User talk:S711/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Davewild 14:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

A tag has been placed on Mohammed Chafik, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

al-Khwarizmi
Why did you remove a sourced statement here? —Ruud 16:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've left a reply to your comment at the bottom of al-Khwarizmi's talk page. (Note that people will generally expect new posts to placed at the bottom of talk pages not the top, if you didn't know that already.) Cheers, —Ruud 19:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert
HI -- I've reverted you here, as your edit summary assertion is contrary to policy. In fact, it is those refs that save the entries in question from deletion from the list.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Historical Jesus
You can't comment (implied or actual) in the text regarding the reliability of a cited source: that's opinion, and not allowed. Discuss him on the article talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard. When to name the sources in the text is discussed at WP:INTEXT. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael Peyron Article
Hi, I noticed that you created Michael Peyron, but listed no sources for the information contained in the article. According to Wikipedia's content policies, all information must be verifiable from reliable sources. Therefore, it's necessary to cite your sources so other editors can check that the information included in the article is correct and matches the sources used. Information not previously published in such sources is prohibited as original research, since other editors can't verify it. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed at any time, and articles that can't be verified are likely to be deleted. Guidance on how to cite your sources is available, and if you need any further help, feel free to leave a message on my talk page.Ztheday (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SamBC 04:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello there, you posted a comment on this topic on the user page of Sambc. User pages are people's 'front page' and should usually only be edited by them. I've moved your comment to the appropriate talk page. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  09:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you asked me the question "Dear Sir, Would you happen to know anybody, who knows anybody who knows what the translation is of the text on Bab Agnaou (see picture).S711 15:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)".

The article itself states the text is quotations from the Quran. But Kufic is difficult for me to read at the best of times, and when done as ornament on building even more so. Someone who is familiar with the text of the Quran (which I am not) would probably be able to recognize it. MisterCDE 12:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrongs
Please do not write false information about Morocco, or manipulated information. Because you know Morocco, its sucessor only of Sultanate of Talifalt. Please do not convert Wikipedia in some like Isqtalpedia, ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.164.233 (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinking
Please review this Wikipedia Manual of Style article for guidance on wikilinking within an article and note, repeatedly wikilinking the same term for each instance within an article is considered unhelpful and distracting. Gwen Gale 18:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * another thing in the Manual of Style is the "headings" section (WP:Headings). item #4 says not to refer to the article's subject. for the 20 January 2008 edit to the "Marrakech" article, you added "in Marrakech" to "Main sights", but it was okay before. the reader already knows it's for main sights in marrakesh, not fez, not rabat. plus "in Marrakech" wasn't added to other headings, like "Transport in Marrakech" or "Climate in Marrakech". if one heading doesn't need it, none do. i don't want to get into an edit war, so i'm asking that you change it back. i'm also asking that you follow MOS's WP:Headings in future edits, because i don't want to follow you around. i'm also letting other editors know in english and spanish wikis (i imagine this MOS exists in other languages but i only know these 2). Ivansevil (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

English
Hey S711, I always enjoy and carefully read your contributions to Leni Riefenstahl. Is English your second language? If so, there are sometimes differences and meaningful shades of meaning which may account for some of the questions you have. If you grew up speaking English, I'm sorry to have brought this up! Either way, I think any worries you have are likely because of language and I'm open talking about this if need be. Otherwise, you can always add citations which either clarify or offer differing PoVs. All the best to you! Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Leni Riefenstahl
This edit looks like disruption to me. Please take any meaningful concerns you may have to the talk page so other editors may discuss this. Thanks Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Given how this seems to have gotten resolved, I humbly retract anything I said about "disruption."

