Aciram

The article Royal Consort Jo has been proposed for deletion 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Category:19th-century American slave owners has been nominated for deletion. 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) 03:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:18th-century American slave owners has been nominated for deletion. 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) 03:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Haratin. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I shall allow you to do as you please with this article, simply because you are the stronger party. I have doubts regarding your intentions, but I have bad mental health, and you are dominant. Have a nice day.--Aciram (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Having bad mental health doesn't justify your assumption of bad faith and aspersions casting. M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I shall leave it to you to consider how you have given me the impression to doubt your intentions. You are strong and dominant, and have I am sure no inhibitions to fight for your opinion with all your might. I have no such strenght. Survival of the fittest. Therefore, I shall let you do as you please. I have no doubt you have limited interest in how you affect me or my health, so I shall take responsiblity for that myself: I ask you to leave my page, and avoid communicating with me as much as possible. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:Slave owners by century has been nominated for deletion. 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) 19:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:21st-century Andorran people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Mikeblas (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:20th-century Andorran people by occupation 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) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:Slavery in the Mongol Empire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aciram. Thank you for your work on Slave trade in the Mongol Empire. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Aciram,

After your previous message at my talk page I watch listed the article but could not study the issue closely being busy in reading papers on google scholar.

Just now I came to your talk page following some random category and went through your talk page a little.

I happen to divide Wikipedians in two broad types those who are encyclopedic content writers and those who are in curation / maintenance few do both tasks. Encyclopedic content writing needs exceptional skill and hence encyclopedic content writers are very few compared to curators. You do have encyclopedic content writing skill.

Many times writing one content sentence with reference takes hours of search and study referencing and defending that sentence after that is a huge task itself.

In my new articles I create a section of suggested categories and leave it to copy editors which categories to keep and which not to. In existent articles I make category request at article talk page and leave it at that. Very rarely I request a category at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories.

This is not to judge your category work on it's merit nor this is an advice for others to use against you or to compel you to stay away from categories involvement.

Still, like me, I feel you also preferably leave curation tasks like populating categories to curators. And see if you can enjoy sigh of relief and have lesser stress.

I have some other article expansion requests, for that I shall come back to you in couple of days. Happy editing. Bookku (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your appreciation @Bookku, I do try my best to be what you term an Encyclopedic writer. I find it relaxing to write, in an otherwise stressful life. I am aware that no article in Wikipedia is ever complete, and may always be expanded and improved by any user with knowledge and skill, which I have always found to be a constructive principle. I believe many articles would never have been written, if they had to be complete before posting. Particularly by people like me, who have too little time to spend. The fact that Wikipedia is a joint collaboration by every user, is therefore of great advantage to its purpose.

I understand your impression in the category issue. I create categories when there seem to be a need for them, but you are correct that writing is my main interest and not curation/maintenance, and I do have less knowledge about it. Contrary to the impression here, most of the categories I have created over the years do still remain; but I understand your point, and I will keep it in mind. Thank you for the advise.

As for the issue of slavery in al-Andalus; thank you for placing the article on your watchlist. Nothing has yet been done that requires attention, but it likely will.

My experience of this user tells me that they may have a bias agenda to delete as much as possible about slavery in Islamic states and/or select information to portray it as benevolent. The concern is that the user will delete perfectly well referenced information from good references (they are digitalized and easy to fact check via google books) with some excuse such as "Cherry Picking" or "rephrased in a deliberately negative way", in order to make Andalusian slavery appear benevolent.

This is a concern caused by previous experience in other articles, when this user have done exactly that. Previously, I have remained passive. The reason is because I suffer from anxiety and I am not well suited for a long conflict with a problematic user. A new user with no knowledge of the rules, who react emotionally to the content of an article, is something different from an experienced, eloquent and well informed user with an agenda. I am concerned over this article, and feel I should sound the allert. I do not belive they would persist in any potential agenda if faced with resistance from a user who are well informed about rules and regulations.

