User talk:شهاب الدين البشموري

January 2024
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Al-Nasir Muhammad, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. R Prazeres (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello !
 * I do not see a problem with modifications, as everything I have added is mentioned in the Arab and contemporary sources of Al-Nasir Muhammad, and these titles appeared on the coins of Al-Nasir Muhammad, and the drawing is a bearing depiction of Al-Nasir Muhammad, so where is the problem? أبو القاسم الصعيدي (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, please review the policies at Verifiability and No original research in particular. Some of the main points to keep in mind after seeing your edits:
 * If you add information you must provide the source(s) it's based on. This is part of "verifiability". Sources should be indicated by using inline citations (see Citing sources). And please make sure to use reliable sources (see Reliable sources).
 * For example, you added an image that claim is "Possibly depicting Sultan An-Nasir Muhammad", but there's no reliable source supporting this claim and no reason why it would necessarily depict al-Nasir Muhammad. Indeed, all the scholarly sources I've seen so far that mention this illustration do not say it depicts a specific person. (See my "correction" comment below)
 * Within the "original research" policy, there is also a section that instructs editors to rely on secondary sources first and foremost, not primary sources. Wikipedia is basically just a summary of the information that's already published by other experts. Therefore, editors should not be making their own research into historical sources, but should be repeating what modern historians say.
 * For example, this means that any "titles" you add for a ruler should be sourced from a modern historian who says that they used this title. Simply looking up the coins or the text of contemporary sources on your own is not sufficient. Even if you may be right, you need to find a reliable secondary source that agrees with you.
 * Another helpful note: the "infobox" at the top of the page is supposed to be a summary of information in the rest of the article. Where possible, please prioritize improving the main text of an article before making changes to its infobox, otherwise you might accidentally introduce inconsistencies within the article. It's also easier to add and justify information this way, because you have room to explain things more clearly in the main text. Also, if you added information to the main text and included clear citations to sources there, you don't need to repeat the citations in the infobox again if you're simply making the infobox consistent with the updated content of the article (you can say this in your edit summary, for example).
 * I hope this helps. Happy editing, R Prazeres (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction: Sorry, I looked at the article again and saw that the image you added to the infobox was already present below with sources. (I've struck out the specific comment I made about this above.) In the future, if you move something around like this, please do not remove the sources that were already present; this is part of what made your edit appear unverifiable when I reviewed it.


 * But that being said, because the claim of depicting al-Nasir Muhammad is unconfirmed and is not repeated by most other reliable sources, it should not go into the infobox. Leaving it below allows for a more detailed caption providing appropriate context. The image of a contemporary coin is something we commonly use for articles about historical rulers who do not have reliably identified portraits. If you disagree or you want to discuss anything like this further, I recommend you leave a comment on the article's talk page, where other editors can also provide their input. R Prazeres (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)