Are you aware of any published sources which directly assert Riefenstahl's influence was not so groundbreaking and original as so many other sources assert? If you find any, please bring them up, because they can easily be placed into the article under WP:V and other, cited PoVs are wontedly helpful. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I thought S711 was simply asking to have the sources already found represented in a way that S711 considers accurate. I'm under the impression that S711 does not agree with you about how groundbreaking and original those sources say the subject's influence is. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ibn Khafaja
Statements like "During the occupation of Valencia by the Spaniards Ibn Khafaja had fled to North Africa. He remained umarried but had many friends. At the age of 64 he collected his poems and wrote introductions to them. He lived to be over eighty," need sources for each of these statements: fled, whence to where, when and why; remained unmarried but had friends; collected his poems; lived to be over eighty. (Also: a couple of minor spelling and grammar errors.) Peace be upon you! -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Moroccan nav box
Hi, there. Thanks for your work on Moroccan literature but I would strongly recommend converting the vertical box into a horizontal footer template. You see really those vertical templates are supposed to be used in core articles e.g an article on moroccan literature, poetry etc itself rather than in biogrpahical articles. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 14:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Please do not create disambiguation pages unless at least one of the articles linked to already exists. Thank you. DS (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops
This was about the article on Abdelmajid_Benjelloun - which was accidentally converted into a disambiguation page pointing to two redlinks. As such, I deleted it. I have just realized my mistake; the article will be restored within the next five minutes. DS (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Important question: did Benjelloun write primarily in French, or in Arabic? Apparently there were two authors with that name. DS (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed ibn Amr al-Ribati
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mohammed ibn Amr al-Ribati, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Mohammed Ibn Amr. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ibn Hazm
You added the category Moorish Maliki scholars.... you need to find a citation for that in the article... one Moorish is a little vague as a personal indicator since living in "Moorish Spain" I don't think makes oyu necessarily a Moor... maybe I'm wrong.. but was Ibn Hazm a Maliki? Thanks. gren グレン 15:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I always thought Moorish also had an ethnic component to it. But, could you cite the source for Maliki in the article, or, preferably find a scholarly source since anything in the categories should also be cited in the article.  Thanks. gren グレン 17:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Moved" page
When you say you "moved" this page, it looks to me that you copied-and-pasted it, rather than actually moved it. This breaks the terms of the licence for Wikipedia articles. I'll repair the damage now with a history merge, but could you please never "move" an article by copying and pasting? Thanks. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Kattani refered to in Ahmed Harrak Srifi
Dear brother, is response to your question: ''In the article about al-Srifi you mention al-Kattani. Is this Mohammed ibn Jaafar al-Kattani ?'' the answer is as follows: the Kattani refered to here is: الشيخ العلامة عبدالحي بن عبدالكبير الكتاني المغربي - العنوان فهرس الفهارس و الأثبات ومعجم المعاجم. I do not agree though that the article is orphan. Please take care. Yusayr (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mark the Evangelist
Instead of edit comments and page moves, can you please explain what your concerns are with Mark the Evangelist so that we can discuss them? The question belongs on Talk:Mark the Evangelist where I've opened two sections about the matter. Tb (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Mark the Evangelist, as the title indicates, is about Mark the Evangelist. This "Mark the Apostle" you refer to, who is that? I know no figure with such a name. Can you show me an entry in some liturgical calendar, or the dedication of some church, to this "Mark the Apostle"? Tb (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason that John the Apostle and John the Evangelist are distinct has to do with the special circumstances of the Johannine literature. Note that Matthew the Apostle and Matthew the Evangelist are the same page. Because Mark is not listed among the apostles, no church has called him an apostle, and so there is no Mark the Apostle. Tb (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference from the Copts; I've created Mark the Apostle with a redirect matching Luke the Apostle. The reference in question also substantiates my point that the tradition identifies the author of the Gospel with John Mark of Acts, and says he was a disciple of Peter. Tb (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're a little hasty drawing concluions from a arbitrary website that I've included to show that in some traditions Mark is known as an apostle.S711 (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the citation you provided for your change on Mark the Evangelist in the lead also substantiates the point I was making. I'm sorry if my tone in the comment was a bit abrupt.  Thanks for digging up these sources.  If there are still disagreements, let's discuss them on the talk page so that others can join in if they choose. Tb (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Roman roads in Africa map
--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Roman roads in africa map 2
Hey, Sorry for the late response, but I can still help you with the map if you want. Reply in my talk page if you want help. Richardprins (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tags
It does not appear they are needed any more. I took them off. 

Darth Stabro has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

~ D a r t h Starbo  19:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card


Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)





Contributor copyright investigation
Hello. Due to copyright problems discovered from the account User:S710 in December of last year, a contributor copyright investigation (CCI) was opened to evaluate and clean up any outstanding copyright issues from that account. It was not realized at the time that S710 had continued editing, but now that it has been pointed out that you are the same user, contributions made under this account have also been added. You can find the CCI here: Contributor copyright investigations/S710.

