just removed some wrong perceptions from my mind about you. Thanks. Eid Mubarak. --Zayeem (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re;

Thank you very much and Eid Mubarak to you.Kiatdd (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salah

I would like to know why you reversed my edit concerning Mohammed Salah.I did not lie or launch a personal attack on him.I simply stated a fact.Unless you are anti-semetic yourself of course.Many Muslims hate Jews and all other non-Muslims are you one of them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundsgreenboy (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boundsgreenboy, first of all, please note that we don't make any edit based on racial consideration, rather we follow Wikipedia policies. In case of living persons, it is not appropriate to use In a shocking display of racism... which you did. Second, any crucial claim must be supported by proper sources which you didn't provide. Again, we have to write them in a neutral tone, not like a personal comment. I provided clear edit summary as to why I reverted that. You should have followed them.
I see you tried to add your personal comment for a second time which has been reverted again by another user here calling it vandalism. Please study Wikipedia policies and you will learn more about how to contribute properly to Wikipedia. Thanks. --AsceticRosé 05:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STiki emergency

Hi

page:Muhammad's first revelation was a mess! I tried to clean up as much as possible, would you mind having a look at the page I may have missed something there.Kiatdd (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Kiatdd, nice to hear from you again. Yes I'll have a look whenever I'll get time. Thanks for letting me know.--AsceticRosé 02:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Richard Armitage page

Hello,

I saw you caught and reverted the attack against me on the Richard Armitage webpage. Thank you!:)

Is there anyway to remove it from the editing history entirely?

Also, they posted the same thing on my user page. Of course I can remove it, but I'm wondering if the ISP the person was using can be banned?

Thanks again for your help,

~ KiplingKat/Jenny — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiplingKat (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered at your talk-page. -AsceticRosé 16:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if you know if I can...

..or if you know who I can talk to about this.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiplingKat (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the arbitration committee

Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiplingKat (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing

Why are you pushing for State of Palestine to be called "sovereign"? That word means that a state has actual control. The PLO does not have actual control of the West Bank, and certainly not the Gaza Strip. What is up? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was added by another user, but I support it. State of Palestine is included in List of sovereign states. It is recognized by 132 states. By your own POV editings, you have made it hard for your views to be accepted by others. Now, your edits on Palestine-related articles will most probably be reverted quickly. Happy editing! -AsceticRosé 17:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine is not included as an "observer state". To quote List of sovereign states, "The proclaimed state has no agreed territorial borders, or effective control on the territory that it proclaimed". Therefore, it isn't sovereign. Many states agree that it should be recognized, but right now the PLO doesn't have control of more than a part of the West Bank and no control of the Gaza Strip. In addition, Wiki pages are not sources. I called it a state with limited recognition, because it is not universally recognized. There are many nations that see it as a rump state at best.
You are pushing POV because you are trying to say "IT IS A STATE, It IS A STATE" when the issue is more complicated. If you can't see the nuance and edit accordingly, please stay out of Israel/Palestine related articles. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are really being reverted quickly by others! Happy editing CS!--AsceticRosé 04:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Others are pushing the same POV" is not an answer. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You know AsceticRose, the problem with wiki articles is that they are too many! it seems impossible to fix all the problems and we are only a handful of editors, just take a look at the first line of page:Muhammad's views on slavery, I am pretty sure that in the Quran slavery is criticized, and I don't believe that Muhammad owned 50 slaves, Perhaps the word 'servant' is mistranslated to slave, I am not sure. Would you mind having a quick look.Kiatdd (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the article Muhammad's views on slavery and I was appalled by its present condition. You are right: it is deeply problematic. I was wondering again and again, but could not find any solution. The lead is not a lead at all. The article wrongly contains huge original research. Many of its sources are not to be accepted at all. It wrongly contains imaginary long list of so-called slaves. Probably you are right: the word 'servant' is mistranslated to slave. Now, what to do? -AsceticRosé 13:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to look through the sources all over again, the article gives over 80 sources, many items are repeated (for example a book by Muir). We need to take a look at the following sources:

  • Sahih Bukhari: the artcile refers to hadiths number:8-73-68, 8-73-182 ([[3]), 7-65-344 ([4]), 7-65-346 ([5]). None of them appear to support the claims. The arabic equivalent 'gholam' seems to mean a 'young man'.Kiatdd (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You Think Im Scared of You

