Greetings! An account has been messing around with the neutralized people qualifier in the lede to make it point to ethnic group. I explained that the ethnolinguistic/ethnic discussion that you started was ongoing on the talkpage, but he has now exceeded three reverts. Could you please have a look? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Soupforone: It looks like they stopped (at least for now). I will keep an eye on it nonetheless. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeBayWeather just indicated that there is no clear denouement to the discussion [1], so I've requested a templated close [2]. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Soupforone: I cleaned up the talk page a bit (struck comments by socks, etc) to make it more readable for the closer. The other thing that may need highlighting is CaliphoShah's position: they oppose the use of the ethnolinguitistic term to describe the Arabs[3] (even though it's reliably sourced), but they have no problem introducing it in the Berber article[4]). M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your edits, the "Numidia" of the latin sources is an administrative division that fluctuated in time with Mauritania caesarensis and Africa zeugitana, all of those are treated by the article on Africa proconsularis, while the the Numidia that you referenced everywhere is a berber civilization, that ended with the roman conquest of the region.

Regarding Ketchaoua Mosque, i edited the page with official references, so this edit should be constructive. I don't understand for which reason you blame me with unconstructiveness. I have my evidences, but you revert my edit with no reason. --Ushuaia1 (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The official name, which also happens to be the common one, is already stated in the article. Feel free to take your concerns to the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i add the discussion in the talkpage. i invite--BrugesFR (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.Bitton, i reported the disruptive editor (History21st) who was POV pushing in several articles to ANI, he is now blocked for 1 month : [5], just to let you know. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: Thank you for letting me know. M.Bitton (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2000 attack was planned by an Algerian group called "Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat". This group later (2003 if my memory serves me right) gave allegiance to Al Qaida. When English-speaking sources mention an "al-Qaeda-linked grouped", they are making a fuzzy reference to the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat. So please stop removing the exact name of the group. Rama (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

The current formulation seems strange. The only direct involvment of Algeria is in 1976-1977, in Amgala. The rest of the time, they were just supporting the Polisario and the SADR, supplying weapons for instance. French or Mauritanian soldiers never met an Algerian soldier during this war. It is correct to say that the France and Mauritania were belligerants fighting against the Polisario but they fought only in the Mauritanian part of Western Sahara, where no Algerian soldier ever went.

--Le Petit Chat (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Petit Chat: I have separated the main belligerents from their supporters. Hopefully, this will make it less strange to you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, M.Bitton, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Babymissfortune 06:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Hi, my edit on the Cox article was no vandalism - I am one of the theoretical physicist to whom he sends his garbage and he really has no idea what he is talking about. I keep out of law, let him keep out of physics. Stefan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4CA0:24F1:3000:F68E:38FF:FE7A:9B06 (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing what you don't like with contentious material about a living person is not acceptable. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's content policies before taking your concerns to the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are the claims made in Mr. Fang's biography not sourced from self published material? The only reference that Tera Capital has any interest in Days Inn China is from the Tera Capital site. Some of the links on the Tera Capital site used as references are dead as well. Ted Fang is deceitful and dishonest. Why allow him to publish material that may not be true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgodo (talk • contribs) 05:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a very strict inclusion policy when it comes to articles about living persons. Your edit has been reverted because the content you added is unsourced and contentious. M.Bitton (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, M.Bitton! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki 10:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Wiki 10:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it better not to link to another topic in wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.20.176.6 (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@216.20.176.6: Because it's already linked in the "Motion and manipulation" section. There is no need for another one. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you removed some paragraphs from the topic of Gnawa?! You have no idea about them or where they're participating. Those paragraphs were already removed by an anonymous user and retrieved them and you did the same mistake as him you removed them plus you're not an Editor or Moderator to order us or remove special information if you found it look for a source yourself why order others to look it for you? Removing without checking trough the Internet will make you a useless user that's why Google is there to check up if the information is real, so please next check in Google before rampaging in Wikipedia. Jamaru25 (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I restored the content that you deleted without explanation and removed the OR that you introduced, despite being asked numerous times to refrain from doing so. This is not just a one off incident, and I should know since I've been silently cleaning up after you for quite some time without even bothering with the customary warnings, since the ones in your you talk page didn't seem to be having any effect. Do you know want me to name you some of the articles where you either introduced OR, deleted sourced content or misrepresented the sources? M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, M.Bitton! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a ref you asked: FYI. Remembering Macaulay, the imperialist we love to hate - Livemint https://www.livemint.com/.../Remembering-Macaulay-the-imperialist-we-love-to-hate....

You control wikis and their narratives anyway so do whatever to silence others. You asked for a ref. you got one. I dont have any more time to waste on this.2601:646:9300:2370:24A4:32:5B99:7EE (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i'm new at wikipedia can you help me i noticed that you told a Guest Like this Style is this Template ? or what i wan't to protect wikipedia too like you can you help me to write warning like you?--Gyan333 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyan333: Yes, it's a template. Using Twinkle is one way of doing it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my contribution on the grounds that it is already mentioned in the battle's article - presumably the wiki page on Operation Torch. What is meant by 'already'? People can reach the Algiers history section without reading the Operation Torch page first. I have summarised many battles in local history pages without provoking this curious reaction, often receiving thanks for help. Valetude (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valetude: There is nothing strange about someone not agreeing with your edit. I just don't see the point of cherrypicking a sentence from an article we're linking to. M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC), and[reply]

Because most people skimming or scanning the history section will be quite content with a 2-line overview, when they may not be interested in investigating further. This is largely what Wiki is about. What you call Cherrypicking, I call just ordinary editing. It seems a quite irrelevant term, when applied here. (As mentioned, my record on this issue is pretty respectable). Valetude (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cherrypicked sentence does not summarize the Operation Torch. There is no mention, among other things, of the fact that the Vichy regime was kept and the resistance leaders arrested afterwards (which is the most important thing as far as Algeria is concerned). That's why it's best to direct the interested readers to the article. M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Silver STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, M.Bitton! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All god Bondigerly (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message about my edit. I’m new to this and didn’t realize i needed to cite my edit. I made the edit because I grew up with his wife, and am friends with her on social media and in real life. StacheCHWV (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for typing that........ My little brother John got a hold of my Chromebook and made this account. I will try to not let him get on this ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slick jonny (talk • contribs) 03:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia Britanniaca is absolutely not relevant when it comes to North Africa. The Nedroma and Tlemçen region where under the rule of the Almoravide, no need of sources, as it is logical. This article, in french, gives some indications about the historical continuum in the Tlemçen region: https://www.wdl.org/fr/item/8764/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HfedBo (talk • contribs) 13:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is nothing wrong with the Britannica source. 2) Verifiability is non-negotiable. M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mark. I made the deletion because the information from sources in incorrect. Larry's paternal grandmother only had one Jewish parent. Larry's father converted to Catholicism in 1950 in order to marry Larry's Roman Catholic mother in the Roman Catholic Church. Larry is a baptized Catholic, is married to a Catholic, and they have raised their three children in the Catholic faith. This is personal family information.Darling ditsy (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This? Adam9007 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: I was looking into it when you reverted it. Anyway, it's all sorted now. M.Bitton (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know If I'm writing in the right place...I'm new here....yes, I have a source but I don't know how I can add it. I noticed that in another page of Wikipedia there is a big mistake...It says that Barbara was married with Ashton but It is wrong...I'm surprise that there are wrong infos here. I would like to add the right infos everywhere and delete the wrong ones :)

@Delilah258: This should help you with the referencing; just make sure the source is reliable. On a side note, when you add content to a talk page, please don't forget to sign your comment. M.Bitton (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did well. I did some additional research regarding his origins. I changed it because i initially thought it was an error.

I see you reverted my edit on Augustine of Hippo. I have added a legitimate source that states his ancestry also includes Phoenician and Latin. I have not erased what was already said previously because the source I added also said his ancestry includes Berber. Stating that the sources that are there are the only legitimates ones is Wikipedia:Cherrypicking and not allowed here on Wikipedia as far as I know.

I also clearly specified on my second source that ON PAGE 10 the author of the source points out how Augustine of Hippo identifies himself as Punic. YOU chose to read the other pages where it says Augustine used both the Punic and Berber language, ignoring the PAGE 10 where it states what I edited. This is also Wikipedia:CherrypickingMarc Frier (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first part was reverted because you changed a statement from one that describes the mainstream views (which can be attributed to a multitude of RS) to one that describes what the one source that you introduced says. This has nothing to do with cherrypicking.

On page 10 of the second source, the author talks about how Augustine named his first born following the Berber custom and mentions a quote in which he identifies himself as Punic, adding Thus we can authoritatively rule out the possibility of his having an Italian ethnic background. But in view of his tendency to employ the term "Punic" for both Berbers and those of Phoenician origin, as well as other Berber-like cultural artifacts evident in his own family history, this quotation does nothing to discredit the possibility of his Berber ethnicity. So, in this instance, not only did you cherry pick a sentence (by omitting significant qualifying information from the same source), but by engaging in editorializing (using the word "although" to imply a relationship between two unrelated statements), you also violated the WP:NOR policy.

Obviously, you're free to take your concerns to the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello M Bitton, I appreciate your message. Thanks for informing me of the edit summary. But really, it was for the improvement of the page following the artist's request. If you need a letter from the artist Kyra Luthi please let me know. In the meantime, I am sure you can review the page and confirm that all the improvement are good and aligned. Best regards, 122.54.157.233 (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Walter.[reply]

Can anyone help me please Adityabelnekar (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Greetings
	I was wondering about that ~ I tried to read the linked articles ~ but got distracted ~ thank you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

It is not an OR. It is clearly related. If you consider that it is an OR, you must delete the article. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: What links the two is nowhere near as clear as you seem to think. You're more than welcome to start a conversation in the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, please edit the article. Also, we have lots of sources. [6], [7], [8], [9] --Panam2014 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LMGVx31zso proves my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.178.84 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit to the Soft Water article (changing "The only states with soft water are Mississippi and Maine" to "The only states with no hard water are Mississippi and Maine") because the US Hard Water Map used as a reference for that paragraph shows clearly that Mississippi and Maine are not the only states with soft water. Washington, Oregon, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and several other states have large areas with soft water.

It isn't clear to me why the sentence is there at all, but if it needs to be there, it should be true. I read it and thought "that can't possibly be true", and in fact the sources referenced on the page clearly show that it isn't true. Another related statement could be "Only Mississippi and Maine have soft water throughout the entire state."

I have no strong feeling about it. If you want it to say what it says now, I won't argue. 2001:558:141A:9A:FDE7:3A08:7A08:E421 (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another related statement could be "Only Mississippi and Maine have soft water throughout the entire state." Judging by that map, that wouldn't be true for Mississippi either. As a matter of fact, the whole sentence (which is original research based on an unreliable map) needs to be removed. Reliable sources such as the USGS make no such claims. M.Bitton (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you revert this edit? إيان (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bust in the image I added is in much better condition and far less worn. إيان (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the condition, it's about how he probably looked. There are other images of him in the WP Commons (at the end of the article) if anyone is interested. M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's hearsay. I'm switching it back until you can substantiate your claim a little bit more than saying it's "how he probably looked." إيان (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Gold STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, M.Bitton! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 25,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.Bitton,

I found that you are a power user for the counter-vandalism tool STiki. First of all, Kudos! Thank you for help protecting Wikipedia.

Secondly, we are building a new web-based counter-vandalism tool, hoping to make it easier to use, and wonder if you would be interested in giving it a try here: http://battlefield.wikiloop.org, and kindly give us feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiLoop Battlefield, thank you!

We currently started whitelist for DIRECT ROLLBACK features, if you are interested, ask us at Wikipedia talk:WikiLoop Battlefield too. User:Xinbenlv (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khaled (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Lang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are 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) 09:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A user called Juansantos123 keeps adding adding languages that aren't yet supported by Google Translate under the 'Supported languages' section and its 'History' sub-section, even though I've already added a hidden message under that section reminding people not to, even though I've already reverted 27 of his edits 12 times over the past three weeks, and even though I've already asked Fuzheado to protect the article from unconfirmed users for a year. How do I deal with his disruptive editing, and can you please warn Juansantos123 the next time he does this? -- PK2 (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a test, but more so it was me (an experienced editor and author of hundreds of articles) goofing around. I couldn't help myself; it was a bit of playful and harmless vandalism. I am glad you are on the ball by pouncing on dummies like me. I never do this kind of thing, but like I said it was almost irresistible. I kind of understand why trolls do what they do! -) ♥Golf (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@♥Golf: What edit are you referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 *I was referring to my edit on 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates.  I was not signed for the edit, so all you got was an IP address. I did it though.  Draw and quarter me if you like for my maliciousness!  :-) ♥Golf (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey M.Bitton, I hope you're well. The French article on Pastilla has some info about pastilla varieties in Algeria, but they're uncited. Might you have some further info on those varieties so we can have them in the article in English? Regards. إيان (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@إيان: I am very well, thank you. I hope you're doing well too. To be honest, I don't find those articles particularly interesting; they usually end up in my watchlist while I'm following a POV pusher (if you look at my first edit, you'll understand what I mean). That being said, expanding the related articles instead of just reverting the baseless POV is probably not a bad idea; so, time permitting, I will try to look into some of them at some point. M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean—I caught one after you at the article about seffa. You do a great job of it.

Cool, let me know if I can help with anything. إيان (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

إيان Thank you. Welcome to the marathon. M.Bitton (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently removed a section called 'ancestry' on the page 'Alladiya Khan'. Admittedly, I did not put any justification for this removal because I did not know how to put it.

The sentences were deleted because 1) they did not have any reliable citation or source, 2) they appeared baseless given the general knowledge on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.198 (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@129.215.4.198: I don't know anything about the topic, but I can easily find sources linking Alladiya Khan to Swami Haridas and Nath Vishwambhar. Since you seem to be familiar with the subject, I suggest you try to improve that section. M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Djellaba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adrar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the changes I have made are accurate. She was my late wife and died 5 years ago. I was at those talks with here. Please undo your deletion. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:100C:D099:5111:AAAD:6ADC:38A5 (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for your loss, but everyone has to abide by Wikipedia's core content policies. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a techie. Here are the citations for the shows Margarete did in 2012 at The Museum of Indian Arts and Culture - http://www.indianartsandculture.org/past-exhibitions&eventID=1284

And The Ellen Noel Museum in Odessa, Texas https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=6P2vZtl7wzo&feature=emb_logo https://www.noelartmuseum.org/past-exhibitions-1 https://www.noelartmuseum.org/currentexhibitions http://www.mbagshaw.com/exhibits--lectures.html

I would certainly be very thankful if you could help me and get these events up on her Wikipedia site

 Done. M.Bitton (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Much. I think you used the Ellen Noel link for the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture.

Hi the reference was already linked. It's number one in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:21B1:7F00:7C1B:85A3:C0E5:5B8E (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, M.Bitton! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

• Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
• Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.

• Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
• Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.

• Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.

• Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.

• Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!

• and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 35 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 19:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just about to report User:2600:8800:8C81:3600:44D6:A906:9414:5126 to AIV. Thanks for doing the job for me :-). JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffSpaceman: My pleasure. M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a member of the Parihaka community and I was looking at the wiki page and I wanted to edit the page to be more accurate, by editing in our exact population. Our exact population which I assure you is in fact 69. If I am not able to make this change could you please make in on my behalf. Thank you.

Kindest regards, Lachlan T

Hi M.Bitton

I Have Evidence To The Fact That Sri Satguru Ram Singh Ji Has Not Passed Away.

http://kukasikhs.com/kukasikhs-wp/?cool_timeline=contradictions-in-the-death-report-of-satguru-ram-singh-ji#:~:text=%E2%80%9D%20I%20beg%20to%20report%20to,of%20the%20change%20very%20much%E2%80%A6.

On Friday, the 11th March 1872 at Calcutta Port, Sri Satguru Ram Singh ji, accompanied by his personal assistant, Bhai Nanu Singh, boarded the ship for Rangoon. At this occasion, Sri Satguru ji warned the Britishers that as a repercussion to what they have done to his person during winter, sufferings shall fall upon them in summer. And this happened after 75 years exactly. After the nine years confinement at Rangoon, His Holiness was then in 1880 was shifted to Mergui.

http://kukasikhs.com/kukasikhs-wp/?cool_timeline=calcutta-port-to-rangoon&

So Now Can You Revert To The Changes ?

