User talk:Aciram/Archives/2024/March

Unsourced categories
I really don't understand why you keep adding unsourced categories. You know as well I do that categories are not only supposed to be sourced, but they also need to be defining. The category that you added and reinstated to Ali Bitchin makes no sense. M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Care to explain why keep ignoring WP:BRD and reinstating what was deleted? M.Bitton (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand why you think the categories are not "sourced". I do not understand that.
 * The article of Hayreddin Barbarossa includes the information: "The Ottoman fleet then assaulted the coasts of Sardinia, before appearing at Ischia and landing there in July 1544, capturing the city as well as Forio and the island of Procida, where he took 4,000 prisoners and enslaved some 2,000–7,000 inhabitants of Lipari".
 * That makes him a slave trader, and enslaver. Thus, the category of slave trader is relevant for him. I do not understand why you disagree.
 * The article Ali Bitchin ‎includes the information: "Bitchin, only a ten-year-old boy at the time, was bought from the Babel Boustan slaves market (current fishery) for 60 golden dinars, by the Raïs Fettah-Allah Ben-Khodja, from whom he learned privateering."
 * Because of this reason, he was a slave, and the article 16ht-century slave is relevant for him. Since there is not category for Algerian slaves, the category slavery in Algeria is relevant for him. I do not understand why you disagree.
 * I am not mentally stable enough to engage in conflict. Because of that reason, I will let you have your way regardless if it is correct or incorrect. But this is a sad thing. Because of the reasons above, these categories are suitable for them. And because you remove them despite this, it does not give me a good feeling about your intent.
 * Because I am a mentally fragile person, it is not possible for me to engage in a conflict with you. Because of this reason, I will let you have your way, in order to protect my health and well being. Have a good day, and please leave me alone. I shall do whatever you ask of me, in order to avoid having my health negatively affected. --Aciram (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For Barbarossa: enslaving and liberating slaves (for various reasons) doesn't make him a "slave trader" (someone who buys and sells slaves).
 * As for Ali Btichin, being a former slave and a slave owner doesn't make him a slave trader either (that's the category that you added). M.Bitton (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:10th-century women rulers


A tag has been placed on Category:10th-century women rulers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 31]]. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. NLeeuw (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:9th-century women rulers


A tag has been placed on Category:9th-century women rulers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 31]]. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. NLeeuw (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * PS: I have also tagged the categories you recreated from the 3rd up to the 8th century, but I didn't want to flood your talk page with separate notifications. Just so you know I've nominated the entire series for recreating categories that were split by consensus. NLeeuw (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:17th-century Danish women farmers has been nominated for splitting
Category:17th-century Danish women farmers has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:18th-century Danish women farmers has been nominated for merging
Category:18th-century Danish women farmers has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

AN
See this thread. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how you wish me to react, but since you have started asking questions, I suggest you also ask them: "does the author of an article have copy rights to it?", since this appear to be an issue you have interest in as well. I do not mind if my own articles are deleted. I do not own them. Thank you, and have a nice day.--Aciram (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to "delete" your articles; I took a look at your recent article creations and doubted if you ought to have the "autopatrolled" flag. AN rules mandate notifying you; I do not "wish" for you to react and believe that you have a choice to ignore the thread. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thank you for notifying me. I have no interest in following that thread. Because of your communication style, I wish to have no further contact with you, nor any more notifications from you. Have a nice day. --Aciram (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Aciram, can I follow up on this? I'm not sure if you ever asked for it, or were ever told (I don't think so, but I could be wrong), but someone about 15 years ago gave you the "autopatrolled" right.  It doesn't do you much good, but it helps new page patrollers by automatically marking your page creations as "patrolled", which means new page patrollers don't review it.  Over the years, the kinds of articles that autopatrolled users are expected to create has become a lot more fully formed from the start than the 4 examples TrangaBellum listed at the WP:AN thread.
 * So, to save possibly pointless arguing: would you mind if i removed the autopatrolled right from your account? If you don't mind, we can just go about our business.  If you do mind, then perhaps a comment at that thread at WP:AN would be helpful.  Please don't interpret this as an attack on your worth here; it's mostly a bureaucratic thing.  TrangaBellam does come across as brusque here, but I don't think that was intentional. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Floquenbeam, I do not mind. I have a vague memory that the word "autopatrolled" was mentioned in connection to me some time or another, but I can't remember when on in what occasion. I am not aware what "autopatrolled" is. I have no objection to its removal. I have no idea if its removal will result in a negative outcome of any sort, but since I am barely aware it excisted in the first place, it does not seem right to me that I should have any sort of privilige either.
 * As for the user TrangaBellam, my impression of them is not a good one. They made this post about me at AN after a disagreement between us on an article page, where TrangaBellam used aggressive, condescending and rude language. The next moment, they made this post on AN. I am sure you realise how that makes TrangaBellam appear?
 * I wish to have no communication with this user whatsoever, unless of course they appologise for their aggressive language and use a more civil tone in conversation. I suffer from anxiety, and such aggressive language is not beneficial for my health.
 * I have not participated in the AN-discussion, nor am I likely to, given the communication style of TrangaBellam, but I looked at it now, and I can add that I go by "She/her", not "him". Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Aciram, I'll remove that right then. It saddens me when 2 good faith editors disagree, but it is so common here that it's not something I can fix.  I usually suggest that if you don't want someone to comment here, it's good practice to not mention them, so they don't feel compelled to defend themselves. I wish you well, perhaps I'll run across you again in less frustrating cicumstances. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will try to remember that. I should add, considering the AN-thread; if this should develop in to any sort of situation where my articles are deleted, my account blocked, and I will be asked to leave Wikipedia, I will have no problem with this either. My mental health is not the best, and I must give it first priority before any other consideration. Just a note, if this AN-discussion should continue. I wish you well too! I share the opinion you expressed on AN. --Aciram (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Isabel de la Cruz for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isabel de la Cruz 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/Isabel de la Cruz 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. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:21st-century Andorran people by occupation has been nominated for renaming
Category:21st-century Andorran people by occupation has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Royal Consort Jo


The article Royal Consort Jo has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No indication of individual notability"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. toobigtokale (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

PRODs
Hello, for Royal Consort Jo, you left an edit comment that reads you have to provide a link to a discussion so people can raise their objections, and you did not; correct the template. However the point of WP:PRODs is that there isn't a discussion; in other words there's no option to add a discussion to the PROD. You're thinking of WP:AFD. I'm not going to pursue an AFD, but just wanted to let you know for future reference. toobigtokale (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello. Okay, I may have mixed the templates up, sorry. Though I was suprised; this is an article of a royal person, a princess, a queen, and those are commonly viewed as automatically notable; she also had references, and plenty of potential for expansion from Korean language wikipedia, so I assumed the article was obviously notable, hence my suprise - I assumed unless the article is obviously irrelevant, there should always be a discussion. But I understand, thank you for the information. Have a nice day.--Aciram (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's ok, thanks for the amicable response. My assumption was that there are countless Korean royals who have historical mentions that are only several sentences long. I should have looked into her more before the PROD; she seems to be more notable than some others. toobigtokale (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)