User talk:Nourerrahmane

April 2023

Ottoman Algeria, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, thank you , i have reliable sources but i don't know how to put a link to them, the flag show here is not the offical flag but only a flag that was flown in port, the coat of arms shown is not an official one either, it's actually a corsair ship flag Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you don't have a source for that elaborate coat of arms (that's not even your work). 2) Why do you keep removing the map and the other flag (which is also sourced)? M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

first of all, didn't notice a removed the map sorry

and for the emblem, you can check the pictures i posted in its file, and i have given two sources, did you check them ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the other flag is not properly sourced i guess; it speaks about a flag with yellow and red strips flown over the port of Algiers, the one i have given is the offical one as shown in 10 sources that i have posted Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other is properly sourced and more sources could be added to it if needs be. They used a multitude of flags at the time, but from what I could gather, the yellow and red use the one that was used the most (also listed among the flags that were confiscated by the French following the invasion). The coat of arms is pure

WP:OR (and I repeat, not even your work, as claimed). M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

did you even read my sources ??? the red and yellow strips is just a port flag, in fact, the french took a lot of flags, among them the flag of the dey which is looks like the barbaros flag with two edged sword , now to be found in victor hugo museum at Paris, in the museum of Algiers we have a picture of the invasion of Algiers in 1541, the algerines were raising the red green and golden strips flag, and for the coat of arms, again you're not checking my sources, i even took pictures from the city itself, and the work is done by my facebook group 1001history, it respects its original form perfectly Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to read your sources about the coat of arms since I happen to have its svg equivalent and know for a fact that it's not your work. M.Bitton (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that was done by an Algerian history facebook page members which i happen to be an Admin in it, tell me on what bases you're refusing it ?? and the flag ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that it's not your work (despite claiming otherwise). It's 100%

WP:OR that isn't even attributed to the person who actually made it. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

that's a collective work, you don't have a way to know truth from wrong unless someone explecitly says it's his, and i known the people who contributed in it, again, you're being a pos Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello M.Bitton hope you're doing great, is it possible to remove this discussion ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and speaking of the flag, multiple videos were done by a famous local historian in Algeria, check (mohamed doumir on youtube) you don't need to understand arabic in order to understand what he's talking about; he showed the exact flag i posted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgBZ9uc4nWU&t=211s, it's just better sourced, and if you check the coat of arms i posted, once you check the file, you'll notice the state flag that i posted, now unless you pretend you're more knowlegable of my own city then i do, i fail to beleive you could say otherwise, let alone favor one poorly sourced flag over 10 sources flag (with paintings) with all due respects of course.

unless you prove me wrong, i'll repost my modifications. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works (you should avoid edit warring). The

WP:ONUS to seek consensus for the introduction of such nonsense as the coat of arms is on you. M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

well i have to take measures on that, you're being a bit of a dictator. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the rules. If you want to break them, that's your prerogative and since you're assuming bad faith, I won't hesitate to report you. M.Bitton (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you're not following the rules Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you literally refused a very well sourced content in favor of a badly sourced one, while "assuming" it's not my work, nice Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, you got discord? I'd like to have a discussion with you @Nourerrahmane Italiancorsair (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey man sure :) just type my name here Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayro#7339, can you add that on discord? Italiancorsair (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

invitation

Hey,as we both contributed to the Kingdom of Algiers article and saw that you made significant edits these last days, i would love to discuss with you about how can we improve our article, here is my discord server : https://discord.gg/mXAg3RAD Tayeb188 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i sent a request to you Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially useful reference

Hi, in case it helps you get started, you can find some information on the agha's rise to power in Jamil Abun-Nasr's History of the Maghrib, on p.159-169. It may not contain all the information you're looking for, but it's a good, reliable history reference that's mostly visible on Google Books preview, so it's a good choice for Wikipedia. If I think of any other convenient references, I'll let you know here or at Talk:Ottoman Algeria.

If you'd like access to the full chapter of the book, I may be able to help you by email. I don't post my contact info on Wikipedia, but you can message me through theWikipedia's "email user" tool (you can do it directly here by entering my username). Just keep in mind that the message I receive will show me your email address, so if you prefer to keep that private, don't use this tool. I'm offering just in case you want that option, but it's entirely your choice. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you so much !,* however i managed to download it via internet archive website, and it explains in breif the transition that occured in that period of algerine history. the historian abu nasr looks more intrested in the dey system that was set up in 12 years after the janissary revolution, my opinion is that the deylik system found its source from this revolution and made reforms on it, to the point where the janissary-corsair feud diminished considerably, which helped to stabilise the state, it's a very important phase because of its impact on Algerian political mindset till this day, the is military-civilian-religious instituional cooperation is the body of the algerian state. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm glad you were able to obtain it. And yes I'm sure certain authors emphasize certain things over others. You don't have to necessarily repeat everything one author says, but just remember that in Wikipedia our job is to simply report what's already published by reliable sources in a neutral or impartial manner (as much as possible), so we can't inject our own opinions into an article either. But you can focus on describing the events, political systems, etc from that period, without necessarily arguing for one viewpoint or another about which events or changes were more important than others. R Prazeres (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prazeres, do you have english refereces about the barbary corsairs ? i know there is an article for them in Wikipedia but the thing is that the corsairs of Algiers were state sponsored and had an actual institution within the state of Algiers, most of what i have is either french or arabic references, cheers, Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around but didn't find a lot, but I admit this is a topic I haven't worked on much before. There are surely some books and articles about it, it's just a matter of finding them. I know there's a book called "Algiers in the Age of the Corsairs" by William Spencer, from 1976, but I couldn't get access to it. There are various other recent English-language books about the "Barbary Corsairs" (e.g. look up "Algiers corsairs" on Google Books and you'll find plenty), but I don't know how useful they'd be; they seem more interested in the actual piracy events or in their relations with the Europeans, so they may or may not say much on their institutional setting in Algiers.