CCIs are opened when it is discovered that contributors have created multiple copyright problems. They are necessary to evaluate and ensure that copyright problems do not remain in publication, but are removed or replaced with text that meets our terms of use. Independent evaluators look at those articles and mark the ones in which no problems are found with. If problems are found, they use and generally explain what action was taken. You should watch that page if you are interested in how the cleanup progresses. Because contributors may create copyright problems before understanding Wikipedia's copyright policy and to avoid embarrassing them with repeated notices, it is not custom to give notice when problems are found in individual articles.

I am sorry that you were not notified of issues when they were first discovered, but unfortunately there was not any means at that time of connecting your two accounts. (I have remedied this, for those who may need to discuss your earlier contributions with you.) No discussion was initiated with that account because it had last edited Wikipedia in 2007, and we believed that the user had departed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes, it is, but it is not something that we generally prefer to do as a first resort. Typically, with CCIs, effort is made first to make sure that this step is necessary. I gather with your earlier contributions that there are some concerns about translation from French (direct translation being as much a copyright concern as copy paste, I'm afraid), but as you can see from what's already been done in there where possible articles are cleared. In the first 20 articles, for instance, there are several that have been marked with a red "x", indicating that they are free of copyright problems. Nobody wants to lose content that we can rightfully retain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your note. I cannot quite tell, but I want to be sure you're aware that the issue here is not in referencing; it is in using content in a way that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's copyright policies. Citing your source would not, for example, permit you to include a substantial translation of a copyrighted foreign language document in a Wikipedia article. When Calliopejen made the comment she did, she had only accessed the edits you made in your prior account, during the period when you say you were "very careless". If she looks at your newer edits, it may be that she will find that the extreme measure is not necessary. While policy does permit presumptive deletion of all content by people who are known to have violated our copyright policies on multiple occasions, it isn't a first resort. Even in the case of your earlier edits, she had been looking at them for some time before reaching that conclusion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The decision to open the CCI was mine based on the evidence of repeated copyright problems of your earlier account. User:Calliopejen is an administrator, and, as you see, she is also involved. User:MER-C is not an administrator, but is a copyright clerk selected by a group of administrators (including me, but not Calliopejen) who work copyright cleanup routinely. Both of them, as you can see in the background, evaluated the issue with respect to your former account. When Calliopejen made the note about presumptive removal, the connection had not yet been discovered to your new account. I imagine she will notice the change, but I will make sure that she realizes that there is now a second account and tell her that you have attempted to be more careful with this account. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have left Jen a note about the matter and pointed her to your part of the conversation on my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the decision based on finding at least two or three direct translations from French and a number of articles copy-pasted from English sources (basically, the majority of the articles I checked were copyright violations from one place or another)). There is no way to search for direct translations that violate copyright, as I'm sure you're aware. I can't just dump the text in Google. If you don't want me to delete everything, I think the only alternative is for you to add inline footnotes to everything you have contributed, at least for User:S710 to start, and then we can check against the original texts to ensure that there is no direct translation. Where you used offline sources, that will be another stage that I'm not entirely sure how to handle. I'd like to be able to keep your non-copyright-violating contributions, but unfortunately at this point, we can't tell what you translated directly and what you didn't. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The numbers are the amount of characters added with each edit. The edits are sorted from largest to smallest. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Blanking
Hello. Kindly stop deleting sourced material on the Said Sheikh Samatar article. The material's references are linked to in the relevant section, and this was clearly indicated in an edit summary. Thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources are already provided in the relevant References section. Material doesn't need to be necessarily formatted in footnotes for it to be reliable; it just needs to come from reliable sources (please see WP:VER & WP:RS). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with citations when you already know that the material is sourced, then the thing to do is to tag the relevant sentences with a citation needed template, not to blank the whole page. That's what those templates are there for. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Laarbi Batma
I'm taking a look at your CCI list. The first one I looked at Laarbi Batma does not have a copyright issue, but it does have an issue I'd like to discuss. You added an item to the references section, but it is not properly formatted as a reference. because the item is not online, I cannot look at it to see how it is being used. I'll emphasize that it is OK that it isn't online; my only point is that if it were online, I could look at it and figure out why it was added. Without that ability, I have to guess.