@124.122.84.233: Your edit has been reverted because it wasn't supported by a reliable source. If, as you suggest, someone who is born in 1816 is still alive and you have RS to prove it, then you can start a discussion on the talk page and see what others have to say. M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hi, because of lack of time, i was not able to complete the article yesterday, thank you very much for taking the time to explain me how to use the Harv style and for completing (and correcting my mistakes) my edits at Medo-Babylonian conquest of the Assyrian Empire. Cheers. ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: Thanks! Glad I could help. M.Bitton (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason my phone isn't working correctly. Wikiffeine •‿• 00:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to edit, but then my changes got all messed up and I don't know why. It was all of a sudden. I should have looked at the preview. Wikiffeine •‿• 00:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My phone is about to die :-( Wikiffeine •‿• 00:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Did you get my previous messages? Wikiffeine •‿• 00:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiffeine: you need to get a new phone, or you might be blocked for disruptive editing. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 02:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prahlad: I'll edit from my desktop, but I won't be able to edit as often. Wikiffeine •‿• 02:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiffeine: hey, I guess that’s the better choice for everyone if it means that your contributions are not riddled with errors. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 02:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prahlad Alright, then. The weird part is that it only happened on one article. In any case, I'll try to keep editing from my desktop. If it saves Wikipedia from random characters all over the place, then I'll keep to my desktop. Wikiffeine •‿• 14:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prahlad Or maybe I should just remember to look at the edit preview to see if my edits are working correctly. Wikiffeine •‿• 14:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've got it all sorted out. M.Bitton (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. As long as I check the preview and stay on my desktop, there shouldn't be too much to worry about. Goodbye M.Bitton, and goodbye Prahlad. Wikiffeine •‿• 18:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of logic is that? Almohad first language was tamazight so their name in tifinagh must be on the page , why there is the latin alphabets of their name then? Were they using lating alphabets? Waliduec06 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this is the en.wiki, we have no choice but to use the Latin characters. The Almohads didn't use tifinagh, therefore, there is no reason for their name to be associated with it. M.Bitton (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/964327467 - reverting vandal, good. Reverting to another vandalised version, not so good. Please check your reverts before moving on. Cabayi (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. M.Bitton, I am Sandeepmoothedath, a crew member of the film Jarugandi ,trying to update the poster of our film on request of the director of the film. Thanks Sandeepmoothedath (talk) 10:57 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

thanks for your message. I was actually updated the page I wrote myself, there was just a stub before. I'll have a look at what you restored. I'm sorry I didn't left a message as to what I amended. I tend to not be really good at it yet, but will make an effort, promise. I didn't know about the sandbox until two days ago so I update a couple of pages without it, which means quite a lot of changes have been done on them. But not to worry I was the only working on them, so any changes would be my own anyway. (They're quite niche subjects) I've started using the sandbox for third page. Thanks so much for your help and support.

-)

It's not for you to decide what's constructive and what is not. Put the source, or abstain from getting in the way of knowledge.

The sources are cited. All you need to do is click on the image. M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the User Who's ID is 37.39.245.9 , You Recently Have messaged me Regarding the Page of (Algiers) , And To your Concern i would like to Inform you that I Am Not the One who have Edit it , Nor Do I Know Who Have Done So , Thus It's most Likely Someone who's ID is very Similar To Mine , Or you have Confused me with the person who have Done So . Thank you , Have Great Day ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.39.245.9 (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have received a message from you saying that you "noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Cristín Leach, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so" -- can you show me what's been removed?

Additionally, I also corrected numerous spelling, grammar, and syntax mistakes, some of which seem to have been restored. I'm a professional copy editor so I tend to do that as a matter of habit. I presumed such corrections would be tolerated.

Cristín is a friend and former colleague of mine, so I probably included information that I'm already familiar with.

Thanks,

Lorcan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.233.50 (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to as one of the world's best, which is unsourced and peacocky. Correcting the spelling, grammar, and syntax mistakes is always welcome, though I personnaly wouldn't consider changing "served as the paper's longest running art critic" to "served as the paper's longest serving art critic" as an improvement. M.Bitton (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that revert I did, I was going through the IPs contributions and I seemed to have accidentally hit "rollback". My bad. Best, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nkon21: No worries. Keep up the good work. M.Bitton (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your message regarding the removal of content I added to the page about Masinissa. I thought I might have not done it correctly. I'd hoped to make wikipedia entries for my two books Masinissa: Ally of Carthage and Masinissa: Ally of Rome but when I tried to do that I got a bit lost in terms of how to do it correctly. Is there any way I can request those entries to be added to Masinissa's page? Both books are now available as e-books and their physical counterparts will be published on the 28th August. Thanks

Rob(----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orejita7 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Orejita7: You may propose the changes on the article's talk page by using the {{request edit}} template. Good luck. M.Bitton (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thank you for your comment about citations. I inadvertently overlooked doing so as I thought it was clear from other parts of the article. However I have gone ahead and added a citation for the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowphone (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellowphone: Thank you. It would really help the readers if you could add the page number. M.Bitton (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	It’s always great to see more people fighting vandalism. Have a star! Jeb3Talk at me hereWhat I've Done 23:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebcubed: Thank you so much for your encouragement. M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So umm do you want me to get the actual source cause there is only one photo message me back about this and we will sort it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeeterboi135 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeeterboi135: I suggest you start by familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's content policies. M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote down all my sources and evidence and put it down Into the deltarune page but then it got removed and now it just feels like the entire Wikipedia site has screwed me over. Please help. I don’t want to be banned from editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeeterboi135 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeeterboi135: You can always ask for help at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Good luck. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear M. Bitton,

Could you please comment on why my contributions of world and continental maps were reverted? Many thanks, Janwillemvanaalst (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Janwillemvanaalst: They were reverted because: a) they are unsourced and b) they look nothing like what the average reader who's familiar with the the UN map, the CIA map, the AU map, etc. would expect to see (specifically, with regards to the borders of Algeria, Morocco and Western Sahara). M.Bitton (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: Thank you for clarifying. I would like to mention the following:

About your first argument (unsourced): I've always understood it's good practice to mention the source in the metadata fields on Wikimedia Commons. There, it clearly states that I am the author of the maps. I am a cartographer; this is what I do. It also clearly mentions that to be able to make this visualisation, I've used the CC-0 Natural Earth digital geodata, which is a well-known free geodata source (at least in the cartographic world). If you have any tips on still further clarifying the source of these maps, please let me know.

Your second argument, with all due respect, holds only for an American audience. In Europe, this particular visualization style is very common. Just open any Times Atlas of the World, and you'll find it immediately recognizable.

Therefore, I would like to kindly request to undo the reverts. And perhaps open a discussion on the respective talk pages so that others may share their considerations/arguments. Thank you! Janwillemvanaalst (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing Commons with Wikipedia. As far as the latter is concerned, you're not a reliable source and nor is the user generated and easily modifiable data that you used to make your map.

It's not about the visualization style, it's about the borders. The CIA map is used extensively on Wikipeddia and the idea that the UN map is meant for an American audience is baseless.

Since verifiability is non negotiable, I won't be reverting (restoring the WP:OR), but you're more than welcome to take your concerns to the talk pages. M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry about earlier I am totally new to wiki,

Basically via this paper and article it shows Ibn Khaldum was Ashari only and was not a Mu'tazllah. In fact he critised them. I treid to add the reference but I did not know how to hence I just removed the Mu'tazzilah bit.

https://themaydan.com/2017/11/myth-intellectual-decline-response-shaykh-hamza-yusuf/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.198.192 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@82.29.198.192: To learn how to add inline citations to articles, I suggest you read referencing for beginners. It's also good practice to provide an edit summary for your edits. Good luck. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you just change it as you are the expert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.198.192 (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I apologize for not stating my reason why I removed some lines in the Daniella Levine Cava Article is due to questions about the reliability of sources. I know Wikipedia likes articles to be sourced from neutral soures. However, one of teh sources that continuously comes up in the Daniella Levine Cava Article is from a blog called "Keeping Up With Cava". When I visited the page, I was saddened to see how prejudicial the information on this site is. I encourage you to go to the site as it is basically filled with content saying how bad Daniella Levine Cava is. I encourage how neutral critisms of anyone who is being has an article about them, however this source is not neutral and basically seems like a political blog written by someone who does not like Daniella Levine Cava, which I believe is not a neutral source that warrents an inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Therefore, I removed " Levine entered the race in 2014, controversially taking her husband's last name in order to seem more appealing to Hispanic voters, who make up more than 40% of the district's population." in the first paragraph under the Political Carrer section and "However, Cava has also come under fire after criticism that she ignored her district, which suffered through a major crime wave in 2017, with a 20% increase in overall crime that year" in the third paragraph of the political carrer section. I hope you can see how the inclusion of these statements from this prejudicial source is the equivalent of using a campaign website as a source for this article. Thank you for your concerns :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.204.70.78 (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you can find neutral sources that say the same information, then of course it is ok to keep the information. However, I cannot find these neutral sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.204.70.78 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@107.204.70.78: Provided you give a valid reason (based on WP policies, such as WP:RS and WP:BLP) on the article's talk page, there is nothing stopping you from being bold again. Good luck. M.Bitton (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamaaaaaaaaa (talk • contribs) 23:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello I just found incorrect information on an article and I think it's a vandalism ÇaUl9 (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! With the greatest respect, I think you might want to consider removing this note to 130.88.240.85, the problem being that their change was correct. The lane is Cottingwood (like the place), even though the school house is Collingwood (like the superstar admiral and large statue at Tynemouth). Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered:  Done. An edit summary would have helped. M.Bitton (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. DBaK (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Thank you very much indeed for letting me know. M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was baffled when I looked at it at first – the mixture of Cottingwood and Collingwood in one article looked just too unlikely! I have left HTML notes which might help editors in future (including me when I have forgotten ...) Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Development section of The Haunted Mansion article, citation [5] in the sixth paragraph of that section, which is supposed to link to an article on the We Love Orlando site, actually redirects to a PORN site. This link is no longer correct and should be removed as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.144.16 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@24.0.144.16: I have removed it. Thank you for letting me know. M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HI. The used didnt stop. he keeps doing the same edition in the matt taven article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: Next time, if you decide to report someone, please do it in your name and don't revert a report (like you did here) that was withdrawn by whomever filed it. M.Bitton (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I included my name with yours', sometimes I have seen this kind of reports from two users. But in the end, the article is protected and the edition is out. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It was in the article, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.175.152 (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the edit I made is satire and should not be taken seriously and as a citizen of cedar creek I can definitively say the cedar creek, Texas is not the happiest place on earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:1C02:4300:D145:864A:1C5A:BDB3 (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish news agency is submitting edits to wiki in response to the French acceptance of the Armenian Genocide, with the figures of i.e. 10 million assassinations in Algeria. My family lived there for 60 years and eulogized that it was very peaceful and safe in the villages and in the cities. You pretend that atrocities did not happen on both sides for purposes of liberation: Algeria was still tribal, and tribal warfare involves mutilations and throat slittings in the earlier war, and famine... It was different Isreal in the 1950's, when isreal was 10 times smaller, because the fierce tribesman only had knives and guns and a religious mantra of three things: "THE LAND, THE WOMAN and THE GUN"... today the Arabs are still trying to erase the 2,000 year old Berber semitic language and writing from Algerian schools.

I am his daughter so have updated his details. He passed away this week Fitness With Natasha (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitness With Natasha: You need to support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Please read WP:VERIFY for more information. M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	being awsome
	thank you i was just toying around Skyrim nord (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Where is the source about arab name of bouïra?--Noname JR (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Apologies re trying to link www.samelovebermuda.com This website was created by a friend who tracked the fight for Same Sex Marriage in Bermuda.

It was me, LionFishBermuda, who started the ball rolling in Bermuda in April 2015 by creating a petition for legalizing Same Sex Marriage in Bermuda. Indeed, I found the lawyer Mark Pettingill who agreed to take on the legal challenge. There were many behind the scenes who helped financially with the long series of court fights leading to SSM being legal in Bermuda. There is of course the final leg to go at the Privy Council.

So I was simply hoping that you would see value in the link to the website Same Love Bermuda... My webmaster is redesigning my website and it was she who posted the link to your WikiPedia page, and from that I was tried to post www.samelovebermuda.com If you do not think it contributes to the information you have (which is amazing) that is your decision. But I would hope you see value in the link!

Here is the section on SSM on my personal website https://tonybrannon.com/WEB_2020/samesexmarriage.html

Best to you. LionFishBermuda (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello, Dr Gail Rosseau is currently working for VES doing veteran C&P evaluations and currently seeing Veterans who are in the C&P process. She has been providing false reports that go against the veteran with multiple inconsistencies in the report. The doctor ignores the actual medical records and the veteran during the exams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:544:4280:1460:DD80:4BF7:F75E:B63E (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a family member and I know for sure that the fallowing statements are false:

"In 1991 he was kidnapped in New Delhi by Sikh militants. This was done one of the most famous Sikh freedom organisation of that time, namely the Khalistan Liberation Force. They threatened the authorities that if they don’t release Harjinder Singh Jinda, Sukhdev Singh Sukha and Nirmal Singh Nimma, they will kill Radu. These three were Sikh militants of the Khalistan Commando Force who were responsible for the assassination of Arun Shridhar Vaidya, the Indian Army Officer who lead Operation Blue Star. Radu was released unharmed after 49 days."

I would like permission to remove this text from the Wikipedia page.

Thank you, Cristina Radu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.144.209 (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@69.165.144.209: That's not for me to decide. I suggest you first start by checking the cited source. If it doesn't support the statement, remove it and leave an explanation in the edit summary, but if it does, leave a comment on the article's talk page and see what others think. M.Bitton (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they've given themselves plenty of WP:ROPE for their unblock request. I woudln't worry about trying to engage further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: I agree. M.Bitton (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC Article was misquoted. I fixed that. You reverted it. The other references were not used in the article if you actually bothered to look what you're doing. 2A00:23C8:4384:F00:4B1:7FCB:82D4:AFA7 (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the edit summary is there for: for the editor who is removing the content and the sources to justify their actions and not leave it for the others to guess why it's been removed. M.Bitton (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stated in the edit summary the changes I was making. I didn't specify the removal of the sources because it was clear in the article that someone had just appended 3 sources to a sentence that just quotes the BBC article. I hate when people revert my edits when I only do them in good faith. I appreciate you were only trying to do what you thought was best. 2A00:23C8:4384:F00:4B1:7FCB:82D4:AFA7 (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the fact that you didn't explain the removal of the sources that prompted the revert. I also appreciate the fact that you're reciprocating the assumption of good faith. Happy editing! M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a mistake. You don’t live in Buffalo. Wkbw.com and you will see that in the am Buffalo section they said Linda Pellegrino retired. Melanie Camp is the only cohost(although a guy named Jon Summers could take over). She is destined to take over.76.180.56.43 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the message that I left on your talk page? M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Read this. https://www.wkbw.com/am-buffalo/linda-pellegrino-is-retiring So much for not living in Buffalo-FD76.180.56.43 (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the massage again and follow the instructions on how we write about living people. You can always ask for help at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Happy editing! M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, M.Bitton! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Linguist111^talk 23:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Can you tell me the reason why you had reverted both of my recent edits on the article List of U.S. Army installations named for Confederate soldiers? I think you were premature to have reverted both of the edits.

In the first edit, I added a reference to a CNN article that the Senate had just voted to overturned the President's veto and the bill had became law. What was deleted was things that had not happened yet when first written, but has since occurred and now redundant, such as The Senate bill still needs to be combined with the House version of the same bill in the United States congressional conference committee before it can be sent to President Trump for his signature or veto.

In the second edit, I had removed legislative procedure material (as it tangential to the main subject of the Wikipedia article) that became not as important after the bill became law. The only reference removed was about might be done in Congress prior to the 2020 President Election that has since occurred.

Please tell me what is wrong with what I had written and I will change it. Thanks. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@68.50.32.85: The first revert is definitely an accident, sorry about that. The second was the result of a lack of explanation for the source removal. You explanation (above) is reasonable and you're more than welcome to restore both, or I'll do it if you prefer. Happy editing! M.Bitton (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from D4rkeRR9's latest change to your comment on their talk page(which they have been warned about), I believe you should have more than enough to take said editor to AN/I.

