User talk:Aciram

Archives (index)

2007: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Hi Aciram. Thank you for your work on Venetian slave trade. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aciram. Thank you for your work on Prague slave trade. Another editor, Noorullah21, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Excellent work! Great quality of an article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Noorullah21}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Noorullah (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aciram. Thank you for your work on Slavery in the Umayyad Caliphate. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Meylişah Hatun. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and this articles needs inline citations per WP:ILC. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. FULBERT (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aciram,

Thank you for creating Volga Bulgarian slave trade.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for this article. It looks like an interesting topic. Please add some more sources and only use one reference per source as per WP:REFNAME.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Simongraham}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

simongraham (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] 

A tag has been placed on Category:History of slavery by century indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:People by century in Louisiana indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

legitimately i have no idea what happened there; i definitely did not delete all of egypt! what is going on Ogress 12:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It may be an innocent mistake on your part, but the chapter about Egypt was indeed deleted, even if it was done by accident, so I had to revert your edit.--Aciram (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No absolutely, i have no idea how that happened, of course it needed to be reverted. I'll take a look later and try to figure out what mistake I made. Ogress 13:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. That sounds good!--Aciram (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:19th-century Czech actors indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aciram, I was the NPP reviewer who came across Slavery in the Rashidun Caliphate and I began to do some cleanup in regards to references but was having some troubles. I've since self-reverted my changes, but I began to implement {{cite book}} in your bibliography. You can see my proposed changes here: Special:Diff/1230234296 which were semi-automated. My plan was to then implement the citation style {{sfn}} for some of the repeated references you used in the inline citations.

I'm curious if you were aware of the {{sfn}} citation style, as I think it would be greatly beneficial in this article; or if you would like a hand in implementing it. Let me know, I think you did a good job on that article.

Kindly, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MicrobiologyMarcus. Thank you. I freely admit that the formatting side on wikipedia is not my strongest side. Technicalities and formatting is difficult to me, and I tend to focus more on writing, the text and content as such, rather than formatting styles. I do appreciate your effort, as well as the effort of any other contributor who wishes to participate in the article with their own areas of expertise. One of the strenghts of wikipedia is that we all contribute with what we are best at, and focus on different things. After all, an article on Wikipedia can never be fully completed. This article will probably be expanded further by me with content, but as to the formatting, I would only appreciate the help you wish to give! Kindly, --Aciram (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome! You're right, that is a great strength of the project.

I'll give you some background, I semi-automatically loaded each book by search term into the RefToolbar and used the ISBN to automatically import all the details into the {{cite book}} template. As such, if you open this sandbox page with the Source Editor, you'll see each of the strings surrounded by {{ }} curly brackets. This tells the page to present it using a template. In short, you give the differing parts of the code different values. Each value is separated by a pipe character. So |first1=Joe |last1=Smith tells the template that the book was written by Joe Smith. Templates are handy because it allows you to repeatedly format things easily, like placing years in brackets or italicizing publishers. You can also link as you would regular text so that |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]| presents as Cambridge University Press in your citation, i.e.: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Heng |first1=Geraldine |title=The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages |date=2018 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=9781108381710}}</ref> lets you cite this.^[1] And then the references look like this:

There's a longer explainer on WP:REFB.

The problem that I had was that I noticed when I pulled them in, some of the references looked incorrect, with regard to year, etc. Therefore, for the next steps then, would you mind taking a look at the temporary sandbox I've set up at User:MicrobiologyMarcus/sandbox/formatpractice and going through those and correcting anything that doesn't match up with the (presumably) hard copies you used in creating your article? This would be easiest done using the Source Editor and confirming that each year/isbn etc is correct or correcting it manually?

Having this done, would allow us to progress to the next stage of using the {{sfn}} page identifier template on the article, and that the pages are actually correct as opposed to possibly incorrect from the ones that I loaded automatically.

Thanks, and if you have any questions, please let me know! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled across this discussion because Aciram's talk page is still on my watchlist, and something (I already can't recall what) piqued my interest on my watchlist. I just wanted to say, to both of you thank you for editing in the collaborative way that you are. Kindness and mutual respect and competence... I hang out at AN/ANI too much, I don't see enough of this. It's pretty much exactly like I envision the way WP is supposed to work. Cheers, both of you, just wanted you to know that you've accidentally made someone happy. Sorry for the interruption, carry on. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest, @MicrobiologyMarcus. Some of the information is copied from other articles in Wikipedia (and thus, so are their formatting, and references), and others comes from digitalized books. What I have done in the latter case, is simply to use the "citation"-function which provides a formatting I will trust is correct for a citation. I am afraid that this is more or less as far as I am able to go when it comes to formatting: to show where I have gotten the information, from which book, and which page number of that book. That seem to be the best ambition I can have for the moment, and perhaps it is sufficient. What I can do in the future to make it even more clear, is to link the digitalized book.

When it comes to formatting and such technicalities, I am afraid it is difficult for me to do more than the basic minimum. I will not be offended if any of the information I have added are removed, if the reference does not sufficiently show from where the information is, though I do, and will continue to do my best to provide that much. But I have to say my energy does not permit me to give much more time to formatting. My are of expertise is rather text and information, and I am grateful that there are others who focus on the are of formatting, were I am weak. I will not be offended if you, nore anyone else, will correct my article in that regard. That is after all in line with wikipedia's principle, that we all contribute together with what we are able.

I am sorry if I dissapoint you with this, but feel I must be honest. Thank you again for your kind words! --Aciram (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yourself, @Floquenbeam, for your words. I believe we hade the same opinions about wikipedia: one of the things I have always appreciated most, is the principle of collaboration to complete and article. I just wish I had more energy to respond to @MicrobiologyMarcus kind efforts in a better way.--Aciram (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“secret society of lesbians in Paris called the Sect of Anandrynes, although no such group existed.” You do realise that it is stated in one of the three provided sources to the text that no such group existed? It's in the internet archive of the glbtq site, I can't recall which of the three links it is, and I can't be bothered to check. Воксад50вт (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it even necessary to say that it does not excist when it does not concern her? The sentence already say that she was falsely "claimed" to be a member of this non-excisting group. If you feel it is important, you can just add "the non-excisting society of..." rather than that sentence, which may perhaps look a bit clumsy. Adress that on the article page if you will, I'm afraid I can't be bothered with this now.--Aciram (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this category name is correct. "Destroyed" implies that they were deliberately demolished, when at least some simply fell into ruin. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the category itself: I merely created one of the subcategories of an already excisting parent category. You should adress the main category (which I did not create). --Aciram (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:15th-century Polish–Lithuanian nobility has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]