Hello Aciram! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

:No problem, categories are tricky ones! To add a category to an article, you put it in just like a normal wikilink: so if I wanted to add this page to Category:Wikipedians, then I would type [[Category:Wikipedians]]. Because of the ways categories work, it doesn't appear as a normal link. Categories are usually placed at the end of articles, as the last text after the inter-wiki links and External Links. See Wikipedia:Categorization for more info. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your articles about Margareta Elisabeth Roos and Ulrika Eleonora Stålhammar, and I just wanted to tell you that I'm glad to see that someone besides me is interested in the subject of women in war. If you could add sources to these articles, that would be very helpful. You can learn how to cite sources at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks again for creating those articles, they were quite interesting. Asarelah 15:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you now have made over 200 edits to the English Wikipedia, and have been here for over one month, it is my pleasure to present you with this Service Medal to honor your contributions. Cut and paste it onto your user page and display it with pride.

You can also change the medal to a ribbon or a book if you prefer, just click on the blue link in the medal for more information. There are other grades of service medals, you can change this one into a higher grade as you gain more experience on Wikipedia. Again, congratulations! Asarelah 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I noticed that you added the categories of "Women" and "Medieval Women" to the Veborg article. While Veborg is, of course, a woman and a medieval woman, it is not appopriate to add these categories because the category of "Women in Medieval warfare" is a subcategory of "Medieval women", and "Medieval women" is in turn, a subcategory of "Women". Articles are not supposed to be in a category when they are already in a subdivision of that same category. Don't feel embarressed, this is a very common mistake made by new editors. I made the same mistake myself when I first started out. Asarelah 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go into your settings and turn on your email. I was hoping you could help me with some genealogy in Sweden.

I was hoping you might have more access to information in Swedish on Anders Örbom and his descendants.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Another Wikipedian and I just created a Salem Witch Trials task force. If you are interested in history, Massachusetts, colonial America, witchcraft, or instances of religiously motivated violence, then this is the task force for you!

So please check it out!

Sincerely,

Psdubow 00:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Anna Koldings, by Chrisd87, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Anna Koldings is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Anna Koldings, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Anna Koldings itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I apologize for reverting the source you added to Emilie Högquist. The thing that made me confused is that your addition here can be considered defamation purpose since it lacks citing sources. Your adding source (Carin Österberg) in a particular section leads to the misunderstanding that the source is used for the whole general information in the article, not for the piece of maybe-libelous "her voice like chicken" whatever itself. I suggest you should use the tag <ref>your source here</ref> for the information you added and other editors won't have any reasons to remove your edits. And about Bollhuset, even if you are the one who started the article, other editors have the rights to fix or remove information that is not appropriate or violates Wikipedia policies. It seems that you translate articles from Swedish to English. Don't mind citing sources even they're in Swedish. Put the template {{Sv icon}} beside your sources to notify readers that the sources are in Swedish. If you don't cite any sources, your edits will be removed at length. Best wishes. @pple 11:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aciram, I don't know how to say but I was truck with shock when reading the announcement on your userpage that you will no longer take part in Wikipedia. Though I've known you just one day so far, I was really impressed by your invaluable addition to Wikipedia's content. I'm going to miss you. I still hope that you'll come back someday. Best wishes. @pple 09:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And from me. Truly sorry to see you've left. A great contributor who will be missed. If you do decide to return someday, please drop me a line to say hello. —Moondyne 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you've come back. What can I say, I've never seen such a prolific editor. Good job! Hope to see you regularly. Best regards. @pple complain 06:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What great news. Welcome! —Moondyne 13:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Elisa Bernerström, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisa Bernerström. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for all your good work so far in creating historical biographies from the Scandinavian countries. I have wikified and English-grammaticised many of them before giving them a classification, but I am here asking if you could develop them as fully as possible yourself before you submit them for assessment, as it takes me a deal of time to bring them up to standard before I (or any of us at Biography) can honestly assess them while complying with Wikipedia guidelines/policies. For now, I have tagged the latest batch with wikification templates, hoping that this will attract someone who can find the time to do this. When they are up to standard, we will be able to give them a classification. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. No, please do not stop submitting them for assessment. If you cannot develop them, consider adding the following as your first line in the edit source:

{{wikify|article|date=Month Year}}

adding the current month where it says Month and the current year where it says Year.

