User talk:Aciram/Archives/2010/December

Mrs. Gustav III

Excellent work you did today on Queen Sophia Magdalene! A number of us still don't understand why a pornographic fantasy drawing, never meant for publication and totally unknown until 1987, should be displayed in this bio. Just think how many such drawings there would be all over if this were standard procedure! That drawing has never been notable and does not in any way illustrate anything actually relevant to the queen. Wish somebody with the energy to debate it would try to remove it once and for all. I can't. Greetings! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments

Dear Aciram: Please stop using edit summary comments such as "Do not be offended." They are not relevant to the work we are doing. Just supply relevant, well-referenced facts and continue doing all the good work you do, without any more-or-less accusatory personal comments about and/or to other editors. They are likely to be offended by that, not by your edits. Thanx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User page image

I love the painting you have on your user page. It is just beautiful! Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte's diaries

Hello! I am not criticizing the good work you are doing, just asking you to proceed with caution when citing the diaries of Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte as a source to factual history. Many scholars, including such weighty experts as Professor Erik Lönnroth have deemed the diaries unreliable in many parts which seem to have been intended as entertainment, and are not a rendition of facts. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three (five) Swedish princesses

Dear Aciram and IP 85.226.42.215 et al with similar IP #s (it seems clear to me that you are the same person, if not I apologize): So far in history, there have been three Princesses of Sweden, born such, whose children for various reasons inherited their mother's royal status in Sweden and were Princes and Princesses of Sweden:

plus two pretenders to such status, not recognized by most Swedes themselves:

Euphemia
Christina.

From our past dealings, though they have been controversial at times, you should know that I appreciate all the good work you do on English Wikipedia. I think I am able to assume correctly, though, that you do not appreciate or respect me and thus (sadly) aren't really that interested in anything I have to say. Here, though, I thought I'd give you a constructive opportunity to look even more closely (scholarly works) on these especially interesting women, since I do know that the subject matter is of very high interest to you. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boblig and Northern Moravia witch trials

Hello Aciram, I hope you are well :) I've started an article on Jindřich František Boblig z Edelstadtu and only then I've noticed that the topic is covered under Northern Moravia witch trials. The article is very good, thank you. I've added some facts about a film and literary adaptation of the case. Btw, if you are still interested in the early Czech theatre, see this article :) Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salon (gathering)

Don't you think the page needs a section on Russian salonists such as Catherine Bagration and Dorothea Lieven? --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dating of Caterina Benedicta Grazianini

Hello Aciram - I noticed you added Caterina Benedicta to the Classical era list, but with reference to her WP entry and biography in Norton/Grove Dictionary of Women Composers, she had an oratorio performed in Vienna as early as 1705, so we can presume that she was born during the late 17th century. The oratorios are also described as "conventional early 18th-century" which would be late Baroque in style. On that basis, I moved her earlier on the List of Baroque composers a while ago and don't think she belongs on the Classical era list. I thought you might like to know why I have moved your entry. Regards, (RT) (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was clarifying. Regards, --Aciram (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clementina Walkinshaw‎

Just for your information, if you are copying text from one Wikipedia article to another, it is necessary to indicate in your edit summery what you are doing and where the text comes from. All text in wikipedia article is copyrighted by the contributor, but licensed for reuse under the GFDL. The terms of the licence require attribution. Usually that's provided because anyone can see who submitted the text by looking in the history. However, if you move text into one article from another, then the history will attribute the text to you, when you didn't actually write it. The best thing to do is to put in your edit summary "copying text from current version of Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany‎". That way anyone looking at the history knows to check the history of the other article if they want to discover the attribution.

As the text concerned was mainly written by me, I'm not concerned, but others might take issue.--Scott Mac 15:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karoline Luise of Hesse-Darmstadt

Thanks for offering a tanslation from the original Wiki. Please be sure to include the correct attribution template on the article talk page. Instructionas are at WP:TRANSLATE. --Kudpung (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benefactor/tress

Are you sure that benefactor is the correct form in the article about Erzsébet Cseszneky? I am not a native speaker of English, but I think benefactor is the male and benefactress is the female form of the noun. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess of Courland

Why did you decide to redirect the links of these Duchess of Courland to their husband's article? Can you please delete them? It confuses people about the articles existance.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for mother or kadın sultans

It will be good to put a different succession box for mothers I think, because some of them are not Valide Sultans; we have already succession box for all Valides,

Nurbanu

Somebody continiously attacking this page and removing the citation for "Cecelia"; I suggested that citations for both Cecelia and Rachel should be kept, but that person removing paragraphs of Cecelia; In Turkish Nurbanu page is under protection, but the Links are in RED color they are protectig an older version which their links to other pages are not connected, can you please warn those responsible persons.

Augusta Lundin

Hey, I just came across the article you wrote on Augusta Lundin. I do not understand your use of references here and was hoping you might explain it to me. Are you quoting from magazines, books, newspaper articles? Also, it appears that the same reference is repeated multiple times. In Wikipedia there's a way to combine multiple occurrences of the same reference into one using the ref name="whatever" construction. I'd be more than happy to do that work if I actually understood the references. An anonymous IP removed the "multiple issue" template from the article, was that you not logged in? Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response and the extra information, I've put my response on the talk page for the article. SQGibbon (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]