I am inclined to report them myself to AN/I, but I am currently up-to-my-elbows in researching the Aq Qoyunlu. If you need any assistance, feel free to ask. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know and for the help offer. I went ahead and reported them, as I can't think of any other way to make them stop. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block a user named BillCat from editing! We are currently having an edit war and I tried talking to him/her, but he/she threatning to call the police if I would shut up! I need your help! If you need to contact me, instead of the talk page, contact me through email! My email is ! Don't give out my email or any other personal information to BillCat and other users! Please, hurry! Thank You so much for your help! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123Peacock123 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@123Peacock123: I never threatened to "call the police" about you. The warnings I issued are standard Wikipedia warnings. By the way, you should never post your email address anywhere on Wikipedia, as this is a public forum. BilCat (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: I have already reported them for edit warring, but now that they throwing baseless accusations around, I will ping an admin who will know what to do. @Drmies: Can you please look into this issue? Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was weird. If they do more of this after their block expires, it's an indef-block. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Thank you. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Thanks also. Interestingly, an IP made a similar edit to CBS All Access after the block. I hope it isn't 123Peacock123, but they did make a threat to edit logged out. That's not wrong per se, except to avoid a block of course. BilCat (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed this out on Altabari's talk page, but I also wanted to see your opinion about this issue as you were engaged in reverting some unconstructive edits to the Altabari's article. Reference 3 in the article seems to point to a different conclusion from what is mentioned in the article. More specifically, the following is mentioned in the article cited:

"None of those ancestors can be identified any further (although there seems to be an implication in some of the sources that Kaṯir b. Ḡāleb was a known personality), and about all that can be said about them is that they have Arabic names. However, Ṭabari is never known to have claimed or to have had attributed to him any tribal affiliation and is always called by his regional nesba. He certainly knew some Persian, and his history showed more than a passing interest in subjects concerning his homeland, but that proves little. When he was asked about his ancestry, he was deliberately vague and quoted a verse belittling the importance of such genealogies (Yāqut, Odabāʾ VI, p. 428; see Rosenthal, 1989, pp. 12-13 on the possible moralizing aspect of this anecdote). There is thus no way of knowing for certain whether Ṭabari’s family was native to the Āol region or perhaps arrived with the wave of Muslim colonists after the Abbasid revolution, either as converts or Arab settlers"

It seems that the writer is saying that it was never known what his ethnic background is. However, this article is used to back up the claim that his ethnicity is definitively known. Shouldn't the claim made in the article be rewritten to reflect that there is no consensus at least? Moor919 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moor919: Since the Encyclopedia of Islam says more or less the same thing, whether the family was of indigenous stock or descended from Arab colonists in Tabaristan is unknown, I personally don't see why the article shouldn't reflect the uncertainty regarding his ethnicity. M.Bitton (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.Bitton. I guess you might not have seen my reply to your post on my talk page regarding my edit to California megapolitan areas. I just added a section on talk:California megapolitan areas expanding on why I believe my edit was necessary. 24.7.24.119 (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have left an explanation on the article's talk page, there is nothing stopping you from being bold again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Search for books on this site.[10] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: I will definitely have a go. Many thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In personal Life section, It is written that she is going to marry soon, which is Fake rumor. Mouni Roy herself has Denied it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.43.34.73 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then you'll have no problem finding a source (please read the message that I left on you talk page). M.Bitton (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.Bitton, while I'm a big supporter of your mission to remove the annoying empty infobox spaces, I'm afraid that to my understanding you're going to be in a losing war against anyone who edits those articles using the visual editor. CMD (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I haven't thought about that. I think I'll stop for now and see how much of it will stick. M.Bitton (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый день! Дмитрий Соин, просит изменить информацию о нем, не соответствующую действительности: В 1994 году власти Молдовы возбудили уголовное дело в убийстве против Соина, который убил жителя Тирасполя из служебного оружия в заявленном акте самообороны. Соин был объявлен Интерполом в международный розыск в 2004 году. Это информация которая порочит честь и достоинство личности, предлагаю заменить ее на: В 1993—2007 годах работал в органах госбезопасности Приднестровья, последняя должность начальник Управления защиты Конституции. В 2004 году объявлен властями Молдовы в международный розыск по сфабрикованному уголовному делу.

Как это сделать?

Good afternoon! Dmitry Soin, asks to change the information about him that does not correspond to reality. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сергей Пи (talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message below: "...Hello, I'm M.Bitton. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Bachelor party, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)..."

I am a provider of software for Travel Trust Accounts in the UK and have exntensive knowledge on Group Travel over many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellanden (talk • contribs) 17:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniellanden: I believe you, but unfortunately, the content that you added is considered original research. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core content policies and if needed, do not hesitate to ask for help at the Teahouse. Happy editing! M.Bitton (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted some changes I made to the USS John C. Calhoun page. I have no citations or sources except for myself. I was there. I was stationed on the Johnny C. from 1991 to decommissioning in 1994. I would not know how to find any sources other than myself and a few fellow crew members that I'm still in touch with. I was going to add when the Panama Canal transit was but I noticed it reverted. The only source I would have for the Canal transit is a citation (award) stating that I went through the Canal and the date that it occurred. How would I go about making these changes?

James Beard (former ET2/SS (nuclear) on SSBN 630 Blue crew and combined crew from October 1991 to March 28, 1994) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.80.19 (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NFAC is not a black separatist group. That falsity must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButlerW01 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ButlerW01: That's not my call. You need to start a discussion on the article's talk page and see what the others have to say. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time to start an SPI for User:Taha Khattabi, and I'll give you EdDakhla and T.Khattabi. It's more or less pro forma, but they're very much active, as you know. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: That's a great idea. What about the blocked IP's, should I list them too? M.Bitton (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead and list them. You know Checkusers don't link IPs to account, but if you're sure, stick them in there. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:  Done You'll notice that I left the 2 IPs (one confirmed by Yamla and one blocked by yourself) out since I figured that you already have them on record. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No no no--put them in. I don't keep a record, unless it's for really unusual cases, and then on the CU-wiki. Plus, my memory is like Swiss cheese, nothing but holes. The record that you are building is there for all the other admins as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:  Done Best, M.Bitton (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I have added a bit more to it. Please have a look and let me know what you think. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Drmies (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any EDITS I choose to make on Hafthor Julius Bjornsson have been confirmed by legitimate sources from his team as well as those close to him and I request you authorize every single edit I make on this man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FA49:2101:E00:C1CB:FC9A:BBF7:6269 (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:OR as well as the comments I left on your talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, M. Bitton, it looks like you might be the most recent human to have edited the article "Queen of the South," (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_South_(biblical_reference), and I wanted to let someone know that I think the Luke reference misdirects to Luke 10, when it needs to be Luke 11:31. [Sorry if this is not the best way to do this, I have no idea what I'm doing here. Also left a note on a new talk page, which was probably the wrong thing to do.] Best wishes, Heather Thiessen 184.16.161.120 (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you for letting me know. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to point me to the RfC. I can't be going through all the talk page archives, and there's nothing more specific in the edit summaries you provided. For the record, unless you make more specific statements in your edit summaries, your case isn't much stronger than the IPs, and you're making it harder for us admins. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Here's the infamous RfC. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: The the IP that you blocked is back, and this time they are IP hopping. I filed an edit warring report and I would be really grateful if you could have a look at it. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been semi-protected by EdJohnston. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see--thank you. I blocked that latest IP, because I don't want it to unnoticed that they violated a rule. BTW it's funny that I'm reading this right after typing up a message to a student about Assia Djebar's Fantasia: An Algerian Cavalcade, which details some of the crimes committed against the Algerian people. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Thank you. That's a very strange coincidence indeed. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this, they’d invariably get what’s coming their way. Celestina007 (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Thanks for letting me know. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.Bitton, I changed the names of those "Turks in X" articles because they are not recent citizens of Turkey, which "Turks in" can imply. These communities (full or partial origin) have been citizens of these said countries for centuries. Further, this would be in line with X Americans; X Australians; X Canadians; etc. Do you disagree with this? Obviously, my moves are now redirects which is ok. But the current state does imply they are from a modern diaspora, rather than a pre-modern nation-state community (like Bulgarian Turks and Turkish Cypriots etc.). Hope to hear back. Thanks! Sseevv (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sseevv: Not really, because unlike Turkish, the term "Turk" was used for centuries to simply mean Muslim living in some part of the Ottoman empire. On a side note: those articles are full of nonsense about meaningless partial ancestry and most, if not all of the notable people cited in them are not described by RS as either "Turks" or "Turkish". M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. It's not something I'm going to be strongly pushing for if there is a strong rejection in the Wiki community. But I'll take your comment forward and raise a discussion on the talk pages. It seems more logical, at least to me, that the titles would make clear that these are about citizens of these modern nations states (who either fully or partially identify as Turkish), rather than recent Turkish arrivals who may not obtain the citizenship of the said countries. Ethnicity in the Middle East is a complex subject, as before it would be X-speaking Muslims. But to completely disregard people who self-declare their identities as "nonsense" is worrisome. Sseevv (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sseevv: Starting a discussion that is centered around what the reliable sources say is a good idea. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M. Bitton, I received your message. Apologies, I forgot to enter the reason for changing the references to University of Colorado-Boulder and Crawford's position there: He no longer works there. His appointment ended in May 2020. Please restore the changes to the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.253.122 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@71.211.253.122: Since this is a WP:BLP article, I cannot really restore it without citing a reliable source. I hope you understand. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: He is not listed as faculty on their site: https://www.colorado.edu/gsll/nordic/faculty This is also something he openly talks about on his YouTube channel.

@71.211.253.122: Unless I'm mistaken, on his website he says: "As of 2020 I am a full-time public educator, remaining at the University of Colorado as a Resident Scholar at the Center of the American West". Feel free to add that to the article. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I'm trying to remove original research. Complaints of original research have persisted over ten years on the page Libertarian Marxism, but nothing's improved since. The sources cited DO NOT mention the term Libertarian Marxism, and frequently do not even mention libertarian or libertarianism at all! Consult the Talk page before reversing my edits, thanks.

Kind regards, Crashprop

@Crashprop: I appreciate what you're trying to do, that's why I suggested you use the talk page to explain the situation, ideally, citing what the cited sources that I assume you have checked say. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit to the page on quasi-rents to include the modern definition of the term. The current page is indecipherable. I recommend you adopt my edit, at least in substance, lest the page remain unusably obscure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.232 (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you improve the article using reliable sources? M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to add citations. But I am a PhD student in economics and I am telling you that the current page is unintelligible. (Take a look for yourself--can you really tell me what it means?) It needs to be translated into simple, modern terminology. It is not a complicated concept, but the current page is unreadable. I provided a very simple (and generic) definition for the concept. I'm not going to pursue this further; if you choose to keep the page as-is, then it will remain utterly useless. It's your call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.232 (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not my call as Wikipedia's policies are set by the community. As for adding citations, please read this article, it's fairly straightforward, but you're still having difficulties, then feel free to cite the reliable source here and I will add it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou for the warm welcome i am 100% going to stay all thanks by Helperboi (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you reversed an edit of mine while I wasn't logged in. Because this occurred almost immediately after the edit, I am curious to know whether you are logged in right now, or whether that was an automated edit by a bot.

Thanks. Walkinxyz (talk)

@Walkinxyz: What edit are you referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that your response answers my question, and both are true. Feel free to correct any misunderstanding on my part. Walkinxyz (talk)

@Walkinxyz: As long as there was no issue with the revert, then all is well that ends well. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you modify the bot to explain that it is, in fact a bot, and that you review the parameters you're using to detect possible vandalism. It was indicated that I should include a description of the edit to avoid triggering suspicion, but I did include a very clear description and the edit was reversed anyway. The edit was on the MKUltra page. In order to prevent chilling of speech, anonymous users should not automatically trigger vandalism suspicion (notably, on an article related to the security state), without a clear and valid reason for that suspicion. All best. Walkinxyz (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walkinxyz: It's not a bot and there was an issue with this edit (see the stray ti). In addition to that, under the guise of research is unsourced. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, not sure how the stray ti slipped in. Thanks for clarifying. "Under the guise of research" is supported by the covert nature of much of the program, and by the very next sentence, "The CIA operated using front organizations…" Walkinxyz (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walkinxyz: All is well that ends well. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that your explanation of the reverts is that the new CIA map is not neutral. Could you provide examples on the map that indicate that your statement is true. Interstellarity (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: The map of Morocco is a prime example. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm assuming you are talking about Western Sahara. I am familiar with that area. We could possibly discuss editing the map to fix that. Interstellarity (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: Yes, I am referring to Western Sahara. We already have one that is fixed and widely used: the 2016 version. M.Bitton (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a second look at the map. The old political map seems to be up to date. The only thing on the map that is not updated (also not updated on the new map) is that Burundi changed its capital. On the old physical map, there are a few things the new map fixes that the old one doesn't.

• Kazakhstan changed the name of its capital from Astana to Nur-Sultan
• Macedonia changed its name to North Macedonia
• Swaziland changed its name (also not fixed on new map)
• Czech Republic adopted the short form Czechia

I hope I provided enough information about the differences between the old and new map except for Western Sahara. I would like to ask, is the inclusion of Western Sahara the main reason why you reverted my changes? For example, for a map to be neutral, it would have to include dotted lines indicating the dispute in which case it doesn't. Kosovo is shown as an independent country. That is not neutral. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are shown as part of Georgia. That is not neutral. In the map, how the map indicates Taiwan is OK since the political status is ambigous. What makes Western Sahara stand out against the rest? Interstellarity (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: Two wrongs don't make a right. Ideally, I would use the UN map, but since the 2016 CIA map has been used for some time now, it is considered stable. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You also belive, that your mother is your father, just why its said in television? Think about it and then youll see the truth. This ist not a bitton to you, this ist a truthon to ya! I know what I am sayin...and thats the only thruth! Nether Jackson nor Sheen. Belive it or you never wont get to Allah! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1656:4D80:50:D165:154A:EC55 (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your username "M. Bitton" I think you may have, not a COI exactly, but a professional connection to Steven M. Cohen, having published about him etc. Is that correct? It would be best, if so, to request edits related to him on the talk page. Sorry if this is completely wrong!!! GordonGlottal (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GordonGlottal: No, I don't. I do recall reverting an edit by Daniel_Smokler (the editor who declared a connection with the primary subject). M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok NP. I meant that edit, which relates to Cohen also. Different M. Bitton. Happy editing! GordonGlottal (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I work at the University of Alaska Southeast and have been tasked with updating the Wiki page, which contains very outdated information about the institution. I see some of the changes have been reverted and am wondering if there is a better process that would allow me to make the necessary updates?