Could you also make sure that your sources are contained in a section called References, as, along with Notes, that is the only source section heading allowed under the manual of style.

Finally, to indicate yourself that your articles are Stubs, please put the following above or below the categories at the bottom of the edit source:

{{stub}}

That will add a stub template into the article, thus guiding assessors.

Thanks for your understanding. When I get time I will have a look at some of your articles to see if I can bring them up a bit. For now, keep up the good work. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Witch trials in Poland were not common due to above average religious tolerance (see Warsaw confederation), but there were some, and the subject is notable. I could point you to some reliable Polish sources (authors: 1) Małgorzata Pilaszek from 1990s-2000s, ex. Procesy czarownic w Polsce XVI-XVIII wieku doctoral thesis, article in popular history magazine, another article follow up to her article 2) Bohdan Baranowski from 1950s-1960s, ex. Procesy czarownic w Polsce w XVII i XVII wieku (book) 3) Szymon Wrzesiński, Wspólniczki szatana. Czarownice na ziemiach polskich (book) 2006. ) 3) Piotr Byczkowski's master thesis on witch trials in Poland, [1]]) 4) Joanna Żak-Bucholc Czary i stosy w Polsce. 5) Here is an academic work with a para on bibliography of the subject: W. Korcz, Procesy czarownic w Zielonej Górze w XVII w., Rocznik Lubelski 1959, t. I; B. Baranowski, Najdawniejsze procesy o czary w Kaliszu, Archiwum Etnograficzne, t. 2, Lublin 1951; tenże, Procesy czarownic w Polsce w XVII i XVIII w., Łódź 1952; tenże, Pożegnanie z diabłem i czarownicą, Łódź 1965; J. Rosenblatt, Czarownica powołana, Warszawa 1883; K. Kaczmarczyk, Procesy o czarostwo w r. 1688 i 1689, Lud VII, 1908; tenże, Przyczynek do procesów o czary oraz Dwa procesy o czary z 1684 r.. Lud XXIV, 1925; K. Koranyi, Beczka czarownic, Lud XXVII, 1928; tenże, Czary w postępowaniu sądowym, Lud XXV, 1925; J. Tazbir, Procesy o czary, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, t. 23, 1978; M. Pilaszek, Procesy czarownic w Polsce w XVI – XVIII w. Nowe aspekty. Uwagi na marginesie pracy B. Baranowskiego, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, t. 42, 1998; J. Rabianin, Jeszcze o czrach i gusłach w dawnym Lublinie, Lublin 1936. Out of those I'd recommend work by Janusz Tazbir, he is one of the best Polish historians of the era. Oh, and of course there is a little at Polish wikipedia ([2]). In other words, there is a lot of material; usually I'd stub it myself but I am a bit busy now so there may be some delay. Unless you know Polish language and can use the above sources for yourse, you could request the article at WP:PWNB or wait till I find time and will to do it. PS. I also assume you have tried this and this. PSS. Try WP:RD and ask Clio if you need a stub, her answers usually are pretty good :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template/category for which trials by country? Could you give us (at PWNB) some examples of related existing articles? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this article. However, the article is badly sourced and there is a risk that it will be deleted if notability can't be established. If you have any direct literature reference it would be great if you could add that. Thanks. MaxPont (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hej, Aciram. When creating your articles, please don't forget to put in a Wiki Category too. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hans the Werewolf, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans the Werewolf. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ecoleetage (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following is a msg I left on Mme de Pompadour's talk page:

Aciram: Thank you for the above comment. I do not agree with English language wikipedia as to its 17th century-19th century judgment of women. In France, the 17th & 18th centuries (except for the years Mme de Maintenon reigned over the morals at Versailles), and the beginning of the 19th were not a time of puritanism. The morals at Court & in higher classes of society were rather loose & women having romantic affairs with men other than their husband were not considered to be *prostitutes*! From the bourgeoisie on up to the royal family (even in lower class families where parents wanted their daughter to "faire un bon mariage", i.e. marry someone rich), marriages were pre-arranged *business deals* from which love was excluded. This was bound to lead to latter *love affairs* when two persons happened to meet & fall in love. One day when I have have time, I am going to remove many names from that ghetto-like Category:French courtesans and prostitutes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_courtesans_and_prostitutes. Frania W. (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. I agree with you in what you say about the weiv on sexuality in 18th century France. I was in fact also talking about the matter in general, the view on this in Europe in general; also, for example, an 19th century English actress, who had affairs, could be considered to be a prostitute, even if she was not: she could be described as such by her time, and therefore categorized as such in wikipedia, when the article is based upon such sources and tradition. I wish you good luck in adjusting this, and hope that you will also remove such wrongful labels from women of all nationalities as you find them, as I have done myself. I am glad if this puritanical wiev could be corrected toward a more neutral point of view. -Aciram (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aciram: Merci beaucoup for returning to me. I am happy that I am not the only one with this non-puritanical point of view. Fortunately, we can bring changes to wikipedia and, with some luck, convince others that their way of thinking does not always relate to the standards of 17th & 18th century Europe, of every country of Europe, as there was quite a difference between Sweden & Spain, Spain & France, France & Austria, Austria & England, etc. We have to know & understand how people thought at the time & not judge them by our way of thinking.

Meilleurs vœux pour 2009! Frania W. (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might notice that using AWB I've recently made edits to quite a number of your articles. Really, I just needed a good list of articles to help, and your contribs seemed like that good sort of list. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I am not offended at all, and I know it's not personal. My articles obviously needed to be improoved, and I am only glad that they have been! Keep up the good work! --Aciram (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've just done a bit of editing on Cathérine Charlotte De la Gardie, most of which you wrote. There's one phrase I need your help figuring out. You write that "thirteen women and five men were accused of child abduction to Satan." The phrase "child abduction to Satan" isn't idiomatic, and I'd rewrite it if I were sure what it meant. Does it mean they were "accused of abducting children and sacrificing them to Satan"? "accused of abducting children in Satan's name"? "accused of abducting children at Satan's behest"? "accused of abducting children at Satan's command"? "accused of abducting children and presenting them to Satan"? Or something else?? - Nunh-huh 18:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. In Swedish witch trials, the alleged witches were often accused not of magic, but rather of abducting children to the witches sabbath of Satan. I hope that was of any help. I am glad my article is appreciated. --Aciram (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I enjoyed the article and learned some rather interesting things from it. Please have a look to be sure I haven't ruined it :) - Nunh-huh 20:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were excellent! I always welcome editing of my articles, as I am aware of the fact that English is not my birth language. --Aciram (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you just edited Inga Åberg an article that you started in 2007. May I ask if you are Swedish? If so I am wondering if you could help with some articles about historic singers that have a few problems? Best regards. --Kleinzach 09:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I started the article of Inga Åberg - and others similar - when I was new in Wikipedia. Looking at them now, I know they do have their faults. My field is Women´s history, and I have written several articles of women in history from the Scandinavian countries. I am not an expert on the productions within opera, theatre and ballet, but I do have some knowledge about the history of these fields in Scandinavia. I do not have much time on my hands, but I you have anything in particular to ask regarding these articles, then feel free to do so, and I will anser to the best of my ability and time. Regards--Aciram (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with Inga Åberg, the problem is that we need to make clear which roles she undertook were straight theatre and which were opera. (There's a confusion about this in many of the articles.) We need to identify works with their original language names and link them to articles in Wikipedia. (In the case of opera there is a list of most articles on Wikipedia at The opera corpus.) Looking at the section 'Repertoire' we see:

'Among her other parts were "a spirit" in Armide by Gluck and Yngve in Frigga by Gustav III composed by Olof Åhlström (season 1786-87), Carl in Folke Birgersson till Ringstad (Folke Birgersson of Ringstad) by Kexel after a work by Monvel (1792-93), Carl Sjöcrona in Det farliga förtroendet (The dangerous trust) by Grétry (1793-94), Gustafva in De gamla friarna (The old/two suitors) by Dalayrac (1795-96), Agarenne in Panurge dans l'île des lanternes by Grétry (1799-1800), and Madame de Brillon in Monsieur Des Chalumeaux by Pierre Gaveaux (1807-08).

Unfortunately Swedish titles of French works don't mean anything to English readers. We need to give the original French titles - and wikify the original Swedish ones. There's a lot more but maybe we can start here? Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, those tags are to indicate where the corresponding article is featured in another language and has content that is worth translating or including. Since the scope of the project doesn't include non-featured articles, where the corresponding article is not featured I remove the tags. (Or occcasionally I replace it with something like {{Expand Swedish}} that doesn't assume the article is featured.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now that I'm here and see you speak Swedish I can invite you to help! I'm basically going through all the articles tagged with {{FAOL}} and seeing if there is actually anything worth translating. These tags were applied indiscriminately to every foreign-language FA at one point in time (without regard to whether the foreign-language FA was actually better than our article) so many of the translation requests, especially for smaller languages, are basically worthless. I've been checking up on them and removing ones that are obviously not helpful and replacing good ones with {{Expand Swedish|articlename|fa=yes}} (fa=yes indicating that it's a featured article in case anyone cares about the distinction). This way eventually the FAOL tags will be merged into a larger translation request system. Since I don't speak Swedish (though machine translators can help) I generally just check out the length of the article and the quality of the referencing. I'm trying to avoid borderline cases for this reason. If you want to help going through them that would be great! The category is Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Swedish).

The new tags place things in the category Category:Articles needing translation from Swedish Wikipedia and the subcategory Category:Featured articles needing translation from Swedish Wikipedia. If you're ever looking for new articles to translate, good requests can be found in those two categories. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now I have a question for you! I see that you originally placed the FAOL template (and that it was not placed--like many others--as a part of the huge FAOL-template-placing project years ago). Why did you put it there? To indicate that a sv.wiki article existed? To do that, an interwiki link is better (which I see you also applied). If you were doing it to indicate that you translated from the sv.wiki article, the best practice is probably to apply the template {{Translated}} (see the template page for instructions). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Christina Ingesdotter of Sweden wiki article you claimed that she was a Russian princess when in fact she was a princess of Kievan Rus'. Kievan Rus' is something else then Russia, just like the Roman Empire is not Italy. I hope you will be more careful in the future. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I am a little embarrassed about that mistake, actually, and can only blame it on simple carelessness. I am glad you corrected it! I have also corrected it even more: as she died before her spouse became Grand Prince of Kiev, it seems that she was in fact princess consort of Novgorod, Rostov and other cities, if I have understoond it correctly. Please feel free to correct whenever you have more information! --Aciram (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hee I didn't know she was a princess of Veliky Novgorod, Rostov and Belgorod instead of Kievan Rus' ;) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Hans the Werewolf, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans the Werewolf (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DreamGuy (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated The Fisherwife of Palermo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fisherwife of Palermo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. You make good contributions, and I'd hate to see them removed. Dreamguy seemed to be concerned that the Fisherwife and Hans the Werewolf were tortured to make them confess, it might satisfy his concerns if you clarified that in the articles. If there is nothing in your sources to indicate that torture was used, you may want to mention that on the AFD discussions. I'll go over the articles and fix any problems I see regarding the English language. I know how cruel English can be to a non-native speaker, and I'm always impressed when people learn it, even when they don't speak it perfectly. Asarelah (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Its mainly just some grammar and phrasing issues. I understand it fine, but apparently Dreamguy is much more nit-picky. Asarelah (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also added some hidden comments on the Fisherwife article that can only be seen when the edit tab is clicked. Its mostly requests for clarification that would improve the article greatly. I'll come back and work on it some more and also check over the Werewolf article and add more hidden comments in areas that need to be clarified. Asarelah (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aciram, I noticed that you mentioned reservations about commenting on an AfD discussion for an article you created. I wanted to assure you that such reservations are completely unnecessary; on the contrary, your input is probably the most valuable in such discussions. On the AfD guideline page, it is strongly recommended that the person who nominates an article for deletion put notifications on the page of the article creator and significant contributors to give them a chance to provide their input. This is partially because they should have a chance to justify the work they have done, and also because they may have an insight into the subject that other editors may not. In addition, if a change to the article is suggested they would likely take part since they've already been editing the article. So please don't hesitate to do so in the future, your presence in those discussions is very much appropriate. Thanks! -- Atama^chat 23:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that if the problems are unresolved that the discussion can conclude with a deletion. However, the article itself doesn't have to be "fixed", there just needs to be a consensus that the article can and will be fixed. That counts as "resolved". I can't tell the future but I suspect that unless more people come into the discussions with firm objections to the articles that they would pass as "keep". Thanks! -- Atama^chat 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aciram, fan of theatre! The oldest Czech professional theatre was apparently the Estates Theatre in Prague, which is also the oldest theatre building in Prague. It was opened with the play Emilia Galotti by Lessing. I have in my hands two excellent books on old Czech theatre:

• Starší divadlo v českých zemích - osobnosti a díla (Older Czech Theatre - Personalities and Works) ISBN 978-80-7008-201-0
• Stavovské divadlo (Estate Theatre) ISBN 80-902183-7-7

Unfortunately I can't find the names of the first actors... Initially the theatre was German, it is known as the place of premiere of Mozart works. The first Czech performance (play "Odběhlec z lásky synovské" by Gottlieb Stephanie) took place in 1785 with František Jindřich Bulla (1754, Prague - 1819, Lemberg) as Holbek's son, František Jindřich Höpfler (1753, Prague - after 1804) as Holbek father, and Antonín Zappe (1744, Prague - 1824, Prague) as Petr. I can provide more biographical informations, if you want, but I'm not sure, if they were really the first actors there. Btw, I'm currently working on this :) Have a good day, colleague. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aciram. That is great subject that you investigating, i would love to participate! Share with me your findings!

• Well, oldest Serbian theatre is Knjaževsko-srpski teatar in Kragujevac, from 1835.
• First regular theatre in Belgrade is from 1841, "Theatre on Ćumruk", or "Ćumrukana" in Belgrade, Serbia.

You can see some photo here and here. This is one of the last pictures before Nazis destroyed it in WWII.

• And the Serbian National Theatre from 1861 is the oldest continuously running Serbian professional theatre.

And regarding Actors, well, Čiča Ilija Stanojević was one of the first, directors and actors, and Dimitrije Ružić, Milka Grgurova, Draginja Ružić, Laza Telečki, Miša Dimitrijević, Dimitrije Spasić, Draga Spasić... One of the best Serbian actors ever was from that period, Pera Dobrinović. I am play writer, so ask me if you need something else, and share with me your search.

