User talk:Aṭlas/Archive 1

Pope Miltiades
Greetings! It's better to indicate his Berber parentage outright so as to avoid any ambiguity. He was not Haratin, for example. Cheers -- Soupforone (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Micipsa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adherbal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Moors
Greetings! Also note that the ancient Greeks only began using mauros as such around the Byzantine era. However, by that classical period, Mauretania had already long possessed its toponym. Therefore, Isadore was mistaken. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this information
 * And for your quick response. Cheers--Aṭlas (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Maghrebis
Greetings! Yeah, there was some vandalism; I tidied it up the gibberish. Please let me know if you need help with anything else. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Umayyad Caliphate
Greetings! Are you referring to the Umayyad Caliphate? Cause Jebel Irhoud and Taforalt are much earlier/prehistoric. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about "The history of Morocco spans over twelve centuries – since the establishment of the first Moroccan state by the Idrisid dynasty" !!
 * I think that morocco is much earlier then twelve centuries "Mauretania for exemple"
 * I think this sentence "the establishment of the first Moroccan state by the Idrisid dynasty" removed others dynasties like "Barghwata", "Emirate of Nekor", "Emirate of Sijilmasa" who were earlier then "Idrisid dynasty".
 * There is another problem. In this article there is over 40 citation needed template !!! So I was thinking If you can changing what is in this article.

--Aṭlas (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's way older than that. The Berber and later Islamic polities were indeed also jumbled. Anyway, I fixed it and tightened the formatting and prose. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks ;) Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) --Aṭlas (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know
Doug Weller's talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Aṭlas (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi! I have seen that you have reverted some of my edits claiming it to be "useless". I was not changing the name plates in the first place, I was changing them back after a user decided to replace, change or remove non-berber name plates. The pages include (Link), (link), (link), (link). We are not going to start a edit war about which name plates should be first, we are going to leave the name plates like they already are to prevent furthur problems. I also saw you undid my edits on the pages of couscous claiming I replaced words. I undid the edits of a few users who decided to replace words and leave the old sources in (link) and (link). So instead of going all around wikipedia claiming my edits are useless and following my contributions to undo all of them, you could have left me a message on my talkpage just like you did yesterday. Alhaqiha (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I get it now. But In lieu of reverting the whole edit, you can just edit it and leave the good things. Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have seen another edit which you keep reverting. On the page of Cyba Audia you keep deleting the categories "Arab women" and "Arab femenists" because you feel like they are not specific enough, and prefer "Lebanese feminist". At the same time you make exactly the same type of edit. In these edits of your you added the categories "Algerian Berber politicians" (link) and (link), why didn't you simply add "Algerian politicians" which is more specific aswell? I prefer if you would leave those categories, if you like to add the same type of categories to wikipedia pages. Also did you change a sentence on the couscous page of the cookbook from Habeeb Saloom, which is not the original sentence. It doesn't mention anywhere that Keskes is a berber word. Also did you twist the name plates again, for what reasons? Also do I want to see some of the sources and pages you have used to change the genetic percentages on the page of Maghrebis, because it seems very obvious based on your editing behaviour that you made the berber percentages higher (Almost 100% is not possible), and have lowered the percentages which is present amongst Arabs. Regards. Alhaqiha (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * category:Algerian Berber politicians is a subcategory of category:Algerian politicians and it's specific for this articles. category:Arab women is a parent category of category:Arab femenists. Arab femenists is a parent category of category:Lebanese feminist. So per WP:SUBCAT we should remove the parent categories if there is an Appropriate subcategory. And for the berber name of Couscous check the second paragraph which says: "The name Kuskusu may be derived from the Arabic Kaskasa (to pound small) or the Berber Seksu....." Scheherazade's Feasts: Foods of the Medieval Arab World p:93. Best Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Alhaqiha and Atlas, that's better fellas, but please desist altogether from soap/or and any potentially controversial edits. Instead, continue discussing the Maghrebi origins as you are doing. Once you have mutually decided on the appropriate wording, only then adjust it accordingly. As to the Tangier language template, you were actually both correct in that the Roman Tingis was derived from the Berber Tingi. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the article should remain untouched, the origins section is a rich material for Vandalism and Pov pushing. Thank you for your good behavior. Kind Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, I see. So the category Arab women is a parent category of Lebanese women as you said, does that mean that Berber writer is a parent category of Moorish writer as seen in many of your edits (link)? And I saw the source for the origin of the name couscous, but why would you switch name templates when we agreed on leaving them in my first comment to you (link)? I was also very interested in viewing some of your sources that you used for editing the genetic percentages on the page of Maghrebis. Greetings! Alhaqiha (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So the category Arab women is a parent category of Lebanese women as you said, does that mean that Berber writer is a parent category of Moorish writer as seen in many of your edits
 * No, category:Berber Writers is not a parent category of category:Moorish writer and this is the reason why added it.
 * but why would you switch name templates when we agreed on leaving them in my first comment to you
 * Well, It's a reversion. You can just change the template to the first version of it. I've changed it now.
 * I was also very interested in viewing some of your sources that you used for editing the genetic percentages on the page of Maghrebis.
 * You are talking about Morocco/Sous Berbers ? Because It is the only one that I added, you can find the reference in the article. Kind Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Heading text
I noticed you reverted my edit on Battle of Didgori... In fact claiming 10,000 Armenian army participating in battle is FALSE. This information rejects all other Scholars and Modern historical claims... And From that 2 Sources only 1 mentiones 10K armenians and It is unavailable to check the source... If we believe this "Source" than 40K Georgians, 40K Cumans, 18K alans, 10K armenians, 500 French = 110K