Thank you in advance, ACK RainyAK

@RainyAK: Since you acknowledge that you have a conflict of interest while editing Wikipedia, you should click on the first blue link in this message, read the guideline and see whether it applies to you. Pay particular attention to the portions pertaining to paid editing. Having said that, what happened here is that M.Bitton is running a program called Twinkle. It detected that you removed content containing a citation to a reliable source. At least that's how it appears on the surface, because Twinkle is very black and white in the way it operates. For starters, the external link to the cited story is dead and has been for years. When Morris Communications owned the Juneau Empire, they had a practice of making extensive story archives available on the newspaper's website. When they sold the paper, that all went away. We should assume good faith that this is still a valid source, since it was formatted correctly and its validity can be researched. You contend that it's "outdated". This is not a valid argument: we are here to present the history of UAS, not to serve as a social media mirror for whatever agenda the university is currently pushing. The problem I see is that the section uses the mere existence of a reliable source to promote undue weight to one particular viewpoint. This viewpoint overwhelms the section to the point where it is no longer an accessible overview of UAS athletics. This can be partially rectified by combining this section with the previous section on the recreation center, since the two functions are closely related, as well as making some attempt to represent the overall history of athletic endeavors at UAS. The article as a whole is light on high-quality sources and heavy on thinly-veiled promotional language. An example: "the Ketchikan campus offers small class sizes, face-to-face classroom experiences, a large selection of online courses as well as blended face-to-face and online classroom experiences, and staff and advisors. The Ketchikan campus is a leader in the State university system for online degree offerings including the only interdisciplinary Bachelor of Liberal Arts and Bachelor of Arts, Social Science." I don't see why it needs to be pushed further in that direction. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RainyAK: Please see the welcome message that I left on your talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Bitton, thanks for messaging me. First of all, I would like to inform you that I am editing Wikipedia for a long time, and I generally dont experiment. I had edited the Bhati part of Baro Bhuiyan article based on what is given in Banglapedia, the national encyclopedia in Bangladesh. If you read the whole description, you will find at the end of the description that it does not include Jessore. You have pasted portions of the Banglapedia description in Wikipedia, but not the whole part. I think this proves what I had done was right. Anirban KolkataAnirban Kolkata (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have pasted portions of the Banglapedia description in Wikipedia I did no such thing and the comment that I left on your talk page was about you removing content from Baro-Bhuyan without adequately explaining why. M.Bitton (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        Mr Bitton, I have corrected the fault that was there in Bhati region portion of Baro Bhuyan article in Wikipedia. My explanation for the correction is the information that is present in Banglapedia article regarding the same matter. I would like to inform you that I am editing Wikipedia articles for a long time and I generally correct mistakes, and dont remove materials from Wikipedia. Please read the Bhati region portion in the Banglapedia article, and then think what I had done was wrong or not. Anirban Kolkata 13:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirban Kolkata (talk • contribs)  

Anirban Kolkata Anirban Kolkata (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bitton,

Apologies for not giving a clear explanation of the changes made to the page. But the changes I did were based on the notice given by the person whom the page is about. Hope my changes will be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8E81:1570:5027:1DCB:26D5:1F0A (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "notice given by the person"? M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Hello M.Bitton, may you write an article on pluripotential theory?[reply]

Hi M. Bitton,

First I want to ask you about the demographic estimations here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1015443905 (sorry but I am using mobile version). You stated that the population was estimated between 3 and 5 millions. But zat the same time the link you shared https://books.google.tn/books?id=yEvQZ7bdybgC&pg=PA11&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false it clearly says

ces estimations varient entre 1 et 3 millions

. Only the tge section of " le lendemain du conquête" more than 3 millions population were estimated. Also the table in page 14 and 15 confirms that there is no estimation of more than 3 millions was expected.

Is it a typo or am I missing something ?

Second the map you putted in the page kind of irritates me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Algeria#/media/File:Regency-of-Algiers-1824.jpg I have no problem with old historical maps but I think they don't fit as the main image of the page (wich would be the most vosoted image in the whole page) First this imgae is about all of north africa a'd I would prefer a more algeria centered map (so that the reader won't be misleaded) other than that the colors are pales are pale and the resolution is far from perfection (you can merely read city names).

Now about the content of the map, it also doesn't feel as the best. For example I never recall the region of tafilalet as being part of the refency of algiers. It even contradicts the well sourced paragragh in the description

the Regency originally extended its borders from La Calle in the east to Trara in the west and from Algiers to Biskra

. Plus you know how the maps from the 19th century may differ a lot because their lack of precision. We have plenty of them and chosing one over the other won't be easy that's why I would prefer a newer made one.

I hope you could find a better suited map or at least restore the older one

Note : I would never discard o revise your edits without your approval as I myself consider it vandalism to just remove other efforts by removing it with just one click. That's why I would wait for your response. Thank you Fyhgfthj (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a typo. If you check the cited source you'll see the pages (11 to 16) that the reader is meant to read for verifiability. That map ended up there because some editors kept changing the old map under the pretext that it's not properly sourced. I don't expect to find a map that everyone approves of and I don't see a major issue with the current one, which is sourced and keeping the disruptive editors at bay. M.Bitton (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your reply

1) yes I just rechecked the demographics and apparently you was right about 1830 I was mislead about tge title " au lendemain de la conquête" and I thought he was only going to discuss the french algeria. But still I feel that the formulation of the sentence is not the best you've written

The population of the Regency of Algiers in 1830 has been estimated at between 3 and 5 million

you've used "has been" wich is in present perfect wich according to this site https://www.ef.com/wwen/english-resources/english-grammar/present-perfect/ means

An action or situation that started in the past and continues in the present

but I don't feel that really the book of kamel kateb (2001) could really be called "written in the past". So I would prefer a more accurate verion like "the population was estimated between 1 and 3 million but kamel kateb suggests that the number should be raised to 3 to 5 millions" or at least simply write " is estimated between 3 and 5 millions by kamel kateb" (as to indicate that there are other estimations)

2) I checked a little bit the page history and I didn't see a real edit war. It was only the edit Ali ahmed andalousi (talk · contribs) who changed the map. Wich even though it is clearly a troll, still he putted a real sourced historic map just like yours. And that's why I told I didn't like old maps because they can differ way to much from one to another with way many inaccuracies.So for example what would make you prefer your map rather than andalousi's map is it because algeria looks way bigger (cause I don't see any difference between both in historical point of view) If I would chose between old maps I would suggest this one https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:1829_Lapie_Map_of_the_Eastern_Mediterranean,_Morocco,_and_the_Barbary_Coast_-_Geographicus_-_Barbarie-lapie-1829.jpg (wich you already put but later discarded) What I like about this map is that it has more resolution than the other one. It is more accurate. Algeria is slightly more centered. And it is sourced. Another suggestion would be this map https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Algiers_Eyalet,_Ottoman_Empire_(1609).png#mw-jump-to-license I like this map because it indicates the ottoman empire in an article called ottoman algeria. But most importantly it matches up other maps about the ottoman empire. I hope that you've got my point of view. Thank you Fyhgfthj (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC) @M.Bitton:[reply]

Actually, I saw your response and ignored it because I don't appreciate you personally attacking another editor on my talk page (by calling them a troll) and then pinging them to make sure they read it. The text is fine and so is the map (though I'm working on an svg version of it). If you failed to see the edit war, just like you failed to see the numbers, then there isn't much I can do to help you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that I meant by troll the edit of ali ahmed andalosi ? (Not the user the edit) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1010843295 . you can even see it throughout his description of the edit

There is nothing like an Antique Map !!!

. You really need to take some rest and chill out. I am not attacking anyone and I would never think about attacking anyone on the internet . You have all my respect man Fyhgfthj (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M. Bitton, Could you kindly explain how a Brittanica approved name is not significant and does not deserve to be at the top? https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hindu-Arabic-numerals Also please come to a consensus before just undoing edits. Edit warring goes both ways :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackCape24 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the edit summary, they do not belong in the lead because they are not "significant alternative names". The image you referred to in your edit summary is irrelevant because as someone has already pointed out to you, the article is not about the system, it's about the numerals that the system uses. You are on the verge of breaking the 3rr rule, so I suggest you seek consensus for your change. M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had put a part in Skanderbergs Revolt and it did have reliable sources AS the sources were from W I k i p e d I a. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarpoArpo (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 April 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please read the welcome message that I will leave on your talk page. It will have some links that will hopefully help you understand how Wikipedia works. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you are familiar, could you submit the SPI?14:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: They have already been confirmed and indefed by Maxim. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"'Enquire', and the associated noun 'enquiry', are more common in British English, while 'inquire' and 'inquiry' are more common in American English. In Australia, we use either spelling although enquire and enquiry for the general sense of 'ask', and inquire and inquiry for a formal investigation, is preferred." [11] Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: You learn something new every day. I have always used it the way Australians do as it seems to make more sense. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as an American, I always saw and used "inquiry" until I came across across the alternate in reading works by British authors. As you say, YLSNED. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.Bitton. Wanted to give you a heads up in relation to this map, apparently created by the Louvre,[12] which you removed from numerous articles here on Eng.Wiki. Although I had tagged it on Commons due to it being packed with dozens of fallacies and stuff contradicted by dozens of reliable sources, the same uploader has removed my tag, calling it "this is a modern-day academic work" [13] Although Commons has its own set of rules, which protects the map from being deleted there even though its packed with errors, it simply does not belong on Wikipedia as its inclusion—indeed—violates numerous WP policies. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: Of course that piece of garbage does not belong on Wikipedia, it goes without saying. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case you were curious or have an input, I opened up a ANI regarding that IP. Curbon7 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.Bitton. Could you give me a reasonable explanation why did you revert/undo my changes in Western Sahara and why is it not accepted ? 14:06, 11 June 2021‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrocan (talk • contribs)

It's not accepted because of the unjustified/unjustifiable content removal. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing got removed and I did give a justification, let me make it clear to you, I just changed the sentence order to give visibility who actually controls the territory. I don't understand or see your vandalism accusation. Morrocan (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2021

That's not true (you did remove some content), and besides, there is no reason whatsoever to change the sentence order. M.Bitton (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted some content removal.[14] Unfortunately you don't seem to have noticed Narendra Modi Official Singh man tattu Chand pandey had also vandalized the article (and, I think, had gone on to reinsert their vandalism from several IPs). Just thought I'd mention it. Bishonen | tålk 15:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Thanks for letting me know. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the whinging left has slighted the GB News which has the ethos of being neutral and 'reporting the news' instead of the usual lefty twitter tripe we always have to see.

So please see the following citations which indemnify your biased and left leaning introduction to the news channels.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1449320/BBC-news-GB-News-public-events-footage-launch-day-Sunday-gb-news-channel-launch https://foxhole.news/2021/02/08/stop-funding-hate-tries-to-shut-down-gb-news-before-its-even-launched/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/13/bbc-hit-ofcom-complaint-gb-news-shutting-broadcaster/ https://j4mb.org.uk/2021/06/12/bbc-accused-of-attempting-to-shut-out-gb-news-at-11th-hour/ https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1446447/Andrew-neil-boris-johnson-voting-poll-Yougov-keir-starmer-dominic-cummings https://www.tomwinnifrith.com/articles/17677/the-left-still-doesnt-understand-free-speech-tries-to-shut-down-gb-news-before-its-first-broadcast https://davidicke.com/2021/02/15/woke-anti-hate-censors-attempt-to-shut-down-gb-news-before-its-even-gone-to-air/

And all this before the programme even aired. The left is the new right and I am disgusted that my legitimate edit was removed. Because it is the 'left' who are 'tarring this news channel' and the left who has become the new far right. The author has written bigoted one dimensional claims and slants and refuses to accept the findings in the 7 references I have given and believe me there are another 300+ I can lay my hands on.

Fix it and put the edit in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.173.116 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to the news channel that you're describing as biased and left leaning is not mine. 2) Your edit has been reverted because it's unsourced. M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for reaching out. I apologize I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I work for the College Football Hall of Fame.

I have been tasked with uploading our new logo and making a minor edit to the copy on the helmet wall.

What's the best way to go about doing this?

Thank you,

Jeremy Swick - Historian & Curator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswick214 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jswick214: It looks like you have managed to add the logo. Since you have a conflict of interest, I will leave a comment on your talk page that will explain what to do in this case. Thank you for your honesty. M.Bitton (talk)

See article's talk page. The editor is the subject and has apparently removed the COI tag previously from the article, which I readded (before I realized it had been removed). S0091 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091: I saw it, that's why I didn't bother leaving a warning/comment on their talk page. Thanks for letting me know. M.Bitton (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They have posted a note at the Teahouse so will see what happens. Also, thanks for all the work you do around here. I have seen you around pretty much since I started and I am certain I have learned a thing or two from you just by noticing how you have handled something. S0091 (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091: Now that the article is being watched, they have no choice but to follow the rules. Thank you very much for the encouragement and for your valuable contributions to the project that I have witnessed numerous times. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article to represent that Meaghan is a former child actor, not currently an actor. This is based off of multiple interviews she has given, as well as tweets. [15][16][17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowingThings39 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KnowingThings39: You removed the fact that she's an actress despite what the sources that you cited above say. Care to explain why? M.Bitton (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We organised the first race but seem to have been overlooked! Any communications I had back at that time will have since been thrown away . Suggest you ask for more verification from Race for Life Cancer Research office! Shame after all this time not to be recognised for what we did — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.238.8 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article that was printed in Running Magazine that mentions my Race Director role. I have taken pictures can I send them to you please86.28.238.8 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works (please read WP:VERIFY). That being said, there's nothing preventing you from asking for help at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. M.Bitton (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per your message to me, hereunder please find genealogical records from The Genealogical Society of Bergen County, NJ affirming that Henry Philip Tappan was the grandson of Major Christoper Tappen, who served in the Revolutionary War and who was a Regent of the University of the State of New York, and his wife Annatj Wynkoop. He was the son of Petrus (Peter) Tappen and Ann DeWitt. Henry Philip Tappan changed the spelling of his name due to a mistake in a census in Michigan and kept the change, but he was member of the Tappen Family. The Tappen Family also had long-term connections through marriage to the Livingston Family. Henry Philip Tappan's wife was Julia Livingston. This information should be included in his biography. It can be backed up by records in the Ulster County (NY) Records, which I can provide if necessary.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.njgsbc.org/files/familyfiles/p1492.htm#i17892

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.njgsbc.org/files/familyfiles/p1493.htm#i53405

My friend why are you removing things that ive added, since they dont have any pic ive added their flag Rayooni (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayooni: "Not having pics" is not a valid excuse to add any image. Please read MOS:IMAGES. M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello M.Bitton,

I saw that you removed the user-made map of Ottoman Algeria (quite efficiently, I'll add) in favor for the older map. I have to call into question your logic for doing so. The map you favor is an excerpt from this full map. The map may have been a good "source" in its time, but its clearly outdated, with many nuances of pre-colonial Africa not apparent and the borders inaccurate. Clearly an antiquated and outdated map from the 19th-20th century should not be put above a user made map with more focus and attention to detail to the actual topic of the article. As for the sources of the map, I'm contacting the author at present for a list of them.

Thank you

MarsandCadmium (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarsandCadmium: That map was added to prevent an edit war. It's sourced and there are many other sources that support it. Personally, I don't see an issue with, especially considering who it was made by and the fact that its date is very appropriate (few years before the French invasion). M.Bitton (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton:. Hi M.Bitton I guess you remember me from my last discussion with you wich was about the same reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:M.Bitton#question_about_your_last_edits_in_ottoman_algeria.

That map was added to prevent an edit war

Seeing the update history of ottoman algeria page I can easily conclude that one map did everything but avoiding edit wars. In fact it created them with 50 % of the last edits are just some editors suggesting to user other maps, but all of them were reverted only by you every single time, wich really make me doubt the consensus on that map. As I told you before being sourced by a well known author in the 19th century is not that special. There are billions of "barbary coast" maps from the 19th century, that you can chose from but you only have chosen the one that it's fidelity and accuracy is a bit trickey. My request for using pierre lapie's map from 1829 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:1829_Lapie_Map_of_the_Eastern_Mediterranean,_Morocco,_and_the_Barbary_Coast_-_Geographicus_-_Barbarie-lapie-1829.jpg and zoomed on algeria here https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Carte_de_la_régence_d%27Algérie_en_1829_(état_algérien_moderne_vassal_de_l%27empire_ottoman).png is still ongoing. As this map would cause less trouble

With much respect. Thank you for your time spent reading this Fyhgfthj (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening

The change I made were legitimate as I am the band's manager. How can we put these back in place ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.32.59 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guideline about conflict of interest that I will leave on your talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you intervene on the Talk of the Arab article? I think it is necessary to currently solve the problem. Thanks BaylanSP (talk) 17,14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the Talk. As your proposal is the only one that has generated some consensus compared to the current Lead, I would like to ask your permission to be able to use it when editing the Lead, specifically this one:

"The Arabs [...] are the largest ethnic group in the Arab world. The Arab diaspora is established around the world in significant numbers, in [...]"

Regards. BaylanSP (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BaylanSP: You don't need my permission to use what I proposed, but given Grandpallama's objection (that I still don't quite understand), I'd rather give them the opportunity to properly explain their reasoning. M.Bitton (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton, it's certainly not my effort to stonewall, but I don't think I saw consensus to just remove all the detailed mentions; all of the discussion I had seen was around being careful what we characterize as the Arab world, and making sure the sentences were constructed in a way that didn't misidentify countries. I'm not enthused that this was taken as an excuse to peel out the mention of those nations with a particular history, which I didn't (yet) see consensus for. To be frank, I suspect I would find your arguments far more compelling than that of a month-old account who was just warned for edit warring across WP. Grandpallama (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grandpallama: I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that you're stonewalling or that we can't reach a consensus (whatever that may be) after examining everyone's perspective. M.Bitton (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello M.Bitton. I recently nominated a page on Wikipedia for deletion. Could you give your opinion on the discussion page in question since you are contributor on these kind of topics? Thank you!

