Jump to content

User talk:37.163.210.35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2023[edit]

Can you explain how this is relevant to the Algeria–South Africa relations? M.Bitton (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It shows how Algeria–South Africa relationship influences the ones that those two countries have with Morocco, that is also Algeria's neighbour. It's an international reaction to such relations, how could that not be relevant? That would be valid for any other country as well. If a relationship with Algeria caused such a negative reaction from, for example, England or Germany towards South Africa I don't think anybody would have any reason to delete it from the article, so there is no reason to delete Morocco's reaction too. 37.163.210.35 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) The relations between the two countries has nothing to do with Morocco. 2) The source that you're using is the crappiest source one could find on the internet (MWN is a makhzanian source, as described on it article, i.e., written by the cheerleaders of the makhzen). 3) You are fully aware that the onus to seek consensus for the inclusion of the disputed content is on the editor who wants to keep it, yet you chose to force your edit by violating the 3R (for which you have been reported). 4) Your edit summaries are nothing but uncalled for personal attacks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An international reaction to such a relationship is oviously a relevant thing. It would be like saying that the UN or Algeria itself's reaction to the Western Sahara situation is irrelevant and removing anything about their positions on the issue from any article about it. Or that any non-NATO country (for example, the BRICS ones) opinion about NATO would be irrelevant because they are not part of it. And, like I explained in the edit, those sources are more than fine to say that the Moroccan king "intended to demonstrate" something. If the text in the paragraph said something like "and he succeded" or "he failed" then it would need other sources, but that's not the case. There is no need for a million sources from all around the world just to say that the Moroccan king went to a place and expressed his and his country's position and opinion on something. 37.163.210.35 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no internation reaction. All I see is a makhzanian source that you keep pushing into articles that have nothing to do with its irrelevant rant. Here's the perfect example of what I mean. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So Algeria and Morocco are the same country now? Of course it's an international reaction. You are not replying to the actual point. And I already explained why the source is fine. 37.163.210.35 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The usual and irrelevant reaction of a makhzanian cheerleader is anything but an "international reaction". M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the king of Morocco is a "makhzanian cheerleader", now? Nice opinion, but that's not up to you to decide. Again, you see everything only from your Nationalist POV. You are not neutral and your opinion on sources and anything related to Algeria is biased. 37.163.210.35 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote is clear, if you can't or are unwilling to understand, then that's your problem. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice projection. The one refusing to understand here is (unsurprisingly) you. 37.163.210.35 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, you still have a chance to do something about violating the 3R rule (that you know very well). I suggest you revert your last edit before it's too late. M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not reverting anything. Your bad reverts and your unconstructive way of discussing and dealing with other people and ideas on Wikipedia are the problem here. 37.163.210.35 (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:37.163.210.35 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:37.163.210.35&oldid=1133199125"