And this is nonsense!!! Georgian, Armenian, French and Arab Scholars put 40K Georgians, 15K Cumans, 500 Alans, and 200-300 French = 55,700 in Various sources like:
 * Anatoly Michailovich Khazanov - "Nomads in the Sedentary World"
 * Ronald Grigor Suny - "The Making of the Georgian Nation"
 * Lortkipanidze Mariam and B. G Hewitt - "Georgia In The XI-XII Centuries"
 * Golden, Peter B - "Turks And Khazars"
 * Javakhishvili Ivane - "The History of the Georgian Nation" vol. 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoRugby (talk • contribs) 14:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Arabs and Berbers one nation forever
You are an Amazigh, I don't know what makes you interested in articles for the Arabs, you are fighting the Arab race, although the Arabs and Berbers one nation collected by Islam, then what this hostility?.--RabeaMalah (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all this is not a battleground to fight "the arab race" or "the Berber race" .....
 * I don't know what makes you interested in articles for the Arabs
 * Well, this is wikipedia, so I'm free to edit anything I want.
 * You are an Amazigh
 * What's makes you think that I'm an amazigh? So If I am a Berber I can't edit unrelated articles to my ethnicity ?
 * although the Arabs and Berbers one nation collected by Islam
 * Don't think so.
 * then what this hostility
 * What hostility ? Where in my edits you found that I'm hostile ? Regards. --Aṭlas (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

RabeaMalah, please heretofore discuss for consensus per WP:BRD. The sweeps erroneously conflated the Arab panethnicity with the Arabid race and with Qahtanites (ethnic Arabians, who constitute a minority in the Arab world) sans Adnanites (Arabized Arabs, who constitute a majority in the Arab world). Also, ethnic Arabians have no greater presence in North Africa than they do in the Horn of Africa or Swahili Coast. As Aṭlas has pointed out and genetics and linguistic substrata clearly show, most North Africans are actually of Berber and Egyptian ancestral origin. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Look the situation now shifted from the edited to the fight an ethnic identity. In the Maghreb, there are more than one hundred million people in the Berbers article says there are twenty to twenty five Berbers, In the Gulf countries and the Levant We tell ourselves that we ethnic, cultural, identity and linguistic. The proportion of the Berbers in Tunisia and Libya does not exceed 2-3. Anyway that will bring editors Arabs also to participate in editing. Regards--RabeaMalah (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

RabeaMalah, let's keep the discussion in one area; either here where it already is or on the Berbers talk page. Anyway, I think you are perhaps confusing Arabic speakers in North Africa with ethnic Arabians. Arabized and non-Arabized groups in the Maghreb actually share ancestral origins. Berber speakers largely carry the E1b1b-M81 haplogroup (which has been found in Canary Island descendants of the ancient Guanche Berbers), whereas Maghrebi Arabic speakers more frequently carry the E1b1b-M78 haplogroup (which has also been found in Canary Island descendants of the ancient Guanche Berbers). Maghrebi Arabic/Darija also has a strong Berber linguistic substratum because most of its speakers still spoke Berber languages as recently as the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Ergo, a shared ancestral heritage. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I see you do a lot of Imazighen edits
Can you use/transliterate in Tifinagh? I have some articles that may call for the Berber script. Can you help?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not that good in using Tifinagh. I just have some basics about this script and I'll do anything I can.--Aṭlas (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me-they are:


 * Abdallah Zouaghi
 * Mohamed Triki
 * Mahmoud el-Alamy
 * Abdelaziz Drissi-Kacemi
 * Mohamed Afilal
 * Mohamed H. Fhema
 * Mostafa Salem
 * Ali Khalifa el-Zaidi
 * Thank you either way, hope you can help!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Abdallah Zouaghi
 * ✅ Mohamed Triki
 * ✅ Mahmoud el-Alamy
 * ✅ Abdelaziz Drissi-Kacemi
 * ✅ Mohamed Afilal
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Mohamed H. Fhema What's his Middle name ?
 * I wish I knew! That's what the source gave me... the fellow who helped with the Arab set from ar.wiki said roughly the same thing. Sorry @:^} --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mohamed H. Fhema
 * ✅ Ali Khalifa el-Zaidi
 * ✅ Ali Khalifa el-Zaidi

--Aṭlas (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are wonderful, thank you so much! On Mr. Fhema, what's the middle bit?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just punched it into Wiki, got Hassounah Hassouna Hassouneh, which is best? I know dialects differ and all...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And how did you find it?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome ! I think that his full name sounds like this (Mohamed Hassouna Fhema)
 * I found it in this websites (, and ) using some ancient secret Techniques LoL  --Aṭlas (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all of this! I am going to put those sources in the reference section. Is that a picture of him in the first one?Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome anytime and Yes this is a picture of him. --Aṭlas (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

spy
Stop fu**ing following me right!.--RabeaMalah (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At first you said that I'm hostile and now a spy. Frankly I don't want to show my identity, but because of you I will have to disclose it. Yes I'm a dangerous spy and I'm working with CIA and FBI to spy on you. And please stop using "fu**ing" in my fu**ing talk page. Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * LOOOOOOL you're super cute^^!.--RabeaMalah (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

RabeaMalah & Aṭlas, that's better wording guys. Besides WP:BRD, please also remember to adhere to WP:CIV. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Jamel Debbouze
I'm not a racist, I have a lot of friends Berbers in Switzerland, my girlfriend is Amazigh, Jamel Debbouze said more than once that he an Arab, secondly this his original name is Arabic. I'm not like some people who want to deny the existence of race Arab, or all of North Africa's population are Berbers.. I support the rights of the Berbers, Kurds and other ethnic groups in the Arab world.

The last time please stop monitoring my contributions, I feel under surveillance?.--HailesG (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For example, English: Barack Obama; Arabic: باراك أوباما??.
 * Again your using this racist term "Barbar". I'm not like some people who want to deny the existence of race Arab. There is no arab race!! Take an Advice from me, Stop using "race". This term is outdated. There is nothing called "arab race", "persian race" or "kudish race" or "french race". Historically, it was common to think that humans devided to different races (ex: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid) but now this is outdated!!! So we are all homo sapiens sapiens!!
 * And There is no reason for removing the Berber name from Jamel Debbouze page. Berber language is an official language of morocco and algeria. So what's your reason here for removing it ? You don't need Barack Obama as an example. Just Compare it with Zinédine Zidane, why there is no Berber name in Zinédine Zidane page Even him being a Berber ? --Aṭlas (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry typing error. keep calm! Arabid race. I know this well and the Arabs are Caucasian, I mean that the Arabs are not an ethnic group. I know the Tamazight language an official language in Morocco and Algerai, Before the name of Zinédine Zidane was in Arabic, but was removed because this makes confused that Zidane an Arab. Regards−HailesG (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Arabid race is an historical outdated term. Today, the terms (mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid) are obsolete. All This race concept was rejeted in 1960s. So Humans are a one race. --Aṭlas (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank! to confirm bring a source of Jamel Debbouze name in Tamazight, have a good day :)--HailesG (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who gived his name in this language. So I don't have to give a reference. However, this web press gived his name in Tifinagh . Thank you, you too :) --Aṭlas (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Semitic peoples
Semite, person speaking one of a group of related languages, presumably derived from a common language, Semite. The term came to include Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, some Ethiopians, and Aramaean tribes including Hebrews. Mesopotamia, the western coast of the Mediterranean, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Horn of Africa have all been proposed as possible sites for the prehistoric origins of Semitic-speaking peoples, but no location has been definitively established. So has nothing to do with Subcategorization, all the Arab peoples are classified as Semitic peoples. See for example Template:Semitic topics.--HailesG (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All pages have something to do with WP:SUBCAT. I think you didn't understand what I said in my edit summary. Go to the bottom of the page, you will find category:Arab people. And this cat is already a subcategory of the useless category:Semitic peoples. So we don't need to add a category in a page who already have the sub-category of it. Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's Alright anyway. Regards--HailesG (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello
Dear Aṭlas, First I would like to thank you for your edits in my country the Saudi Arabia. I'm working to improve the article, the page contains some texts that are controversial, which should not be in the lead text. Also, one of these resource was not related and not correct, this is why I removed it. The text that contain offensives to the people of the country should not in the leading text.