[18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askelaadden (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Askelaadden: You're obviously dealing with another sock of Ifni95. Don't bother with deleting their crap (which doesn't stand a chance of ever being used in an encyclopedia), just make sure they don't mess with your uploads and if they continue to do, report them to the admins. M.Bitton (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @M.Bitton:,

Thank you for your message and your advice!

Have a nice day! --Askelaadden (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind that I moved your comment on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Brahim_Ghali to follow the other editor's sig. It was hard to follow otherwise. Schazjmd (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: Actually, you did me a favour as I didn't know exactly which part to reply to without refactoring their comment. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This is regarding the changes I made on the article American Council on Science and Health calling the person hank campbell for promoting pseudoscience that was reverted by you. I know I didn't provide a source for the changes I made, but that person has promoted many misleading pseudoscientific claims. I only made minor changes.

The person Hank Campbell is described in that article as a science writer but he has promoted pseudoscience and misleading, & false information in the name of 'science'.

He has downplayed/denyed the health risks of secondhand smoke. The website run by him has promoted fake news in the name of 'science' that nobody has died or got lung cancer from second hand smoke here, here and so on,despite the fact that there are well documented cases of deaths occurring from secondhand smoke and as stated in the article health effects of tobacco smoking, about 600000 deaths are caused from secondhand smoke exposure every year, among which 21400 are caused from lung cancer due to second hand smoke. In his blog he says exhausive research found no death from second hand smoke, but the research he cites was from Enstrom and Kabat(a study often cited by pseudoskeptics of dangers of second hand smoke). That study was utter crap and it had multiple fatal flaws and as stated in the passive smoking article, not only was it funded by the tobacco industry, the American cancer society calling the study flawed even pointed out how they misused their data.

He says thirdhand smoke is pseudoscience and says it is only embraced by so called "anti-smoking fundamentalist", but then he attacks the American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS) when they tell us about it.

He also promoted doubts about scientific consensus of climate change. He wrote that conservatives are better at understand climate change than liberals, in a blog, despite the fact that most conservatives(not all) strait up deny climate change.

There are many other examples as well. Whatever he doesn't like he dismisses it as pseudoscience or anti-science

He definitely seems to have a political agenda. He is amongst other pseudoscience promoting charlatans like Dr. Oz, Alex Jones, Joseph Mercola, Robert f kennedy jr, Vandana Shiva, patrick moore , mike adams of naturalnews, etc.

That's why I made the edits because he isn't a science writer as written in that article. It wasn't a vandalism.

Also I didn't revert your edit because I didn't want to engage in an edit war so I thought it would be appropriate to contact you directly. So please consider restoring my edit, if you think my edit was correct.

Thank you and have a nice day! 2409:4042:918:CDC1:156E:C78B:4B77:5037 (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns, but unfortunately what you wrote about Hank Campbell (a living person) is unsourced (original research to be exact) and therefore violates the rather stringent WP:BLP policy. That being said, there is nothing stopping you from adding to the article the fact that the ACSH has been described as a "one of the most visible, well-funded purveyors of pseudoscience and misinformation".[19] Best, M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know it would go against WP:BLP but I think it would be better to call him a journalist instead of science writer.

Also in other articles like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., it is stated that he promotes the scientifically discredited link between vaccines and autism, and the article for mike adams of natural news states how he promotes pseudoscience by promoting quack medicine, anti-vax, chemtrail conspiracy theory, anti-fluoridation,etc. So similarly is it possible to state that he promotes pseudoscience by downplaying health risks of secondhand smoke and disputing scientific consensus on climate change? 2409:4042:918:CDC1:DDAD:640D:5E:4E9C (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not familiar with him, I have no idea what RS call him. If in doubt or what he does is disputed, remove it from the article (which isn't about him to start with). M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed him from the article,as the article isn't about him. Even I'm not really familiar with him but I came across some of his articles on his website. At the beginning I thought he was cool, cause he called out quacks like Mercola, dr Oz,and others, but then he when I came across other article where he denied health risks of second hand smoke,by using a fraudulent study funded by tobacco industry, and casted doubts on climate change by spreading one sided propoganda, I realised even he had a political agenda. It's like "I don't like this so it's pseudoscience/anti-science."

But it is very clear he is spreading misinformation himself as he said nobody has died from second hand smoke which is clearly a lie, as around 600000 deaths occur every year due to second hand smoke exposure. Now the numbers may not be accurate but to say nobody has got lung cancer or died from second hand smoke is straight up a lie as there are many well documented cases. 2409:4042:918:CDC1:2241:FC9:98B7:5A1E (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you removed what is uncontroversial and easy attributable to a source (please don't do that again). I have restored some of it (left his previous job title out) and added a couple of sources. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you told me to remove his name entirely as the article is not about him. It's my mistake and I apologise for that.2409:4042:918:CDC1:F91A:52E8:9E5B:811F (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed unsourced contentDriftrich (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you removed a source while falsely claiming that sentence was unsourced. M.Bitton (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

changed it Driftrich (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome and the advice, but I did none of those things listed under Bad Practice. Nothing was deleted or edited. All I did was add a comment agreeing with the original post about the article seeming overly sanitized. I've been doing this for years when I see a comment I agree with, and it's never been an issue. But thank you for your input.

Just in case you miss it (seeing as you're editing under IP), here's the explanation. Happy editing! M.Bitton (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the warning you gave the IP thats editing the line 3 protests by mistake, apologies. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC) LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LakesideMiners: No worries, these things happen. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello M.Bitton. I'm jawi13. I just saw that you left me warning messages about the youtube links about the article of the police special operations group, but I hadn't seen them until today. I apologize for that. Sincerely

Jawi13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawi13 (talk • contribs) 14:59, Aug 14, 2021 (UTC)

@Jawi13: Actually, I pinged you with regard to an IP who is targetting all the articles that you created and that I have reported to AN3. Please feel free to join the discussion. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dear M. Bitton! I am a representative of the Spiritual Council of the Yezidis of Georgia. The Temple of Sultan Ezid was built on our initiative. This temple is the seat of the Spiritual Council of the Yezidis of Georgia. I would like to note that many representatives of the Yezidi community from Georgia, Russia and Armenia took part in the construction of the temple. And the main sponsor of the construction of this temple was the Yezidi flock from Georgia. Therefore, we consider it superfluous to point out that the temple was built with funds from the Kurdistan Region and the Iraqi government. This information is a little untrue. We really hope that you will remove this item. We also want to inform you that the Russian-language version of Wikipedia has an article about the Temple of Sultan Ezid. Here's a link https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Храм_Эзида — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion7777777 (talk • contribs) 18:24, Aug 31, 2021 (UTC)

@Lion7777777: Sadly, I can't be of much help to you since I'm not familiar with the subject. I suggest you start a discussion on the article's talk page and notify the editor who created the article (I see that they also added that the disputed content and its supporting source). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make the Tariq article consistent with the Battle of Guadalete#Engagement section, which seemed to have reasoned historian's views on the army size. But I don't have access to the book. The reference for 'The Visigothic forces were "probably not much larger"' has no page number, but for the preceding statement "One modern estimate..." gives page 141. I think that's a reasonable guess at the location, and I'm happy to have that, or some band around it, put in (most of the references to Collins 2004 are close to the p130-140 mark). If we want to be very principled, we can leave the template.

Either way, the current article is not satisfying, as it implies an army of 7,000 defeated an army of 100,000. Dhalamh (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhalamh: I asked for the page number because I assumed that you had access to the source (since you didn't attribute what you copied from the other article). I have checked it and it's on page 141 (I will remove the tag and update the ref accordingly). M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi, the guy who reverted my edits on Airplanes (song) didn't refrain from what he has done, please send a block request to an administrator.-SomeWhatLife

Edit: he's been blocked, nevermind. SomeWhatLife (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My editing was not "disruptive" and was following your lead after you removed a portion with no supporting references on Sept 4th and added the Unsourced Material tag. In YOUR OWN EDITING NOTES YOU WROTE "feel free to remove this too if you can't find suitable sources." I made the effort to individually look up references for EVERY single one of listed exhibits, performances and lectures and added them in whenever they existed. Prior to that there was NO REFERENCES AT ALL for any of the exhibits, performances, and lectures that Moshe Hacmon listed when he authored his own wiki article. When you reverted my edits you also removed all the references that I added in for the material that had them and now those sections are back to having no references. I am one of VERY FEW people who are actually trying to help edit this Wiki so that it is accurate, properly sourced, free of bias, and no longer gives the obvious appearance of being self-authored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbotenvampire (talk • contribs) 07:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you telling me this? You need to get in touch with whomever reverted your edit and suggested that it was disruptive. M.Bitton (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am writing to make a formal complaint about the person that continues to re-add incorrect information about our company. I have had colleagues correct the information on Wikipedia countless times over the years, and someone continues to add it back. Promessa Organic has NOT been liquified. You & the people doing this over & over are hurting our business, are hurting the industry, are hurting the thousands of people that want our product for a safer & eco-friendly burial option. I want this to stop. This is an operating company & this wikipedia page is spreading lies. PLEASE STOP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.213.233.163 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to this edit. I have no idea what you mean by has NOT been liquified. All I know is that the content that you removed without a valid explanation has been restored. If you believe that the critism section is unwarranted, then you need to take your concerns to the article's talk page and explain properly why it should be removed. M.Bitton (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. My additions to this are strictly factual and record deaths during activities of this club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bblqk37 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread the comment about how to manage a conflict of interest. M.Bitton (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the ricky simon vs timur valiev fight isnt happening anymore. timur valiev got rebooked versus a newcomer named Daniel Santos. Also on tapology it says the simon vs. valiev fight was fizzled out.

In the previous edit, the reference was made to these: https://www.picclickimg.com/d/l400/pict/163097598168_/Vtg-70s-MA-BELL-IS-A-CHEAP-MOTHER.jpg https://www.picclickimg.com/d/l400/pict/164139762934_/VTG-70%E2%80%99s-Telophone-Worker-Ma-Bell-Abuses-Her.jpg Hope it helps.

Hello, I’m CharleyHart (couldn’t log in as I am camping in the mountains of southern Spain) and your revert confused me. Not constructive? Did you read my justification? I don’t think you did. Neither the movie nor the book it is based on are factual accounts of verifiable material. Thus, the only part of the movie that is “true” is that this confirmed terrorist was in G’tmo and had a female lawyer for a time. The rest is largely uncorroborated (not to mention all the factual corroborated material left OUT of his account). I suggest you look him up on Wikileaks and read his G’tmo dossier, his book, and his wiki page, as I have. Then, when you know a little something about the topic you are reverting, please revert your revert. I edit Wiki for one reason: to ensure it is based on facts. We are not here to parrot movie advertisements. FYI, this terrorist, his book, and derivative movie are firmly in my wheelhouse. What are your Bona fides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.56.165.231 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to replace what is easily attributable to WP:RS with your WP:OR. You are welcome to start a discussion on the article's talk page (please remember to sign your comments). M.Bitton (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

could easily be a meatpuppet. Doug Weller talk

@Doug Weller: Many thanks. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello...I just added a picture of the largest expansion of the Hammadid dynasty, no more, no less I did not even know that there were sources in a picture in order to prove that it is true, because in the article of the Hammadid dynasty there is no such thing. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahimmilano7474 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahimmilano7474: Maps, like any other content, are supposed to be sourced. Usually, the sources are added to the file on Wikipedia Commons (see similar articles for how it's done). M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear M.Bitton, i've seen you've reverted my edits entirely regarding this page. I will not debate your conclusions as i get your point, the paper doesn't explicitly mention an origin. Nevertheless, what i want to talk about is the logic behind the written methodology of these pages especially when it comes to where this food comes from. So, if we do not have an explicit source mentioning the origin, we just type: it's a common food originating within all the Maghreb states and leave that same statement unsourced? As an editor since 2009, i am honestly a little bit confused with this approach and whether it constitutes an informative statement. For instance, the same page within other languages mentions a group of hypotheses regarding origin, this way atleast, the reader would be able to draw some conclusions to where it came from and not actually make someone believe that Makroudh could have been invented in Malta or Mauritania just because no historian has given Makroudh a thought! Cheers Servitas Vitae (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like all other subjects, we handle them on a case-by-case basis, using common sense and all the WP policies and guidelines at our disposal. Obviously, claims that are common knowledge or easily attributable don't need to be sourced (unless needlessly challenged). I won't comment on the other Wiki projects nor will I try to explain why your edit on the Brik subject here stuck, while your attempt at describing it as Tunisian on fr.wp was reverted. M.Bitton (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a courtesy note to let you know I have brought Motorcycle Action Group back to WP:ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Motorcycle_Action_Group_again 10mmsocket (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, there was a recent edit adding WP:OR to a page that I created. I reverted the edit and explained that it was WP:OR but the page was edited again. In order to prevent an edit war I left a comment on the talk page, however I think it would be ideal to get another persons input on the matter and since you are familiar with these sort of topics I’d appreciate if you would be able to possibly participate in the discussion on the talk page.

Thanks! Kabz15 (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a ferocious amount of Algeria-Morocco tension over culinary rights, isn't there? Almost conflict area worthy. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Mostly kids with nothing better to do on weekends. M.Bitton (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: If you're referring to SPAs such as "Corrector red pen": their type usually end up being indef blocked very quickly. M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a lot of kids ... Iskandar323 (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: Most likely the same kid socking (that's about the only thing that SPA's can master). M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you check recent edits for appropriateness. I clicked through to see a set of the reversions that you had made for rejected submissions, and I agreed with all of what I saw you had done. It seemed apparent to me through the decisions you made and the comments that you left that you were giving human attention to the decisions you made rather than over-relying on tools and automation. Thanks for that, and thanks especially for the notes you leave. You are doing good review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Thank you so much for your words of encouragement. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not observing Wikipedia etiquette. I and others will do so in future. The content I used was accurate and came from the Cairngorm Club website. The Wikipedia entry had come to the attention of Club memmbers who felt it did not reflect the club accurately. However, we will make future changes in a different way. Ccmember (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The crazies are out... We seem to be tag-teaming vandals again. Equine-man (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Equine-man: It must be full moon every night in their neck of the woods. M.Bitton (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Male holders of the title are known as 'Baron'.

2. Female holders of the title are known as 'Baroness'.

3. Wives of male holders of the title 'Baron' are known as 'Lady'.

4. Husbands of female holders of the title 'Baroness' are not given any title. See eg., the husband of Baroness Hale of Richmond.

5. Lady Arbuthnot should not be known as 'Baroness', as she does not hold the title in her own right. Her husband, Lord Arbuthnot has the title of 'Baron'.

95.151.57.12 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain your edit. M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the edit? Where I moved the citation? If you want, you can move that to the end of the sentence again. 95.151.57.12 (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote above doesn't explain any of it (including the WP:OR that you added). I will leave a welcome message on your talk page with some helpful links that I suggest you read. M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to incorporate my suggestion as per (5) above, you are free to do so. I'm not making more edits for fear that they will be misunderstood or don't fit in how you think the page should present itself. Best regards 95.151.57.12 (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi i noticed that u deleted my edit on Jugurtha article after i added the name in tifinagh with a comment "Baseless" i didn't understand what u meant they used libyco-berber wich wasnt big diffent of neo-tifinagh also the letters in the name yugurthen are the same in tifinagh and libyco-berber exept for ⴻ ⵓ as it was abjad and not alphabet and ⴳ in tifinag is g while libyco-berber is s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminehamdi991 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:OR (for obvious reasons) and it's baseless (because his name cannot possibly be associated with neo-tifinagh). M.Bitton (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that's why i asked if it's okay to write it in libyco-berber the name will be <ⵢⴷⵔⵜⵏ> not much different and all exists in neo-tifinagh with different pronunciation Aminehamdi991 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

also if you try to read the name as it's neo-tifinagh it would be ydrtn well cus libyco-berber is abjad so it's actually yudurten Aminehamdi991 (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like you will take long to respond so i will just add it i won't remember this for ever Aminehamdi991 (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained to you what the issue with your edit is. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the WP policies. M.Bitton (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Time travel paradoxes, antimatter, and other similar physical phenomena can also be interpreted within the context of the simulation hypothesis."

There are no references for this statement. I added "UAPs" to the list and you took objection and removed my edit because all of a sudden it needs references? Conceptually a simulation can explain time travel just as it can UFOs, this is self-evident and a reference isn't necessary.

