User talk:Goharocko

Welcome!

Hello, Goharocko, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Yngvadottir (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi Goharocko! I see you trying to add images to Riffian people, but they need to be in the format [[File: ....]] and be images that have been uploaded either here or to Commons. The "example" file is just an example. Also, the article should only have an image if it is truly relevant; not all articles have to have an image. I hope this and the links above are helpful. It's a big project and can be complicated to get used to. Once more, welcome and thanks for trying to improve the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Almoravid dynasty, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Almoravid dynasty. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Almoravid dynasty. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Almoravid dynasty. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed typo

Care to explain which part of this edit "fixed a typo"? M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained content removal

Why did you remove this? M.Bitton (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only trying to improve on the page Which part of the above edit "improves the article"? M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a more historically accurate map of the expansion of the almoravids how can the crappy and unsourced map that you added be accurate given that the Almoravids hailed from present-day Mauritania and Western Sahara? Incidentally, the countries that you removed above. M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honest mistake, did not mean to remove either of those, my main focus was on providing more historically factual data, and removing data that isn't proven as historical fact. Goharocko (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's an easy claim to make to justify the many so-called "mistakes" that seem to be targetting only the history of a particular country. M.Bitton (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The expansion of almoravids started from Aghmat, near marakesh, that marked the birth of the almoravid empire, you seem to be confusing where some of the tribes involved in the creation of the almoravid empire hailed, with the birth place of almoravids.

The map I've used has been long approved for this page, it is also historically factual, perhaps if you check the sources that are used for this page you'd understand why it is in a rather pitiful state.

Finally, I did not mean to remove either Mauritania or western Sahara, given that both of those regions are a part of the history of almoravids. Goharocko (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you keep ignoring the above question (about the misleading edit summary). Anyway, I suggest you read the article. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about Mauritania, Had I been targeting Mauritania or whatever reason,I would have deleted every portion that mentioned it, on the other hand you seem to be targeting a certain country for the simple reason that you don't like the fact it is credited for the almoravid empire by every reputable source.

As I said, please double check the "sources" used, the almoravids started their expansion from Aghmat, and I will make sure to verify and -if need be- replace many of the sources used, at a later date.

Have a good day. Goharocko (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goharocko, please do not repeat edits that have already been reverted (like you did here), as this constitutes what we call edit warring and it is prohibited on Wikipedia. Discuss changes on the talk page instead when there are disagreements. Some of the issues you've edited on are already in discussion there, so you can contribute your own arguments there if you like. Many of the issues are complicated or controversial and that is why there are guidelines requiring that they be worked out by consensus, not by simply repeating your edits over and over. Note that if you engage in this behaviour repeatedly, you can be blocked from editing, so don't let it go that far. Thank you, R Prazeres (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would adding academic sources to my edits prevent them from being reverted?

Would adding academic sources to my edits prevent them from being reverted? Goharocko (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it's not a good idea to do that if the point is still being discussed and there is no consensus yet to support the change in principle. It's not enough to just look for a source that vaguely supports a point and then put it in. Like I said, the topic can be much more complicated than simply finding sources that say one thing or another. For that reason, restrict yourself to discussion until there's a clearer consensus on how to proceed. I recommend mentioning the sources you want to use in the discussion itself (ideally with page numbers or a short quote, if needed for clarity). Just as importantly, keep in mind that the consensus may go against what you want, and you must accept that.

To give a sense of why sources are not always enough: some editors add a citation just to make it look like their point is supported, when in fact it still relies heavily on their own interpretation rather than on the source. Your edit here, although well-intentioned, is sort of an example of that: the cited author (Pennell) doesn't call it the "second dynasty of Morocco", the Almoravids are merely one part of his chronological narrative, so there's no reason to say something so specific. Articles always need improvement, and it can be a long process, but again these guidelines are in place to prevent them from getting worse in the meantime. R Prazeres (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely understandable, for that reason I have rephrased my edit to make it as compatible as possible with the source that I added, I have well intentions of improving on the article and will make sure to gather as many sources as possible to add them in the discussion page.

Appreciate your input. Goharocko (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like you understood any of it. In any case, you have now been reported for violating the 3R policy. M.Bitton (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But as a final inquiry, at what point does the article get locked to protect it from vandalism after a consensus has been reached, and how do you reach consensus in the first place? Surely the consensus must have enough proof (i.e sources backing it up) for it to be reached, right? For example the article can't stay factually incorrect just because the major consensus is that it should stay that way?

I appreciate your answer in advance. Goharocko (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Goharocko reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me, I'm certain if the administrators take an unbiased look at my edits and resources they'll come to the conclusion that I wasn't making edits to vandalize the article but to improve on it. Goharocko (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You have been blocked from editing Almoravid dynasty for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Zellij, you may be blocked from editing. R Prazeres (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Campaign of Tlemcen (1551). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]