Thanks again. Saudi2828 (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Claiming that "Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and Arabs" in the lead is clearly a POV pushing. All your references don't mention this claiming.
 * The origin of Arabs: Middle Eastern ethnicity and myth-making nothing about your claiming here.
 * sauditourism not a reliable reference.
 * The New Encyclopedia of Islam Arabian Peninsula don't mean saudi arabia.
 * Britannica there is nothing about your claiming here.

--Aṭlas (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry to intervene, Saudi Arabia is not the birthplace of Islam and Arabs but the Arabian Peninsula, Saudi Arabia did not exist at that time, Arabs comes from the Arabian peninsula and the Badiyat al Sham.--HailesG (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear OK, I am aware that the name: Saudi Arabis was not exist at that time, it is recent political division (The region) in the Arabian Peninsula. It is called in the present-day Saudi Arabia. Saudi2828 (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * could you kindly not to do (Undid revision) to old version, I'm adding many new sources by doing (Undid revision) you delete all of the previous work.
 * * I think you have not read the sources, in following paper [], The author stated the following: (( During the century after Muhammad (d. 632), poetry is recorded in which individuals make novel expressions of being Arab. The first Islamic century is also when Arabic language inscriptions proliferated across Arabia and the Middle East (Figure 2). And the first two centuries of Islam witnessed both the earliest discernable attempts to write Arab history in Arabic and the genesis of genealogies and myths of origins that tie pan-Arabian populations together into one ethnic community. The evidence indicates that people became conscious of being Arab and took the first tangible steps to define Arab identity after their conversion to Islam )). Arab is not a race; Arab is the term to describe a group of people or (social unit) of a community.
 * Nothing about saudi arabia! --Aṭlas (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The following site is a government site [sauditourism], and thus it should be trusted. Otherwise, The World Factbook site, which is widely in wiki, should not be trusted sources? Explain why you think it is not trusted.
 * sauditourism is a touristic website, and it is not a reliable source. --Aṭlas (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * We are stating (Saudi Arabia is the birthplace), in another word, we mean the place or the land of Saudi Arabia..
 * No, saudi arabia mean this actual saudi arabia! --Aṭlas (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please give us any trusted references that state Saudi Arabia is not the birthplace of Islam and Arab; otherwise, your argument is not valid. We know Mecca and Madina ((which are in Hejaz)) located in Saudi Arabia, They are the birthplace of Islam.
 * You are the one who should give a reliable reference stating that "saudi arabia is the birthplace of islam and arabs", instead of using touristic websites. Give a reliable reference. --Aṭlas (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * in The New Encyclopedia of Islam book, page 58, the author stated that ((Arab: the Semitic people indigenous to the peninsula)) Saudi2828 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For the million time, there is nothing about saudi arabia in this reference. Saudi arabia don't mean Arabian peninsula. --Aṭlas (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In the book entitled "the Doing Business with Saudi Arabia" [] page 333, the author stated that (( present day Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam .. etc)). Thus, here is my suggestion, I will use the following term ( The term present day Saudi Arabia ). Let me know if you have question or comment before changing and editing the page. Also, please read the policy of Wikipedia very carefully.
 * "the birthplace of Islam" not of arabs! And don't give me your advices, you are the one who needs to "read the policy of Wikipedia very carefully.." And take all this to the talk page of saudi arabia. --Aṭlas (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Zirid dynasty
Greetings! Please point out what you think is inaccurate. Is it that you're unsure whether the Zirid dynasty was Berber-led? Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I was talking about the new edits by user:Kabyle20. Because in this user is (changing the ancient map with a new map, changing the entire lead with a new huge one .....). I just want If you have some good informations about this dynasty to Confirm the validity of his edits. Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion about this ? --Aṭlas (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What exactly do you think is inaccurate about the map? Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Zirids and Ottoman Algeria
You have cancelled my contribs on this articles. For Ottoman Algeria i i start a discussion in talk page but you didn't respond to me... The "status quo" is not a reasonable option if there are academic references on one subject, especially if the previous content does not rely on centered sources or misinterpretation (or misuse) of them. Best regards, Kabyle20 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For the Ottoman Algeria you can definitly restored your edits. The zirids need a short lead. --Aṭlas (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. I will read again the text of Zirids to shorten it in the next fex days. Best regards, Kabyle20 (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Chaouia term origin
Hey,

