User talk:R Prazeres

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 5.

Your nomination of Ottoman architecture is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Ottoman architecture is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Per exemplum -- Per exemplum (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Ottoman architecture in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Per Exemplum 21:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
· · ·

Per Exemplum 21:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hi, I started researching, quickly realized that my edits weren’t the Wikipedia right way. Anyways in a day or two i shall start editing again, I’ll start with the List of Egyptian flags article. I’ve just read the List of Saudi Arabian flags and saw how poor the first one is. Let’s say, my edits will be enhancing, adding only confirmed edits. And if you can take of your time and review my edits then, I’ll highly appreciate that. Thank you so much Kenzy Shaher (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, I'll review them if I have time, or feel free to remind me. Just a heads-up: Wikipedia contains a lot of content about historical flags that is unfortunately very unreliable, so just be aware of that if it's a topic you're interested in. Many of the "flag" images on Wiki Commons, for example, are either completely fictional or unreliable speculation (which is what I meant when I mentioned "WP:OR" in my revert at List of Egyptian flags), because Wiki Commons is less restricted than Wikipedia. In any case, happy editing! R Prazeres (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I know you're busy, but I have a question. I'm currently learning all the tools in "WP:OR", which are very useful. However, I've read many articles about country flags, such as my country's flag List of Saudi Arabian flags, and others, and I've discovered that each country has many different flags from various eras. from Wiki Commons and it’s approved. I am really keen to know the difference between this article and the List of Egyptian flags, to make sure that when I start to re-edit, the changes will not be deleted. Thanks for your time and I hope I'm not being annoying..🙄🙄🙄🙄 Kenzy Shaher (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being annoying at all, asking questions is a good thing :)

Thank you for noting the List of Saudi Arabian flags. Like I said in my previous comment, there are a lot of articles that contain unsourced or unreliable information about flags (and also about other things of course, but flags are a particular recurring problem). So I've had a look at that article just now and found that it indeed contains that same problem, so I've just removed most of the unsupported images. Many of them are also off-topic; for example, the Ottoman flags are obviously not "Saudi Arabian" flags in any reasonable sense of the term. (For what it's worth: a large part of the problems in the various "List of flags" articles are actually because of two specific accounts -- possibly even the same person -- who were editing years ago and added massive amounts of material to Wikipedia without citing any sources and without any consideration for the topic of articles. Some of it was deleted afterwards by other editors, but there aren't enough volunteer editors to check every page for unsourced material, so some of it is still out there. Which is why we say "Wikipedia is a work in progress", haha.)

Again, like I said, just because they're in Wiki Commons doesn't mean they're "approved" or reliable at all. Anybody can upload almost anything in Wiki Commons; the only strong rule there is avoiding copyright violations. Which means some users invent flags, maps, or even portraits and then upload them to Wiki Commons for fun, but without any support from academic sources. To appear on Wikipedia, however, things need to be verifiable in reliable sources. When in doubt, always cite a source at least, so that someone else can check the source if needed. R Prazeres (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thank you for noting me and thank you really for your advice and time as well. I must be sure when using photos from Wiki Commons as it is an entity with different views and rules. And again, thank you for helping me. I will continue reading 🤓🤓 Kenzy Shaher (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rashidun caliphate

I believe that providing a scientific-critical perspective on historical topics is far more important than the content itself. Telling people long stories as if they were entirely true, and then leaving the weak points for last, would be misleading. Many people probably won't read the article to the end. NGC 628 (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About Alhambra

Hello! I want another opinion on whether Alhambra is ready to be nominated for GA status. Thoughts?

Also, is there a template for this? Wikipedian12512 (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I've replied at Talk:Alhambra :)

If you mean a template for GA nominations, I forget the specifics but the instructions for the whole process are at Wikipedia:Good article instructions, for reference. R Prazeres (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the template, I’m asking if there is one for getting a second opinion. Thanks! Wikipedian12512 (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, no not really. Posting the question on the article talk page (as you did) is the right thing to do, and you can indeed ask an editor directly if you think they're a good person to ask (either by posting on their user talk page, as you did here, or by pinging them in your question).