If the book were being added as additional reading, it belongs in an adidtional reading or external sources section. My guess is that it isn't general reading, but intended as a specific citation to support a claim in the article. My guess is based upon the existence of a page number. If I am right, then it needs to be cited correctly, with an Inline citation. I would have expected an editor with thousands of edits to know how to do this. perhaps you do, and just didn't join this instance. If you don't know how, Referencing for beginners is a good place to start, or you can ask me, and I'll tell you how to do it. If you do know, but simply didn't do so in this instance, I urge you to fix it.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  15:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Qadiriyya
In Qadiriyya you added " The Tariqa Budshishiyya is a branch of the qadiriyya that originated in the North-west of Morocco in the 18th century." But there is no citation. When I search for the phrase, I get a lot of hits, most of which look like mirrors of the Wikipedia article, so I can't tell for sure whether these were your words, or copied. However, the fact should be cited. If you can identify where you found this information, I can look at the source (if online) and confirm that it is not a copyvio-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  15:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick, Thanks for all your efforts. This an excellent Spanish online publication about the Boutchichiya, which gives the date and the region of origin. http://www.qantara.es/Castellano/Revista_Qalam_2_files/Qalam%20n%C2%BA1.pdf S711 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This book (p. 88) gives 17th century, but I think that's too early.

This source is the best (18th c., see p. 134): Mark Sedgwick, "In Search of a Counter-Reformation: Anti-Sufi Stereotypes and the Budshishiyya's Response", in: Browers and Charles Kurzman (ed.), An Islamic Reformation?, Lexington Books, Oxford, 2004, p. 125-145
 * Thanks, I'm unable to read that (third) link, but I'll accept your word.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  19:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Water clock
You added a sentence:

I checked to see if the claim was supported in the reference the end of the paragraph (TRANSMISSION OF ISLAMIC ENGINEERING), but I didn't find it there. Can you add a citation to help the reader understand where one can find this fact?-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  15:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Dar al-Magana is already linked / referred to. The Damascus clock is the Jayrun Water Clock. Greetings. S711 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad. I focused on the first sentence, and missed the second.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  19:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Page number not required, but if you know it, then it would be nice to add.
I was looking at your edit to Achilles here. I don't know whether you have the text handy; I'll guess the source is somewhere in chapter 2, but a page number would be helpful if you knew it.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  15:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right chapter 2, p. 22, to begin at the beginning ;). I've added it.S711 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  00:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

fihrisit?
In Mohammed al-Qadiri, you added the term "fihrisit". Did you mean "fihrist"? In either case, the term is not well-known by most readers. I do not see an article on the term, so it isn't as simple as wikilinking, but perhaps you could add a parenthetical explanation, or an explanatory footnote.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  00:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it, looks better now.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  21:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Almoravid dynasty
Hi, I found an issue in Almoravid dynasty. The gory details are laid out here. In short, one of the contributions comes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. It should be properly referenced, with a template identifying the inclusion of pd material.

I do understand that this was added by you years ago, and you have learned a lot about sourcing and referencing. I’m not writing this as a warning, I’m simply bringing it to your attention because as I said to MRG, if I did something like this, I would want the opportunity to fix it myself, if only to learn how to add the pd template. If you aren’t quite sure what to do, just let me know and I’ll fix it.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  17:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Sphilbrick, Once again thank you very, very much for all your time and effort in checking all this. If you could fix this Almoravid reference, I would be grateful. S711 (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  16:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Smara
In this edit, you added some info, presumably sourced to an ARC report. I haven't been able to find this report. Can you help?-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  21:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I wouldn't know. The figures in the footnote are the subject of debate (like anything that is related to the Western Sahara) and should, here, best be left out all together anyway.S711 (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed ibn Kiran
In Mohammed ibn Kiran the claim is made that "Ibn Kiran is the author of Risala bn Saud". That claim is supported by the reference at the end of the paragraph. I improved the ref to include an online source and ISBN. The locaiton of the reference in the article hints that it is supporting the claim that Kiran was a teacher of Ahmad Ibn Idris Al-Fasi and Muhammad ibn Ali as-Senussi. While I find the first name mentioned int hat text, it is not tint he context of being a student but also being a teacher, and I don't find the second person mentioned.

