User talk:Aciram/Archives/2018/December

Women in the Ottoman Empire
You are adding a lot of content to Women in the Ottoman Empire that contains typos and basic grammar errors like inconcistent use of plural/singular forms for example Non-Muslim women in the Ottoman Empire was not submitted to gender segregation which should be were not [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_the_Ottoman_Empire&diff=870402127&oldid=870161063&diffmode=source]

Other examples:
 * created difficulty for women to exercize these rights and While men where allowed to have four viwes [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_the_Ottoman_Empire&diff=869285441&oldid=869269382&diffmode=source]
 * though it could not always be effecintly enforced among the working classes [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_the_Ottoman_Empire&diff=869177127&oldid=869083937&diffmode=source]
 * Chaging to  with edit summary Tightening the text, phrasing it more neutral

I am going to roll back these edits. If English is not your first language then I would suggest posting proposed edits on the talk page so other editors can work with you to ensure the content being added to mainspace meets our basic standards. Seraphim System ( talk ) 15:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I am aware that English is not my first language, and I am very sorry for my spelling mistakes and deeply ashamed of them - they where not intentionally done. However, the content I have added to the article, is referenced and correct. It seems to me, that the correct way would not be do roll back references and correct information added to the article and revert it to a non-neutral and factually incorrect version, but instead merely to correct the spelling mistakes, keeping the corrent, neutral and factually correct version. Is it not better with a factually correct, referenced and nautral version, than a non-neutral, unreferenced and factually incorrect version? Spelling mistakes are not as important as references and neutrality, and are more easy to fix. --Aciram (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article in your reverted version, have less references, and it is, further more, not neutral. I was horrofied at the first version, as it seem to be written in to hide the gender discrimination of the Ottoman Empire, omitting serious gender discriminatory laws and customs. Is not spelling mistakes a less serious mistake than lack of references and neutrality? --Aciram (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on your above statement it does not sound like you are editing to improve the neutrality of the article. With the amount of content you are adding, no one is going to proofread all of your contributions and correct them. Basic English language competence is required to contribute to English language Wikipedia. The content you added needs to be substantially rewritten, and I suspect also source-checked before being added to mainspace. Seraphim System ( talk ) 16:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I am afraid that I do not quite understand. I am aware that my English is bad, so that may be it, but my honest intention has been to contribute to a more neutral article. Please let me give you an example. The article in its current state gives the impression, that women where more liberated in the Ottoman Empire because they had financial independance even while married. This is correct. However, it was difficult for them to use these rights because of the seclusion and gender segregation. This is not my wiev: this is a veiw which I have referenced in the article with a reference written/issued by the Oxford university, if I remembered correctly. Do you not agree, that this is more neutral and correct? How do I, to you, give the impression of being not being interested "to improve the neutrality of the article"? I am not agitated; I simply do not understand your meaning, and wish to know your answer, simply because your accusation is a serious one. I admit I am somewhat insulted to be suspected of not having a nautral agenda - however, that could be simply because of my bad understanding of English language, or the concept of neutrality. I would like to emphasize, that my intention is, and have always been neutrality, and it is somewhat hurtful to be doubted, I admit. --Aciram (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I should, ad this. I have been active on Wikipedia for many years, and I have never before been asked to write only on talk pages. I have created numerous articles over the years, and they have been appreciated; I have been awarded for them, as you can see. Wikipedia rules, if I am correctly informed, allow everyone to create and edit articles from their own ability; and as an article is never finnished, any editor can contribute with their speciality until it is. In my case, my English may be extremely bad, but for eleven years, other editors have told me, that spelling mistakes can be fixed by others (in accordance with the principle that everyone contribute with their best, and an article is never finnished), while my speciality is information and references. I did, previously, have a spelling check installed in my computor, but as I have changed computor, and have no spelling check in this nor have the expectation to get helpt with installing one, my language mistakes is of course more apparent, for which I am deeply ashamed. If I am, from this day forward, only to contribute through suggestions on talk pages, then I ask of you now: please block me from editing on English language Wikipedia, because I do not wish to be active in such a way. It would also be hard for me not to be active without a block, since Wikipedia hade become such a daily habit for me. I admit I would be sorry for this, since I have been active for many years, and appreciated my work here, but I would respect your descission, and I would not contest it. I would, however, like a reason first prior to my block, and perhaps an oppinion from a nother user before it is performed. I would also say, that I am proud of my work on Wikipedia, and happy for the years I have contributed to this project. My best greetings, --Aciram (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on your full editing history because I haven't reviewed it and I don't see any need to review it right now. I also can't comment on what others have told you, but I am willing to accept your explanation that the current issue may be caused by a non-working spellcheck. As it stands, the content you added to this article has been challenged because I think spelling and prose style are important and also because I am concerned that your edits may be introducing a bias to the article. The next step would be to follow WP:BRD and start a discussion on the talk page, where I can explain in more detail why I am concerned about the substantive content as well. Seraphim System ( talk ) 16:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. My request for blocking of my editing on English language Wikipedia does stand, however. I consider the article is it is now bias. I do not understand how you regard my editing bias. I have provided an example: you have not replied. This is somewhat od. The reference I have cited for that comment regarding the difficulty to excercize the economic laws offered by shariah because of the gender segregation is referenced in a perfectly acceptable reference issued by oxford university. I cannot understand how you can considered that to be bias. How can it be possible? However, I do understand, that for some reason, you do not wish to reply. I am, hwoever, deeply upset and hurt because of your accusation of bias, and your refusal to explain your accusations about bias from my part. I do not wish to be active on Enwp, and I request to be blocked from editing. If you need a reason for a block, then perhaps you can label me for a crime against bias: I may not agree, but since I wish to be part of a project where I can be accused of bias without being given a reason, after having referenced my information with references which must surely be considered acceptable, than I to accept to be blocked as bias in these circumstances. Can you perform this block? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to regret my offer to help add this content to the article. I responded to your comments on my own talk page, but the reason I have asked you to move the substantive discussion to the article talk page is so we do not have the same conversation in two places. I will not be posting further replies here or at my talk page, but if you want to discuss the substantive content of the edits please start a discussion at the article talk page. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)