"Time travel paradoxes, antimatter, UAPs, and other similar physical phenomena can also be interpreted within the context of the simulation hypothesis." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.24.3 (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Bitton I am Papa Owusu Ankomah's grandson Papa Owusu Ankomah Acquah I can confirm the information that I am putting there. and you can even ask the man himself . Thank you respectfully — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppphgg1 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M Bitton....on Oct 14 you sent me a notice that you had removed my revision of the Family Fellowship entry. I have now reworked the revision and could post it here or simply post it like I made the changes before. I believe I have addressed your concerns about using reliable sources. Please suggest what you recommend I should do next. If you want I could explain here what steps I have taken to make my revision better RLS 75.174.20.192 (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you have addressed the initial concerns (the WP:OR and unexplained content removal), then you can go ahead and update the article. M.Bitton (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will post the new entry but here is an explanation of what we have done.

The current entry on Family Fellowship cites 9 references (as listed in this paragraph we refer to old not new numbering). The information in the first footnote [4] is replaced in our new entry with a new website. In the case of [1, 6,7,8,9] they all are newspaper accounts and have been included in the new version. Three references [2,3,4] come from the LDS family fellowship website (LDSFamilyFelllowship.org) which no longer is on the internet and has been replaced by the website which we have cited in our new entry (LDSFamilyFellowship.net). The final reference (5) is a book "Gay Religion" and we have added it to the new entry discussion on conferences. In the new material we are submitting we cite the new website which includes programs from all six conferences and includes the 35 newsletters produced from 1994 to 2013 and those newsletters document all the key members of Family Fellowship who produced the newsletters and were leaders during the entire active period of Family Fellowship. Those newsletters and the conference programs also document the primary sources involved in producing our new entry. Primary sources who produced the new entry include ourselves, Ron Schow and Wayne Schow, plus Gary Watts and Bill Bradshaw who both served as chairs of Family Fellowship. All four of us are cited or were authors in some of the 15 entries listed as references.

I could add here, information from Wikipedia about sourcing which we have followed, but will not at this time.

We submit that these improvements thus provide reliable sources and include most of the previous sources. We ask that our new entry be approved. As for the "see also" at the end of the current Family Fellowship Wikipedia entry we consider this detracts and recommend it be deleted. It is not an official LDS source. We believe the Wikipedia entry cited in "see also" reflects a harshness in the LDS position which is currently inaccurate even though it may have been true at an earlier time.RS75.174.20.192 (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tried to make these changes, but will be happy to have you help and will make adjustments as needed. Three of the old references are still on site but should be deleted as they are represented in the 15 new references. RS75.174.20.192 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new content is not yet available. Please advise? RS75.174.20.192 (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pediatric intensive care unit article

You recently undid 7 edits to this article by user:DrFRahlouni. It is not clear why these edits were reverted.

Changes to the article that were reverted include the paragraph of common reasons that was changed to a list and an appropriate citation was added, the infobox was updated, the list of reasons was updated (minor edit), some reorganization was performed, etc. It is obvious the editor made a very careful attempt to update the article in a very useful and meaningful way.

You labeled the citations that were added as SPAM but it is not clear why one would think this.

You mentioned that the article is not about the US, yet it does not appear the editor was heading in that direction, just that the editor was commenting on how certification of physicians is handled in the US since it's not clear this would hold true in other parts of the world.

Finally, it's not clear that you made an attempt to contact user:DrFRahlouni about your concerns. Instead, you simply removed the work without discussion.

What are your thoughts on how this can be resolved?Ewingdo 09:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to DrFRahlouni. With regard to the spam, I honestly cannot tell what I saw yesterday that I can no longer see today. Looking at it with fresh eyes, I still believe that the examples and perspective in the article do not represent a worldwide view of the subject and that what was added again makes it even more US centric; though I guess that can be addressed by tagging the article. The old version of the Infobox template needs to be updated or changed to a more appropriate one. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I have obviously acted without checking how Wikipedia works. My name is Edmond Orzechowski and I am 77 year of age. I grew up in Whitecross Street and yesterday I came across the Wiki page. My reaction was to add my recollections of the 40's and 50's as additional information for anyone interested in it's history, but I now see that this may not be the place for personal observations. Please advise on what I should do , withdraw my comment/try to research some items (e.g. Pub Names/Whitbread Brewery ) or is there a facility for marking items "Personal Recollections? If it is appropriate to continue, should I create an account ? Advice welcome. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.247.102 (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your "personal recollections" are what we call original research (something that is prohibited by Wikipedia). The good news is that London's history is extremely well documented, making your task of finding sources for whatever facts you want to add fairly easy. I will leave a list of links to articles on your talk page that will explain to you how Wikipedia works and how to create an account should you wish to. M.Bitton (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M Bitton. I am puzzled. We believe we have referenced the revision to Family Fellowship properly after you pushed it back to us and that our sourcing should be acceptable now. However, I posted the new entry and it has not been accepted and you have not responded to me on the earlier Family Fellowship thread above.

Here is more justification for what we have done.

Wikipedia information on sources says the following.

"Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

"The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."

In improving the sources on our revised entry we have cited the new website (a key source online) and cited a key item in the Family Fellowship history, namely 1) a published book by a reputable publisher ("Peculiar People" by Ron Schow, Wayne Schow and Marybeth Raynes) and we have cited a listing of numerous recent refereed publications associated with Family Fellowship members (including William (Bill) Bradshaw and Ronald (Ron) Schow). These are found within the article by McGraw, et al. 2021 found in our new entry.

We believe our new entry including all the old references should be posted and replace the current entry. Can you tell us why that has not happened? RS75.174.20.192 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Gonzalez played with the Legends in 1999. His statistics are published in the article Assessing the Boys of Winter" The SPorting NEws / February 12, 1990, page 31. I was trying to add his name properly to the list, so it WOULD link to his Wikipedia page. It may take me another edit or two to get it right, to go to this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Gonz%C3%A1lez_(baseball) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900B:30D:BA2E:DCB0:47A8:94C9:C897 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you managed to find the corresponding article. M.Bitton (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: I think their edit summary was referring to BBC updating their article based on newly corrected information by the police. Platonk (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Platonk: The trouble with their edit is that it does the opposite of what it claims, since there is no such thing as "American XL Bully" (it's either "American Bully" or "XL Bully"). Thanks for letting me know about the BBC's update. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out the pink-colored guidelines on this page (the busiest page of the series), which represent community consensus on that sort of article. Platonk (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Platonk: Is there anything in particular you want to check out? M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In re your comment of "no such thing as" versus the guideline's "match the information provided in a news or law enforcement source", and when you should mention more than one. Platonk (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Platonk: I'm not sure I follow: the source states the dog has been identified as an American bully or XL bully. As I understand it, "XL bully" is a type of "American bully", therefore, I mentioned just the breed in the article. I'm not convinced the cited "Guidelines for Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States" should apply to incidents in other countries, but I don't see the harm in it either. Feel free to adjust the content. M.Bitton (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have been attempting to add the reviews sites where buyers review Aviva to their page. I discovered that Trustpilot has been used in references for other sites and do not believe there is any difference in using our site. I am the proprietor. We have aggregated over 500,000 consumer reviews and classify the claims experience. I am open to your input on how we gain Reliable Source status - it seems quite arbitrary to me and is certainly a competition factor given the relative professional standing being acceptable as a Reliable Source would allow. I would submit that we are no different to Trustpilot in this respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.47.150 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the reliable sources noticeboard is for. Also, since you have a conflict of interest, I will leave on your talk page some links to relevant articles that I suggest you read. M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton - I am a first timer to this, it is unclear to me how new sources that could enrich the ecosystem are to surface when they are only as known to editors as their resources may allow. Meanwhile larger resourced corporations enjoy the benefit of inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.47.150 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting my flags? You say there is no source, I have sources, no source is added to the pictures, you do not have the right to delete my flags — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahinBasaran (talk • contribs) 12:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are the fruit of your imagination. M.Bitton (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is a little long. Why not archive it? Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 22:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the fun in that? M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it difficult for users with older computers or with tablets/phones to navigate, or even load, the talk page. And that's not "fun". BilCat (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm unclear as to why facts quoted by me regarding Ms Turley's 2019 election loss are deemed inadmissible due to 'no OR' (I confess, I'm not totally clear on the nuacnes of your policy) whilst her own unsupported comment regarding the reason for her loss is printable and remains? I hope you could clarify for me. Many thanks.

Regards, Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by MolokoPlusPlus (talk • contribs) 12:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MolokoPlusPlus: Unfortunately, I don't know anything about the subject to be of much help to you. I suggest you take your concerns to the article's talk page and see what they have to say. While awaiting their response, feel free to remove the comments that aren't supported by reliable sources. I will a leave a list of helpful links on your talk page that I suggest you read. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again and thanks for the prompt reply. So when I contacted you directly today I just assumed that because you made the call to declare my sources invalid you'd be able to explain which ones and why? My sources are mainstream UK government and Labour party websites. Look forward to your reply. Regards, Neil

PS I've checked and there is no active Talk page on the Anna Turley site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MolokoPlusPlus (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MolokoPlusPlus: I did no such thing. You're obviously confusing me with the IP who reverted your edit. Using the article's talk page is your best option at this stage (it will become active when you start a discussion). Also, remember to sign your comments). M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I got them wires twisted. Thanks for putting me right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MolokoPlusPlus (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Sorry for missing to write the causes of the edit, this page countain a confusion between the maghreb and the arabic maghreb union, the maghreb existed before this union and was used to design algeria tunisia and morocco. So making a difference between them is necessary. In the current language, maghreb is used to design the natural link and union between these 3 countrys. here's an example https://www.schoolmouv.fr/definitions/maghreb/definition

So is more logical to put libya and mauritania in the page about the AMU Arabic Maghreb Union.

ThanksEddy hss (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That source is unreliable. I suggest you read the Terminology section of the article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding,

I have already read it, and like it's written, these union is called المغرب الكبير, different from المغرب العربي المركزي also called المغرب العربي الصغي, this article mention exclusivly the Arabic Maghreb Union that is already have another complete article, so it's interesting to rename this article by Maghreb Al-Kabir or/and do another article with the geographic Maghreb. The Arabic Maghreb Union is more an geo-political union so can lead to confusion with the Geographic Maghreb that is the more legit Maghreb designed with this word.

Here's some none exhaustive links https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/maghreb https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Maghreb https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/Maghreb https://www.wordreference.com/definition/Maghreb

From an Ofiicial academy source

https://www.dictionnaire-academie.fr/article/A9M0128

ThanksEddy hss (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The changes I've made by deleting some texts that are found mistake or wrong. Wrong information should not be added purposely or by any means. Humanitarian 00001 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Humanitarian 00001: Pal, you're the one removing sourced content, if you believe that the sources are indeed wrong, then why not provide some sources/proof for us to have a look at? Bingobro (Chat) 15:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @M.Bitton: Before I start formal move requests for those two pages, it would be useful to understand your principle objections to the bold move that I just attempted. I'm sure you don't think that anything with "djamaa" in the name is an English language common name or consistent with the naming conventions for other similar pages (See: List of mosques in Algeria). I assume your objection must be primarily to do with process, though possibly also to do with the inherent ambiguities created by the two pages in question having identical English common names. Let me know your thinking. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a DAB to deal with the situation (I assumed you missed it). I was meant to leave you a message, but somehow forgot. M.Bitton (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the redirect Abu Farès Mosque for deletion. Please vote there. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your reply. Ryan Hirooka has signed for CF Estrela de Amadora SAD who play in Liga Portugal SABSEG (second league) and I would like to update his Wikipedia page as some of the information is not accurate. We will provide three sources which will clarify his CV and where he has played. We will provide more sources and pictures which will follow. We would appreciate your corporation to correct this information and clear the sources listed as they are not accurate. If you could use the sources that I provide we would much appreciate it. Thank you for your time and I appreciate your help. Thank you.

https://www.tothetopfootball.com/post/japanese-international-joins-c-f-estrela-da-amadora-sad https://www.playmakerstats.com/jogador.php?id=169974&search=1 https://twitter.com/transfers24hr/status/1486400976609239045 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:634E:9000:C8EE:AED7:FB7F:F62D (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit because you removed content without explanation. As I have no interest in the subject, I won't be editing his article myself. Feel free to update whatever needs updating and don't forget to use the edit summary box to explain what you're doing. M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I saw that your vandalism report about them was removed without action, so I've reported Anonymous130112 at ANI here. Hopefully that will result in some action. R Prazeres (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres: Thanks for letting me know. Now that they have been blocked and that the possibility of increasing the article's protection has been raised, further disruption will be dealt with more swiftly. M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

I did make changes on the "Decolonisation of Africa" page without leaving an explanatory note. I apologize for this. I would like to assure you that it was not my intention to be disruptive. Please note that the table in the "Timeline" section includes "Ethiopian Empire" whereas the "Country" column (under which it appears) clearly points out (in note "a") that Ethiopia is not included in the list due to the explanation given in footnote "a". My deletion of the "Ethiopian Empire" entry in the table (as item 4) was merely an attempt to introduce some consistency between what it outlined in note "a" and what is in the actual table (in this case, the omission of of "Ethiopian Empire") due to the cogent reasons given in the note.

Regards,

Bupe

--Bupebwakwalesa (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I haven't looked properly at the article's history, but whomever added the part about Ethiopia on "note a" is probably not aware that it's not unique in that sense. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned you at ANI,. concerning Surge Of Reason's behavior. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M Bitton please write an article on pluripotential theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.168.111 (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i've noticed you undoing my last edit because of the origins of the Almohad Caliphate. The Caliphate was established in Tinmel, Morocco. It was based from its foundation until its collapse in Morocco. Just because it stretched from Morocco to Libya, it doesn't mean it's a Maghrebi state. For instance, the Roman Empire is included in the list of wars involving Italy. Moreover, you also removed my edit of the French conquest of Morocco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaticOasis (talk • contribs) 13:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StaticOasis: It wasn't Morocco and you should know that. The same goes for the Almoravids whose origin goes back to Modern day Mauritania, yet nobody would dare to describe as Mauritanians. M.Bitton (talk)

Your last two edits on the list of wars involving Morocco ruined the page and removed sourced information. I'm afraid I will have to undo them. For the Almohad/Almoravid Empires, both states were based and centered in Morocco and administrated from it. They're predecessors of Morocco, thus should be included in the list. The same goes for the Roman Empire/Italy and the Frankish Empire/France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaticOasis (talk • contribs) 21:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StaticOasis: You know what happens to those who willingly add unsourced material and edit war over it. The title of those wars (with no articles to back them up) were made up by you. As for the Almohads and Almoravids (who invaded present-day Morocco), I suggest you seek consensus for such anachronistic nonsense. One more thing, from now on, I suugest you use the article's talk pages to raise any concerns you may have. M.Bitton (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced? Made up? The battles I added are legit and I used the sources used in French Wikipedia since they don't have existing articles in English (Bataille de Kairouan-Prise de Tlemcen (1352)-Prise de Tunis (1357)). If I was aggressive in editing, I wouldn't have explained my edits and discussed undoing them. In brief, the page should be restored to the edit of 1 April 18:16 at the very least since it does have actual sourced information and to avoid this Almoravid/Almohad debate. StaticOasis (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StaticOasis: You know full well that other wikipedias are not and cannot be used as sources. If you feel strongly about them, then why don't you create them, source them properly and then add them? It's that simple. M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles will eventually be created for those events. For now, I suggest we return the list to what it was on the 1st of April at 18:16 because the current list isn't constructed properly and can't be precisely read. StaticOasis (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If and when articles about wars are eventually created (assuming they pass the verifiability and notability tests first), then they can be added. That BS list (a favourite of two blocked editors who keep socking) is in serious need of some clean-up, which I will do once I have some free time. In any case, further discussions should take place on the articles' talk pages and not here. M.Bitton (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[20] screws up the formatting so that if anyone clicks "edit" next to "Discussion" it opens an empty box. I've fixed it by putting the source review in the overall RFC heading! Please let me know if you have any other suggestions on how to best do this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: That was a revert (not sure what happened there). Maybe we should a note to prevent editors from messing around with the survey section. M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.M.Bitton - Thank you for your suggestions and it was very helpful. Would you say that the problematic source can still be used in addition to the two sources you mentioned? Because they back up the problematic source. Right? MehmoodS (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MehmoodS: For what purpose? You already have two RS that support the statement, what do you think adding a non RS would add? M.Bitton (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.M.Bitton You are right, it won't add anything extra. There were some discussions previously on WP:RS on different matter (can't recall) and also witnessed some pages where non RS were added with support of RS sources and that is why I was wondering if it could be similar case in this matter. But you make sense and will use only the RS sources your provided. Thanks again. MehmoodS (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are right that it is correct not to put "ocuped" to refer to the Polisario. I've changed it to "under control", I think it is the most appropriate term. 81.0.43.181 (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's half the issue, the other being the addition of a map in articles where either it doesn't belong or similar maps already exist (making it redundant at best). M.Bitton (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To spare you some time: the editor you are engaging with, Qaumrambista, has had a confrontational attitude towards me for about two weeks now. They must have been checking my edits and followed me to that discussion. I apologize but I think it's ok to let them be set in their opinion for the sake of just moving on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all your input on the issue we were discussing on the other talk page. It's kind of you to take your time to do that. This issue doesn't affect me personally, but it does affect my fellow editors and that's why I care. So again, thank you for your input & best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you find it strange... But that's what preceded the hyperlink which Mitch Ames deleted (I've taken note of the development of that line up until Q3 2021 or so, which had been slightly tweaked since Mitch Ames' edit). 223.197.159.34 (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take your concerns to the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you could tell, the reason why this was brought to AN was that there are some editors who delete my post (and indeed the posts of whoever not having the same view as they do) at that article's talk page. 223.197.159.34 (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do? Go back to the article's talk page and let them delete my post again?