As it happens, Abun-Nasr 1987 (the book I mentioned above) had some brief comments that seem relevant to what you're saying, where he mentions piracy was a state monopoly. I've copy-pasted the most relevant paragraphs below, again in case they're useful:

• On page 159 of his book:
  "Besides the Turkish Janissary troops the Ujaq included an ethnically mixed group, this being the ta'ifa (community) of seamen. In the days of Khayr al-Din and his immediate successors the seamen were an integral part of the army, but in the seventeenth century they had become a distinct group. By this time the holy war against the Christians had degenerated into piracy, although it continued to be described as al-jihad fi 'l-bahr (holy war at sea), and the community of seamen had become penetrated by adventurers from many parts of the Mediterranean area. Non-Turks who came to Algiers as captives of the Algerine corsairs gained admittance to the ta'ifa of seamen through conversion to Islam and by virtue of their knowledge of the areas which the corsairs raided. Unlike in Ottoman Tunisia, where privateers were allowed to equip their own piratical ships, piracy in Ottoman Algeria was a monopoly of the state. It was also the activity upon which the prosperity of the Ujaq as well as its religious prestige to a great extent depended. That is why the legendary heroes of Ottoman Algeria were ra'ises (captains of piratical ships) such as Murad in the 1580s (cf. Fisher, 1957, p. 89) and Hamidu at the turn of the nineteenth century (cf. al-Zahhar, 1974, pp. 74-6 and 117-19). These were men who distinguished themselves through audacious attacks on Christian ships and bringing important prizes to Algiers."
• On p.165:
  "As mentioned earlier, piracy was viewed in Algeria as holy war, but its continuation over two centuries can be explained in terms of the economic advantages which the ruling group derived from it. Valensi (1969b, pp. 63-4) has pointed out that the continued interest of the rulers of the Maghribi countries in piracy was a result of their inability to develop merchant fleets because their ships were not allowed to call on European ports and were constantly threatened by the Knights of Saint John of Malta until their disappearance in 1798. Because piracy in Algeria was a state monopoly supervised by a minister (wakil al-kharj), its yields went in the first place to the Ujaq. The ships captured by the pirates and the weapons found on them became the property of the state; the captives and goods seized on them were sold and the yield was shared amongst the sailors and troops that took part in the expedition that led to their capture. Besides their share of the prizes of the pirates, the deys benefited from piracy through the price they extorted from European states wishing to secure their ships against piratical attacks under the peace treaties. The inhabitants of Algiers too drew benefit from piracy through trading in the goods captured by the pirates and buying the captives immediately after they were captured and demanding high ransoms for them after a suitable delay."

I hope you find some useful things! R Prazeres (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you can, please try to use Wikipedia's citation templates (like cite book, cite web, etc) when you add new content to articles. The editor interfaces all have options to "cite" which give you shortcuts to the most common templates, which allows you to just fill in the details you know for each book or article. If you're using the visual editor, I find it especially easy to do it there, and you can even copy-paste citations that you previously inserted, so you don't have to manually repeat them. These templates make it easier for other editors to look up the sources you used (especially if they don't speak Arabic/French). I hope that helps, R Prazeres (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello R.Prazeres, do you have access to this source ? https://books.google.dz/books?id=ezIrAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

it is literally the only source about the Algerian red and yellow strips flag. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just left you a note at Ottoman Algeria

I see you are interested in Algeria, which I have worked on here and there as I speak french and some very fine but poorly worded content was coming to my attention. I have a number of articles which I have improved as much as I can but would benefit from the attention of someone who speaks Arabic, if that is you. Just let me know. I see your English is rough, but mine is not, so I can help with that part if you can help with content. Elinruby (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I do not know R Prazeres but that editor seems like a good person to listen to, and it is true that you will make life easier for other people if you learn the cite book and cite web templates. 09:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Algeria

Thank you for your work, we need the same for the french version of ottoman algeria ... HanKim20 (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you welcome, i beleive the french version is decent enough, it just needs reorganisation

the Arabic one however is abysmal Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nourerrahmane

it's true for the Arabic version

But I think you've added a lot to the English version, and maybe you can do the same for the French version.

The English version has become much better than the French version, and your help on the French version would be appreciated.