Aside from that, there are templates for more specific problems or for technical assistance; e.g., the "help me" template allows you to request general assistance on how to edit or how to fix a technical problem.

I hope that helps! R Prazeres (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Wikipedian12512 (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, R Prazeres how’re you?

I would like to ask you a question regarding my recent edits. I noticed deleting some edits in the Ancient Egypt article. I would like to know the mistakes, so I don’t repeat them. The other question, am i allowed to perform some edits in the article mentioned above?

I am sorry I know I talk too much 🙊 🙊 I also want to ask why the Egypt page is forbidden to edit? Since I live there and I am fond of Egyptian history, I would love to make edits in that aspect, is that allowed?

Sorry for talking too much, but I can see you are very talented and experienced, that’s why I am trying to learn.

Thank you so much 😊😊 Kenzy Shaher (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kenzy. I don't think I reverted any of your edits, unless I've missed something? You can see what I removed here (this view should show what was removed by highlighting it in yellow on the left). The edits I removed were from another editor who had caused problems. You've already edited Ancient Egypt so I don't see any problem with you continuing to do so.

As for the Egypt article, it is partially "locked", which is usually done when an article is frequently targeted by vandalism. (It restricts editing to those with a certain amount of experience, to prevent random people from vandalizing the article.) You will eventually be able to edit it directly yourself once you have enough edits and your account is old enough, but in the meantime you can still suggest specific edits by making an "edit request" on the article's talk page; see Wikipedia:Edit requests for explanation. Once you post your request, another editor will have a look at it and, if your request is clear and contains no significant problems, they will perform the edit for you.

I hope that helps! R Prazeres (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thank you for your time and thank you for your reply. Yes, maybe these aren't my edits, Sorry 😢😢.

I will add some additional information that I hope will be useful to Wikipedia.

Thank you again, I really appreciate it 😍😍 Kenzy Shaher (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Block evade reverts

Appreciate you reverting block evasion edits, but when you do, please check you aren't also reverting good edits. For example on Saad al-Din bin Ghurab you also reverted Special:Diff/1350908382 and by doing that you restored code that no longer works. Again appreciate your efforts, but please double check you are only undoing the bad edits. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is Bahaa el-Din bin Hanna. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll keep an eye on that from now on. To clarify: are all the errors you noticed related to infobox parameters (like the examples above)? If so, that will help me know what to watch out for in particular. R Prazeres (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I saw this time. But in general, when you revert, you should only revert when it is just the one editor you are reverting. Otherwise, much better to individually undo the edits as you can inadvertently undo good edits as well. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is probably the most extensive series of block-evade reverts I've done (due to the particularly egregious behaviour of the banned editor), so I appreciate the feedback as it helps me calibrate. For what it's worth, though: In more complicated cases, I think it's reasonable to weigh the importance of preserving minor routine edits in an article, which can usually be repeated relatively easily as needed, versus that of removing large-scale and intractable disruptions, if the latter cannot easily be reverted manually. Not ideal, but it's been done before in these situations.

To be clear, I'll leave this note also for any other editors potentially dropping by here: anyone should feel free to undo my revert if it created any kind of mess I didn't notice. Feel free to exercise a different judgement from mine. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally fair. To be clear, I 100% support your reverts. I guess my point is that when you revert the good with the bad, the vandals win, and we can't have that!! In any case, keep up the good work! Thanks for hearing me out. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Ottoman architecture has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Ottoman architecture has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Per exemplum -- Per exemplum (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco flag

Hello. I just want to begin by thanking you for your work across Wikipedia. You have contributed significantly.