From experience I know that bias agendas is one of the most serious problems to the purpose of wikipedia, so I am relived that you are now watching the article. If you should feel you have no time for to the issue, please do not hesitate to tell me if there are some user user who would be interested to protect the article. My best wishes, --Aciram (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lately, in a role of discussion facilitator, I am helping two well meaning users at Talk:Jinn to keep the discussion on track without letting it get personal. @ Talk:Slavery in al-Andalus I can also in WP:3O or as discussion facilitator if other user too co-operates. Talk:Slavery in al-Andalus discussion seem to be at stage where both of you need to provide synopsis and which content points are still unresolved, if any. It's tough to eat whole cake at one go, in problem resolution too if we eat pieces of problematic cake one by one would be easy to digest.

According to essay Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost usually citing reliable sources is enough. But it also says ".. Where a source is difficult to verify, .. , many editors appreciate the courtesy of supplying the relevant paragraph [from the cited source] .."

In this polarized world of confirmation biases, we come across instances of distrust even after we appeal AGF. To me one way can be following:

• In the visual editor, under the 'cite' button, you first put in the basic parameters (sometimes just a URL is sufficient to get started), then scroll down the list of fields to find the one named 'Quote', which is a text box you can enter the the relevant paragraph verbatim from the cited source.
  • IMO This step helps to keep the thing transparent and help built trust. Then I invite several users to participate in expanding and copy editing a new article at draft level itself. If content text paraphrased by me is already gone through hands of couple of copy editors trust builds and since other editors are already on board I need to worry less of the article and I can move on towards next task. Still no doubt problems would arise but if we are already ready with umbrella less worry in sudden heavy rains.
  • The policy regarding these types of quotes is briefly covered at WP:FOOTQUOTE. (How to use use also available @ how to use Template:Citation#Quote)

Bookku (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I realise now that I may not have explained myself very well; you did say that you had not been able to study this issue closely, so I should have summarized the matter more clearly. There is yet no problem at all at slavery in al-Andalus, and no discussion on the article talk page. I wrote in the talk page that I would not participate, and I have not done so since.

User:R Prazeres is not the problematic user in question. User:R Prazeres adressed some legitimate concerns in the article talk page of the article. These were legitimate concerns. For example, they pointed out that one source was in fact a blog (clearly unsitable). Since that source was included in a piece of the article which was copied from another article and not written by me, I was not aware of it, and I was grateful that User:R Prazeres pointed it out, so I could adress it, which I did. That is not the issue.

It concerned me that User:R Prazeres expressed concern regarding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. User:R Prazeres is interested in al-Andalus, but have admitted ignorance in the specific topic of slavery in al-Andalus. I am aware that al-Andalus is often idealized, and that there has been a tendency to romanticize slavery in al-Andalus. Experience made me vary of this already when creating the article, and I was careful to phrase the information from the books to avoid such a POV. The accusation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH can get extremely difficult with bias users: how are we to rephrase information in our own words without being accused of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? It is always a challenge.

What made me take action in this matter was however not User:R Prazeres. I noticed that User:R Prazeres contacted User:M.Bitton in this matter. Their conversation can be seen here: [1]. It was User:M.Bitton I was referring to in my description to you above. I have experience from this user in several articles. User:M.Bitton have on several occassions, fnotably in Aghlabids, removed well referenced information in the subject slavery in Islamic lands from various articles. My impression is that User:M.Bitton have a bias agenda to remove as much as possible about the topic and/or portray it as benevolent. This impression is created by my experience from User:M.Bitton, as well as my experience from other individuals with this agenda. I have been told that User:M.Bitton was previously reported to ANI, but I do not know if this is correct.

That User:M.Bitton was allerted to the article was therefore a matter of concern. Their conversation about me in his talk page gave the impression than neither of them have any interest in a constructive communication with me in regard to the article or its subject.

I must be frank. I suffer from chronic exhaustive depression and anxiety. This condition does not in any way lessen my intellectual capabilities; but it does, however, force me to take the responsiblity to identify triggers and avoid them for the sake of my health. That factor makes it difficult for me to tend to the technical issues as you mention, but foremost, it makes it near impossible to get involved in a conflict with a well informed bad actor with a bias agenda.

I adressed the legitimate issues mentioned by User:R Prazeres, but then informed them why I would not be able to participate in the discussion further. I also removed the article from my talk page, and have not returned to it since. My experience, and the information I have, told me that such a discussion would not be of much use. Experience tells me that User:R Prazeres may have posted a messege lecuturing me regarding my concerns about User:M.Bitton, or User:M.Bitton may have posted an accusation of cherrypicking.