Especially since I think that the French version will reach many more Algerians in the diaspora like me who want to learn about their history. HanKim20 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately i'm banned in the French Wikipedia Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hello Nourerrahmane! Your additions to

suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism

issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nobody (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i will rephrase what you have deleted in my own words, i should have put the "Quotation marks" Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I love your work on the Ottoman Algeria article. Sizito (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you very much! i'm glad you liked it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Your edit to

Ottoman Algeria has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, sorry but i beleive the deleted paragraph was reformulated Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rectification: it had the quotation marks, so i had to write them as they were in the source Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. While your addition did contain some short quotations, the edit itself was not presented as a quotation. The content was not "reformulated"; it was copied. — Diannaa (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, i apologise, i will make sure to reformulate adequately next time. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of Arms of ancient Algeria.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coat of Arms of ancient Algeria.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 12:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Coat of Arms of Algiers.png

Thanks for uploading File:Coat of Arms of Algiers.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 14:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Your edit to Regency of Algiers has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres I really don't get it, i copy pasted a quote and i made sure i used my own words regarding the sourced material, please tell me where i wronged Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa So here's what you did :

1- You removed sourced content, pretty much done in my own words, in fact i did this addition just to point out how these relations contributed to the evolvement of the law of nations and the law of the sea. Now the little text you left looks ambiguous and pointless

2- You literally removed one quote of the Irish loyer Charles Molloy, but you left the quote of Cornelius van Bynkershoek, on what basis was that ? you even removed his status, how are readers supposed to know who he was ?

3- I'm not going to assume bad faith, but why did you leave me a final warning ? you could have at least made few corrections if you "judged" that the addition was similar to the source since, again, it's not a copy past. I feel like your abrupt revert is more of discouragement to contribute to the article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never visited this website : [1]https://123dok.net/document/qmj39d4q-violence-protection-and-commerce.html

this is the source i used : [2]https://books.google.fr/books?id=9pqxAwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT58&dq=regency+of+algiers+military+republic&hl=fr&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=regency%20of%20algiers%20military%20republic&f=false Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual for the same material to be present in multiple locations online. I think the link I used is a pirated copy of the book you used as your source. Here is a link to the report at CopyPatrol. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. I have re-added the Molloy quote, without the surrounding prose, which is copyright. Sorry but due to the large number of copyright reports (typically 100 or so) to be assessed each day, there is not enough time for me to re-write all the copyright violations. You received a final warning because you have three previous warnings for copyright.

What is "loyer"? I have not seen that word before. — Diannaa (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer, sorry but my keyboard is in french and it made a correction based on that (loyer = rent in english) Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry @Diannaa but i don't think that " the law of the sea and the law of nations" and "in the jurisprudence of the concluded treaties" deserve copyright, i gotta put them somehow they are essential. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright can you tell me what really is going on ? how is saying "European Authors witnessed the shifts in jurisprudence in dealing with Pirates...etc" is copyrighted ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy content from your sources. If you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nourerrahmane. I haven't looked at the full context of this and the revisions are now hidden, but I think the problem is close paraphrasing; have a look at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (Diannaa, feel free to correct me on anything here.) I mentioned that in passing during this edit, where I did notice some wording that was very close to the source. Maybe that edit can exemplify some ways in which you can rephrase the same content more originally. This may just need some practice (and you can do so in your sandbox for example, before adding new content to an article.)

To take another example you mentioned: "in the jurisprudence of the concluded treaties" is a very specific phrasing, and if you borrow phrases like that multiple times it's more likely to trigger copyright concerns. Depending on what you're trying to communicate, you could rephrase that along the lines of "the provisions of the treaties concluded with the Regencies", or "a new body of jurisprudence began to emerge based on the treaties concluded with the Barbary States", or so on. Aside from simply exchanging some words for synonyms, try to re-write the sentence from scratch. Consider how you can maybe simplify or clarify the information for Wikipedia too, or whether it's useful to merge two pieces of information from the source into one new statement for conciseness, or splitting it up into multiple statements for easier reading, etc. Wikipedia is for general readers, so the wording found in academic sources might not actually be the best style to use anyways, and that's one consideration you can use when writing. I hope that helps. R Prazeres (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @R Prazeres i will take your advice and try to be more careful from now on, however that is still not copying from my part like Diannaa said, and i don't beleive it requires leaving a final warning in my talk page. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   — Diannaa (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your account, because in spite of repeated warnings including a final warning, you continued to add copyright material to Wikipedia in violation of our copyright policy. You cannot resume editing until you provide a statement describing how copyright applies to Wikipedia, show that you understand our copyright policy, and make a commitment to follow it in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did this so that i won't forget how i organized my thoughts, it was even hard for me to sum up a general idea since i was planning to rephrase the deleted content, i should have been more prudent though, so i'm well aware that i used

non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. Such situations should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues." So obviously, i would like to contribute to Wikipedia and build an encyclopedia and not engage in theft. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Added this: "In most cases, you may not copy text from other sources into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation. Always write the articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article. Copyright violations are often speedily deleted." Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Nourerrahmane (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Per reply to the block, i usually copy-past content before rephrasing or summarizing, yet i had copyright issues since i somtimes forget about some copyrighted material and therefore i will be more prudent in the future.

