W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: M.S. Asher

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

A belated welcome!



thumb|The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm! {{smiley}} ↗

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, M.S. Asher! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions ↗. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

{{Div col|colwidth=18em}}
{{Div col end}}

If you have questions, '''{{edit|Special:MyTalk|just use this link to ask for help|section=new|preload=Help:Contents/helpmepreload|preloadtitle=Help me!}}'''; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center ↗.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Again, welcome! Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)<!-- Template:Welcome-belated -->

Introduction to contentious topics


{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''the Arab–Israeli conflict ↗''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee ↗. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators ↗ have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully and constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

<p><strong>Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days ↗, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.</strong></p><p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'', you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard ↗ or you may learn more about this contentious topic here ↗. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first -->

Nil Einne (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome!



Hi M.S. Asher! I noticed your contributions ↗ and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

{{box|color=#EBFFE9|align=left|CSS=padding:10px 20px;|I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict ↗. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic ↗ and is subject to some strict rules ↗.

'''The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict ↗, which includes discussing articles on talk pages, unless you are logged into an account that is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.'''

This prohibition is broadly construed ↗, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article ↗ on the talk page of that article or at this page ↗. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view ↗ and reliable sourcing ↗ policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people ↗ as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing ↗.
}}
{{clear}}
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

{{Clickable button|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia ↗ page covers the same topics.

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Task Center|Volunteer at the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

If you have questions, '''{{edit|Special:MyTalk|just use this link to ask for help|section=new|preload=Help:Contents/helpmepreload|preloadtitle=Help me!}}'''; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Happy editing! <!-- Template:Welcome-arbpia-->

:I should clarify I'm not convinced any of your editing is covered by the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic designation. However I'm alerting you about the restriction anyway because another editor has said it does but not properly alerted you. Nil Einne (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

October 2025



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to :Swastika ↗. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy ↗ and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npov2 --> Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
:Hello. I’m not sure what “commentary” I added. I didnt recite a source agaun because the fact that the Nazis used the term hakenkreuz was already extensively sourced in the article, nor did I remove the term swastika as was warned on the page, I simply added that description to the description below an image as well. M.S. Asher (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits to Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, your recent edits to the Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts ↗ page involved major restructuring and removal of sourced material within a contentious historical topic. I’ve rolled back to the stable, sourced version until consensus is reached. Please take any further proposed scontent changes to the Talk page first for discussion. -Aeengath (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:Hello Aeengath. What exactly was contentious about it? Several were duplicates listed twice, and the second row otherwise clearly contained non SS units under SS control. Sorry but you haven't identified anything “contentious”, who has contended otherwise? And how is clarifying a title, migrating some entries to a different subheading (where they belong), a major restructuring? Maybe it is but at least I dont see you making an argument why the edits should not be included? The only problem you seem to have is that I made a bold edit ↗ at all, but that in itself is not against any wikipedia policy and there is no special protection for this article, nor do I see “contention” in the article discussion page. M.S. Asher (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::Hi @User:M.S. Asher Your edit wasn’t a minor cleanuphttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waffen-SS_foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts&diff=1317995530&oldid=1316525599 ↗ it removed multiple sourced units (SS-Waffen-Gebirgsjäger Battalion 13, Caucasian-Muslim Legion, East Turk Formation...etc) rewrote or merged sections and reclassified divisions into new categories without prior discussion. You also altered wording like "5th SS Panzer Division Wiking" to "elements of Wiking" with no supporting source. These are substantive interpretive changes to long standing, sourced material, so per WP:BRD ↗ and WP:ONUS ↗ they need prior consensus on the article Talk Page ↗. Thank you -Aeengath (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::: Hello again. Certainly what I did was interpretive in some sense, even if it was supported from all I could tell by the nature of the sources and information in the article itself.
:::1. "elements” is a completely accurate description for the Wiking division, which was partly German and partly foreign, as is obvious by an even cursory view of the article and cited sources for that division and is already sourced in the article (“Formed by merging SS Regiment ‘Westland’ and 'Nordland'.[51] Mostly Reich Germans and Volksdeutsche.[56]”), if you mean I didnt feel the need insert those citations again right next to the unit title, when they are already present in the same column row, you are right — the previous title on its own didn’t have a direct citation next to it either. Wiking was not raised as a “foreign” or volksdeutsche unit as such like the others, it came to include foreign elements however.

:::2. I didn't call it a “minor” clean up, but you’re calling it a major restructuring? Thats a stretch.

:::3. Why exactly would SS-Waffen-Gebirgsjäger Battalion 13 be included in a list that includes the Handschar division that it was a part of already? Are you suggesting the sub units of the other SS divisions be added too? Although I see I made a mistake in that other sub-units duplicated from their organic divisions were already included in the article. I will say that I am in favor of removing all of these as such, they were organic to the other formations listed and its a duplication to list them again, as would be the case of listing each battalion under these regiments separately would be. I am however in favor of keeping the Foreign SS corps HQs listed, as the other foreign units losses were not organic to them but only operationally attached to them.

:::Fine though I will go to the talk page of the article, but it would help if you actually posed a reason for your opposition aside from the form; how exactly does someone cite a source in the article for REMOVING something that is redundant and included in the article for example? And what source is there for the title of foreign units under SS controls vs foreign SS units? The title of the former indicates NON-SS units under the SS but a more clear title would help. And see the units I moved between the two lists, such as the Serbian volunteer corps, the move was completely consistent with the formation description as given in the article and was already sourced. M.S. Asher (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Harv cite issues at 1st Muslim Brigade (Yugoslav Partisans) ↗



There is an issue with the "Vojna Enciklopedija''/Nikola Gažević cites in this article.
:Fixed it. M.S. Asher (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you. I cleared up a misspelling of the editor's name in the Sfn cites but it's all good now. - Shearonink (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3



Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1st Muslim Brigade (Yugoslav Partisans) ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croatian Home Guard ↗. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

April 2026



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from :Nazism ↗ into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing ↗ requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).{{pb}} When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an edit summary ↗ at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking ↗ to the copied page, e.g., <code>copied content from <nowiki>page name ↗</nowiki>; see that page's history for attribution</code>. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{tl|copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.{{pb}} Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia ↗. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-copying --> MCE89 (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
:I was the one who posted that content to begin with, but noted for the future. M.S. Asher (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

ANI Notice



link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> DrMelonsPhD (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)