I saw your most recent edit, while I'm happier with what you have now, I'm still not convinced it's 100% accurate. As far as I know Ibn Khaldun in his original works never referred to the people living in the Aures mountains as Chaouia. He named individual tribes and never used an all encompassing term to describe the people of the Aures. The translation of his works that you linked is not a faithful 1:1 translation, but rather a rewriting and editing of his works by a French writer relying on the research of Thomas Shaw and Shaler from the previous century (1738) to tie modern identities of Algeria with Ibn Khaldun's history.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgeriaResearch (talk • contribs) 06:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello
 * Well, ibn khaldun used the term chaouia/shawia in his work. Check The Muqaddimah (Translated by Franz Rosenthal), Chapter II "Bedouin civilization, savage nations and tribes and their conditions of life, including several basic and explanatory statements", part 2 "The Arabs are a natural group in the world": "Those who make their living from animals requiring pasturage, such as sheep and cattle, usually travel around in order to find pasture and water for their animals, since it is better for them to move around in the land. They are called: "sheepmen" (shawiyah), that is, men who live on sheep and cattle". I have the primary source "مقدمة ابن خلدون" In which he said: "قد قدمنا في الفصل قبله أن أهل البدو هم المنتحلون للمعاش الطبيعي من الفلح والقيام على الإنعام وأنهم مقتصرون على الضروري من الأقوات والملابس والمساكن وسائر الأحوال والعوائد ومقصرون عما فوق ذلك من حاجى أو كمالي يتخذون البيوت من الشعر والوبر أو الشجر أو من الطين والحجارة غير منجدة إنما هو قصد الاستظلال والكن لا ما وراءه وقد يأوون إلى الغيران والكهوف وأما أقواتهم فيتناولون بها يسيراً بعلاج أو بغير علاج البتة إلا ما مسته النار فمن كان معاشه منهم في الزراعة والقيام بالفلح كان المقام به أولى من الظعن وهؤلاء سكان المدر والقرى و الجبال وهم عامة البربر والأعاجم ومن كان معاشه في السائمة مثل الغنم والبقر فهم ظعن في الأغلب لارتياد المسارح والمياه لحيواناتهم فالتقلب في الأرض أصلح بهم ويسمون شاوية و معناه القائمون على الشاه والبقر". --Aṭlas (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Atlas,

This is an excellent answer! thanks for finding the primary source. Can you please update the "chaoui people" page with this information including the primary source as this is the best source of information. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgeriaResearch (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Acculturation
Greetings! As this was originally your concern, please share your insight here. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Ibn Hanbal
Hello! Yes, I did that for a reason which I already specified to two others; I had added all that information from my own research, but need to use it for an essay which I was planning to write. In order that my professor not assume I just copied it from Wikipedia, can I delete it until I submit my work and then re add all the info, which I have anyway? Megalodon34 (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey
I saw the discussion on Arabs because of you, I just wanted to thank you. I'm trying my possible to put some common sense in this article. I'm not sure why it shifted from being a neutral one to an ideological loaded one. Have a good day.GoulGoul1 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I left the discussion from the first chance I had, it took an unexpected turn. Thank you, you too! and Merry Christmas to You. --Aṭlas (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's weird. I've seen someone who added a part showing the other side of the question (because let's face it, ethnicity is beyond the most moronic claims) with some support from Bernard Lewis and while I'm not exactly a fan of him in regards of the Palestinian-Israeli question I have no reason to do doubt is schoalarly work in regards of pre and post Islamic times. (at least, I didn't find any reason to). He tackles specifically the question of what is an "Arab" and makes it clear that it stopped referring to an ethnic group and became a social label more than anything else. Go check : The Arabs in History -Bernard Lewis it's in the intro. The Ameer guy passed me some of his sources but it doesn't remotely satisfy his criteria of ethnicity. It speaks specifically of ethnicities as limited to North Africa. Heck, even early pan Arabists were talking about who is really an Arab and whether it should be limited to Western Asia, or some said at the maximum extent Egypt, some proposing North Africa, etc. So it definitely wasn't a solved question. Have a good day.GoulGoul1 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Explanation
Can you explain how this is an unreliable source?