Accept reason:

Your answers to the question below show a good understanding of how copyright applies to Wikipedia editing, as well as a strong commitment to the project. I am unblocking. Welcome back and happy editing. — Diannaa (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content you added to Odjak of Algiers Revolution was there for over 24 hours before I removed it. It doesn't seem like you made any effort to rephrase or re-work the content in that time; in fact you continued editing in that session as well as some 20 hours later without making any alterations to the copyright text. Pasting in copyright text and forgetting about it is not okay. Regardless, whether you intend to later return and edit the material or not, it's not okay to paste copyright material into Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. To do so is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I’m no longer venturing in that territory again. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've received multiple warnings for violations of the copyright policy, culminating in a block. In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. Please respond to the following questions, explaining in your own words:

• What is copyright?
• How is Wikipedia licenced?
• Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
• Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
• How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. — Diannaa (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1- Copyright: It is a form of intellectual property aimed at protecting original works, it's a legal right for an author that creates an original work for a fixed period of time to protect it from copying.

2- Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, it is published under a free license and open to all; the texts are published under the Creative Commons license, which allows anyone to create, copy, distribute or modify Wikipedia content. However, copyright must be respected, which means i cannot copy an already published text elsewhere: book, image, newspaper, etc. unless it's public domain).

3- Based on what was written above, the prevention from violation of copyright is an essential guarantee of preserving the free nature of the encyclopedia and the possibility for everyone to reuse its contents, because Copyright Violation by Wikipedia Users Raises responsability Issues, that would put me in the front line in this case since it engages my responsability directly. And, if copyright infringement takes on too massive proportions, it may well end up causing serious problems for Wikipedia.

4- Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission is the way to go, sending an email to the copyright holders and asking them to agree that their content can be used freely by Wikipedia under a compatible copyright licence.

5- I think it has to do more with a sense of responsability towards myself and towards Wikipedia that allowed me to edit so that people from the whole world could access to a free informative and educational content. And theft is not the way to achieve that, so i will take into consideration practical measures to avoid copyright violation, by not copying or close paraphrasing any copyrighted content.

Lastly i would like to like to say i'm sorry for taking this issue lightly. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corsairs of Algiers, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nourerrahmane,

Thank you for creating Corsairs of Algiers.

Thank you so much for this article. Please link this article to related articles and also, cite more sources. Regards.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Vanderwaalforces}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for accepting this article, this will sure lift some weight from the Regency of Algiers article, and i already added some fixes. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the text towards the bottom of the article is heavy going. I seem to remember this inversion of subject and object in MT from Arabic before and have *somewhat* more acquaintance with this than the average Wikipedian, but that is a very low bar. If you speak Arabic I would appreciate a review to make sure I am not creating historical nonsense; if you grew up there I assume you got some history in school. Maybe in a day or so when I think I am done. Your English seems fine but if French is easier I speak that also. I am going to try to get through the last few sections at least one more time tonight, and check references the next time I am in. PS I understand that the 1897 blockquote is typical colonial thinking, but something more recent is probably due also. More suggestions later probably.

Note that I have zero knowledge of Arabic Elinruby (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I hope it is ok for me to offer some suggestions on this article as I review it for military history. It is a long article and it is taking me some time to read through it, longer than I thought it would. I think it may be better to correspond on your talk page than go back and forth on the article assessment page. First, I suggest that you define "corso" where it first appears or use a different word or phrase. I am not familiar with the word and could not find a satisfactory definition. I assume that in context it means corsair activity or piracy and that it has periods of greater or lesser or even no activity. The paragraph where the word first appears confused me mainly because I did not recognize the word but you might look at whether the entire point of the paragraph is clearly expressed. I think that when you first refer to the Janissary revolt, you might link to the article about it, Odjak of Algiers Revolution, which it appears you have worked on. Finally, for now, the sentence including "Oruç was forced to sit in the council" appears to need the word "building" or some type of further description. I assume that Oruc was sitting, or hiding, in a building where a council meets, not sitting in a council meeting which is what the phrase otherwise might imply. I will get back to you as I progress. Donner60 (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Donner60, thank you for your feedback, and based on it, i have made few modifications:

- Another word of Corso is "

privateering, also known as the "Corso", experienced three successive bursts with the contraction exchanges during the European wars of the French Revolution and Empire

...", with a link to a subsection about Algerian privateering and how it is diffrent from a mere piracy.

- About Janissary revolt: Done.

- This passage about Oruç lacked precision, so i did modifications there according to its source.

Hope it is clearer this way, Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks good. I will be continuing my review. Donner60 (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read further into the article and have more suggestions. I think these are small edits and the number may decline as terms reappear later and do not need further definition or as fewer such terms are used. My goal, in line with B class standards, is to allow the average reader to read the article more easily, without having to search for definitions. I am confident that this will qualify for B class. Certainly the number of citations conforms to the guideline and that is a big step toward the assessment. My suggestions or questions this time refer to:

“Qara Hasan, former Agha of Hayreddin, concluded an agreement with Belkadi,..” I think Agha needs to be defined either by the word deputy, which seems to be how it is used later or by linking Agha (title) if that is correct.

“This period marked the toponymy of Algiers where a mountain is called Djebel Kuku.” While this is accurate, instead of “toponymy”, it might be more understandable to the average reader by using a phrase such as “the naming of places around Algiers” (despite using extra words).