I am just writing to ask a question about a flag (since you seem fairly familiar with falsely attributed flags) that I've seen historically attributed to Morocco constantly: the (not) scissors flag. While I am aware that the flag was not an actual official national flag used by Morocco, I do want to ask if you know what the origin of it was, why it was so commonly attributed to Morocco and what it actually represented (if anything)? If you don't have information, that's fine. Otherwise, thanks in advance Mayouhm (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the kind words! Likewise, thank you for your excellent contributions; we need more editors like that :)

For the flags, I might be able to uncover more with time, but I don't have a definitive answer. Judging by the source of the image ([1]) and by my experience with other attributed flags so far, I'd bet that the flags may very well be invented (or partly invented) by European authors and cartographers at some point in time, either for this chart or in an older source. It could be that this chart is precisely the source for this flag that you keep seeing, or that there is an even earlier European source which inspired similar versions to appear elsewhere, or so on. I doubt, for example, that there are historical Moroccan or North African sources that show these flags (though of course I could be wrong, if we find more evidence).

If useful, here is some general context I've learned over the years, which may or may not be already familiar to you:

European authors/cartographers came from cultures that were developping (or had developped) a rigorous and idealized system of heraldry, which was not shared by cultures outside Europe (i.e., banners and symbols were of course commonly used elsewhere, but just not with the same system of rules, with the same political and cultural roles, etc.). They also would have had very limited information about distant lands and cultures. So when they needed to represent those distant nations, they filled in the gaps in their charts however they could. It's hard to tell whether some flags are completely imaginary, or whether they had some basis in real flags used at some point and reported by witnesses, or whether they just draw on iconography or stereotypes that Europeans already had for certain peoples (e.g., the crescent moon was usually associated with Islam, but I believe I read somewhere (can't remember the reference at the moment) that this symbol was not actually widely used on flags until relatively recently).

At least for medieval European authors, it's known that they invented kingdoms, nations, and flags when creating books or charts that claimed to represent all the known world. This is a problem, for example, with the Book of Knowledge of All Kingdoms (which is the source of many supposed medieval flags that have made their way into Wikipedia at various times). If interested, see this modern introduction to that book which explains the context of its creation and why it should not all be taken at face value; see especially pages "xlviii" to "l" (you may need a free account to access).

So this is the context I keep in mind, at least for medieval sources. The source above ([2]) is supposedly from 1837, which is relatively recent, but many of the African and Asian flags, as well as some of the "nations" named, look like the type of slightly fanciful attributions that earlier Europeans made. I can't find more information about the author(s) of the chart. I wouldn't be surpised if the original source for some of these flags might indeed be earlier charts or books, or if some of them were again made up for the benefit of their American/European audience. Either way, without more specific information, I think it should be viewed in the same context I noted above. R Prazeres (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe the Europeans had to know the North African pennants accurately to know which Barbary state they belong to. (This was very much needed for diplomacy and the intentions of the vessel). Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abbasid dynasty, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fall of Baghdad was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations \| June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for advice

Hi R Prazeres,

To make this brief, I was doing recent changes patrolling on WikiShield when I came across an edit in the abuse filter (false positive) that was trying to revert what they believed was block evasion by User:Jamalie7. The user in question had added an infobox (similar to Jamalie7) and when reverted, went straight to the talk page to look for an explanation (again, similar to the named sock). All of their edits center around the same Libyan based articles that Jamalie edited on. The problem is, as they do not have any "smoking gun" WP:DUCK edits, I do not know how to proceed, nor do I know if I should consider creating an SPI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Seshneg Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 06:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Plasticwonder: Sorry for the delayed reply, I've been in transit. From a quick look at this new user's edit summaries and comments, they don't look like to me that particular sockmaster. That said, there were several other accounts at the time that were promoting a similar nationalist POV (and if I remember correctly, they more or less admitted to off-wiki communication about it too). It's possible that there is some connection to those editors, but I think it's safest to assume it's just a new editor with a similar POV. Sorry I couldn't be of more help! R Prazeres (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is the same feeling I had. Thanks for answering! Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 15:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]