User talk:Aciram/Archives/2022/July

Speedy deletion of Category:14th-century monarchs of Sweden


The page Category:14th-century monarchs of Sweden has been deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. As the page met any of these strictly-defined criteria, it was deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been deleted are:
 * The category had been empty for seven days or more and it was not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories. (See section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Deletion Review. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Ipigott. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Anne Kerke, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ipigott (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Princess Sura of Parthia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Princess Sura of Parthia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Princess Sura of Parthia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Haifa Al Saud
She is a deputy minister, not part of the cabinet and not a minister. So the category you inserted is not proper for her case. Hope I can explain the situation. Egeymi (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be correct, but in wikipedia, this category are simply used for ministers, and that includes deputy ministers: other countries have their deputy ministers in these categories, so why should Saudi be different from them? The category she is a part of, already has another deputy minister in it, so if you remove the category from this article, then you have to remove the other article from the category as well. --Aciram (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Citations to books need to be more than a link to Google books
I appreciate that you are working hard to improve the encyclopedia, but it would help you and the articles you edit if you would read Help:Referencing for beginners. It's got video tutorials, etc. and shows how to include vital information including page numbers. Google book links work in some countries and not others, so they can be useless for some people. Thanks. By the way I hope you reply to the AfD I started. It raises some issues that I'm concerned about including WP:VERIFY WP:NOR andWP:RS. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the tip regarding the references. I write articles as way of relaxation from my exhaustion, and so I am grateful that wikipedia articles are never finnished and that it is okay to leave some formatting to others who knows better - the references are there, after all - but I will try to look the tip up when I have energy enough, and until then I hope I can rely on wikipedia policy when it comes to the principle that an article is never done and does not belong to anyone. When it comes to the Sura article, I remember starting that with information from the iranicaonline (Encycopaedia Iranica), and I thought I had referenced that, but apparently not: it was from that page most of the quotes came, except the book, and so I trusted that page. I don't think I referenced that correctly, but it was mostly from there, as far as I recall. If that was a hoax, then it should be deleted, but I created it in good faith. Since I am not an expert and I don't remember enough about the article, I thought my input was simply not that relevant to the discussion, since I can't contribute with much. If it is indeed a hoax, then of course it should be deleted (unless its some sort of well known legend that can remain as important fiction), and so you will hear no protests from me if people with actual expert knowledge which to delete it as a hoax. My best wishes, --Aciram (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with your exhaustion. I'm almost 80 - last year I was walking 15,000 steps at times, now 3000 is a lot - Parkinson's first, then a diagnosis of secondary liver cancer. Bowel cancer removed, now on chemotherapy hoping the liver can be operate on and that I have no other cancers. My work on Wikipedia helps my morale. Take care. Maybe not review pages, that takes quite a bit of experience.  Doug Weller  talk 10:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, and my sympathy for you too. I do try to be careful to contribute to wikipedia in a way that is not too stressful, without compromising the quality of my work, which can sometimes be a challenge. But I try my best. Take care. --Aciram (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And you. Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 10:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I see that you're still not adding the page numbers to the citations (despite being asked to do so). I'm referring to this edit which makes it impossible to verify the content (ex: I have no idea where the word "eunuchs" that you added is supposed to be in the cited source). Can you please add them? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * According to wikipedia rules, I am not aware that I am obliged to. No article is finnished on wikipedia, its fully acceptable to leave to others to continue editing: I have myself edited other's work numerous times, without taking offence. Its fine if I am blocked from editing: I suffer from exhaustion, and I don't have the energy to deal with such things. Page numbers are not always visible when you access google books anyway. Anyone can easily check. Just type in the word castrated, if I remember correctly, and you will find the page.--Aciram (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked everything, given the lack of page numbers, but I did look for the word "eunuchs" and I can't find it anywhere. On what page is it supposed to be? M.Bitton (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The boys were castrated and then sold. They were made to be eunuchs, and there was a great market for eunuchs in the Ottoman slave market. Eunuchs were made by castrating enslaved boys at that age, hence to make them eunuchs, and that's was why they were castrated. I don't think the word eunuch was mentioned in the book, but the book wrote that boys between the age of thirteend and seventeen were "castrated". That is the word you should search for, not eunuch. That's what I said above. That is described in the article about the abductions: the book has given the sack its own chapter. Its not hard to find. Good luck. --Aciram (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, you attributed your WP:OR to a source. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aciram You should not expect others to fix your omissions.  Yes, you can't always see page numbers but you usually can. When I haven't been able to I can usually find the chapter.  If you  persist in doing this and others can find the page numbers, you might end up at ANI for disruptive editing, but hopefully that won't happen.  And if editors can't verify because you don't give a page number, they could remove the source and text as unverifiable, especially as you are clearly interpreting your sources.  Doug Weller  talk 15:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not have the energy to fight with you, if it is a conflict you are searching for. I have added information to an article. The information I have added are in the source. The source is digitalized, so any one can access it and read it quickly, and confirm that it is correct. All this is perfectly allowed. If you eraze it, you are the one in the wrong. If you wish to nitpick, you can remove the work eunuch. I don't mind that, since anyone realises that they were castrated in order to make them eunuchs, so it changes nothing of the content. If you wish to have some sort of prestige argument about policies, you have chosen a person with exhaustion, which is not a good choice. I do not have the energy to argue. Have a good day.--Aciram (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The word "eunuchs" is not in the source and your interpretation what the author meant is clearly WP:OR that doesn't belong in the article, let alone be be attributed to a source that doesn't support it. 15:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Bitton (talk • contribs)
 * I have already clearly said: I do not mind being reported and blocked from Wikipedia. I would of course not agree with it, but that is hardly important. I have have created thousands of articles for over a decade, and been given several prices for it. It seems my work has been appreciated. If I am reported and blocked simply for not formatting references correctly, despite the fact that the information I provide is sourced and correct, then I don't mind that. There is no hard feelings at all. I will just edit on Swedish wikipedia instead. Now, if someone is castrated, they are made in to a eunuch: eunuchs were highly valued on the Ottoman slave market, and that is how they were made. I was not aware that such an obvious thing was an "intepretation" - to me this was simply a given thing - but if it is, I have already said that I dont' mind to erase the word eunuch, since in my eyes that do not change the referenced content of the article. The book cleary say they were castrated, and anyone can verify that very easily since the reference is digitalized. If I am reported and blocked for a thing like that about fifteen years editing and tousands of articles, then I will of course regard myself as unfairly treated, and think that this step is a bit destructive to wikipedia, but there are much worse things in this world, and I sure have worse things in my life to worry about. You may do as you wish, but I can hardly agree that this is constructive. But that's not necessary either. Have a wonderful day, and report, investigate my history in Wikipedia, and block me, if you wish to do so, and believe this is a constructive and necessary thing to do. My exhaustive depression does not give me energy enough to devote more energy to this. Have a good day.--Aciram (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Aciram, PLEASE cite page numbers. This isn't about whether Wikipedia "requires" it--though the opening sentences of WP:CITE are pretty clear--it seems to me that this is just common decency. We cite so that we can be checked. And whether something is OR or just a rephrasing is a matter of judgment, but it is probably wise to stay close to the source. If two editors on a collaborative project have a problem with how you handle this, then you should consider changing your approach. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I will repete again: I don't mind if you delete the word eunuch. How many times must I repeate this? I was not even aware that this would be regarded as an "intepretation". To me it was just a simple, given thing. I don't mind if the word is deleted. In my own view the content of the text will be the same regardless if the word is deleted or not, so I don't know why you act as if I have gone to war defending the word's excistence in the article. Delete it. It changes nothing in my eyes. Delete it ten times over. You will find zero protests from me. This is not good for my exhaustive depression, so i hope this discussion can be ended now. Report or block me if you wish, but I will go in with my day now, if you excuse me. --Aciram (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. The word "eunuch" (which will be removed regardless) is just an example of the issues that are usually faced by anyone who's trying to verify the content. M.Bitton (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Drmies and today John Gibney: '' Yet the source when clicked on  shows the chapter title and the real author, who is not John Gibney. No page number but after 100,000 edits an editor should know how to make a proper citation. Just read [[Help:Referencing for beginners|Help:Referencing for beginners.] @Aciram I'm sorry if you are tired, I am too after a chemo session, but this needs fixing.  Doug Weller  talk 15:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I find this puzzling too, Doug. Like, it's not hard to put a page number in--before it's anything else, I consider it common courtesy. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)