Where “Peñón” first appears, link the article of the same name or identify it as a fort or fortress since that seems to have been its previous use.

If Charles V is to be referred to as Holy Roman Emperor (rather than just King of Spain), it would be appropriate to do so where the name first appears, rather than later in the article,

“He landed unexpectedly at Cherchell, seized that town and freed a thousand Christian captives who were moaning there.[81] But the Turks took refuge in the citadel while the troops disbanded to engage in looting.” I suggest a different word than “moaning” such as “languishing” or simply “imprisoned” if that is correct. Also, I think the troops should be identified as “Doria's” troops unless they were definitely Spanish or Genoese.

“The Moriscos had many opportunities to flee...” I suggest adding “Spain.” Many readers might know that, but probably not everyone.

Where Charles V, later appears, he might be referred to as King of Spain or perhaps linked again. (I know that overlinking is frowned upon but this might be an exception.)

In Ottoman dominance in the Maghreb, would vassal tribes be better described as vassal states or were they simply large groups of people without a nation state?

In The Ottoman Capitulations to France, “warring Europe” might be better described at “European nations” to avoid any misreading that they were warring among themselves.

The link to the Bastion of France would be better in the first appearance of the word Bastion, in the line above, and then just Bastion in the next line.

I think “diwan” needs a definition where if first appears. I assume that it always refers to a council?

In Ali Bitchin Reis and later, Rais seems to refer to a council rather than a name. I think it should be defined at its first appearance as a council.

I have made minor edits, in the nature of correcting typos. As I understand it a reviewer should not make changes that are substantive so as to prevent any conflict of interest in the final assessment. While it may appear that I could have made some of the above changes, I think it is preferred that you do it.

I will continue from this point later. We will get to the end. Donner60 (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again thank you for giving such big amount of time to this article, i have worked on the issues you raised, and to answer your questions:

- The Kabyle tribes of northern Algeria made up confederations which formed two small independent kingdoms "Kuku" and "Beni abbes", literally, as they formed up after the fall of the Hafsids of Bejaia, though they faught the Ottoman expansion in their mountainous territories, they proved vital for the establishment of the Regency of Algiers, and would send much needed troops for the regency in its wars. Later on through the 17th century they were assimiliated to eastern province of Algiers while keeping their autonomy, those "kingdoms" will leave place for influancial families.there who were most of the time perceived as "Allies" of the regency.

- Reis are the corsair captains of Algiers, there is an article dedicated to them which was linked in this article as you suggested, The Diwan is both the military and government council of the janissaries of Algiers, It has more explanations further below in the administration section and the Odjak of Algiers article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You are certainly adding much information to Wikipedia that would otherwise remain uncovered. If I can help convey this information, I am glad to do so. I have finished reviewing the history and political sections. So I am making good progress. Here are further comments on these sections.

You may have covered this but I noticed it later in the article: I see Rais used to refer to a group (a council?) and to an individual and an occasional spelling of reis or rias which seems to have a similar meaning. When used for an individual, would it be proper to write “a member of the Rais” or something similar to distinguish the individual from the group or can the distinction be made at the first uses of different spellings?

In “Tunisian campaigns” link

governorate

to article of that name.

Also in that section, “saphis” appears once in the text; from the later picture, this appears to refer to Algerian cavalry. I think that saphis should be defined in the text, as cavalry if that is correct.

In “Recapture of Oran and Mers el-Kébir: End of 300 years war between Spain and Algiers”, I think “mehalla” should be defined.

In “Barbary diplomacy with European powers”, link [i.e. the Staten-General].

In “Jewish hegemony on Algerian foreign trade”, I think that “various disputes” could be clarified by adding “Algerian” before “disputes” or some wording which specifically indicates the disputes are between Algiers and the European countries - assuming they are not between the European countries at the point in the article where this appears.

After the first sentence, the last paragraph in the section “United States Mediterranean policy” needs clarification. It is not clear to me which countries agreed to which measures and whether the fleet was to consist of ships of the various nations. (I assume it was but I think that could be more explicit.)

I have made some minor edits and separated some long sentences into two, and a few times three sentences. This could be done with no change in wording or just a non-substantive word change at the end of some sentences or the beginning of the following sentence, such as omitting a transitional word. I also made minor edits and sentence breaks in the next section. It should be obvious that no substantive changes were made so I am not listing these. Of course, the history shows what they were.

I did not separate long sentences in my earlier in the review, although I think there were a few. I will not delay the assessment, but I expect to return to the article to see if some long sentences earlier in the article can be separated without substantive change for easier reading. I tend to write some long sentences myself and often need to go back and separate them. Many readers and reviewers consider shorter sentences to be clearer so I try to keep the long sentences to a minimum.

This concludes my review of the history section.

In the Political status section.

In “Triennial mandate: Pashalik period (1587-1659)” “tried to get rid of it”, identify ”it” - the Odjak?

In “Janissary revolution: Agha regime in 1659”, the word the spelling of rais appears different. Is there something different here that needs to be clarified?

This concludes my review of the Political status section.

