User talk:Aciram/Archives/2016/December

Battersea Mystery copyright problem

Your addition to the above article was very close to http://casebook.org/dissertations/thames-torso-murders.html, a copyright web page. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation, even if you cite the source. This was detected by automatic plagiarism detection software. You need to re-state things in your own words. I have paraphrased and removed the overlapping content. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand. I have looked at the phrase in question, and it was not intentionally done: the sentences were so commonly and ordinarily phrased, that they hardly seemed to be copyright violations, because it was hard to think of a way to phrase them differently, as the original wording was so neutrally and ordinarily worded. I mean, it seemed to unnecessary to think of another way to phrase the sentence: "The case remained unsolved." - the wording for such phrases just seem to ordinary. No need to put it back in, it was so simple things!--Aciram (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

" The case remained unsolved" is not one of the phrases that I changed. Here are the changes I made. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. You misunderstand. I do not question you in any way what so ever. I agree with everything you say. I just meant that the sentences in question in my view was just as ordinarily phrased as the one I wrote here above. I apologize if it seemed I questioned you. I am currently ill, and have no wish to question any one about anything, so I have no wish to question ore oppose to anything. Please feel free to make any punishment you see fit if I have broken the rules, I will not protest against anything. I will just try to phrase myself as simply as possible not and say this: 1) I apologize 2) It was not done intentionally 3) I will do all I can so nothing like this will ever hapen again 4) I accept any punishment and will object to nothing. I now hope that I have said nothing wrong in this post. I am to ill to be involved in any conflicts now, I can only assure that I mean no harm. --Aciram (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology and your resolve to do better. There's no punishment. Just make sure in the future you write everything in your own words; no more copyright violations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Shaghab

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 Shaghab 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 credibly 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 "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. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI

You are being discussed at ANI - here. Please join the discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I do hop my reply can explain my somewhat odd behavior. I am currently ill, I'm afraid, and can not really cop with any great conflict, but I hope I have managed to explain sufficiently. And my past experience make me hope that this will not lead to any long going conflict. --Aciram (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Invitation

	You are invited to participate in WikiProject Berbers, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Berbers.
	You may sign up at the project members page.

--Aṭlas (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You're not interested in this ? --Aṭlas (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for not replying! Thank you for the invitation, but my interest is rather about "Women of history" in general rather than the Berbers in particular - but thank you for your appreciation, and I am sure that I will write about a Berber woman or two in the future! :)--Aciram (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you for your response. I just want to revive this wikiproject, so I look for competent wikipedia editors, and I found last night your edits in Zaynab an-Nafzawiyyah. Anyway, thank you for your contributions. Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I wish you good luck! --Aciram (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

thank you. I am wishing you luck as well. --Aṭlas (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Aciram, I wonder if I can persuade you to change the way you add references, when you're adding multiple references all of which point to a single source. By way of example, consider the change I have just made to Charles Frederick, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp

It's an easy change. For the first instance of the reference, add a name parameter to the ref tag.

• You currently do refs as <ref>John Person, Some Book Name, etc etc etc</ref>
• Instead try <ref name="Person">John Person, Some Book Name, etc etc etc</ref>

and then for all of the other times you want a reference to the same source, use:

• <ref name="Person"/>

Simples! (But note the forwardslash in the 'all of the other times' version). thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, it was not a matter of convincing, there was never a principle of mine to reference this way, only that I did not know how to perform it in any other way, and my self confidence when if comes to these technical things are so low that everything seems pretty daunting - perhaps my mind make it seem more difficult for me than it actually is, because I so firmly believe that I cannot understand such things. I will do my best to try!--Aciram (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I was chatting to someone a couple of days ago who had a technical issue, and she said "Did'ja ever watch Charlie Brown? When the parents talked and it sounded like waawaawawaaawaaaaa? That's what explaining technology translates to for me." I know where you're coming from, Aciram. It turns out it is all quite simple, but all of us have our waawaawawaaawaaaaa point; mine is slightly to the right of yours but way to the left of lots of other people whose code is to me indistinguishable from magic. Give it a go. (Of course, once you've got it under your belt, we might have to go on to something new, like the use of {{cite book}} ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that is how it is! I did make an attempt here, but it looks like a disaster: Hedda Piper.--Aciram (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to clean it. I have no idea what I am doing. But I hope I will learn with time. I can,t promise it will be quick. I must say I'm grateful that there are other users that can contribute with these things while we others learn - meanwhile at least I can contribute with the info!--Aciram (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yup. You didn't put the forwardslash into the second and later references. And it all went to hell in a handcart :). You put <ref name="Cecilia af Klercker"> when what was required was <ref name="Cecilia af Klercker"/>. Don't you just hate that! But full marks for trying. I'll amend it now and than you can go and admire all of those forwardslashes in the second & greater refs! Did I say forwardslash? Oh. Yes, I see I did. forwardslash forwardslash forwardslash ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

And yes, to be clear: contributing the information is more important, much much more important. The technical stuff is a small detail. So you are still very much on the side of the angels :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I see from Ulrica Catharina Stromberg that you have that whole named referenes thing totaly sorted out. Good work! Now, the next thing. I said it was going to be cite templates, but instead let's talk about the references section, which for Ulrica Catharina Stromberg currently looks like this:

==References==

{{Reflist}}

* Gerd Ribbing (1958). Gustav III:s hustru. Sofia Magdalena. Stockholm: Alb. Bonniers Boktryckeri. ISBN

but, you only need the first two lines. The last line is the Ribbing book, but we get all of that information from the reference in the body of the text. So it's doing no good. Instead:

==References==

{{Reflist}}

Will do nicely. The time to have a sources section - which is what your third line is - is when you're using {{sfn}} in your references, such as in Canfeda Hatun. I'm going to take a blast through all of the articles you've got a "(referenced expansion)" edit summary on, and sort out the named references are delete all instances of bullet pointed books in the references section which repeat information in the body references - i.e. the same issue as discussed above in this thread. So if you see a load of your documents being fiddled with, you'll know what's going on. You get very many bonus points for being consistent in your edit summaries, btw - easy to find the articles you've added refs to. That turns out to be super helpful :) hth --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand.--Aciram (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

References for Kalmar Bloodbath (1599)

Thank you for this article, but can you add more info on references? Name of an encyclopedia is not enough. We need page number, volume number, date of publication, isbn, name of the author if the entries in that encyclopedia have identifiable authors, etc. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I wrote that article from its equivalent on Swedish wiki, and that did not have advanced references, so I could not do what you ask. If I have understood it correctly, Wikipedia rules allows for a user to start an article without finishing it: no one here is paid a salary, no one has any obligations (expect not breaking the rules) and no one owns an article; it is open for everyone to edit, and it is never finished. I think that is a good rule: if you had to finish an article and make it complete, not many articles would have been started, but now, thousands of articles are started and developed with the help of many, who all contribute with their part. I am happy to have started it, as it was missing for so long, and those who can will I am sure develop it further eventually - there is no time limit. Thanks.--Aciram (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Festive greetings!

A barnstar of deep recognition for all your efforts on Women in Red throughout the year. Enjoy the end of year festivities and prepare to put more women on the world map in 2017. --Ipigott (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will paste this on my presentation page with pride. I will certainly continue my work in the same fashion in 2017. And a very Good Christmas and Happy New Year for you too!--Aciram (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)