And by the way I have left a message at User talk:Mitch Ames earlier too. 223.197.159.34 (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take your concerns to the article's talk page. Could you help make sure that my message at the article's talk page won't be reverted again? 223.197.159.34 (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The admins had good reason to believe that you and 112.120.39.187 were engaging in some kind of meatpuppetry and blocked you as a consequence, so unless this issue is resolved, your content related edits will keep being reverted. M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you suggest how that can be resolved? I don't even know what those "good reasons" would have been. 223.197.159.34 (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that my talk page message has been deleted ​​again. What could I do? 223.197.159.34 (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help? 223.197.159.34 (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other venue apart from the article's talk page? 223.197.159.34 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to know that Edward Anthony Watters the Third is, in fact, a descendent of John “Soapy” Watters because I am Mr. Watters. If you would like to question my existence, that’s fine by me; good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18F:802:F260:E92C:B803:1018:2EEF (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove inaccurate information created from a disruptive editor User:Hatta2 Tag: Reverted

None of the information that was removed was relevant to the game and was fan-made content added by a now banned user due to disruptive editing. This removal of content was cleaning the page from this user's previous edits. 2604:2D80:5C03:3600:0:0:0:89AD (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're familiar with the subject, feel free to remove it after leaving an explanation on the article's talk page (that I suggest you mention in the edit summary). M.Bitton (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another user removed it. And just a warning, a fairly popular YouTuber for the game recently posted a video highlighting those edits, so there is potential for more edits incoming for that page. 2604:2D80:5C03:3600:0:0:0:89AD (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They restored a small part of it. Thank you for the heads-up. M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if that site is blacklisted by Wikipedia, I'll accept that, but you haven't answered my question yet, do you intent to?

You've already said, it was a good faith edit. 49.184.196.30 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained why I reverted your edit (you copied material without the permission of the copyright holder, and therefore, violated an important policy). What other reasoning do you expect? M.Bitton (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's a simple history that is in many local libraries and historical documents. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where anyone can add information. Everything I added is direct from my families history. Nothing derogatory or negative in content. The town was platted and the existing article is not accurate. WTF does Steven King talking about a town in Nebraska have to.do with Ohio. Damn keyboard warriors 1Texancowboy (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a historian, you surely understand why it is important and useful to provide references. And if the books are available in local libraries, it would be great if you could visit those libraries and pull out the references. Furius (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "volunteer marek" on a whim and found this:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-fake-nazi-death-camp-wikipedia-s-longest-hoax-exposed-1.7942233 wiki RS specifically calling out user "volunteer marek" for holocause revisionism

"Despite these claims, Wikipedia reveals that aided by the likes of other editors from the group, like “Volunteer Marek,” some members of the group are also active in downplaying Polish violence against Jews – and in some cases have even accused the Jews of violence against Poles. For example, in the Radzilow article, Volunteer Marek defended the claim that “Jewish militiamen” helped “to send Polish families into exile.”

I'm extremely confused why this user is still allowed on wikipedia? and edit articles in an attempt to whitewash nazis still? His talk page is littered with arbitration disputes over his behavior and edit warring as well. Is WP enforcement really so poor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by H51bjCKERK (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello M.Bitton. Your edits were mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#A follow up on Azov Regiment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks M.Bitton for the notice on the Tajine article. Much appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffzz (talk • contribs) 09:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Sea Life Collection link appears dead and changed to iNaturalist. Why not note the change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.192.67 (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The external link adds nothing to the article as it's sourced from Wikipedia itself. M.Bitton (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but why keep the dead link? Wiki recommends to clean them up. Therefore, can I update it without a revert?--24.38.192.67 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you mean by "update". We don't remove links simply because they are dead. We have a choice, we can either tag them and let the bot do its job or (ideally) we look for the archived url (this one in this case). M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An FYI. The 'archive' link added is the same as the NOAA ref for 'Atlantic wahoo' in the Reference list. 24.38.192.67 (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, let's remove it. M.Bitton (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific wahoo NOAA FishWatch, addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.192.67 (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello M.Bitton.

This article relates to the research undertaken by Professor Mustapha Ishak Boushaki on the expansion of the universe, and it is listed in the scientific literature under the name Index of Inconsistency (IOI).

The professor's research team at the University of Texas at Dallas is working rigorously on this subject, which has captured the attention of astrophysicists and cosmologists.

If there are third parties or people who are bothered by the highlighting of these results that have been sponsored by NASA and other institutions, it is not acceptable to please and accept their request for deleted article which was noted as being of high importance for the development of scientific research in the United States and around the world.

Sincerely and warmly.--Authentise (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Authentise: I will leave a comment on BrownHairedGirl's talk page (she pinged me after you raised the issue with her). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find blacks in the source. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thanks for checking the source. I reverted their edit because they first added "despite being black" (while marking the edit as minor) and then removed the word without explaining why. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know, just thought you should know I checked. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Much appreciated. I hope you're feeling better. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4 weeks into my 12 weeks of chemo, getting a bit weaker. Still, not too bad! Doug Weller talk 19:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Stay strong and keep taking it one day at a time. I look forward to your full recovery. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Better today. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello, i'm not sure if this is where this should be discussed, but about the religion bit in the article, i'm not sure about the reason why my modification was cancelled, i just added more recent statistics without even replacing the obsolete ones, which did share the same source, and i'm pretty should i did put the reference well. 196.117.162.140 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the edit summary, it was removed because it's your interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source. The one that you describe as obsolete is different as it was conducted on behalf of and published by the BBC (making it a WP:SECONDARY source). Hope that makes sense. M.Bitton (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm a relatively new user and I'm a bit confused about creating a new page. I've read (although I can't remember where) that I can use red links to create one. I followed this and wrote an article, and clicked Publish (or whatever that button said). It seems it did publish, but I'm not sure. I logged out and could read that article, but I also read before that the article should first be reviewed by more experienced users (again I can't remember where) which doesn't seem to have happened. Could you help me by explaining what I didn't get or do correctly?

Note: The article mentioned here is Abu Obaida (Hamas) EditMaker Me (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing please. When I hover over the article link it shows me: this article is about the spokesman of Hamas' military wing etc.

Isn't it supposed to skip this line and start from the article proper, ie from after this line? What should I do? Thanks in advance. EditMaker Me (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks fine to me (no comment on the content), though you might want to check the last reference (aat) and add the following to the bottom of the article (to separate the reference section from the rest):

==References==
{{Reflist}}

I'm not sure what you mean by "it shows you". When I hover over the link, it shows the article's name (just like it's supposed to).

It has already been reviewed and tagged (as possible not notable), so I suggest more time gathering sources to improve it. If you need further help, you can always ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Happy editing! M.Bitton (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EditMaker Me, the reason why the disambiguation message rather than the lead sentence was shown when hovering over the link was because you didn't use a template like {{about}}, {{for}}, {{distinguish}}, etc.: hovering over the link will always show the first bit of text in an article, so for anything above the lead sentence templates should be used.

If you're unsure about how to set up an article, and especially if you're unsure about whether Wikipedia:Notability is established, it's advisable to go through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh then. Thanks. EditMaker Me (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you reverse your edit since I created a seperate Etymology section (in line with other pages on ethnicity). Sanali.SD (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanali.SD: Now that you created the section, you can delete what's redundant. Please, next time, do try to remember to do both at the same time. M.Bitton (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On my watchlist also. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Sanali.SD (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Dihya#Requested move 4 July 2022. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	For your excellent job with creating the administrative maps of Albania! Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmet Q.: Thank you so much for your feedback. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent deletions are excessive and don't comply with Wikipedia good practice. Wikipedia pages on major public spaces include brief references to major events that happened there. The events I listed are of unquestionable notability. I did not document post-Independence events, that should be an area for improvement of the article. talk 14:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boubloub: The content that you added is clearly UNDUE and by repeating what is covered in the linked articles, you're defeating the purpose of the wikilinks. M.Bitton (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not condone vandalism. Much of the content you deleted is not in linked Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, some repetition is often needed to provide context, even though it should be kept minimal. Please restore the content you deleted so that the article is duly improved. Boubloub (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boubloub: Are you accusing me of vandalising an article? M.Bitton (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not jump to any conclusion, but it is not self-evident that your edits were made in good faith. You removed content that is clearly relevant to this article, not available elsewhere on Wikipedia, and drafted in line with Wikipedia criteria. Restoring that content, with good-faith edits as you deem fit, would improve the article. Boubloub (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boubloub: Since you used the word vandalism, I repeat the question: are you accusing me of vandalising an article? M.Bitton (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm suggesting you restore the content you deleted, with good-faith edits as you deem fit. Boubloub (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boubloub: You are responsible for the words that you use and you used the word "vandalism". What makes you think that you can do that and get away with it? M.Bitton (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello M.Bitton, hope you are doing well.

I was wondering if I could request one last map about the administrative divisions of Albania. Could you make a map exactly identical to this one: [21], with the only difference that the new map would also include the municipal units (the lowest level of administrative divisions in Albania)? I will be able to make myself all the remaining maps out of this one.

If you do not have the time for this, that is not a problem. Cheers, Ahmet Q. (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmet Q.: I hope all is well with you too, thank you for asking! I don't remember exactly why I left that one out, but I honestly don't have the time to go through it again. In fact, that's what prevented me from uploading the 60 maps of the municipalities that have been ready for a while. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright no problem at all. Do you still plan to make it in the future though? Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning on it, but I'll be sure to let you know if the situation changes. M.Bitton (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, M.Bitton,

This is a very minor point but when you tag pages for speedy deletion, CSD G5, please put the name of the sockmaster (in this case, User:Rayooni) in the field, not the sockpuppet. We do it this way in case anyone has a question about the page deletion, they can go to the SPI case for confirmation which is titled after the original sockmaster, not each individual sockpuppet.

By the way, thanks for your vigilance about spotting these sockpuppets, you really know this sockmaster's editing behavior very well. Have a good weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: That's what I used to do until a CSD G5 of an article that I tagged was denied (it wasn't obvious for the passing admin that the master created it, given that the SPI hadn't been archived yet, and I ended up contacting them to explain the situation). I will do from now on. Thanks, you too. M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the latest sockpuppet created talk pages for a couple draft articles, I think User:89.148.58.80 and User:88.201.5.172 were this sockpuppet editing logged out as they both track back to Bahrain. But I know checkusers do not connect IP accounts to registered accounts so these drafts might just have to wait until they are eligible for CSD G13.

It's really a pity that this editor won't wait and take the SO because I found some of his work, like about the Marrakesh Watermen, very interesting. Sometimes I really dislike deleting otherwise worthwhile pages but those are the rules that we follow. We must discourage socking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Unfortunately, despite my attempt at explaining to them (while trying to forget their uncalled for personal attacks), they still don't get it (my guess is that they never will). I totally agree, socking must be discouraged. M.Bitton (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you know anything about the Algerian source, Djazairess? Do you know if it is a reputable news source (by Algerian standards)? Do you have any opinion on whether it is reliable for basic facts and information about local Algerian content? I've seen it scattered about the place, but it has come to my attention as the prevailing source on the page Ashura in Algeria. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: Djazairess is a content aggregator. Basically, they pull the articles that have been published in various Algerian articles and publish them on their platform. You'll notice that the source of each article is listed at the end of it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, look at that. Should have spotted that myself, but thanks! In that case, there is some rife misaccreditation at work. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: As far as I know, they don't tend to fiddle with the content. M.Bitton (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I keep trying to fix links on my web page & you keep undoing them. 108.51.88.40 (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the conflict of interest, I suggest you read the comment that I left on your talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment and I do think you made a mistake. Some of my changes in links involved deleting non-existent web sites or unreachable sites (e.g. the one containing "~cups," others were to make the web site title clearer (e.g changing WMM to William MacDonald), and others were to comply with the Wiki directive to avoid bare listings just showing the actual web site (which can cause "rot"). Was my problem not being specific enough with each individual link change? Would it be possible to resurrect my changes? 108.51.88.40 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't make a mistake. There is a WP:COI issue that you need to address. M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you might want to know that this user has now been blocked for socking. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: I'm shocked. Thanks for letting me know. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked Nemew62422. From your revert it looks like you knew them. Is there a case file somewhere? Favonian (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian: Thanks. I don't known them, but since the tell tale signs of a vandalism only account were there, I made sure they knew that their actions had been noticed. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at a Wikipedia article and I was wondering what motivates you to make these edits? Cool they may be, but tedious 68.202.236.185 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I only upload my photos, which I have properly uploaded to the system and confirmed the rights to the photos. Thanks in advance for returning all my posts. HistoriaSalutis (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Flickr. Taking photos doesn't give you the right to plaster them all over the place. M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add only photos that enrich the topic at hand. Do you feel that the photos would not be beneficial to the selected topics and sections? I chose really honestly. HistoriaSalutis (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest with you. To me, it appears that you are more interested in promoting yourself and your photos than looking for what's best for the project. M.Bitton (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague, I write articles mainly about African religions for the Czech and Slovak wikipedia. Of course, these pages have a minimum number of visitors. I'm certainly not doing it for my own promotion. I will ask specifically again: do you think that the photo of the protective amulet (massive expanded in Benin households) does not enrich the page West African Vodun? Others very similar. HistoriaSalutis (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the only photo that you intend to add? M.Bitton (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the Vodun site, yes. HistoriaSalutis (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a no then, because I asked you a specific question. M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colleague, the second photo tells about the syncretism of Vodun and Christianity. It also has a high informative value. But if I had to choose only one, I would choose the amulet of protection. HistoriaSalutis (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're still avoiding to answer the question (which was about whether you intend to add more than one of your photos to the whole project and not just to an article). M.Bitton (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added photos that I thought would be helpful. I don't have more photos useful for the topics. HistoriaSalutis (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You plastered your own photos all over the place while making no effort to look for suitable images on Commons. 18:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your first question was if the photos were mine. Yes, they are. Your other reasons are becoming more and more unclear. HistoriaSalutis (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer to my first question confirmed my suspicion. If after everything I said it's still unclear to you, then there isn't a lot I can do about it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, West African Vodun page does not include any photo of the classic vodun protective amulet that I uploaded.