 * Ozlem Belcim Galip, Imagining Kurdistan: Identity, Culture and Society, I.B. Tauris, 2015.

?????--Kansas Bear (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Kansas Bear
 * Well, Ozlem Galip is Specializing in Armenian Studies (her position is a Postdoctoral Fellow in Armenian Studies and she have a phd in kurdish studies). Her research interests are Kurdish literature, novelistic discourse, Armenian and Diaspora Studies. To this moment, I can not find anything related to islamic history in her file. Let's turn to the book. Imagining Kurdistan: Identity, Culture and Society is more a political science text rather than a historical text and If we consider it as a historical text. We have here a general History of Middle East. At least, that is my opinion. You have every right to revert my edit If it is not useful. Regards--Aṭlas (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

RabeaMalah/HailesG
Re your sockpuppet suggestions, suggest you file a report at Sockpuppet investigations, since you identified the case. I will happily back up your case with previous data about RabeaMalah/HailesG. Many thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your Question
Obviously you need to leave this to others now. The new editor has his 3rr warning and will almost certainly be blocked if he continues. Make sure you don't get caught up in a report. About him as .of course being right isn't an exemption. It's on my watchlist now. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You reverted twice my additions
Hello,

Could you please explain in the Talk section of Ibn Tumart's article why did you revert twice my additions ?

Thank you. --Fulgery (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustBerry (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
Could you please go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to confirm you're not willing to compromise so we can go to the next step : The "Request for Comments" ? Fulgery (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Request comments
Here are some points that I don't accept in your presentation of the dispute :

1) "There is a content dispute about the Possibility of giving weight to the mahdi/sharifian claims by adding Arab to the lead and to the infobox" should be "There is a content dispute about the Possibility of giving weight to the Arab origin by adding "Arab" along with the already present "Berber" to the lead and to the infobox.

2) "Note: there is three supporters of the Berber origin of this Historical figure (me, Cplakidas, Walrasiad), and there is one supporter of the arab of origin (Fulgery)." should be "Note: there are four supporters of the "Berber" origin of this Historical figure (me, Cplakidas (that was alerted by me), Kansas Bear (that was alerted by me), Walrasiad), and there is one supporter of the "Arab or Berber" origin (Fulgery)."

3) "(as an editor Failed to get the point)" should be removed.

4) "The questions of this RFC are: Should we give weight to the sharifian claims by addiding the following sentence to the lead ?" should be "The questions of this RFC are: Should we give weight to the Arab origin by adding the following words to the lead ?" (the sources and "citation needed" should be removed, it will not appear like this as the Berber mention will also be sourced) :

a Muslim Arab or Berber religious scholar

"Or restoring the undisputed version" should be "or leaving the current version as is" which is :

a Muslim Berber religious scholar

5) "but the important question is: What is the most reliable/uncontroversial origin for this historical figure?" should be "but the important question is: Do the arguments presented by the "Arab or Berber" supporter justify the modification of the article ?"

6) "Support or Arab (support giving weight to the Sharifian/mahdist claims, and the arab origin...... and adding it to the lead....)" should be "Support or "Arab or Berber" (support giving weight to the Arab origin by adding it to the lead along with the Berber origin, and relating the differences of opinions in the body of the article)

7) The "Amghar" point is not addressed.

8) The "citation needed" for "Even today the claim of Shariffian lineage of Morocco's current ruling dynasty, the Alaouites, is largely disputed" is not addressed. 02:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Fulgery (talk)

Survey Section
There's no reason for me to go the the "Survey" section as I'm not accepting the wrong formulation of the problem and I want the users to be informed of it from the beginning. So please leave the note that I'm restoring. Fulgery (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Write it as a note in the survey section. It is not allowed to write in the place that you chose. --Aṭlas (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The users must be informed before looking at the exposition of the problem, as it doesn't reflect the discussions and is misleading. Please show me the interdiction. Fulgery (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why have you moved the NOTE part ? The point is that the users should be informed before reading the misleading informations. --Fulgery (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Per Requests_for_comment --Aṭlas (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, there's no interdiction. I already alerted you about the wording. The best solution is to close it and to open one with the real points, as the current overall presentation is misleading. Fulgery (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ibn Tumart's article new changes
Why did you revert my changes ?

I explained it all in the talk page.

Days ago, your arguments were : "not reliable". Now, could you please give me your arguments against the addition of the Arab descent and against the deletion of the Amghar name, both based on reliable sources ? Fulgery (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't reach a consensus in the talk page and the RFC is not finished yet. --Aṭlas (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're the one that reverted my edits today. The past discussion was turning around the lack of reliable sources and I didn't participate in your RFC that is misleading for me. I brought reliable secondary sources, especially the Arab scholars. I repeat : Your point was "no reliable source". Now, according to Wikipedia rules, what are your arguments for reverting the addition of the Arab descent and reverting the deletion of the Amghar name, if they are both based on reliable secondary sources ? Fulgery (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't reach consensus in the talk page. No one in the talk page supported your edits --Aṭlas (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mind me interrupting for a second. Specifically which changes do you find problematic? --JustBerry (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He reverted all my changes :
 * 1) I added the Arab descent with a new reliable source (see the point 2 at the end of this part for other reliable sources) and added a reliable source for the Berber descent. Now, all the significant views concerning his descent are mentioned in the lead and in the infobox.
 * 2) I deleted the "Amghar" name, supporting that deletion with reliable sources showing that this was an error (see the point 8 at the end of this part). Fulgery (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable references?
According to whom exactly you claim that these are unreliable references:. Please explain yourself and post evidences for your claims. Thank you. 109.121.57.241 (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

RIF REPUBLIC
HI ATLAS

Your supposition that the rif republic was declared as an independance from spain and from the Moroccan Sultan Mulay Yussef is totally false, and eny source that you shared suggest this information. This is an opinion not a fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by HfedBo (talk • contribs) 14:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zand tribe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lak. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

recent reverts on the Arabs article
May I have your reason/justification on your recent reverts on the Arabs article? specifically placing an image of Al Jahiz on the Orgins and early History section and changing the image of The Dome of the Rock in the Ummayad Era section to Alhambra? Tarook97 (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not clarified your changes. Why changing this images ? Is there a problem with the old images ? Why restoring user:HailesG sockpuppet's edits ? Do you have any relation with the blocked user HailesG ? I'm just restoring the old version. You are the person who must clarify his edits. Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Consider filing at SPI
Regarding your edit summary. If you think this is the same editor, why not file it at SPI? Since the sock case is still fresh, the checkusers will have recent data available. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the ip adress. As you can see he is from Switzerland just like HailesG. Can you restore the page to the old version of it ? I don't have time to file it at SPI. -Aṭlas (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit in question is changing a large number of things. I don't know which items you think are distinctive of HailesG. I've applied semiprotection to Arabs. For the moment, you don't have to worry about IP socking there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This two edits -Aṭlas (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Those edits aren't vandalism, so, as an admin I should not be reverting them. Consider explaining the issue on the talk page and maybe one of the regular editors will take care of it. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Uzun Hassan
This is not about Hassan. The source is about the Safavids, and about Shah Ismail. Please refer to the source of Hassan and Aggoyunl ... The king's titles can be 100. You do not need to write them. We only need to write a formal title. Uzun Hasan was never the Padişah of Iran. Because at that time there were no Iranian state. Aydinsalis (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Atlas, ignore this POV pusher. Aydinsalis has been reported for edit warring. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay -Aṭlas (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi
First, thank you for protecting the Arabs article from the attacks. I honestly don't have the energy to engage in this stuff so I just want to thank you again for this. Second, don't you find it incredible how we presented our side of the problematic and we still have no answer ? What is happening exactly ? Besides Hailes' attacks here and then, why isn't this issue being solved ?GoulGoul1 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Your recent editing history at Arabs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Neil N  talk to me 21:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing dispute
I think this needs to go to WP:RSN now and would advise not to revert. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC) And as I've told the other editor, you know about editwarring, you should have gone to Rsn earlier unless the article talk page is busy enough to expect others to comment. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Abu Hammu I
Hi, I'm Yashovardhan Dhanania. Aṭlas, thanks for creating Abu Hammu I!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Good work done here. Some more references would help

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Yashovardhan (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Abu Hammu I
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.archive.org/stream/EncyclopaediaDictionaryIslamMuslimWorldEtcGibbKramerScholars.13/01.EncycIslam.NewEdPrepNumLeadOrient.EdEdComCon.Gibb.Kramersetc.UndPatIUA.v1.A-B.PhotRepr.Leid.EJBrill.1960.1986._djvu.txt. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Jebel Irhoud
Fascinating, isn't it? The dating predates the oldest haplogroup on the phylogenic tree by over 100,000 years (!). Hopefully, they will eventually also analyse the fossils for ancient DNA. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

IDRISSID dynasty preceding almoravid dynasty
Hello atlas !

i saw you reverted back my changed specifying IDRISSID dynasty preceding almoravid dynasty in morocco geographic region; can you please clarify your sources ?

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.240.226 (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Idrissid dynasty was disestablished in the 970s, while Almoravid dynasty was established in 1040. So, correct you informations. Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Mural & analysis
Yeah, quite unfortunate. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverts
Please stop reverting and edit-warring, claiming "unexplained removing of referenced content", when it has been explained in several edit summaries. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, this user is a clear Vandalism-only account. His edit summaries don't justify his removing of referenced content. And the thing he wrote in Talk:Kerma Culture ("The wikipedia user inserting all this nonsense into various wikipedia pages (about the C-group culture, Kerma, etc.) is probably some disgusting Berber nationalist troll who is desperately trying to construct a super-ancient Berber civilization of some sort on the pages of wikipedia by using inaccurate citations and distorting the meaning or relevance of sources.") makes it worse (per WP:CIV, he's attacking user:Soupforone). Sorry for any misunderstanding. Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see him as a Vandalism-only account at all, however intemperate his language. It was a pity you just blanked his edits here. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Riffian people, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Catholic Scout Association in Israel
Based on http://www.csaii.org/images/logo.png, can you please add the Arabic text to Catholic Scout Association in Israel? Thank you again!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion
I suggest you to add this user to Sockpuppet investigations/HailesG. He/she does not seem a new user + similar edits. I am pinging for informing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.152.162 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Saïd Cid Kaoui
Hi, I'm Babymissfortune. Aṭlas, thanks for creating Saïd Cid Kaoui!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please provide more references for verification.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Baby miss fortune 07:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Percentage
Greetings! What do you make of this ? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What? -Aṭlas (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Salem Chaker) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Salem Chaker, Aṭlas!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"A well-written article and a useful addition to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.
 * Thank you, Cwmhiraeth for the review. Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

History
Hello, I am writing you, because you change the history, and always you wrote Morrocan, but Almoravid and Almohads never was Morocco. Almoravid Empire (1040-1147) was a Sanhaya Berber country, and Almohad Caliphate (1121-1269) was a Masmuda Berber country.
 * The legitimate heir of Almoravid Empire: Banu Ghaniya
 * Banu Marin, since 1215

In my opinion, it`s different Morocco and any country before, because I can found any kind of linking of them, and according to Ibn Jaldun "Magreb Al-Aksa is the west part of Magreb", but not a country.

The exemple is: Constantine the Great, he was born in a city in Serbia, but he never was serbian, he was roman!!!, because Serbia was create in a different times...Lucas-Recio (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Atlas...
Wikipedia is different from Britannica, if you want just to copy whatever is written there, even if it's full of mistakes, then just ask them to merge both websites. I also started a discussion in the talk page and asked you to bring any other source that mentions Abdelmumin's birthplace...for the moment you brought none --History21st (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Doug Weller talk 16:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

My answer to you.
Do I look the only one who did changes between millions of people in the moors?! I did my changes in regard to the ancient book "The Jughurthine War" it was written by "Salluste" the map shows a little country called "Mauri" the actual Morocco and the king of Mauri was named as "The Moorish King Bocchus" and it's population called "Moors", are aware of this truth or not?! Look for the book and read it before Judge me. Jamaru25 (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You might be interested
- LouisAragon (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)