Is it simply that the reference is intended to support the earlier claim? If so let's remove the second instance of the reference, and ideally find a source to support it.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, on Ibn Kiran being the teacher of Senussi, Knut S. Vikør, (inSufi and scholar on the desert edge, Northwestern University Press, 1995, p. 48, the weightiest book on Senussi) says that that is very likely the case. I'll see if I can find any other reference.S711 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I added that as a reference.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  23:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Church of San Román, Toledo
I made a minor change to Church of San Román, Toledo, because the source talks about the steeple being built in the mudéjar architectural style, rather than the entire building. Let me know if you think I've misunderstood.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed ibn Qasim al-Tamimi
Sorry, but I'm confused about a sentence in Mohammed ibn Qasim al-Tamimi.

You said: There are also many references to At-Tamimi in the work Ibn al-Arabi Ibn al-Arabi is a person, not a work. I wondered if it meant to say "in the work of Ibn al-Arabi" but I don't see that supported by the source. Am I missing something?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out. There was indeed a mistake. The information is there on p. 35 (last paragraph), but in the article it was linked to the wrong Ibn al-Arabi.S711 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Valencia
Hi, I think you've noticed I am making ever so slow headway reviewing articles you've written. You've written so many, it will take some time, but I'm trying to get to a couple most time when I log on and have some time. As an aside, it has been very informative for me. I've never been to Morocco, and I've been awed by the rich history, so I thank-you for that small peek into something I hadn't known much about before.

In almost all cases, your edits have been perfectly fine, many times adding good references, ELs, bibliographic entries, as well as additions to the main text. In many cases where there is an addition to the main text, I've been able to read the reference and confirm that the entry is supported by the reference, yet is not too close to the original wording.

I did run across one that has me stumped. The article is Valencia, and your edit is this one. That edit adds some interesting, and very specific information to the article. However, the edit wasn't accompanied by a reference. I fully understand that this was a 2008 edit, and I've been able to track your development as an editor, with some of the early edits less apt to be sourced, and more recent edits, not only accompanied by sources, but oft-times providing a source for someone else's edit. However, while I appreciate that this was early in your edit career, we still have a requirement that the material be properly sourced. A casual Google search, on one hand should make you feel good, to see how often those words appears in travelogues and other resources, on the other hand, the ubiquity of websites copying Wikipedia material makes it difficult for me to find a non-mirrored site that might qualify as a Reliable Source.

I know I have trouble remembering what I did last week, so I have no expectation that you will remember where you saw the material that prompted you to edit. However, you do have access to quite a bit of relevant material, so my hope is that you can find a resource which can be used as an edit. If no source can be found, we may have to remove the material, which I hope isn't necessary (and I don't think there's a great rush) but I did want to contact you to see if you had some thoughts about how we can get this interesting information properly referenced.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Sphilbrick. I cannot thank you enough for what you have done. That really means a lot to me. To be frank, I had lost all confidence in the Wikipedia project, because of the way this CCI was handled. But -as it appears- the project is as good as the people who are involved. You deserve all the stars that are available. I will look into this Valencia question shortly. Best greetings.S711 (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your reaction. Making sure that we do not infringe on copyrights is important to the project, yet the review of a CCI is, to be honest, mostly tedious (although I am learning about Morocco, so it does have its benefits.) I spend some time encouraging people to contribute to Wikipedia, yet I cannot imagine encouraging them to start working on a CCI.
 * You've been a pleasure to work with, and I look forward to finishing this project, so we can blank out the CCI, although at the present rate, that will take some time. I've seen your skills as an editor grow over time, so I encourage you to continue. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Bab Agnaou inscriptions.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bab Agnaou inscriptions.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Amazigh
Wikimedia received an inquiry that involved Amazigh. I thought of you. Do you know the language?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Blanking #2
Hello again. This is the second time I am asking you to refrain from blanking bio pages that you realize are sourced since the references are of course already provided and/or linked to in the references section (e.g. ). To request inline citations, please use instead the citation needed templates that are there for the purpose. Per Template:Cn, blanking is for unsourced and/or unduly negative info: "The cn template is intended for use when there is a general question of the verifiability of a statement, or when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided". Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Absurd. The bio material was taken from the gentleman's own homepage. I think he knows his own background. Middayexpress (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure his homepage is reliable since a) he's a published scholar, b) the material is used on his own bio page, and c) the material is about him personally rather than third parties. Per WP:USERG: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field". Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit it can be used as a source, but not as the only or most important source. See WP:USERG Greetings.S711 (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)