Please don't feel rushed. I am taking my time and we are not under any deadline. As we move into non-military sections, I think I may have less to say. Donner60 (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your time has been taken up today by a new user who wants to add even more to the article. I certainly do not have the resources to review that or comment on the conclusion but I would have no reason to question the conclusion that you and the other commenters who agree with you have. You are well versed, and an obvious expert, about the subject. I note the suggestion that this new material be made a subject of a different article and perhaps a link to that, if written, would be a good compromise.

As I suspected, my review of the later sections which do not deal with military history raised fewer questions or suggestions for me. These complete my review and are:

Under “Territorial Management” the sentence beginning “Thus they were empowered to exercise...” seems to express two incomplete thoughts. The point about privileges in particular does not seem to be complete and to flow specifically from the previous part of the sentence. Can this be clarified and expanded if necessary?

Under “Mandatory royalties and gifts”, would “This negated the character of” be better phrased as “This prevented...” Also, the table is missing, if it is necessary or desirable. If not, the caption for a table should be removed.

Under “Agriculture” would “period of progress in agriculture” or something similar be clearer than “organization millennium of agriculture.”

I have made additional sentence separations. Many of these are just substituting a period for a semi-colon as a more common usage. I have made a few other minor edits with no substantive changes.

When you finish your review and any changes, we can proceed to the B assessment. I view the length of the article as a separate issue which is not related to B assessment criteria. It may be considered separately in line with the template. I am not sure how that would proceed, if at all. It would certainly be considered in higher level assessments. I think the B assessment would not affect these other considerations one way or the other. Donner60 (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60 Thank you for this massive review, i'm aware it took some time and energy to go through this long article, so i hope i made sure it was worth it, i have worked on the issues you raised and hopefully the content is clearer this way, and please don't worry about disruptive socks, as they tend to push a political POV and engage in EW when faced with an opposing consensus before they get blocked shortly after. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nourerrahmane I have assessed the article as B class. Thanks for all the work that you have put in to this comprehensive article. Donner60 (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60 many thanks for your great help with this article and I will sure take notes on all your suggestions to better improve other articles I have edited.

One last question: can this article reach the GA assessment ? What would be the issues that needs to be solved in this case ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed GA articles but I have saved a few from being downgraded. I think some reviewers would want the article to be shorter, especially because it already has the template at the top. I had that challenge. For example, the reviewer might suggest spinning off the military history into a separate article and summarizing the new military history article in this history. I realize most of it is already in summary fashion. The challenge would be to summarize the entire history in perhaps one-third (?) of the number of words. I like the comprehensiveness but I think at least some reviewers would ask for the article to be shorter. You could look at it as a three tier process such as in other topics. First would be the shorter overall summary in this article. Second would be the complete military history summary that is now in the article. The third would be the individual articles for larger engagements, at least. Some (most?) of those individual battle articles already exist. I am not sure from the summaries whether other individual articles would be appropriate.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of another way to shorten it. Perhaps some copy editing could make it a little shorter but I doubt that would result in enough reduction in size. In one article that I worked on, I needed to put all pictures on the sides; no rows of pictures, and to remove a few. The pictures in this article are quite informative but you might need to omit a few in order to meet that requirement. It might also reduce the number of kilobytes which would help shorten it. This is rather general, I guess. If I can think of other suggestions, I will let you know. Donner60 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nourerrahmane We know that the article is properly sourced, comprehensive and satisfies most if not all of the GA requirements. (Earwigs Copyvio Detector showed no problems as well.) I think that means the article could be GA with very little change, perhaps even no substantive change. I have mentioned two potential issues that a reviewer might raise because of my experience working on GA articles. If the reviewer did raise those issues (length and photo numbers or placement) the review might not progress until they were handled. This was my surmise when I wrote the above. On the other hand, a reviewer might take a different approach. In that case, you might get more information. I think it would not be unreasonable to ask for a GA assessment because the basic requirements seem to be met, but be prepared to be told those issues which do not relate directly to the quality of the existing text must be addressed. If the advice from a GA reviewer were more specific, you would have a more specific start on what you need to address. For me, with the work you have done so far, there is good reason to think that a GA is within sight. Whether you seek an assessment from someone who does such reviews or decide to make some changes based on my limited experience and observation, is up to you. I don't want my previous remarks to keep you from proceeding that way if you wish to do so. Best of luck with it. Donner60 (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i have tried to shorten it by removing extra descriptions and as you said this whole lot is already summarized, i honestly can't think of removing any of the parts of this article since every part is linked to its predecessor, in my opinion that's important in order to understand how the regency evolved and how its corso changed from being a religious holy war to a political and economical instrument and this in turn explained why Algiers couldn't be a regular province and at the same time not officially independent. while i will sure try to base my future changes on your suggestions, i think that i will go ahead and nominate it and see what other GA reviewers will ask for. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60 Hello, I hope you're doing good, i have made significant changes to the article of the Regency of Algiers with what you and other editors suggested, i beleive that the article is shorter now and i hope it's still comprehensive and well written, so i wouldn't mind if you gave it a second look, maybe you have more suggestions i can apply. Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you delete the timeline. It is already in the article List of governors and rulers of the Regency of Algiers. You could have a section heading: Governors and rulers of the Regency of Algiers and a main article link to List of governors and rulers of the Regency of Algiers.

