User talk:R Prazeres

ANI notice

I've started a report at ANI re: book spamming [1] 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)

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)

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 ([2], 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)

Your eyes...

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#not neutral Nationalist Lourdes 05:52, 11 July 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 ([3]) 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)

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. ––FormalDude (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. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

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

yo the libu edit i work hard on that one

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stonewalling_and_POV_pushing_in_the_Aghlabids_article

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

revert

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

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

Possible bias against Libya

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

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