I realise that my health condition is not ideal to the work of Wikipedia, if it causes me to abandon an article to a user with a potential bias agenda. But that was an action I was forced to take. I am ashamed to ask other users to "do the work for me" by asking them to put the article on their watchlist and watch out for the potential bias agenda of User:M.Bitton, but I do it out of genuine concern for the purpose of Wikipedia. It would be a great shame if well referenced information were be deleted, and information selected to fit a bias agenda, simply because my anxiety problems makes it diffucult for me to protest to a bad actor.--Aciram (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Aciram

See WP rules related to canvassing and tag teaming reduce scope of partisan invitations and partisan side taking. Despite R Prazeres invited M.Bitton, later you invited me to look into but practically both of us did not turn up at Talk:Slavery in al-Andalus and that discussion still remains between you two.

At WP usually we consider every article separately. Helping you in verification of sources and sorting out synth issues comes in scope of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability so you ask for verification and synth sorting request there without mentioning personal issues.

If some one has a serious objection to any of articles you created ask them to send it back to draft space again so you can work coolly again.

Mixing content issues and personal issues confuses other people and increase our own stress.

Bookku (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the response. My conclusion is rather simple. I have concern that this article is going to be subjected to bias editing by User:M.Bitton. The concern is caused by previous experience. Due to my health, I cannot participate. In the hope of protecting the article, I attempted reaching out to others in order to at least do something. However, my first reaction was to continue the policy I have always had in regard to User:M. Bitton: to simply remain passive and let him do as he please. I shall follow this policy in this case as well. Thank you for your reply. The article is taken of my watchlist, and I shall not engage with it further. Its future is in the hands of M.Bitton, and I shall put it off my mind. I admit it is saddening what will potentially hapen to the article, but I will be of no use in protecting it, and that is a factor I mus accept. It is too overwhelming for me to fight a bad actor with a bias agenda. I did contact you to ask you to put the article on your watchlist in case it should be subjected to bias editing in the future; and perhaps you will be willing to engage if that should occur. Thank you again for giving me the time to respond, it was appreciated. --Aciram (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just don't overthink, take a break and relax once in a while.

May be you would like to help to expand the list article Draft:Former centers of slave trading, I suppose such a list also help in improving understanding among those who do not know. Bookku (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aciram. Thank you for your work on Venetian slave trade. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aciram. Thank you for your work on Prague slave trade. Another editor, Noorullah21, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Excellent work! Great quality of an article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Noorullah21}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Noorullah (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aciram. Thank you for your work on Slavery in the Umayyad Caliphate. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Meylişah Hatun. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and this articles needs inline citations per WP:ILC.I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. FULBERT (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Aciram,

Thank you for creating Volga Bulgarian slave trade.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for this article. It looks like an interesting topic. Please add some more sources and only use one reference per source as per WP:REFNAME.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Simongraham}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

simongraham (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:History of slavery by century indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:People by century in Louisiana indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

legitimately i have no idea what happened there; i definitely did not delete all of egypt! what is going on Ogress 12:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see. It may be an innocent mistake on your part, but the chapter about Egypt was indeed deleted, even if it was done by accident, so I had to revert your edit.--Aciram (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No absolutely, i have no idea how that happened, of course it needed to be reverted. I'll take a look later and try to figure out what mistake I made. Ogress 13:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand. That sounds good!--Aciram (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:19th-century Czech actors indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey Aciram, I was the NPP reviewer who came across Slavery in the Rashidun Caliphate and I began to do some cleanup in regards to references but was having some troubles. I've since self-reverted my changes, but I began to implement {{cite book}} in your bibliography. You can see my proposed changes here: Special:Diff/1230234296 which were semi-automated. My plan was to then implement the citation style {{sfn}} for some of the repeated references you used in the inline citations.

I'm curious if you were aware of the {{sfn}} citation style, as I think it would be greatly beneficial in this article; or if you would like a hand in implementing it. Let me know, I think you did a good job on that article.

Kindly, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey MicrobiologyMarcus. Thank you. I freely admit that the formatting side on wikipedia is not my strongest side. Technicalities and formatting is difficult to me, and I tend to focus more on writing, the text and content as such, rather than formatting styles. I do appreciate your effort, as well as the effort of any other contributor who wishes to participate in the article with their own areas of expertise. One of the strenghts of wikipedia is that we all contribute with what we are best at, and focus on different things. After all, an article on Wikipedia can never be fully completed. This article will probably be expanded further by me with content, but as to the formatting, I would only appreciate the help you wish to give! Kindly, --Aciram (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's awesome! You're right, that is a great strength of the project.