As an Africanist, I have the impression that it belongs there. If you understand the topic, I will be happy to discuss it with you. HistoriaSalutis (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, it's about the conflict of interest and not a cherry picked topic. M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague, you have not explained anything. We'll take it from the last post. North Africa. The page does not contain a single photo of the most typical landscape of North Africa, i.e. the Sahara. Why did you delete this particular photo? Doesn't it enhance the content? HistoriaSalutis (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that your second rate photos of a dune belong there? M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about one topic. Are you talking about Vodun or North Africa? HistoriaSalutis (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only topic that is worth talking about is the clear conflict of interest. M.Bitton (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colleague, what conflict of interest? What leads you to these conclusions? Given the speed with which you deleted the photos, it is clear that you did not consider their contribution at all. What exactly is your motivation? HistoriaSalutis (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My motivation is the exact opposite of yours. M.Bitton (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which, as I see it, is taking away useful content and censorship. HistoriaSalutis (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would say that, otherwise, how else are you supposed to justify what you did. For example: with thousands of free quality images of North Africa, you thought that the two below average ones that you took deserve a prominent place in the article. The same for the Pyramid of Djoser (luckily, an editor reverted your edit). I don't know about the rules of the Czech and Slovak wikipedias, but the fact that they let you get away with creating articles about yourself in both of them (something that will never be tolerated on en.wp) is probably to blame for your lack of understanding of the issue. Having said everything I needed to say, I have no intention of going round in circles, entertaining your parallel threads. M.Bitton (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Many scholarly sources see the Polisario Front as a separatist group, why edit war over this? If I add the sources in question, can we quit arguing about this? NorthAfricanArmsDealer (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, they absolutely don't see them as such (unless they are referring to their separation from Spain, the de jure administering power). Saying a word in passing is not the same thing as "describing something as such". M.Bitton (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the Polisario Front, a **separatist** movement of the Sahrawi ethnic group" - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/world/africa/morocco-western-sahara-conflict-explained.html

What do you interpret this as? This may seem like a shocker, but no separatist group see themselves as such. If you claim that The New York Times is somehow an unreliable source then this isn't going anywhere. NorthAfricanArmsDealer (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read my first comment? M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to barge in, but while they may have been fighting for independence since the separation from Spain, they are often termed separatist in the sense of trying to break away territorially from the de facto control of Morocco. A cursory Google Scholar search provides ample ammunition for this. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly varying results are produced depending on whether "Polisario Front" or "Frente Polisario" is inputted. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: 1) There is no such thing as "de facto" (it's an occupation). 2) Separatism has a specific definition: so, based on that, which country (according to you) are they within? M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is according to me, I am merely pointing to the scholarly sources that repeatedly refer to them as separatists. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How convenient. You are merely pointing out how cherry picking works, that's all. M.Bitton (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a 'common name' move discussion. The categorization of the group as a separate organization exists in a considerable number of scholarly sources, and it is therefore fairly reasonable that this perspective should at least be presented somewhere in the article. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about you start by answering the question: since separatism has a specific definition, which country (according to the sources) are they supposed to be within? M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is irrelevant. Me looking at a definition and making a decision for myself would be OR. But the situation between Morocco and the Polisario Front (and Algeria for that matter) is complex and does not lend itself to reductivism. No simple answer. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to sympathise with the Sahrawis and their desire for independence, but again, irrelevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your cherrypicking comment, are you denying sources using this terminology exist, or just their weight? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for your irrelevant opinion. The situation is actually a lot more complex than you think, yet reductionism is exactly what the editor is after. M.Bitton (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but shouldn't the page at least note somewhere that the Polisario are termed separatists by some? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What page are you referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Polisario Front page itself. I'm indifferent to the List of active separatist movements in Africa - there I can see the validity of the argument that the weight of the sources on the whole do not prefer the term 'separatist' for not including them. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There you might enjoy "polisario front" -separatist beats "polisario front" +separatist Iskandar323 (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My only point was that there is a 6:1 ratio in favour of sources not using 'separatist'. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got the wrong end of the stick: I just checked the Polisario Front page and saw the omission. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really enjoy reading pages of irrelevant Google searches. With regard to your question: as always, that would depend on the context. The trouble with such label is that, unless properly explained, it could easily mislead the readers. The Polisario started out in 1973 as a separatist movement (from Spain), but when Spain pulled out, it started fighting the invaders (Morocco and Mauritania). I'm not sure if you know this, but Spain is still the de jure administering power of Western Sahara. M.Bitton (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that. Curious. Also missing from Western Sahara, except by implication - it states that administrative 'control' was ceded in 1975, without elaborating. No mention of de jure status. Has Spain ever actually tried to press that claim since? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which country is Palestine supposed to be within in? They're still listed on the Wikipedia page for separatist movements in Asia.... will argue more once I'm home NorthAfricanArmsDealer (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not playing that nonsensical game with you. Feel free to start a discussion about Palestine in the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can talk once you calm down. If independent sources describe it as such even in a passing mention, I don't see why not? Is this just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? I too can call Balochistan, Kosovo, and South Ossetia "liberation movements aiming to end the illegal occupation of their homeland by a brutal foreign entity", but they're still considered separatists? There is precedent which I am basing the decision on. NorthAfricanArmsDealer (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am calm, so either you refrain from making such crappy comments or you take your concerns somewhere else. Maybe that's because you don't want to see: see my question above and suggest which country it should be within (remembering that Spain is the de jure administering power of their land). M.Bitton (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will add it to the Wikipedia page for separatist movements in Europe then inshAllah NorthAfricanArmsDealer (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the edit summary at the Weston article. I'm having difficulty with an overzealous vandalism fighter who keeps missing the target, and I assumed that the template had been added by that user. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. M.Bitton (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is though. the oldest khamsa can be found in tunisia. the hand literally originates from the fake goddess Tanit. it was later renamed the hand of Fatima due to the Islamic influence entering tunisia. SN2004 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's much older than that (think Mesopotamia). I suggest you read the article and if you still want to present what is uncertain and disputed as a fact, open a discussion on the article's talk page (that's what it's meant for). M.Bitton (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello M.Bitton. Could you please undo your change here? The report was informative and could be cited the next time around, if this user continues warring elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:  Done. M.Bitton (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: they are back, but this time using different IPs (24.199.90.246 and 24.199.80.148). You'll notice that as well as targeting the same article, both these IPs and the previous one have another thing in common (they all use a web host, i.e., a proxy). This edit summary is a clear indication that they are used by the same person. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I semiprotected a couple of pages. Consider reporting these IPs at WP:OP as open proxies. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Will do. Thank you for looking into this. M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look M.Bitton, in general I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the contributions you make to Wikipedia. I've become a better editor through my interactions with you. But especially recently, I feel so frustrated by our interactions. I don't feel that they have been focused, congenial, or sincere. I don't want to escalate the situation, but I do feel that mediation or a conversation would be helpful. What do you think? How can we move forward? إيان (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the recent disagreements, then there really is nothing else to talk about. They are unrelated to each other and everything that needs to be said has already been said in the appropriate talk pages. M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I definitely played in the string section, and it was definitely recorded at Air studios do you really think there are no strings on this track? Tryfgd (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryfgd: I already left a comment on your talk page about how to manage a conflict of interest. I suggest you read it. M.Bitton (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mother was born in Casablanca in 1929. Her father was a French Foreign Legionnaire who fought to help the French colonize and "pacify" the Maghreb. The term "pieds noir" was created by the Arabic people in reference to the French soldiers who wore black boots. In case you need more validation, here is an excerpt from the Smithsonian Institute: "Camus was a pied-noir—a term meaning “black foot,” perhaps derived from the coal-stained feet of Mediterranean sailors, or the black boots of French soldiers, and used to refer to the one million colonists of European origin living in Algeria during French rule." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-is-albert-camus-still-a-stranger-in-his-native-algeria-13063/ While the coal that blackened the feet of a few of the soldiers' feet who were on steamers is a quaint anecdote, it's not the truth. The truth is that the region was conquered by thousands of soldiers who wore black boots and who stayed behind and later served as law enforcement, and this was how they were identified by the Algerians and Moroccans. 2603:8080:FB00:63BB:1ED:6A7A:7A27:48F (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Etymology of "black feet" is covered properly in the article's body. M.Bitton (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Starr&oldid=1121952027

I wanted to say this so bad, I didn't think someone actually would lol. Thanks for your help in this, also ignore the fact I spelt spouse wrong in rev history. I have no other way to explain to them what a spouse is so if you have any other creative ideas feel free

Best, Zekerocks11 (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.Bitton, I appreciate you and I value your impressive contributions to Wikipedia. We have different views on some subjects and I think that's fine, becaue I'm sure that we, as a community, will be able to reach a sensible solution. I'd love our discussions to stay friendly and I apologize if I ever wrote anything unpleasant to you. Likewise, could you please Wikipedia:Assume good faith from me? For instance, I added the new map to Dhofari Arabic in good faith and you commented: "Stop spamming Wikipedia with your new shiny map" Thanks for your consideration. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9: That particular comment was in response to your revert and insistence on adding the map everywhere. We discussed the issue and a relevant map was created for the article. As far as I'm concerned, that was the end of it. I too value your work and can assure you that not agreeing with you on a specific subject or how you're handling it has no impact on what I think of your contributions in general, let alone you as an editor. M.Bitton (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton, thanks a lot for taking the time to answer: I appreciate it! Have a good day. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Why don't you think that the UNESCO inscription shouldn't figure on the page's summary? It's the case in the majority of other languages pages? Looks like you're the one defending a certain narrative? Elkhiar (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elkhiar: What the other projects do is irrelevant to this one and the UNESCO inscription concerns Tbourida and not Fantasia, but then again you know that. What's amply clear to me is that you're only interested in pushing a nationalist POV, just like you on the French Wikipedia (Zellij article). M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing other posts on your talk page makes it very very easy to see that you are biased. Please explain why shouldn't a crucial information figure on the most important part of the page, or refrain yourself from editing and undoing the edits. Thank you. Elkhiar (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't stand here and let a single purpose account (obviously not a new editor) lecture me about how to edit the projects. You're no longer welcome here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tbourida is literally Fantasia in Maghrebi Arabic (as the article clearly says). There's no dedicated page to Tbourida. You can check French/German/Arabic Wikipedia for the same article to find the same exact sentence mentionning the UNESCO inscription. I will continue to stress the importance of why it should be mentionned. Since you're not a new editor, I am sure that you're aware that Wikipedia is about collaboration. Elkhiar (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also to respond to the Zellige article. I use reputable sources to back every edit I do. You can check up on that. You can be motivated by nationalism and not be chauvinistic. Elkhiar (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section for Tbourida and the UNESCO inscription is mentioned there. Fantasia is much older than Tbourida (as the article says).

For the Zellij, try doing here what you did in the French article and see what happens. M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why I have mentionned that it is TBOURIDA that is inscripted by the UNESCO, not Fantasia. Also, is let's see what happens a threat? Elkhiar (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bit too late to pretend to be interested in what I have to say. You obviously don't like the answers you were given and are ready to do whatever it takes to inject your nationalist POV in the first sentence of article (after trying desperately to rearrange the order of the countries). M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, we'll leave that to the moderators then. The readjustment of the order was a mistake because I thought that the countries where it was the most present should be first, because I didn't know it was in alphabetical order, but for the rest I take full responsibility. I think it is a crucial information that exists in most of the other versions of the same article, and it deserves to be mentioned in the English version of the article too. Have a nice evening. (Reminder, I do not know you personnaly to pretend to do anything, I don't need to prove anything to you or to anyone else. This is a collaborative platform and you are not a moderator or have power, please refrain yourself from making such comments. Thank you) Elkhiar (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you think is crucial (from your narrow nationalistic POV) is irrelevant. Beekeeping is also inscribed in the UNESCO list, you don't see anyone adding the nonsense to the first sentence of the beekeeping article, do you? In fact, it's not even mentioned in it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, this is not mentioned in the summary of the page but :

1 - It is not the same thing, beekeeping is not a controversial subject

2 - It is the case for all versions of the same article, so a mention of the inscription would be the exception, but in this case it is the opposite, not mentioning the inscription seems to be the exception when comparing with the other versions.

3 - I put the link of the site of UNESCO which explains in detail the relationship of Tbourida with Morocco Elkhiar (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense!. I'm done wasting my time with you. Please stay away from my talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed that you are basicly the only person taking map requests. I submitted a request about Katzaianer's Campaign but it got ignored.

Have I done perhaps something wrong in writing my request?

Thanks.

Franjo Tahy (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Franjo Tahy: No, you haven't done anything wrong, it's just that some maps are more time consuming than others and in the case when they are based on the interpretation of text rather than on a previously published map, such as this case, there is a big risk that the map will be rejected as WP:OR (it's been happening a lot lately). To increase the chances of someone taking the request, I suggest finding a map that shows the event, or at the very least, one that is related to it. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the info. Though it could be challenging to find such map. Franjo Tahy (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Play nicer, please. That came from the French wiki, and I accepted it in good faith. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: That's what I assumed and I was about to leave you a message as soon I finished a phone call. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ,

Why in Algeria history he removes the Fatimids, on the French wikipedia there are already plenty of sources and the Fatimids are also listed in Algerian history before on the English Algerian wikipedia there were the Fatimids but it changed to the Sulaymanids I don't understand and in the english wikipedia page of the fatimid there is algerian history so it is surely a vandalism that changed fatimid against sulaymanid 86.69.237.239 (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried adding this twice but you keep deleting it. Wales is a country that was occupied by England under force in 1283. It has never been granted it's independence following that date. Therefore it has been occupied by the English monarchy for 739 years (in 2022).

SOURCES: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofWales/The-English-conquest-of-Wales/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Wales_by_Edward_I 88.97.45.74 (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wikipedia cannot be used as source. 2) None of those sources support what you added to the article: One of the world's longest ongoing occupation is the English conquest of Wales (1283 - present). M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Donner60. Happy holidays to you and yours. M.Bitton (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to revert this IP and change the opening sentence to:

• "Ibn al‐Bannāʾ al‐Marrākushī (Arabic: ابن البناء المراكشي), full name: Abu'l-Abbas Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Uthman al-Azdi al-Marrakushi (Arabic: أبو العباس أحمد بن محمد بن عثمان الأزدي) (29 December 1256 – 31 July 1321), was a mathematician, astronomer, Islamic scholar, Sufi and astrologer."

Then I realized this fell into your area of expertise, so I thought I would drop you a line and see if you had any objections. I was not sure if the polymath part needed to be included in the lead since it also mentions his other areas. Stay safe. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: What you're suggesting looks good to me, though I'm not opposed to adding Maghrebi at the beginning of the sentence (in line with how we treat scholars from that era). The "birth_place" and "death_date" could also do with some adjustment to avoid the anachronism (I believe it should be Almohad Caliphate and Marinid Sultanate respectively). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on some of the info. SOrry. But, the January 2, 2023 date in demographics and in the pictograph is inconsistent with the detailed info on women governors in the other section. The new MA and AR governors haven't taken office yet (albeit MA is tomorrow). 72.128.110.201 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have now reverted some of the recent confusing changes. M.Bitton (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ANI#Vandalism by User:Takiva
• Rustamid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Takiva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey M.Bitton. Did you happen to see this ANI complaint? I noticed that you and User:R Prazeres had posted warnings on User:Takiva's talk page at some point during the fall. Takiva is now indef blocked on enwiki for making unsourced changes. (80% of their enwiki edits have been reverted). From the current ANI it is hard to know what the dispute was actually about. Do you have some insight? The user is blocked here but is still quite active on Commons. It might be worth making a complaint to the Commons admins but if so, there ought to be an explanation of what is wrong with this person's edits. Since you reverted some of their changes you must have an idea. I'm guessing that it's something about Morocco. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EdJohnston. The complaint you linked is indeed a little odd. I'm not sure where Takiva's block was discussed, but the edits of theirs that I'm familiar with were about adding historical political maps or flags that were unsourced and/or radically deviate from what is found in reliable sources. There is unfortunately a steady stream of such editors on North African topics, usually with a pretty obvious POV in one direction or another. I'm sure Takiva is not contributing very constructively on Commons either, but I'm not familiar enough with Commons policies to judge what qualifies as a clear complaint. I did spot some more obvious dubious/vandalizing edits of theirs, which I've reverted and warned them about here. I guess if they do more of that, it might be easier to report.(?) R Prazeres (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I have no idea why the IP brought a Commons issue here, but I do remember reporting Takiva for persistently adding unsourced content to articles (please see the IAV report that earned them an indefinite block). Unfortunately, reporting them to Commons at this stage won't achieve anything, as WP:OR is allowed there and the admins there don't usually intervene unless one is persistently vandalizing the project. With two warnings on their talk page so far, I have a feeling that they'll get there eventually at this rate. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you attribute Tariq to the Berbers, and there are many sources that forget the Arabs, and the oldest historian attributed to the Arabs? Muhsin97233 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you attribute Tariq to the Berbers, and there are many sources that forget the Arabs, and the oldest historian attributed to the Arabs?

There are many sources about his origins. As for the Berbers, is this a racist orientation? Muhsin97233 (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]