This is already mentioned by one of the commenters on the talk page: I suggest that you put all of the quotations into reference notes. You can refer to it by simply attaching a note link to the most appropriate sentence in the preceding paragraph or perhaps revise an existing sentence with a few words that would support the link. Try to avoid using even a short sentence for the link to keep the word count down. The reason to do this is that footnotes do not count in the word count.

I suggest you consider eliminating the picture “View of the city of Algiers in 1828.” It is in the Legacy section which could be reduced further by sending the quote to a footnote. The picture is a fitting ending but I think it is not essential when you are trying to reduce the size and the appearance of the length of the article.

One commenter already noted the word count is reduced. You may get a further reduction with these changes. I would note that on the talk page. I am sure you cannot remove the too long banner as it would be a conflict of interest. I think you could reduce the word count in the banner since it would be a matter of fact that could be checked. This would highlight that the word count had been reduced so it could not be assumed that later changes had not been made. Of course, it might be well to leave it or possibly to add a footnote to the banner noting the current word count - if the talk page note seems insufficient.

If this is not enough, someone more familiar with the topic will need to help. I see that User:M.Bitton, who appears to be familiar with the subject area, has offered to help with the article as time permits. If necessary, posting a request for further help on the military history project talk page might get some interest. Considering the apparently small number of military history writers and editors working on GA assessments, I could not guarantee that or that a military history project member would even be among the GA reviewers - where there also seems to be a large backlog.

I am disappointed that the reviewers did not give you more time to work on the article before giving it a fail. That occurred before your most recent work and any changes made by M.Bitton were made, if I have read the sequence of events correctly.

If a further assessment does not result in a GA, you will have the hard choice of leaving it at B or trying to reduce the military history much more and writing a new history, presumably with the title of Military History of the Regency of Algiers, and showing that as a main article. FWIW, I have written 131 articles and improved many dozens of articles. I never have asked for or done a GA assessment. I have only worked on saving three American Civil War articles that are assessed GA from being downgraded. I recently had to let one go for lack of time. So I suppose I am more an of observer of GA assessments rather than an expert. (I also had no familiarity with the subject of the article before I did the B class review and very little in books that would deal with the subject. I found the subject quite interesting, of course.)

I hope this is at least of some help. Donner60 (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, I have worked on most issues you raised, though I didn’t touch the legacy section I have removed another pic and put the history of the Algerian name in the notes reference. I did slight changes but nothing too big. I believe 13.200 words are fine according to the GA reviewer who added that quick fail, as he probably thought I would take longer to summarise the article, but for the sake of comprehensiveness I’m going to let the article as it is now since the story of the regency is not very well understood even among most Algerians themselves and is not talked about in Islamic history despite its impact in European and even American history. A comprehensive article with a broad overview of this Corsair state is necessary in my opinion. I’m not too worried about the GA Assessment as much as I’m interested in having this part of early modern Mediterranean history understood for the regular reader. I might submit more article for B assessment regarding the history of the regency like the Corsairs of Algiers once I’m done with it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I think the topic needs the comprehensive treatment. The article is in fine shape now. My opinion is that an article which is a good B class article and will attract readers who may know little or nothing about the topic is a satisfactory and worthy goal. I doubt that many readers look at the assessments on the talk page or use that as a measure of whether to read the article. I hope the GA reviewer will rate it GA. If not, I think you have accomplished your goal in any event. Donner60 (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 808 AD (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Regency of Algiers you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Regency of Algiers for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Aintabli -- Aintabli (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this:

Also, a small heads-up: be careful about accusing other editors of being sockpuppets in regular discussions. It could be considered a violation of

@R Prazeres oh it’s clearer this way, so basically it’s up to our expectations in case we add new edits because i thought it was about the weight of a claim which in this case needed to be supported by more than one RS.

Regarding the sock you’re right I should not go into that territory though these days there were much disruptions in Maghreb related articles about subjects that have been treated multiple times. Wouldn’t mind if a protection is added there because we can’t improve these articles with informative material if those editors keep their disruptions and go endless discussions in the talk page. This has been occurring over and over again by mostly NPOVs with no real additions. This is wasting my time personally as I often want to work on other articles with the time I have for Wikipedia… Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to also evaluate a claim based on

WP:EXCEPTIONAL

, etc. More RS can be part of the solution. All these policies are intended to be complimentary and overlapping parts of verifiability, NPOV, etc.