You are pathetic. Just cause I pointed out the flaws about the Abu Bakr article which clearly has multiple issues with it and just cause you don't like the circle calligraphy image, your gonna report me. Im so scared (sarcasm). Peace. Zabranos (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Hi AsceticRose - thanks for your comment on my proposed addition to the Jesus in Islam article. I'm actually brand new to wikipedia so really appreciate your comments. I have gone into the talk aspect of the message and listed some proposed changes for the first few sentences of the article in hopes that people will give me some feedback before I bluster ahead with any more ideas. do let me know when you think if you have the time. Best wishes, Gabarker (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ascetic Rose - I'm new to wikipedia so thanks for caring enough to comment. I've done as you've suggested and left a few comments in the talk section (3rd part) of the Islam article - do let me know what you think if you have a chance, best wishes, Gabarker (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Protocol

Hi again. Many thanks for the fine suggestions. I have read the guidelines and like them very much. Thanks too for your comments on my proposals - I have added a comment there on the talk page just under yours to provide a reference. You mention making the changes to the article and I am curious about how this works. Are you a "lead editor" (does such a thing exist in Wikipedia)? Or can I make the change myself? It isn't essential that I make the change myself but I am just curious as to the politics of making changes. Look forward to hearing from you Gabarker Gabarker (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk-page. -AsceticRosé 18:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - many thanks for the reply! I appreciate all of your tips. Yes, I have tried out a few edits but wondered if the Jesus in Islam might be different. Thanks for clarifying all of that. I hear what you are saying about privacy - and I may end up going that way, but for now I will try being public. Yes, real life does have its challenges! But, like you, I feel that wikipedia is a fantastic way of being connected to our ever-changing world . Best wishes, Gabarker (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peace

And sorry for anything I did toy hurt you. Peace. Zabranos (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I am Musarabbyahmed. There is a mistake in the temperatures in cities. So I want to fix this temperatures in cities. Than who hell are you to saying me? Oil in your own machine. Understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musarabbyahmad (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rabby

Hi, I am Musarabbyahmed. Who the hell are you to saying me? What did I done for you? There is a mistake and shits in the temperatures. All the recorded temperatures are wrongful. So I want to fix this temperatures to clean the Wikipedia and protect the shits and mistakes of Wikipedia. Hope you will be understand. So sorry for rebuking you. Oil in your own machine. Musarabbyahmad (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning has been issued at Musarabyahmad's talk-page. The user appears to be engaged in disruptive editing. -AsceticRosé 06:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rabby, waiting for finish you

There are mistakes in Wikipedia. So I want to fix it. Don't threat me and get lost here. This is not your pursue. I am telling you oil in your own machine. Wikipedia is not your demand. This is my demand, I mean you are a mad, you'll need to admit in the mental institution. I don't know what is that? Why they removing and erasing my edits. Get lost here and oil in your own machine. (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musarabbyahmad (talk • contribs) 09:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptive editings are being reverted from all sides. You are on the verge of being blocked. -AsceticRosé 13:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Musarabbyahmad is blocked now!! -AsceticRosé 15:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Musarabbyahmad is blocked again for a second time!! -AsceticRosé 04:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you have been blocked indefinitely and your talk-page access has been revoked! -AsceticRosé 10:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of bad faith

The Muhammad article is a very controversial article and always will be - at least in our lifetimes. Therefore, it is even more important than on other articles that we focus on content, policy and reason.

I haven't looked much at that article or its talk page for a year or so, so I'm not sure what the atmosphere is like at the moment.

Did you know that discretionary sanctions apply to content related to Muhammad, per this arbitration case? These are applied in contentious areas to try to keep all involved on their best behavior. It means

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; imposition of mandated external review; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

So, if someone is behaving rudely or otherwise not following our editorial and behavior norms, you may point out the discretionary sanctions, and if they continue to misbehave, you may take the problem to an uninvolved administrator who should be able to solve the problem quickly. So there should never be any need for you to stoop to less than perfect manners on a topic under discretionary sanctions. (Sorry if you already knew this - but if you didn't, I think it's quite useful information.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not into editing wars

so if you have nothing better to do ,dont use your point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1RR on Palestinian

Hi AsecticRose, just a friendly reminder that Palestinian people has a 1RR rule, so you should revert your last edit. The edit you reverted will most likely be reverted anyways soon by another editor as it was an addition of POV. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

palestinains

What are you talking about? i gave some sources from inside of the palestnian leadership denying the existence of the palestian people,no spam,no removel of information.

please be more clear --Dorpwnz (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

Good work in cleaning up bored student vandalism on the Reindeer and Asian Black Bear pages. Davemc50 (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devotional language

I'm a little confused with these edits [6]. I'm sure you know of Wikipedia:PBUH#Muhammad, so I was just wondering about your reasoning? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atethnekos, thanks for coming here. The first reversion was made as it was an interference with the sourced info, and the IP did not clarify what was his intention. And the word last is generally used as per Muslim belief, and found in reliable sources. However, as per manual, I've corrected the second reversion. Thanks for pointing that.-AsceticRosé 00:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But in Ahmadiyya Muslim belief, isn't Mirza Ghulam Ahmad considered the last prophet, not Muhammad? Wouldn't the article be better not to disregard the non-orthodox views? If we just remove the "last prophet" description, then we will not be saying something which is partly rejected by the reliable sources, but will it be any more ambiguous as to whom is meant? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They may claim, but their claim is rejected by the rest of Muslim communities. They comprise only 1% of the Muslim population, but the other Muslim communities even don't consider them Muslims because some of their beliefs go opposite of the mainstream. So their claim is not free from controversy. Besides, the reliable sources very clearly say Muhammad (pbuh) as the last prophet. Some of them are:
So, it is not understood how the claim of the 1% will override the claim of the 99%. In any way, I'm not eager to engage myself in any such debate because no amount of argument is going change my view. As for rendering in Wikipedia, I like to follow logic (1% is not even a match for 99%) and reliable sources. Thanks Atethnekos for discussing this. --AsceticRosé 15:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if no argument will change your view, then I must depart. Thanks. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified myself at User talk:Atethnekos's talk-page. -AsceticRosé 17:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I never meant to say something hurtful. I just thought that you were saying that your judgement about your edit was final. To be clear: I have no interest (nor do I think it is within policy) to debate what actually is the case in these matters.
So I don't think the 1% should override the 99%. The Ahmadiyya view does not have to override in order to be not be neglected. For example if the sentence was changed to: "In Islam, Gabriel (Jibra'il) is considered one of the four archangels whom God sent with his divine message to various prophets, including the prophet Muhammad." The orthodox view is not contradicted, and neither is the Ahmadiyya view. I guess the other option would be to say "For the vast majority of Muslims, Gabriel (Jibra'il) is considered one of the four archangels whom God sent with his divine message to various prophets, including the last prophet, Muhammad." But this seems more awkward. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually 99% is almost close to all. And the belief in Muhammad’s being last prophet is a fundamental one to them. Previously, we had a long discussion about this in talk:Muhammad that ended without any result. -AsceticRosé 04:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. Would it make more sense though, at least, to say "In Islam, Gabriel (Jibra'il) is considered one of the four archangels whom God sent with his divine message to various prophets, including the last prophet, Muhammad." This way "last prophet" is being used as a description rather than as part of his name? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Agreed and done. -AsceticRosé 15:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3RR complaint

Hello AsceticRose. Please note there is an open complaint at WP:AE#DXRD. Would you consider undoing your 3RR complaint and then making a comment (if you wish) in the AE discussion? It is likely that DXRD will be blocked unless he responds at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EdJohnston for your notification. I've self-reverted that. I thought two separate reports could be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. And it is a 1RR case as Palestinian people is restricted to 1RR. -AsceticRosé 17:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The admins at AE know about the various 3RR and 1RR rules and are in a position to deal with any violations. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Biochemic tissue salt

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, Biochemic tissue salt. 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 – List of 12 Schüßler cell salts. 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 List of 12 Schüßler cell salts – you might like to discuss new information 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, 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. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm MrBill3. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Biochemic tissue salt, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Biomedical content requires WP:MEDRS quality references. Caution should be taken not to include promotional content. MrBill3 (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are the best editor of Wikipedia

Assalamualaikum, how are u? Can I contact you by e mail? I can not find your email. However, nowadays there aren't real muslim wikipedian. I have seen so many muslim wikipedians so far, such as user mezzomezzo, massly, an others..., but in my opinion they are not doing right thing. They are using Wikipedia for raising their edits or for other edits. The truth is that I have seen most of your contributions, and I admit that I have never seen an muslim Wikipedian like you so far in my life. You are using Wikipedia for Islam, inshallah you will be paid in hereafter. You are the BEST WIKIPEDIAN and you are my favourite. Continue to do right thing. Fiamanillah. Djpss (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Finally, you returned. 86.185.3.93 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to vote on an article

hello. since you are an editor of the article Ammar ibn Yasir, would you be interested in voting for it to make it a featured article or not? thank you for your time Grandia01 (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I noticed you reverting vandalism on an article in my watchlist, and I was curious about your beautiful username which led me to click my way to your talk page. Thanks for your edits. Pine✉ 07:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The right thing in the wrong way

I saw your edit and the edit summary. I completely agree with your edit, but resent your referral to WP:POINT. A shame you couldn't do the right thing without making personal assumptions. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know your concern Debresser. Ok, the wording may be wrong. If so, my apology! -AsceticRosé 17:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2023 and others

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

your message to me

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AsceticRose&oldid=617872254"