All best, Tadija (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right! I will start! They deserve it! :)

Tadija (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the Plovdiv Dramatic Theatre seems to have been founded in 1881 as the Luxeumbourg International Theatre.[3] The Ivan Vazov National Theatre established in 1904 traces its history back to several companies, the oldest of which was founded in 1888.[4] The first organized theatrical performance in Bulgaria was the premiere of Mihal the Mouse-Easter, the first Bulgarian drama play, in Shumen in 1856 by Sava Dobroplodni.[5] Hope that was of some use, if you have any more questions, feel free to ask at my talk page or WPBG :) Todor→Bozhinov 08:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your questions at WP:RD/H, "What was the first theatre in Hungary with professional actors of both genders? Who is counted as the first professional actor and actress respectively", I posted a question at the Hungarian reference desk. In response, I was told "Answer: National Theatre of Miskolc; Róza Laborfalvi; and maybe Latabár Endre." Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work today Aciram on two of our Queens by the name of Richeza in English and Rikissa in Swedish! But let's be totally consistent and rename the last one you did Richeza of Denmark, Queen of Sweden so she matches the others perfectly. Thx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The queenly title is neccessary only when more than one princess of a certain country bore the same name. There were three Polish princesses named Richeza, so the titles had to be Richeza of Poland, Queen of Sweden, Richeza of Poland, Queen of Castile and Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary. Since this Richeza was the only Richeza of Denmark, the current title is just fine. We should avoid long, clumsy titles; eg. Catherine of Aragon is much better than Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England. Surtsicna (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're pasting similar entries around, let me do so, too (from my talk page)!

I think consistency is much more important between these namesake queens and that the addition of "Queen of..." always is a good idea: a necessary clarification of who these women are and not at all clumsy. Thus, I do not agree re: Catherine either. Only some British people might know that there has only been one Catherine of Aragon in history and that she, thus named, must be that Queen of England we may have heard of. I don't think en.WP is supposed to cater mainly to what Brits might know. There is no British WP (that I know of - perhaps there should be?).

Seems adamant users could be content in using the consorts' nationalities/names before marriage (which I think is an awful idea, but have conceded), and that they then might not want to confuse things even more, in my opinion, by refraining - on rather flimsy grounds (to me, sorry!) - from having their most important position in the article titles. If in one title, let's have it in all, so a majority of readers will have any chance at all to figure out what we are up to! I am a great lover of the strictest possible consistency because I have seen it triumph unquestionably over contrived inconsistency thousands of times in creating much more clarity and much smoother usage. Please forgive me!

I also believe just as much in a global perspective for all WP projects as I do in using the best possible English to reflect it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your appreciation, SergeWoodzing. I think I must agree with Surtsicna in this issue, however. I used the queen title for Richeza of Sweden, because the dates for her births and death is unknown, but I think that should be avoided if it is possible to do so, as it is a little long for a title. --Aciram (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I wrote to you about this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to appologize. We all have different oppinions, and that's fine with me. I'm glad the titles were changed from the original ones, if those were badly suited. --Aciram (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the new "My opinions..." texts on my user page which covers most of what I have to say on this and related issues. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job Aciram! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aciram: Re: recent expansions. In all the excellent work you do, please be very careful in using too much of Herman Lindqvist as a source. He is not reliable and mixes fact with fiction in a very dangerous way (for an encyclopedia). Especially his 2006 book on the Queens of Sweden is terribly inaccurate and full of material that would belong in a novel, not in factual writing. I have a whole list. Too much of this stuff in our articles here will lead to an almost insurmountable task if we have to try to clean it up and make it reliable. Best regards, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work you did today on Queen Sophia Magdalene! A number of us still don't understand why a pornographic fantasy drawing, never meant for publication and totally unknown until 1987, should be displayed in this bio. Just think how many such drawings there would be all over if this were standard procedure! That drawing has never been notable and does not in any way illustrate anything actually relevant to the queen. Wish somebody with the energy to debate it would try to remove it once and for all. I can't. Greetings! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aciram: Please stop using edit summary comments such as "Do not be offended." They are not relevant to the work we are doing. Just supply relevant, well-referenced facts and continue doing all the good work you do, without any more-or-less accusatory personal comments about and/or to other editors. They are likely to be offended by that, not by your edits. Thanx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love the painting you have on your user page. It is just beautiful! Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Aciram. You have new messages at SlimVirgin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]