And yeah I know the feeling (about socks and disruptions). Like I said, part of the solution is to just limit the time you spend responding to these users. You give them a simple answer that makes it clear to everyone that you disagree and/or that there is already a consensus against this. In most cases, POV editors are obvious and other editors are not going to support them either. If they continue to disrupt the article itself, you seek administrator intervention (

WP:ANI and so on). R Prazeres (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for those answers R Prazeres, I appreciate it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting pinged on stuff because you are the subject matter expert and probably know the answer, not because people are blaming you for whatever issue they found. Though it was probably good to mention that that section predates you, for the record. But now we are the last people to have touched it and it is better to find and fix any more such problems before a GA fail immortalizes them. That's all. Just saying this because you seem a bit defensive. I know it is stressful to have the article be audited with extreme prejudice like this, but please accept that the fact that we are doing all the work to do so is a measure of how exceptional a piece of work we think it is, and how worthy of the polishing ;) hope you don't mind thesr remark, but I am just saying. It's ok. And also, please do not let us make a mistake in our ignorance, either. And thanks for all the work. You really are increasing knowledge of a little-,known topic Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind message Elin, I really learned much from you and other editors and this will sure be useful for future articles I’ll work on like (corsairs of Algiers), sorry if I seemed a bit unhappy but I usually tend to take issues very seriously. I’m very much happy that you guys contribute in this and give much of your time for it. Hopefully our collaboration will give a very positive result. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

Hey scope i was sleeping lol this is my day off, thanks a lot for what you did and still do on this article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However there are certain things I keep correcting over and over again. Some of these are not really big problems outside of a GA nomination but all of them are to some extent issues that will keep coming up. I am not certain whether you do not notice that I correct them or do not believe that the corrections are warranted. Many of them are things that are not exactly wrong. I hope that the following will come across as the constructive criticism that I intend it to be.

1. Spelling. This matters a lot and a spelling mistake will give a poor impression of your very learned contributions. Especially in contexts where I am not around to edit you, please find a way to spell-check your contributions.
2. On the French Wikipedia it is usual to make essay-like pronouncements. This is strongly discouraged on en.wikipedia, which is why we have been so rabid about sources. Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material
3. Quotes go around things that somebody said ONLY. The only exception is when the discussion is about the wording itself, as in the following example:

the word "pieds-noirs" would not be capitalized in French.

Not saying these things to be rude, but because they will eventually get you into trouble, which I would hate to see happen. I think that is enough for now. I could go on at some length about the use of the word "the" in English, but it is often omitted, let's just say that. Almost everyone gets it wrong and it is not the most important of my concerns. Also, French is famous for euphemism and in this kind of writing direct and simpple language is best. If you normally read English in bureaucratic or legal contexts it may differ from what I am trying to do here. My own writing has been criticized as too much in the opposite direction, but where, as here, there is a whole lot of material that will be unfamiliar to English speakers, it is best to err on the side of clarity.

Going to do a big push to try to get through this. If you are looking for something to work on may I suggest improving the Agriculture section? It turns out Mathglot had forgotten about it. 04:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for that :) What i dousually is adding the informationwithout caring too much how it's written, as not to forget what i should add next. I'll try to get more prudent in the future and thanks for your suggestions. I worked a bit on Agriculture, Urban population and Social structure sections. Right now i'll focus more on refs per Scope's remarks.

i am sorry but that comes across as rather dismissive. I have spent the last two months of my life correcting these same errors over and over again. But fine. I will let the GA reviewer fail the article for them because really, enough is enough. I wouldn't mind doing the work if it stayed done. Elinruby (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, though i doubt i'll be adding anything more than this. I think the article is pretty much done by now. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright you don't have to do all the work, i'll work on it and try to get better correcting mistakes if any still remains. Once it's fully done i'll submit for another GA review. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this here from article talk page: ust the ones i pointed out would be a start. Your spellcheck is apparently set to either French or Arabic. It almost certainly can be reset to English temporarily. But seriously, I think I am done. Kind of sad about it, but I can only fix the same mistakes in the same places so many times. Stepping away for my sanity. Maybe temporarily but I think not. I just can't keep doing this over and over and over and over and over. The question is less whether the information is important as why we are getting failed verification problems this far into the process? Sources need to verify what is in the text, not just vaguely similar concepts. If you don't understand that I don't know what to say. Elinruby (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

spelling is hard to fix and also not the point. I am sorry if i offended you, but the ability to hear criticism and take it on board is needed here. I realize that you are on your third language and doing really well with it. Some of the changes I have been making, like when to use "the" and when not, are hard to explain. And not what will make or break the article. I will try to find you an explainer for that. But the spelling could easily be mostly fixed by software, is my point. If you need help setting up spell check, I would be glad to help you with that. The spelling of individual words is not the problem, however, although it would be good if you noticed that corrections have been made in at least some instances.

The function of quote marks is a much bigger systemic problem, since you have quote marks around text that is not in the source. Also, I don't know if you have processed that there are many many many entries on the talk page that require an Arabic speaker. But as you say, good luck to you. Elinruby (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, i'll sure make use of your suggestions in future articles since, again this article is pretty much finished and i don't think i'll be adding anything more to it. I've worked on agriculture and the rest and it would be good if you're into this till the end. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kaftan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asking questions about whether there is a way to prevent that. Getting blank stares. I realized after the fact that he probably wasn't a Pasha and the French article is fr:Baba Abdi Elinruby (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Elin, Abdi Ali is indeed a pasha like all the deys that came after Baba Ali chaouch, Ali Abdi according to Wolf was a very competent dey who stablized the regency government and managed to strengthen his cabinet at the expense of the diwan of Algiers. The sublime porte wanted to replace him so he fired cannon shots at the Ottoman envoyee and almost got Algiers excommunicated by the Ottoman Empire. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]