User talk:Aciram/Archives/2016/February

Category:Danish Saints
You keep moving Margarethe of Roskilde back to "Danish Roman Catholic Saints"...but there's nothing else in that category. It's just "Danish Saints" because they're all Roman Catholic... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.89.135 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (First: remember to Write a new section in the end of the page when you write in someone's talk page.) To the question: there might be in the future. There might even be now, if some one wrote an article. An even if there is not, we must use the same principle for all countries, and there is definitely countries with saints from many religions. In some countries, the saints may be, for example, Russian saints, but those are in turn divided after religion, as they should be, because nationality is just a ground category, and we must go from them to smaller categories. The smaller the category, the easier to find the information your are looking for. All Catholic saints in Denmark should be placed in Roman catholic danish saints; and that entire category should in turn be placed in Danish saints. There may not be saints of any other religion in Denmark, but they are in other countries, and we must use the same principle with all countries. I you see Danish saints which are not placed in Roman catholic danish saints, then please ad them to it, because they should be there. --Aciram (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Cemile Sultan
Why you can say it is not relevant to know about her children and descendants? How strange is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Why do you think it is relevant? That is a question for you to answer, because it is you who wish to have the information included. Wikipedia is not a site for genealogy, it is about relevant facts. To list generation after generation of descendants to a person are not relevant. This is especially true in her case, because she was not a monarch, and her descendants are not relevant: her descendants do not have their own articles here, and would likely not be relevant for it either. Why would they be relevant? Of course, if you, for example, consider them relevant because they are descendants of royalty, then that is your opinion, but Wikipedia is neutral. Wikipedia is not about writing about things you consider important: it is only about writing about things which have relevance for an encyclopedia. --Aciram (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your statemant is wrong. Why the descendants of the Male members are listed? in every article from any Ottoman prince his descendants are listed. So why is this relevant? can you answer this question? Thus Wikipedia made different about female and male? Look the pages of the Ottoman Princes, why it is relevant to list there descendants after generation? Here as example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_former_Ottoman_throne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Also this example, why she is important?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmano%C4%9Flu_family#Ay.C5.9Fe_G.C3.BClnev_Osmano.C4.9Flu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 02:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is it wrong? I do not check every article about ottoman royalty in Wikipedia. I am just one person and I do not watch them all. Also: you seem to have a hot temperament. You seem to speak in an angry and agitated mode. Please calm down. I am interested in women of history. Therefore, I noticed this one was wrong, and adjusted this one and no one else. I am a woman myself, so I am hardly "anti female", as you accused my of being in your edit warring of that article.
 * It is forbidden in Wikipedia to just put back something that has been criticized in an article again and again. That is called "edit warring" and is against the rules.
 * I am a woman myself, and I am interested in women in history, and therefore notice changes in articles of women more than men, and you accused me of being "anti female"? Du you understand that you are being rude?
 * Calm down, and be careful about your agitated and aggressive behavior, otherwise, you will be reported. Do you understand? You are edit warring, which is forbidden; you have also insulted me, which is also forbidden; and you seem to be very aggressive.
 * The male Ottoman princes should list their descendants ONLY if they are a part of the succession, or if they are relevant for articles themselves. This example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_former_Ottoman_throne lists people in line of the succession, and they are relevant because they are in line of the succession, not just because they are descendants of royalty. That is why the article has that name. Do you understand the difference?
 * This article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_former_Ottoman_throne is a family article, not an article about one person. Do you understand the difference?
 * If an article of a male Ottoman prince listed names of descendants, who were NOT in the line of succession and not relevant, then they should be removed as well.
 * I believe that I recognize you. Was it perhaps you who are always editing articles of Ottoman royalty here, and who has lost your temperament and insulted me before, just because I criticized you? Is it you who always edit articles of Ottoman royalty, and who gets angry and insults people every time you are being criticized? In that case, you have still not learned to calm down and control your temperament, despite having to apologize to me the last time. Even if it is not you, you still behave the same way as that person. I am not interested in having anything to do with a rude person. Why should I let my day be ruined that way? Yes, you are doing wrong, but you do not seem to be a person that is very pleasant to speak to, so I not have the patience to explain things to you. If you are interested in editing Wikipedia the right way, then I suggest you listen to criticism in the future, instead of becoming angry, losing your temper and being rude. Have a nice day. --Aciram (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I merely changed the false facts in the articles about the Ottoman dynasty. I need not put up with how you treat me. Best wishes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Sophia Magdalena of Denmark. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)