User talk:Ag rb99

Hi Ag rb99, please do not repeat an edit that has previously been reverted, as you did at

Hello,

I didn't at all promoted a single point of view. Actually, I didn't at all expressed an opinion, but rather added précisions/details. The only opinion I gave about Kairouan is sourced as it is a fact. (It is indeed considered as the fourth holy city of islam), any simple google query can confirm this. Ag rb99 (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "fact", it is a local point of view, as can be easily seen if you read about all the other cities and locations claiming to be the "fourth holiest" place in Islam. Either way, you can discuss this on a talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is a *point of view* according to the Unesco and many other sources. Other cities can claim their own holiness in their page if a source is provided. I respect your point but it is un-accurate to remove that *holiness* while it is so factual how important Kairouan hold a place in the islam. Ag rb99 (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what I just said above: please review the policy on edit-warring, which explains that if you repeat reverted edits multiple times, you can potentially be blocked from further editing. You must stop repeating this edit. R Prazeres (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why I should stop editing? Ag rb99 (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting non-neutral material into articles that promotes a single viewpoint, especially when it's unsourced, as you did at Idrisid dynasty and Great Siege of Malta. You were explicitly warned about this above, yet you have continued to do so since then. If you persist in making edits that violate Wikipedia's core content policies, you may be reported to administrators. I suggest you read the essay at Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, as your behaviour so far seems to fit this description. R Prazeres (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly *non-neutral* material did I add ? I read the policy and aware of it. All I did, is adding details that does not at all contradict the content, but indeed even confirm the content already written. Ag rb99 (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that every single edit you have made has been inserting mention of Tunisia in one way or another across a variety of contexts. When it's limited to adding links or making minor clarifications that do not alter existing information, it's not usually a problem. When you insert unsourced information, as I already pointed out to you above (see [1] and [2]), it plainly violates Wikipedia's policies. You can help expand articles, but any new material must be directly supported by reliable sources (indicated with citations) and it must respect a neutral point of view.

I'm not here to argue with you on this, these are Wikipedia's policies. I'm pointing out to you the types of behaviour that can get editors blocked, so you can take notice now and avoid this. R Prazeres (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, I am adding the name of Tunisia as a matter of additional information confirming the already content. As I did for other things to add country names for more precisions. There is no sources to be added further.

For my last edit of *arab wave immigration to Fez* I thought the source already existed.

I ll check this further.

Nevertheless, thank you for reminding.

However, you understand I have no point of pointing out any single view about anything.

If I am adding things related to Tunisia, it is just because it is the most topic I am familiar to, nothing else.

Thank you for understanding. Ag rb99 (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]