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 Abd al-Mu'min. M.Bitton (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reasons why the changes were not taken into account. The information stated in the page is wrong. Warrior4just (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're removing properly sourced content while making baseless claims (which is why you've been doing ever since you joined the project) and you even added a fake source to your claim. Enough is enough. M.Bitton (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton Who gave you the authority to control the content of this page, without presenting your historical data. On my end, I will provide additional references, albeit they will in Arabic Warrior4just (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question you should be asking yourself the next time you feel like removing the sources that you don't like. M.Bitton (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abd al-Mu'min. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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) 01:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done so. I have used the talk. There are other similar remarks done by other contributors. The chronology is well documented .....the information that Abdel-El-Mumin having been born in Hammadid dynasty is inaccurate. Warrior4just (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the reliable source and short of finding another that agrees with your usual baseless assertions, your only option if to become a historian, write a book, publish it, get it reviewed and the maybe your opinion will count. M.Bitton (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's amusing, based on your statement, it doesn't sound like the reference provided was verified.

Here are select references in arabic stating the same thing.

At the time Abdel-Moumen was born (1094 AD), Tlemcen, Algiers and all of the western Zenata areas were under Almoravid empire (Tlemcen and Algiers were conquered before 1082)

Reference 1 (English):

The history of the Maghrib an interpretive essay by Abdellah Laroui page: 163

https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfTheMaghribAnInterpretiveEssay/page/n169/mode/2up

Reference 2 (English):

Morocco from empire to independence by C.R Pennell, Page 44

Reference 3 (Arabic):

تاريخ دولتي المرابطين والموحدين في الشمال الإفريقي عن المؤرخ علي محمد الصلابي.  صفحة 72

Translated: History of the Almoravid and Almohad states in North Africa; by the historian Ali Muhammad Al-Sallabi. page 72

History is available for reader, it doesn't take a historian to recite the work of other historians who documented pivotal points in history

Hopefully you understand it doesn't take a historian to cite the work of historians. Warrior4just (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will eventually raise this to other reviewers. Please look into the references provided. Thank you Warrior4just (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources mentions where he was born (in fact, they don't even mention his name). To avoid wasting people's time, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the WP:OR policy. M.Bitton (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources mention his name, as for his birth doesn't the page state that he "was born" in Targa where Goumi tribes of Zenata.

This is about the timing. The time of birth of Abdel-el-Mumin Tlemcen (the region where he was born) is 1094 , Hammadid dynasty was a dynasty that were limited to east of Algiers. Tlemcen in 1094 was part of the Almoravids empire. It was re-conquered (It was part of Idrissid dynasty ) in the period between 1080-1082 AD. Therefore Abdel-Mumin was not born in Hamadid dynasty Warrior4just (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1-

I read the Wikipedia:No original research. The presented three references are three published books that specify the chronology clearly.

Please provide reasons why the chronology does not provide the answer to which dynasty Abdel-Mumin was born. The fact that Almoravids expanded their territories north of Morocco then east to Tlemcen and Algiers by 1082.= provides the answer that Almoravids were west of Algiers and Hammadid were east of Algiers.

2 -

You stated "None of these sources mentions where he was born"

The reference I provided provide the birth place of Abdel-Mumin, e.g., page 49 in "Morocco from empire to independence" by C.R Pennell.

Demonstrate how the provided references fail to provide the chronology of Almoravid rule over the Tlemcen where Abdel-mumin was born, and how the rule co-exist with another dynasty "Hammadid" during the time of birth of Abdel-Mumin

The content of the referenced books are replete with references to other historians' sources. Warrior4just (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Warrior4just reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, it will be addressed again. There is an issue with the content of the page. It must be resolved. Warrior4just (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Abd al-Mu'min. 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Warrior4just (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have provided numerous reasons why there is a dispute in the page, and I have initiated a process of talk in the talk section. As far as the Wikipedia process is concerned I have followed it, but @M.Bitton violated the 3RR. The blocking is unjustified in view of the mere flagging that there is inaccurate information in the page of Abd al-Mu'min

Decline reason:

You seem to be saying that you were correct with your edits, but everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct, so that is not a defense. Also see WP:NOTTHEM. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

| The evaluation should not be based on what someone else is saying, but on your proper assessment of the facts shown in the talk page, I have provided the reasons in the talk page why the original contains inaccurate information. You asserted "others" are correct but without a clear review of the prcise point being argued and why the original page contains inaccurate statement, namely "Hammadid dynasty". In 1094 (DOB of Abd El-M'mun), Tlemcen region was under Almoravids rule, not Hammadid's, please refer to the passages. I stated this in the talk in accordance with Wikipedia's rules and regulations

Comment from another admin: This block is not about the correctness of any facts in an article. It is a block to prevent edit warring behavior, for the purpose of preserving the stability of the Wikipedia project (which is ultimately the only reason any administrator would block someone). If you want to be unblocked, you really need to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and focus your appeal on your own behavior that got you blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Warrior4just! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Regarding inaccurate content, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Warrior4just. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 15:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]