User talk:Aciram/Archives/2014/December

Have added a historian's excerpt on the Pappenheimer trial[edit]

I saw that the article was rather unreferenced.Arildnordby (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, you do not have to tell me, as soon as the article was started, it belongs to everyone to edit. --Aciram (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough. But, from the hassle raised by another editor on the talk page, I thought you would appreciate of being vindicated in your position by an inline reference validating what you had said and defended. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice the talkpage as I do not have the article on my watchlist, but that being said - thank you! --Aciram (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Francisca Zubiaga y Bernales[edit]

Hi, I'm Jmbranum. Aciram, thanks for creating Francisca Zubiaga y Bernales!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This is a great start for an article but you need some references to avoid having the article deleted.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Jmbranum (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message! Is it said on the talk page of the article, it was created from the Spanish language wp. I have no doubt such a notable article will be developed- it is not my article, but belongs to everyone. Thanks!--Aciram (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Popova[edit]

Hi, I have picked up an article you started and proposed it for Did You Know. Would you care to give it a quick copy edit? Great to see your work creating more women articles. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victuallers! Truly excellent work with the Vera Popova article. It illustrates the best sides of Wikipedia. I am not certain that I am up to the challenge when it comes to language skills, as English is not my first language, but I appreciate your work and your appreciation of my work! I must admit that I am rather proud of my work creating articles of women in history, as this is truly my special interest and what I devote next to all my work on Wikipedia. I do not know whether it would be considered bragging, but I do believe that I have created perhaps most of the articles of women from Scandinavia from before 1900 here on English language Wikipedia - and I am glad to provide articles missing of historical women from other countries also, including the British isles as well, as they are more rare to be missed here! It is good to be given recognition. Thanks again!--Aciram (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know! I've just been gnoming around your recent articles and I have tweaked some here and there. I have a similar interest. I usually work from here when Im not elsewhere as it gives me some interesting leads - including some nordic. If you do have a time to make a tiny change to Vera Popova then I can share the credit with you for the DYK which I think you deserve. I also started on adding refs to Zadana to make it up to DYK standard but my language abilities prevented me from adding the "inline refs" to the correct sentences - it needs a few more. If you have time to add some some refs then I will hopefully get it to DYK as well. Can I thank you for the great work that you do. All the best Victuallers (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see! Nice to know that they are those with the same interest. I would be proud to share the DYK and I will try to see what I have the competence to edit. I am delighted about he Women in Red-page you linked and may work from there as well and perhaps ad some red women to it. All the best--Aciram (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our nomination has been reviewed and one suggestion is that we change the name of the article and include some transliterations or her and her parents. I'm guessing you might be able to do this better than me given your language skills. Could you have a look at Vera? Victuallers (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Editor to editor - respect. Victuallers (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad to be given recognition for my work! Thank you very much. --Aciram (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Vera Bogdanovskaia[edit]

On 4 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vera Bogdanovskaia, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Vera Bogdanovskaia (pictured) was killed in 1896 while trying to make H-C≡P, a chemical not successfully synthesized until 1961? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Johanna von Evreinov[edit]

The article Johanna von Evreinov has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The quote attached to the only reference is all the information that I can find on von Evreinov. Not enough to make a biography.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aciram lets talk about this page. I see some fascinating connections to the beginning of the women's movement in Germany at that time in Leipzig Allgemeiner_Deutscher_Frauenverein (German wikipedia).--Wuerzele (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested to know more. Unfortunately, I do not have any more information. If you have please ad it! Then the article may not be deleted. It seems notable. Please visit the article discussion page if you have more to say - perhaps you can stop it from being deleted. Regards--Aciram (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aciram Thanks for your reply I already edited, in case you didnt check your watchlist. Please tell me

how you heard about her
how do you know she was a mathematician ( not in the source you quoted as far as I saw) and
what does (fl. 1787) mean? Regards,--Wuerzele (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your questions on the talk-page of the article - it's better to keep it all on one place. Regards--Aciram (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 20 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Lady-in-waiting page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting move: Anne of Burgundy, Countess of Savoy[edit]

Aciram, I'm proposing to move a page over at Talk:Anne of Burgundy, Countess of Savoy. As you are the creator of that page, I would really appreciate your input on the discussion. Thanks 1bandsaw (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Cajsa Wahllund[edit]

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.

A tag has been placed on Cajsa Wahllund requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gbawden (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Women writers Invitation[edit]

Hello Aciram/Archives/2014/December! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Mary Hamilton[edit]

Please see talk page as I think this article is yours Shipsview (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Aciram, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Pauline de Bassano. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anupam, thank you for your appreciation and acknowledgement. I am very happy to receive recognition for my work, and I will place it upon my presentation with pride!--Aciram (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Marie-Anne Walewska[edit]

Hi, I'm Kudpung. Aciram, thanks for creating Marie-Anne Walewska!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. You might find sources in the Swedish Wikipedia article

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not POV?[edit]

Not trying to be argumentative, but if the reverted content truly wasn't POV (as you stated in your reversion edit summary), then why would you make an effort to see it "re-phrased to be more neutral" ([1])? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my personal opinion, it was not POV: but I can understand that others may see it that way. It is all rather subjective, I think? That is not intended to mean that those who see it that way are "wrong". I wanted to respect the opinion of those who consider it POV, even if I myself do not. The fact that I made it more neutral, does not mean that I think it was not neutral first, only that it can be made even more so. That is always possible to do, is it not? Its a question of levels, and you can always take it up to a new level, even if you do not yourself consider it necessary to make the point. The more neutrally phrased, the less likely any one would interpret it as POV. You should respect the opinion of others, and though I myself may have regarded it as neutral, that does not matter if it is easy for others to see it as POV, and that's in itself a reason for an edit. That was the reason for my edit. I hope you can see the matter as solved! My best wishes!--Aciram (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]