It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove the tag: the copied text is simply the full title of an organisation, and as such, it must be allowed to copy it. --Aciram (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editing my post
I'm sorry for forgetting the closing tag for the small text, but I've put it in now, so there's no more need to remove the opening tag. StuRat (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It means to say that she acquired a lot of money from Marie Josephine because of her dominant influence, but perhaps I did not use the right word. It was taken from the linked references, which you can read yourself to see which words are appropriate. But this is perhaps something to discuss on the discussion page ot the article--Aciram (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the passages are actually linked: you need only to press the linked references, and search the name Gourbillon in the books there, and you can see exactly what they say for yourself and, I am sure, be a better judge of this than me, as English is not my native language. --Aciram (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is German your native language ? Because those links come up partially in German, making them difficult to navigate, for me. StuRat (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am from Scandinavia. But how very odd! Those links are completely English for me. I can not understand how they can be in German for you, but it must be some kind of technical trouble. In any case; the books are in English, so I suggest that you simply google them, and you will find them available to read in English :)--Aciram (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not knowing either language, I must have mistaken one for the other. Here is some of it: "Sök Bilder Kartor". Something is apparently wrong with your links causing them to come up this way. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little confused by the second sentence of prose here, is "bi figure" intended to talk about her sexuality? Or...? Anyway, if you could clarify that sentence, I'd be happy to help with any wording issues--most appreciated. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk22:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at it again, and i must say I was a little confused: when I saw your edit on my watchlist, I removed it almost automatically when I saw that your edit had removed a link to the other language version articles. The articles should of course link to the equivalent articles in other language versions of Wikipedia. However, now, it seems that the article still have these links, despite the fact that they have been removed. It makes me confused, so I must assume that Wikipedia must have introduced a reform in which the articles can link to their equivalent articles in other language versions of Wikipedia despite the fact that these links are removed. How odd. If that is the case, then of course by all means make these changes. The main thing is that they link to their equivalent articles in other language versions of Wikipedia; no matter by which method these links are there, they still seem to be there, which is the main thing! --Aciram (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I overlooked that. Now I have, and It seems to clarify the matter. I am glad the matter have been solved. I clear case misunderstanding! I am sorry if you felt to be treated like a vandal. Please continue your good work. --Aciram (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While Everimov is a plausible Russian name, and in any case, would sound in Russian, in feminine gender, something along the lines of Everimova (as a patronymic, assuming that von Everimov signifies that), Eyerinov -- not so much. She most likely figures under the German name because of her schooling and appointment in Leipzig, and because this way she made it into German sources.. Anyway, thought you would like to know, and go on to correct things. Good luck in making the article bigger. --Mareklugtalk21:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your post. I started this article because I came across her name on the net, and thought an article would be appropriate. However, I know nothing about her, I simply trusted the reference, so I cannot tell what it correct, I can only trust the reference I had. However, the articles in Wikipedia is free to edit and develop by any one who has knowledge about the article subject, so please feel free to edit and make changes if you have references which support them! This is more of a subject on the articles discussion-page, as this article does not really belong to me, but to everyone who is freed to edit it. Good luck. --Aciram (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you should take more responsibility for introducing bogus information to Wikipedia. I cannot begin to feel disappointed. I appraised you of your, frankly, inexcusably shoddy work, and it behooves you to damn fix it. Cordially, --Mareklugtalk22:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I created that article in good faith. Wikipedia is built on the principle that articles are open to everyone to start and edit according to their knowledge about the subject. This is in line with Wikipedia policy. I myself have started many stub articles, and I have also expanded many such stub articles created by others, in the case when I have knowledge of the subject. Wikipedians participate in good faith and by their own free will and not for wages. This article is subjected to the same rules as are any other, and can be expanded and deleted by anyone. I do not appreciate your tone, and I have no reason to accept your accusations. Accordingly, I will give you no further response on my talk page and will feel free to delete your additions to it. I would kindly appreciate if you stay away from my talk page. Thank you very much. Have a nice day. --Aciram (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi: Regarding your work on this article, this is to ask if you have any information bearing on the notability of the subject? If there really is no further information than that she was a mathematician who at one point worked in a certain era, with no indicia of significance, the article is highly likely to be deleted. Best, RayTalk04:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you have created the article Naksh-i-Dil Haseki and you emphasized that her identfication as Aimée du Buc de Rivéry is not supported by the evidence. That's what I've also thought (see my comment) However I also observe that you have copied the section As Nakşidil Sultan from the former article. This is in contradiction with your claim. I think either the section As Nakşidil Sultan of the former article or the section The Legend of your article should be reworded. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. However, I am not an expert on the subject. As I have explained on the discussion-pages of both articles, I merely performed the move, and did the clean up of the split afterward. The main thing is, that they are not as yet proven to be the same person. As I have also stated, it is for the experts to determine exactly which information should be in which article. Then, that must be performed the same way as in any other article. I can not decide that: the split up is performed, as it should be, but I can not take a stand as to which info should be in which article. Both article's are far from done, and both need attention and editing from several experts before they can be regarded to be complete, which articles on Wikipedia never really are. So, please feel free to correct both articles if you have referenced information. The articles does not belong to me, or to anyone. The issues should be discussed on the discussion pages of each article. Cheers, and good luck on your editing!--Aciram (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Women's rights activists
What a great job you did in dividing the list into countries! I had thought of doing that at some point, and haven't gotten around to it, and you've done a magnificent job! Now it's much easier to look up individuals and activists. If I were an administrator I'd give you one of those barnstar things, well deserved. Randy Kryn 17:58 28 June, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. It is quite easily done, and as you have perhaps noticed, the list is not really compleeted and should be divided in to more countries: the "Other" section should be abolished and divided in to sections, and the fever names it has, the easier it becomes. Good luck on your work!--Aciram (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[2]Hi. The website you used as a source has only a very vague idea of the subject and the article contained one mistake ervery 3 words plus wrong links : Crispo was not a "Greek monarch" (wrong link to the Greek royalty), she was not a regent, these islands were not a "state" (see duchy of the Archipelago), "Nio" is a wronk link and is actually nothing but a variant name for "Ios". She can't have the same woman (Lucrezia Loredano) being at the same time her grandmother and her mother ; she can't marry the lord of an island and later inherit the same island from her grandmother. Anyway, sorry if my edit summary looked somehow rude.--Phso2 (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent then. Though, this message could have been posted on the talk page of the article. Thank you for your explanation. --Aciram (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider expanding beyond a stub - possibly more biographical info i.e. her life before 1694 and after 1700. Thanks! Schwindy (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate, I undid your edit to Olimpia Maidalchini and thought I should explain why in more detail. It may well just be a factor of the resulting language but your edit changed that line to "as well as several papal conclaves during the reign of Innocent". Given that conclaves elect popes, there were none for her to have influence over during his reign. It was only once he died that there was a conclave for her to influence (and another after that, from memory). Thoughts? Stalwart11123:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you look carefully through the edit history, you may find out, that the only thing I actually added, was "during the reign of Innocent from 1644 to 1655": [[3]], as the article should summarized which years she was politically active without one having to look for the reign of the pope in his article. For other than that, you have to find that person who wrote what you are asking for. --Aciram (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's exactly right. I didn't think you meant for that line to apply to the conclaves but rather to her influence in general. But because it was added to the end of that sentence, it looked like it was in reference to the conclaves. Perhaps inserting your bit earlier might work better? Stalwart11103:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean now. Well, wikipedia is open for every one to edit and words does not really belong to any one, so please feel free to place the words in question where you feel the intended meaning will come out best! As I am not English-speaking, you are no doubt more competent than me in this particular matter. The main thing is of course that the meaning is made clear and the point is made. --Aciram (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aciram, and thanks for your many valuable additions, including new articles! In several of your recently created articles (on historical people with a relation to Sweden) you have included hard-to-translate names of organisations, titles and so on in Swedish. This is a very reasonable choice, but I think it would be good if you marked those names as a foreign language, either by setting them in italics or possibly by using the {{lang-sv}} template. I believe this will improve the readability to an English-language audience which is unable to make out the Swedish words. You have included your own translations into English, which is good, but I would recommend you to use regular parentheses ( ) rather than [ ], which are not really used in "regular" text. To many readers, using [ ] makes it look like it is wiki code, matrix algebra or some other mathematical notation. Again, keep up the good work. Tomas e (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
