User talk:R Prazeres

Thanks

Hello Prazeres, thanks for your appreciation and wishing you the best. JS (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

yo the libu edit i work hard on that one

could put it again please ? 41.254.66.152 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No, and use the article's talk page, not mine. R Prazeres (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stonewalling_and_POV_pushing_in_the_Aghlabids_article

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--L2212 (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

revert

Special:Diff/1172061936: I assume you meant to revert the previous edit, not the bot? Or maybe the bot revert was intentional... BattyBot, that notorious POV-pusher... Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, yes of course, thank you for spotting that. I thought I'd selected the previous edit. R Prazeres (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible bias against Libya

It seems like you remove anything that is argued or even proven with a source that involves Libya. This includes the predecessor states of Libya too. Many people have even told me that it seems as if you’re trying to suppress Libya’s history. I am not making any claims regarding whether or not you do have a bias I am just telling you what some people have told me. TheHistorian100 (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, earlier today I edited “Battle of Djerba” by added Ottoman Tripolitania as a belligerent alongside The Ottoman Empire. I added a reliable source to prove it. but not even 1 hour later, R Praverez decided to remove it. Another battle I edited was the Battle of Wazzin. it previously said Anti Gaddafi Victory but was then changed to Tunisian victory due to the mass editing that took place a couple weeks back. I reverted back to Anti Gaddafi Victory because the Battle of wazzin WAS an Anti Gaddafi victory (The rebels captured Wazzin), R Praverez gave me a warning and then I was banned from editing for about a week. Many people have also told me about how R Praverez reverts their edits even if they have many reliable sources. Yousefsw07 (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

TheHistorian100, and who are these "many people"? R Prazeres (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to note this, the editing of both TheHistorian100 and Yousefsw07 strongly match the pattern of a number of anons who have tried to push a pro-Libyan bias on the same articles for about two years. In many cases, their edit summaries are also misleading, masking content changes as "grammer correction" or correcting "inconsistencies". While I do not want to suggest any bad faith on their part, I suspect they subscribe to Libyan nationalist viewpoints, as they remove foreign successes over Libyan forces or minimize the role of foreign actors in Libyan conflicts. Applodion (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really, I typically don’t write a description when editing wikipedia sites. My edits are often reverted even if I provide a true and reliable source. A friend of mine also showed me a wikipedia edit he made a while back in which he provided 5 reliable sources but it was then reverted because you (R Prazeres) had told him that he can’t use Arabic sources, despite you(R Prazeres) having a good understanding of arabic according to your profile. All i’m suggesting is you guys should really take a look at the sources that us Libyans provide rather than just ignoring the source and reverting it Yousefsw07 (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You can go on about your conspiracy theories. I’ve only ever edited on the account “TheHistorian100”. You claim that pattern leads to that which is blatantly false. The reason you notice is because there are many Libyans that’s true and all of them have complained about the same people. Whether it is the Libu, Garamantes, Tripolitania or even Jamahiriya it seems like it gets reverted immediately. I have to admit both of you are definitely more knowledgeable than us and now how this stuff works, however I’ve seen these sources directly and they have said what people have tried to change. For example removing Tripolitania’s involvement in the First Tunisian Campaign by Algeria. The sources are very clear, but self-evidently we are going to struggle to cite things compared to you. The only reason I established this bias towards Tripolitania is because it seems it is. Self-evidently you should fix unsourced claims, however when it comes to other Maghrebi countries I’ve seen many pages where things are unsourced. Examples include “List of wars involving Algeria”, “List of wars involving Tunisia”, “List of wars involving Morocco”. Those are only a couple I’ve the pages I’ve observed. I will say again that I’m fine if you remove unsourced claims from Wikipedia pages but if you do the same should be done with the other pages. I also want to clear up I am not any of those anonymous accounts I am willing to realize I am wrong. TheHistorian100 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that you said “2 years”. I’ve only been interested in history recently and it is just incoherent to assume it was me the pattern does not match up I always give a description about what I do and do not claim everything is a “Libyan victory”. TheHistorian100 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

TheHistorian100 (and Yousefsw07), could you please answer my question: who are the "many others" you referred to above? R Prazeres (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Like the person affirmed earlier he has already acknowledged that there have been people trying to edit and clarify the pages for over a year. I do not how you want us to answer your question, within the history and nationalist TikTok and Discord community you’re one of the couples who people are warned about. Again just to clarify I have no grudge against you I’m just reporting what I’ve heard. TheHistorian100 (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for providing more context. With that in mind, I'd like to suggest to both of you (you and Yousefsw07) that these other people are probably encouraging you to violate Wikipedia's policies (probably because they don't undertand them). Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but only if they respect Wikipedia's core content policies. If you wish to continue editing on Wikipedia, you should review those policies carefully and show that you are capable of editing within those guidelines.