I'll give you some background, I semi-automatically loaded each book by search term into the RefToolbar and used the ISBN to automatically import all the details into the {{cite book}} template. As such, if you open this sandbox page with the Source Editor, you'll see each of the strings surrounded by {{ }} curly brackets. This tells the page to present it using a template. In short, you give the differing parts of the code different values. Each value is separated by a pipe character. So |first1=Joe |last1=Smith tells the template that the book was written by Joe Smith. Templates are handy because it allows you to repeatedly format things easily, like placing years in brackets or italicizing publishers. You can also link as you would regular text so that |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]| presents as Cambridge University Press in your citation, i.e.: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Heng |first1=Geraldine |title=The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages |date=2018 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=9781108381710}}</ref> lets you cite this.^[1] And then the references look like this:

There's a longer explainer on WP:REFB.

The problem that I had was that I noticed when I pulled them in, some of the references looked incorrect, with regard to year, etc. Therefore, for the next steps then, would you mind taking a look at the temporary sandbox I've set up at User:MicrobiologyMarcus/sandbox/formatpractice and going through those and correcting anything that doesn't match up with the (presumably) hard copies you used in creating your article? This would be easiest done using the Source Editor and confirming that each year/isbn etc is correct or correcting it manually?

Having this done, would allow us to progress to the next stage of using the {{sfn}} page identifier template on the article, and that the pages are actually correct as opposed to possibly incorrect from the ones that I loaded automatically.

Thanks, and if you have any questions, please let me know! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just stumbled across this discussion because Aciram's talk page is still on my watchlist, and something (I already can't recall what) piqued my interest on my watchlist. I just wanted to say, to both of you thank you for editing in the collaborative way that you are. Kindness and mutual respect and competence... I hang out at AN/ANI too much, I don't see enough of this. It's pretty much exactly like I envision the way WP is supposed to work. Cheers, both of you, just wanted you to know that you've accidentally made someone happy. Sorry for the interruption, carry on. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your interest, @MicrobiologyMarcus. Some of the information is copied from other articles in Wikipedia (and thus, so are their formatting, and references), and others comes from digitalized books. What I have done in the latter case, is simply to use the "citation"-function which provides a formatting I will trust is correct for a citation. I am afraid that this is more or less as far as I am able to go when it comes to formatting: to show where I have gotten the information, from which book, and which page number of that book. That seem to be the best ambition I can have for the moment, and perhaps it is sufficient. What I can do in the future to make it even more clear, is to link the digitalized book.

When it comes to formatting and such technicalities, I am afraid it is difficult for me to do more than the basic minimum. I will not be offended if any of the information I have added are removed, if the reference does not sufficiently show from where the information is, though I do, and will continue to do my best to provide that much. But I have to say my energy does not permit me to give much more time to formatting. My are of expertise is rather text and information, and I am grateful that there are others who focus on the are of formatting, were I am weak. I will not be offended if you, nore anyone else, will correct my article in that regard. That is after all in line with wikipedia's principle, that we all contribute together with what we are able.

I am sorry if I dissapoint you with this, but feel I must be honest. Thank you again for your kind words! --Aciram (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, yourself, @Floquenbeam, for your words. I believe we hade the same opinions about wikipedia: one of the things I have always appreciated most, is the principle of collaboration to complete and article. I just wish I had more energy to respond to @MicrobiologyMarcus kind efforts in a better way.--Aciram (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

“secret society of lesbians in Paris called the Sect of Anandrynes, although no such group existed.” You do realise that it is stated in one of the three provided sources to the text that no such group existed? It's in the internet archive of the glbtq site, I can't recall which of the three links it is, and I can't be bothered to check. Воксад50вт (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why is it even necessary to say that it does not excist when it does not concern her? The sentence already say that she was falsely "claimed" to be a member of this non-excisting group. If you feel it is important, you can just add "the non-excisting society of..." rather than that sentence, which may perhaps look a bit clumsy. Adress that on the article page if you will, I'm afraid I can't be bothered with this now.--Aciram (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply