User talk:R Prazeres/Archive 2

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. L2212 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Might be up your street
I noticed that there was no twin towers (architecture) page, so I created one, but it's just a stub. It occurs to me that through all your architectural meanderings you might have some significant latent knowledge to impart on the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I saw this when you posted it but completely forgot to reply! I don't have time to work on it right now but I'll leave some notes on the talk page there. Thanks for the notice, R Prazeres (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request
I want you to look into the article Islamic geometric pattern. The article says nothing about uniqueness of Islamic geometric pattern and what makes it distinct from the geometric patterns of other cultures and civilisations. You have knowledge on art amd architecture and have access to journals and books. I hope you'll improve the article. Thank you! Hu741f4 (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Hu741f4, thanks for your message and your suggestion. I have a lot of other stuff to work on, so I can't promise I'll be able to add anything to Islamic geometric patterns, but if I come across any useful reference material, I'll keep this in mind! R Prazeres (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Template:Fes
Look, I don't want an edit war with you, especially over something that is clearly your work, so I'm just going to drop this. However, I would like to note that according to this section, it's preferable to have an actual links to the pages rather than redirects when it comes to navigational templates. 2600:8800:590E:BB00:ECF6:B318:2311:B80D (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for pointing that out, I was thinking of the general policy and missed that detail. You're right, it leads to a circular link when the template appears at Fez, Morocco, so it's better to use the direct link. I'll change it right now. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Friendly Connection: MadRoyalist
Hi R Prazeres, I want to thank you for your constructive advice on the page Sultan. If there is any way, I can assist, please let me know. Cheers!--MadRoyalist (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm glad it was a little instructive. I actually did have a follow-up question, but I didn't have more time earlier:
 * Could you clarify the details of the single source you cited, "Buyers in Royal Ark; Afghanistan, Section: Glossary"? Is it a book, article, web resource? Who wrote it? Etc. In short, the citation should have more details to make it easier for the average reader to track down and determine if it's a reliable source that does indeed verify the information.
 * Some other comments, if helpful:
 * If you're not already in the habit of using them, try to use the regular citation templates (there are shortcuts to them in both the source and visual editor interfaces). These will show you most of the information you should aim to fill in and makes things easier for both you and other editors/readers.
 * You should include citations to supporting sources after each paragraph or each major piece of information you add, even if it's just repeating the same source. So in this edit, for example, if all the information is from the same source, just repeat the citation after each paragraph in the bullet list. That eliminates any ambiguity in determining the supporting source.
 * I still think the content you added doesn't belong on the Sultan article for structural reasons (i.e. keeping the article balanced and making good use of overview articles versus specific topic articles), but I hope you can implement these recommendations elsewhere, where applicable. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @R Prazeres, Thanks for replying. Actually this is from a project of a quiet well known royal genealogist who saved his research in a website (here). This glossary (here) enumerates the titles, mentioning an interesting and exotic signification to the title Sultan.
 * I am used to the following template of citation:
 * "(Author) in (work), (page/chapter)"
 * I definitely agree to your point of view of the structure of the Sultan article as it really makes sense, so thus again thanks. You know what, how about making up an article called "Sultan (Afghanistan)"? Looking forward to your feedback. MadRoyalist (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If your material relates to the Kingdom of Afghanistan specifically, then my suggestion would be to include it there first in a new section. That article is also linked in the Sultan article (in the list section, Southern Asia), so readers interested in a particular tradition should be able to navigate to the right place pretty easily. It could be a separate article in the future, but that's usually more appropriate if the topic is too large to fit elsewhere and if it has many reliable sources.
 * As for the Buyers source, I'm not sure if it strictly qualifies as a reliable source per Reliable sources (e.g. has any of his work been published by independent publishers?), but I think that'll be for other interested editors to judge in the future, as this isn't my specialty.
 * In any case, for the citation format, use Template:Cite web, which will automatically generate the standard format for Wikipedia. When you edit, you should see in the editing toolbar an option for "cite", where you can find different templates, including this one. (There's a rough guide for this at Help:Referencing for beginners; if you're using the visual editor the interface will look a little different but it's the same principles.) Among other parameters, the template includes a spot for the url, which allows you to link directly to the relevant page and makes it easy for everyone else to consult the source directly.
 * For example, the inline citation could look something like this:
 * Hope that helps, R Prazeres (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion
Hello, R Prazeres,

I think you'll find it easier to tag pages for all types of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/MFD/etc.) if you start using Twinkle. Twinkle is a very useful editing tool that helps in so many ways, reporting vandals to noticeboards, posting welcome and warning notices on user talk pages, placing tags on articles and especially tagging pages for deletion. It remembers all the templates you might need to use so you don't have to memorize them or go looking for them when you need them. So, for example, if you find a page that should be deleted as a CSD G5, as the work of a block-evading editor, that option, along with other possibilities, will be presented to you, along with a field that prompts you to name the sockmaster (in this case, User:Samira819). Most page patrollers and a lot of admins work with Twinkle and I think if you try it out, you'll find it to be helpful and very user-friendly. Thank you for considering my suggestion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the tip! (I had installed Twinkle, but it didn't occur to me to explore this functionality; I won't underestimate it in the future!) R Prazeres (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Emblem
I'm not sure if you noticed, but this edit of mine was caught in the revert. I believe that the Nasrid route is worth mentioning (regardless of the possible COI). What do you think? M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed that, I figured the other edits were just trying to clean up what the new editor was doing, and the shuffling-around of sources wasn't helping to sort out what was intended to be attributed to what. It is indeed worth mentioning, it just isn't mentioned in Bennison's chapter, the "Maroc Médiéval" source itself doesn't seem to state that hypothesis clearly either (from a quick read), and I can't access Ali-de-Unzaga's publications. The only snippet I can see online of the latter seems to refer to other authors in turn on this point (, see footnote), so I was able to track those down and I was going to add it now with citations to those instead, assuming that works too. Feel free to follow up. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought as much. I used this source, in which Miriam argues that we can't be sure whether the emblem is of Marinid or Nasrid origin. Since this source supersedes her earlier paper (from 2003 I think) that was used by Bennison, it makes no sense to keep referring to the old one. I suggest attributing the new argument to her (similar to what I did) and maybe either remove Bennison's source or attribute her own conclusions to it. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that sounds good to me. After rereading the source more fully, the issue is indeed presented clearly there, and it's also what Miriam seems to be insisting on at their user talk page. I'll make an edit and reword it shortly, and as always feel free to revise. R Prazeres (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your edit looks good. I have removed a redundant sentence and replaced "further studies" with "recent studies" (apparently, the Nasrid theory goes back to the 19th century). Feel free to revise as you see fit. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

archiving
Hey, R Prazeres! It's helpful to other editors if you set up archiving of this page. You can find a simple method at Help:Archiving (plain and simple) Valereee (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion! I'll set that up when I get a moment. R Prazeres (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice
I've started a report at ANI re: book spamming that may be of interest. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeed, thanks. I'll leave a note there too. R Prazeres (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Saadian Tombs
Hi, I made an account. Can you please explain to me why the image I added of the tombs is not better in terms of quality than the current image? Because as I see it, the image currently used is dimly lit and far inferior in calibre than the one I added. Thanks. Hamamat32 (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The image you added is clearly of much lower resolution and is discoloured or filtered. The current image is probably the highest quality image available and shows the most significant room in the entire complex, so it should remain. R Prazeres (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually you're right, it is filtered, so never mind. But while we're at it, do you happen to know what the other photo (the one that's not a loggia) is? And is it okay if I add it? Hamamat32 (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It's just a decorative niche along the outer wall of the garden, to the east of the eastern mausoleum. It's not really of any significance as far as I know, but I see no harm in adding it after one of the present images (maybe after the image in the "The eastern mausoleum" section, since that's close to where the niche is located). R Prazeres (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Just did, thanks again! Hamamat32 (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I placed the first image from the of the tombs article in Marrakech and cropped it a bit, I hope that's okay. Hamamat32 (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yup, that looks good! R Prazeres (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Your eyes...
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Lourdes  05:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Zawiya Dila'iya
Hello, first I want to thank you for recognising my contributions to the article. On the "Succeeded by" section, I believe having the Alaouite Sultanate (Morocco) as the successor state would be more logical than it being the 'Alawi dynasty; this would be read as if the Zawiya got integrated into the dynasty (family) rather than getting annexed by the state, which is the case.

I would like for you to reconsider it that way until an article for the histroy of Morocco (1666-1912) is made to clarify such confusion. Thanks. StaticOasis (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I understand the logic, but I think that's a technical point that readers won't actually be thinking about. The purpose here (in my opinion) is to direct readers to the article that covers the next political regime or period after this, and the 'Alawi dynasty is how references refer to that, so this is following the example of reliable sources. The 'Alawi dynasty article was also written with this in mind. Directing them simply to Morocco isn't very informative and arguably misleading, because there were other historical stages (namely the Protectorate of course) between then and the modern Kingdom of Morocco.
 * If the word "dynasty" is really all that's confusing, we could easily make an "'Alawi Sultanate" redirect page in the meantime and insert that instead. I do indeed think that in the future we need an article about the pre-colonial 'Alawi sultanate, rather just one for the dynasty generally, so I think any discussion about that would be welcome on the talk page there. R Prazeres (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Your view does make sense. I agree that creating a pre-colonial 'Alawi Sultanate would be the best solution to such a concern. Thanks again. StaticOasis (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It was named the Sherifian Empire, or Sherifian Sultanate. That is because Fez and Marrakesh were not provinces but Kingdoms, hense why in some European sources we read: “Emperor of fez and morocco” when referring to an Alawi sovereign. The Kingdom of Morocco was formed in 1912 at the beginning of the french protectorate, as the former kingdoms of fez and morocco(marrakesh) were abolished, and the Sherifian Empire terminated, and the kingdom of Morocco formed with a new capital “Rabat”. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Fez, Morocco to FA?
I've been thinking of trying to improve Fez to FA status and would love your help if you're interested. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  00:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, I think it's a good idea, if you're up for it. My time is more limited than before, so I may not be able to take on much work, but I'm still around and I'll definitely try to help with whatever I can. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It would be my first FAC, so I'm approaching it cautiously. If you notice anything that needs fixing but you don't have the time to do it yourself, feel free to send it my way. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  07:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Making sure.
Hey man, I have worked on a draft page about Zayyanids architecture (you may already have noticed it), and before publishing it, I wanted to make sure that it doesn't harm you or violate any rule in Wikipedia like the previous article of the Regency of Algiers. Tayeb188 (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. It certainly can't harm me personally, as I'm just one volunteer editor among others. But as for Wikipedia rules, I think your draft looks good enough to publish; from a quick look, I see you've taken the time to add citations to sources throughout, which should satisfy verifiability, the most important content policy. The topic is also appropriate (in fact I was considering creating this article myself at some point in the future). I think some superficial clean-up will be needed, and maybe some information will need to be revised after a closer look, but that's the normal process for all Wikipedia articles. Thank you for your work. Sincerely, R Prazeres (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just noticed one significant problem, however: most of the image files you uploaded on Wiki Commons appear to be taken from other places on the internet and labeled as your "own work". You cannot do that, as all these images are protected by the copyrights of the original author and are incompatible with free use on Wikipedia or Wiki Commons. Please see the Wiki Commons policy on image licenses. Some images might be acceptable if they're in the public domain, but this usually applies only to very old photos or artworks; for example, this map should be acceptable. But most of the other ones will need to be deleted to avoid copyright violations. If you have more questions about that, feel free to ask me, or ask other editors by using the Wiki Commons help desk.
 * This does not mean that your draft cannot be published, it just means that other images will need to be used instead after the others are deleted. There are some images in Wiki Commons already for most of these buildings. R Prazeres (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response and for bringing up the issue. I will continue working on the article and add more sections. I believe the draft is ready enough for publication. Regarding the images, I must admit that I imported them from social media without proper attribution, as it would have required extensive information that I didn't have. Can I re-upload them as imported images from social media, with proper links? Because I highly doubt that some of these building's images are already in Wiki Commons. I'll make sure to delete the previous images. Thanks again for your attention and for all that you did for Wikipedia. Tayeb188 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, for the images, unfortunately they must be deleted permanently, not re-uploaded. You should look at the licensing policy more closely, but the main point is that you can't upload photos that you did not take yourself. All images are copyright-protected by law, unless the original author/creator of the image explicitly states that the image is licensed under Creative Commons or released under Public Domain (when users upload images to Wiki Commons, they're required to declare that, but they can only do that if they're the original creator). If there is no explicit indication, then we must assume it's fully protected; this includes images from social media, books, other websites, etc. Unfortunately, if there are no images for certain topics in Wiki Commons, then unfortunately we just have to accept that for now, until someone uploads photos that they own. R Prazeres (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed all the tagged images that were previously associated with my works and replaced them. However, I still have a question. Are images like the ones directly referencing the original site with the author's name below them acceptable? Tayeb188 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's good, thanks.
 * For your question: no, even those images not are not allowed. (You can even see a copyright watermark in that image.) Again, you must assume that images are always fully protected by copyright, unless there's a clear statement from the author that says it's not (which there usually isn't). Even if you put the name of the correct author (which you should still do in all cases), the author has still not given you permission to upload those images. R Prazeres (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have removed all of these images from the article. Thank you for your answers and support. I will be more careful next time when adding pictures to Wikipedia articles. Best regards! Tayeb188 (talk) 22:16, 7 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)
 * , 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)
 * (and ), 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 : 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)

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 &#124;  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&#39;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, 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. 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 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)

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:  
 * 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)

Heads up on new user
Hi R. Prazeres, I want to alert you that this user LaGuairabeach appears to be a sock of the indefinitely blocked editor Vvven, a prolific editor from Venezuela who had a long history of adding unsourced content written in terrible English, sometimes unintelligible, to many articles on English WP concerning Spanish history, including especially articles on Spanish architecture such as cathedrals and the Alcázar of Seville. LaGuairabeach seems to have the same interests as Vvven, who was blocked under this username for repeatedly adding copyvio content. Vvven also edited under the username ILoveCaracas now indefinitely blocked as well, who had a very similar editing history. Both of these accounts have edited the Alcázar of Seville article: as ILoveCaracas, and as Vvven. Sometimes the content he added was mysteriously written in better English—I would assume that was content he copied from elsewhere and modified. I seriously doubt that he was familiar with such terms as "polylobulated". Sometimes using IPs to edit, he caused me no end of trouble. His English does seem to have improved, but he still does damage. Carlstak (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. Have you filed a report at WP:SPI? R Prazeres (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I was going to notify admin EdJohnston, who has check user rights, but I wanted to have all the facts and appropriate links marshalled first. I suppose what's here would be enough, but I have chores to attend to. If you would like to do either of these that would be great. It's possible that the Venezuelan user has moved to Miami, as have many Venezuelans—this morning I found edits by an IP geolocated in Miami who just too coincidentally is interested in Afro-Venezuelans and Amelia Island. If he has moved, then comparing IP addresses with the blocked editors won't work, unfortunately. Carlstak (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to do it myself unfortunately (and you're more familiar with the case), but there's no rush. I'll keep on eye on what happens. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! And thank you likewise for your efforts at Fez, Morocco and elsewhere! R Prazeres (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Marinid map
Hello R Prazeres, I hope you're doing well. I haven't received any response from you about my proposal for the Marinid map as well as my message about the Saadian map. I want to hear from you if that was possible. The other editor, M.Bitton, doesn't seem to like my opinions, so I think discussions with them is a complete waste of time. I hope I'm not bothering you by this message. Thanks. 808 AD (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe I've already answered for the Marinid map . For the Saadian map, like I said before I don't mind simply changing which cities are labelled for informative purposes, but doing so requires technical work that would take time for me, and I don't have time to do that right now (and it's not urgent). If I have time in the future, I'll consider it. Apart from that, I don't see anything further that needs to be done. R Prazeres (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Regarding the Saadian map, I think we're in agreement, I won't ask for any thing more than that for the moment. However, as for the Marinid map, I made another suggestion after your last message. My proposal was to represent the main Marinid terrirory (which is what we already have in the article) + the largest extent, like what we have in the Hammadid map. And a map like that would be better to relatively summarize the Marinid history. I hope you got the message. Thanks. 808 AD (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Church of San Miguel Bajo, Albaicin
Hi, I am interested in writing about the above, as my first Spanish building article. I would be very grateful if you were able to advise on how I find out the church's reference on the Bien de Interés Cultural. I am making an assumption that it is registered as part of Spain's historic patrimony. This, and this,, provide what look to be pretty comprehensive lists, but neither appears to be searchable/sortable. I'm very familiar with the English/Welsh historic buildings/places registers, but the Spanish register is very new to me. With many thanks in anticipation. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi KJP1. I believe you can find a database of all the cultural properties here. I found the church under the name "Iglesia de San Miguel El Bajo en el Albayzin". (For some reason I couldn't obtain a working URL to link directly to the entry, but you can search that name and find it quickly.) The entry itself doesn't contain much more info apart from the date it was registered to the list, I think.
 * If helpful, this site (also cited at Albaicín) does contain more details (in Spanish). It's run by Agencia Albaicin, which seems to be an official body that supervises heritage conservation in the area. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * First, sincere apologies for the delay in getting back. Real life is currently a little chaotic. Second, thanks for the very full and helpful reply - exactly what I was looking for. And you’re right, that is the church I was wanting. Now I just need to find some more sources and I’m good to go with an article. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No apologies necessary, that's quite normal. I'm glad it was helpful! R Prazeres (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Fez
Hey R Prazeres! Just checking in with you about the potential FAC for Fez. It's getting close, but I still have several things to take care of. I was wondering if you might be able to assist me in finding sources about the following topics for inclusion in the article: Local flora and fauna, Parks, Healthcare and hospitals, Local media, and Pre-university education and literacy rates. Part of the trouble I'm having is that I can find sources about several of these topics for Morocco in general, but nothing specific to Fez. Also if you have any tips on searching for sources, I'm all ears. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  01:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm, some of that might be tough. There may be some info in certain guidebooks, though that's not ideal. You may find some things in French-language and in Arabic-language media (I've looked at some French media, but I'm not fluent enough to search Arabic media). Another suggestion is to post some specific questions or request for help/recommendations at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco again (we found one person there to help with a specific issue during the GA review, if you recall).
 * Some very minor notes about specific topics:
 * I'm not sure what to look for in terms of flora and fauna, though there may be some sources about domesticated animals; e.g. for the donkeys in the medina, see this.
 * I don't think there are many public parks and I actually found articles from 2014 and from 2022 criticizing the lack of green spaces in the city. I know of Jnane Sbile (mentioned in the "Gardens" section already) and of a small urban park in the new city called Jardin Lalla Amina I think (not to be confused with the similarly-named Lalla Mina Gardens in the royal palace grounds, it seems). Looking on Google Maps, I see a large park in the new city that seems to be called "Parc d'Amérique Latine" (but I also see the names "Parc Champ de Course" and "Parc Prestigia", not sure why). Mentioned in passing here, here, and here, but couldn't find much detail.
 * Don't know much about hospitals but I found that the "Centre hospitalier universitaire (CHU) Hassan II" is mentioned in a few articles:, ,.
 * I hope some of this is maybe useful to get started. R Prazeres (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Almohad-Ayyubid war
The source says that the Ayyubid campaign to Ifriqiya was basically Saladin's decision. Which means he must be added as a commander. Well, I think you disagree because the the event was limited to the period between 1187 and 1188, but I think that's wrong since the Ayyubid-Banu Ghaniya conquest of Ifriqiya was way before those dates. (Banu Ghaniya should also be added to the infobox)TybenFree (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Saladin did not command anyone in person, so it doesn't make sense to include him; that implies he was there. (Also, for next time, this type of discussion should be on the talk page of the article, not on a user talk page.) R Prazeres (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/George Roper (ship)
Think I broke the ping, so how d'ye feel about the new image crop? Wanted a little bit of the context, to show the Point as well as the ship. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 06:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sijilmasa
I replaced it with "Archeological site" because "settlement" seems strange and unclear TybenFree (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not strange at all. It was literally a settlement. Again, see the instructions at Template:Infobox ancient site. R Prazeres (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I was about to remove this section as I just checked Template:Infobox ancient site and Human settlement. I think it's more clear now, thanks. TybenFree (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I was confusing "settlement" with "colony" I'm sorry. TybenFree (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2024 (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)
 * Hello @R Prazeres hope you’re doing good, I nominated the article for GA review after a B assessment and some improvements based on some advices by the military history reviewer, do GA reviews take much time ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Nourerrahmane, yes I saw that you got a reviewer to make suggestions, which was a great idea, and that you nominated it for GA. I've only been involved in a GA process once (Talk:Fez, Morocco), so I'm not familiar with what's typical. I wouldn't worry if it takes time for someone to accept the task, as I assume it depends on who's available and interested. The review itself, however, can take time, yes, especially for a long article like this. Based on a couple of other examples I've seen, I think you should expect that the review could take weeks, but I'm sure it varies. The reviewer might go section-by-section, pausing along the way to give you (and any other editors) some time to review and implement their recommendations; or they might give you a full set of recommendations all at once, let you work on it, then do a second read-through; etc. R Prazeres (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @R Prazeres, is it possible to give a short description to Algiers as "Autonomous Ottoman Corsair State" per RS    ? i mean does this indicate a reasonable status of Algiers ?  Also, i found in numerous sources where Algiers was described or recognised as a republic prior to 1659 revolution of the Odjak, as the Pashas and Beyleybeys didn't have absolute authority and were subject to the approval of the corsairs and the janissaries, the Barbarossas created military institutions which were the actual government of Algiers having an egalitarian and "democratic" aspect. So the Viceroyalty period could also include the military republic status, although other RS specify that it was the revolution of 1659 that turned Algiers into a military republic when the Pasha of Istanbul lost all effective authority and the ruler was elected from the military elite rather than being appointed by the Sultan. what do you think ?  Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Nourerrahmane. For the short description, I would leave it as is. Its only purpose is to quickly identify the topic of an article so that readers using the Wikipedia search bar and editors adding links can confirm that they've found the correct title (e.g. if they're not familiar with the name "Regency of Algiers" but they know they're looking for an article about this period of Algeria, the short description allows them to see that this is the title they're looking for). The current short description is what I would expect for this purpose; it doesn't need to explain anything further, just the minimum required to identify the topic.
 * For the viceroyalty/republic/1659 question, I'm not sure exactly what change you're proposing? Do you mean changing the dates in the infobox, or changing the coverage of the subsections in the "Political status" section? My first thought is that you can always discuss any further nuances in-line in the body of the article, either way. The infobox is just a summary of the most important overall facts and the headings are just for navigation, so we should keep things simple there, while the main text can cover much more complexity.
 * PS: Sorry for the delayed reply again; I'm stretching myself a little thin and doing a few too many things at the same time. R Prazeres (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @R Prazeres No worries, and i'm sorry for the deleyed reply, WP is inaccessible in China...Well actually i'll leave it be as most RS agree at least that the military republic status was attained formally in 1659, although it was still recognised as such at least de facto prior to that date, could you please change the remaining 5 citations in the article to sfn ? thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. As for the sfns, I may not have time to do that but if you have technical questions about them, let me know (or ask Mathglot, who seems to be on top of it too). I just converted some refs to sfn in the Almohad article, and I still have a few other articles where I want to do that in the future. R Prazeres (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello R Prazeres! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Nice to meet you!
Dear @R Prazeres: I came across your article at DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Mosque of Ulmas al-Hajib) and it was well-researched! Glad to meet another one who works in religious architecture and history. Please accept my appreciation. Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather (talk) 07:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly! R Prazeres (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Auto-da-fé
My revision did not delete any sourced text. What it did delete was unsourced and inaccurate history of the Reconquista:

"From the 8th to the 15th centuries, much of Spain was controlled by Muslims. Around the 11th century, growing suspicions of Jews prompted Christians to unite against the Muslims and Jews. From that point, Spain became a political soup of different powers and territories, each with its own policies regarding the status of Jews and Muslims.." Zztop12 (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Which is attributed to what looks like a reliable source. So you literally deleted sourced content. And you haven't explained what's inaccurate about it. If you have good reason to think there's something wrong with that text, please open a discussion on the article's talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My revision was sourced, to the entry on the Reconquista in the online version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. My impression is that you are cancelling these revisions without reviewing the edits at all. Zztop12 (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Umayyad Caliphate
My revision deleted the following misleading (sourced) text: "Christians and Jews still continued to produce great theological thinkers within their communities, but as time wore on, many of the intellectuals converted to Islam, leading to a lack of great thinkers in the non-Muslim communities."

However, this is misleading because the Jewish community in Spain produced its greatest intellectuals in post-Umayyad Muslim Spain, e.g. Solomon Ibn Gabirol, Samuel ha-Nagid (ibn Naghrela), Joseph ibn Naghrela, and of course Maimonides.

Zztop12 (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:OR. I don't see how that first statement contradicts your own statement, and moreover it's again supported by a reliable source, unlike your edit. So your justification makes no sense. R Prazeres (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Accoding to the entry on Solomon Ibn Gabirolin the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "A prolific poet and the author of the Fons Vitae, Ibn Gabirol is well known in the history of philosophy for the doctrine that all things —including soul and intellect—are comprised of matter and form (“Universal Hylomorphism”), and for his emphasis on Divine Will. "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-gabirol/.
 * So to the sourced quote "leading to a lack of great thinkers in the non-Muslim communities" is indeed "sourced", but misleading - because it is wrong. Zztop12 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You beat me to it
Got here from polishing up Regency of Algiers, and clicked wondering if the display text should say Andalusia. I see that it should not and was doing a quick assessment. If that's your work I am going to consider it the least of my problems.

Back to polishing. There are some questions on the talk page if you are looking for something to do. He put it up for good article, a little prematurely I think, but it really is a great article. I mean... Pirates rescuing refugees from the Inquisition ;) I want the movie rights to this article.

Getting back to historiography, yeah, most people need.an introduction to the concept I think. Elinruby (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If helpful: "Al-Andalus" and "Andalusi" are more precise terms for referring to the Muslim-controlled areas of the Iberian Peninsula and their inhabitants, respectively. Andalusia (which derives from that name) more properly refers to the southern Spanish region which corresponds to a modern-day province. In the case of Wikipedia, of course, the links are distinct either way. The demonyms "Andalusian" and "Andalusi" are sometimes used interchangeably, even by some historians, so it's not a big deal either way, but "Andalusi" is technically less ambiguous, because "Andalusian" could potentially refer to anyone living in Andalusia, including the Christian Spaniards, which isn't what's intended in the context of this period/region. R Prazeres (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Spanish–Algerian War (1775–1785)
Hello! Ive been recently scrolling through this article, when i realized someone had changed the result to spanish victory, so i reverted the edit thinking it was just gonna be a small vandalism problem, however this had escalated to a whole editing war, i tried reasoning with the user warning him to stop editing the page however he continued doing so by citing offline sources, saying that Algeria feared a ghird expedition and urged peace with the spanish, and i thought id reach out to you. The User is: Emilioveh Thanks ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I've opened a discussion for both of you on the talk page. In the future, try opening a discussion as soon as it's clear an editor is continuing to push a change you disagree with. Ideally, the reverted editor will open the discussion themselves, per WP:BRD, but even if they don't, then you're still expected to do this in order to avoid edit-warring. Give a warning on the user talk page (use Template:Uw-ew) if their edit-warring continues. If they still refuse to discuss and to stop edit-warring after you've made these good-faith attempts to resolve the issue, then you can indeed write a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (make sure you follow the requirements of a report that are explained there). If the edit-warring stops but the discussion is still unresolved, there are dispute resolution options either of you can use. R Prazeres (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help i appreciate it ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Mosque of Ulmas al-Hajib
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well done, lovely article.  nableezy  - 03:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)