Editors who are too focused on a certain point of view will not only violate the "neutral point of view" policy, but very often they also fail to use reliable sources (the only acceptable support for adding or changing information), or take shortcuts by misrepresenting sources and adding their own interpretations (which violates the "no original research" policy), and they often refuse to respect consensus (which is the main method we use to determine if something improves an article or not). Even if all of this is done with the best of intentions, it is incompatible with good editing on Wikipedia.

In these cases, I do nothing more than review the appropriateness of edits according to Wikipedia policies and I revert them when they're inappropriate, or even if there's a significant chance that they're inappropriate. It's not personal and I don't care about what political viewpoints are involved. Editors are reported and blocked only when they repeatedly violate guidelines and refuse to change their behaviour after being informed of the problem. I report persistent problems to administrators, and it's the administrators who decide whether to block editors, not me.

If you're not sure how all these Wikipedia guidelines work (which is perfectly normal for new editors), then you should be more cautious in your edits for now, you should ask questions when you don't understand something, you should listen to feedback from other editors, and you should respect the consensus of editors even if you disagree. If your edits are reverted and you believe they shouldn't have been, the appropriate next step is to discuss it on the article's talk page and try to give a better explanation (see WP:BRD for recommendations). TheHistorian100's decision to start a new discussion at Talk:Chadian–Libyan War, for example, is the right approach. (It should simply have happened earlier, rather than waiting to be reverted twice.) Editors may still choose to reject what you propose on the talk page, but no one will report you for simply proposing something. R Prazeres (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Separate message for Yousefsw07: you were already blocked once and you did not change your behaviour after your block expired, so I've already reported you at the administrators' noticeboard here, as you should be aware. Please read my explanation above, and if you believe you can change your behaviour to conform with Wikipedia guidelines, then I recommend you explain this clearly by replying at the report I linked. Otherwise, as I indicated, it just looks like you'll continue to make inappropriate edits, which may result in another block. R Prazeres (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I see alright then thank you for the explanation. I also noticed you labeled the Tripolitanian Civil War as a Karamanli victory in contrast to a Tunisian victory. I was not familiar with the Talk page before, however I will begin using it. 22:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

^^ That was me I was not logged in TheHistorian100 (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Regency of Algiers

Hi R Prazeres, there was significant rise of vandalism in this article lately, some IPs were literally putting insults in arabic inside the article or removing content and sources, i think it's better if a semi-protection is added for a considerable time. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed. However the vandalism/disruption usually needs to be fairly constant and intense before an admin will agree to semi-protect it (e.g. if there are a lot of edits in a day or two and they're all consistently reverted as disruptions, that's clearer evidence). There are still enough productive edits in the last couple of days it seems, so I think we're not at that point yet. Feel free to ask again if it does get worse and you want some help to request semi-protection. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Hi, why was the coat of arms removed ? It’s pretty well sourced and I don’t remember the website having any copyright restrictions on it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware. You mean the image was deleted from Wiki Commons? R Prazeres (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah nevermind, I see the deletion nomination page now. It seems that file was deleted because it was uploaded by a disruptive user (I'm vaguely familiar with the user, so I'm not surprised). If the coat of arms image is properly sourced and it's in the public domain (which would be the case if the image is found in historic sources), I don't think there's any issue in uploading it again. R Prazeres (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Hi , first one is based on two secondary sources, what's wrong with them ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I decided to reply on Talk:Regency of Algiers to make it easier for other editors to see the explanation, if needed. R Prazeres (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

sorry

I'm sorry mister R for the confusion but may I ask where to add the Libyan Amazon? Fullofdino (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"Libyan Amazons", if they existed, are already mentioned at Amazons. The article you edited is a disambiguation page and it already links to that article, so there is nothing else to add. R Prazeres (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification but I presume Libyan amazon should be added as another article due to the idea that there is more than one Amazon nation mention by Greeks which are scythians and the Amazons of Libya and I read in northern turkey Fullofdino (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You can propose that at Talk:Amazons and see what other editors think. R Prazeres (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you mister Fullofdino (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I added can you check it for me ? Fullofdino (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I can confirm that you posted on Talk:Amazons, yes, if that's what you mean? R Prazeres (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

yes thank you Fullofdino (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Kawahala tribe

Hello, sir. Could you please refrain from editing the page? The Kawahala arrived in Sudan during the 10th century, conquering southern Egypt and eastern Sudan, as recorded in history. They intermixed with the Beja, known as the Blemmyes at the time. Additionally, please note that the Juhayn tribe is a Qatahni Arab tribe, not an African tribe. It would be incorrect to classify it as an African ethnicity. Metaphysics34 (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Please respond to the questions on Talk:Kawahla people. It is your responsibility to follow Wikipedia's core content policies. Please do not tell me to "refrain from editing". R Prazeres (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

At least for now, there's some respite. I hope the editor will heed your warning and follow your link. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Mamluk sultanate of Egypt

Why you keep deleting it ? The official name that was used At this time was just kingdom of Egypt as Bebris used in his formal messages or sultanate of Egypt Using the term Mamluk Sultanate is modern thing that has notging to do with the history Ahmed Mahboub (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see the comment I left for you at Talk:Mamluk Sultanate. R Prazeres (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello. I wanted to make you aware that your signature is linking to User talk:R Prazres instead of your user talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not seeing that. Is there a specific example where it's doing that? R Prazeres (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Real quick

This is literally the first edit ive made to the tripolitania republic article, I don't see how im edit warring.

WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 15:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You can clearly see that it's been removed before and reverted multiple times. I don't care if it's your first edit, as an experienced editor it should be common sense that you don't repeat literally the same edit that was reverted right before you. Next time, make your case on the talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Culture of Egypt

Sincerest apologies about the edit-warring! I was not aware of such a term and I assure it shall not happen again. I was simply trying to fix the spelling errors after I added the citations, but the page kept lagging and removing all my work; I did not intend to insinuate a disagreement. However, I'd like to mention that the new information I added to the article is well sourced, accurate, and also taken from first-hand experience with the topic (Culture of Egypt) and would like to know what exactly is wrong about the information I added so that I may fix it and educate readers about this topic well. Humanity'sHistorian (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Humanity'sHistorian (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Idrisid Religion

Hello, I recently edited the article about the Idrisids and their founder being Shi'ite/Alawite, however this was reverted. But sources such as:

Marshal GS Hodgson, Venture of Islam, Univeristy of chicago press p 262), suggest that Idris and his family actively participated in Alid revolts against the Abbasids and were likely Zaydi or Alawite

Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Salman Cooper Mapping, as I briefly explained in my revert ([1]), this is a more tricky issue than it may seem and there is disagreement among sources about the religious identity of Idris and the Idrisids, or indeed about whether present-day religious classifications are appropriate for this era. This is covered at Idrisid dynasty#Religion. The Idris I of Morocco article does not discuss his religious identity at all, so in any case it's not appropriate to include in the infobox, which should be a summary of what's covered in the article text (per MOS:INFOBOX). If religion is to be included in that article (and/or other articles about the Idrisids), it would need to be discussed in similar detail and without imposing a particular conclusion unless there's a consensus among reliable sources (which currently there doesn't seem to be). In the meantime, the infobox can simply include Islam as the religion (like at Idris II of Morocco), since that's uncontroversial and self-evident. R Prazeres (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Just read a few more sources about Idris I's religin and I agree with the section about the Idrisid religion, so I guess I'll just add his religion as Islam. Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Mekla

Hello! so a couple of minutes ago i edited the Mekla Page and added an economy tab with a source, could you tell me if its good or unnessecary? Thanks. TBATlol (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @TBATlol, of course it's acceptable to add something if it's based on a good source and the source is clearly cited. The only problem with the previous material I removed was that it was unsourced. (It also looked like personal commentary, which unfortunately is not allowed on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:No original research.) Happy editing, R Prazeres (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

ah, excuse me for that i didnt pay attention to it, but yeah, and im looking to add a sport category, is it acceptable? TBATlol (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, like I said, as long as there are good sources, it's almost always acceptable. At a general level, content simply needs to follow the core content policies. If you want a general idea of what well-developed article about a city looks like, you can also look the examples here, which are all classified as "Good articles" (meaning they've been reviewed carefully by many editors). E.g. London, Paris, etc. You'll find that a lot of similar sections are included in those articles. R Prazeres (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright Thanks. TBATlol (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

List of Muslim states and dynasties

What basic general info did I removed from this article? 223.123.113.168 (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It wasn’t me who removed Saladin’s full name!

It was not me who removed Saladin's full name. Anyways you told me to discuss in the talk page, could you please explain what you mean. I have lots of reliable sources Quirk1 (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit was unrelated to you, it was just something I noticed afterwards. Please discuss the article at its talk page, Talk:Saladin, like I said before. But in short: the Kurdish ancestry of Saladin is amply supported in the article per reliable (secondary) sources, which is all that matters on Wikipedia. So do not change this information the article unless you've obtained a consensus on the talk page to do so. R Prazeres (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus with who, the Admins? And what if no one replies to me. The Arab ancestry of Saladin is amply supported Quirk1 (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

With other editors, see WP:CONSENSUS. If no one replies, that means there's no consensus. R Prazeres (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that consensus could be obtained by continued editing, is that true? Quirk1 (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No, not when you've already been reverted, see WP:BRD. And since you're obviously favoring a specific POV without appropriate support, your edits would be considered disruptive. Now stop trying to convince me, this topic belongs on Talk:Saladin. R Prazeres (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by appropriate support? I edited "Ayyubids" and you talk to me about Saladin and not his family which have all denied being kurdish including Saladin's close relatives Quirk1 (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It says "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change." So come have a discussion with me on Talk:Saladin please since you've reverted my edit, we could work it out Quirk1 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh nvm, it says begin a discussion with the person who reverted your edit. Could we have a discussion here? It would be a proper one Quirk1 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess I should provide more than 1 reliable source next time, I thought one source would be enough. I'm still waiting for an answer to my previous question about the discussion btw Quirk1 (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhaja?wprov=sfti1#Origins This page uses genetic DNA tests to identify the origin of both the Kutama and Sanhadja tribes, why can ppl not do the same with Ayyubids? Their genetic tests prove that they are from the Arab tribe Ghatafan. Also, was a consensus obtained for Saladin's or Ayyubids' Kurdish origin? You said new wiki editors should ask more questions, so here I am Quirk1 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I told you multiple times to go to Talk:Saladin and open a discussion there. I will not repeat myself again here. R Prazeres (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I asked you if you will take part in it because Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle says that you should discuss it with the person who reverted your edit. ? Quirk1 (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

this is just a r explanation in case I've miss-explained myself. My question is will you take part in the discussion or not? Quirk1 (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I will participate as needed, but that's not what matters; what matters is that discussions about an article should take place at the article's talk page, where all concerned editors can participate, not just me. R Prazeres (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia should notify me about your responses. Anyways I think there has already been a discussion in the talk page, can you see it? Someone quotes the book of the Ayyubids from an Ayyubid author. This book is the collection of letters of Sultan Al-Nasir Daoud bin Al-Malik(King) Al-Muazam Isa bin Al-Malik(King) Al-Adil bin Ayoub, who died in the year 656 AH. [in Arabic: وهذا الكتاب هو ديوان رسائل السلطان الملك الناصر داود بن الملك المعظم عيسى بن الملك العادل بن أيوب المتوفي سنة 656 هجري] I have faith in you that you can help Quirk1 (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

? Quirk1 (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The Ayyubid kings have shown their Arabness in their poems, want to see? How could you say they are kurdish by origin if they literally denied it many times, read my friend, please. Read how they denied being kurdish many times as they also said "‏ونقلا من صدق كردي مطلع ذكر في منشور له :

‏حكى الملك الأمجد الحسن بن داود الأيوبي تـ670هـ في (نسب الأيوبيين) المستهل من كتابه [الفوائد الجلية في الفرائد الناصرية] ( 44 ) - متعقبا نسبة ابن الأثير تـ630هـ في [الكامل] لهم إلى أشراف الأكراد - ، حيث قال :

‏[ وهذا شيء يجري على ألسنة كثير من الناس ، ولم أرى أحدا ممن أدركته من مشايخ بيتنا يعترف بهذا النسب ، لكنهم لا ينكرون أن نجم الدين كان بُدِّوين .

‏وسألت المولى الملك الأمجد تقي الدين أبا الفضل عباس بن السلطان الملك العادل هل سمع من والده أو أحد من إخوانه الأكابر اعترافا بهذا النسب ؟ ، فقال : ما سمعت أحدا منهم ينتمي إلى الأكراد ] ." Quirk1 (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Alcázar of Seville, re:

You want sources on everything my friend, I will provide sources for that section I added and I will add as I translate the whole Spanish-version-article, today I will go back to the version I left and add reliable sources like books to the new sections.

The article in the spanish version have sources of books written in spanish, some can be seen online, but I am going to add is sources of books written by english speaking authors, much more suitable for this wikipedia, if I can, if not I will add spanish ones.--LaGuairabeach (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. I saw your newest edits to the article; thank you for the good work. Happy editing, R Prazeres (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

User page question

Do you know how i could add "this user lives in" on my info page? Quirk1 (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Use Template:User lives in. Basically, just copy-paste this: {{User lives in|place}}

And replace "place" with your country/location. R Prazeres (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Quirk1 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess i don't have permission to do that Quirk1 (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)