User talk:M.Bitton/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sockpuppet on French conquest of Algeria

I've created a SPI report here. Cheers — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@AP 499D25: thanks. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

SPI

Please add the new socks into an existing section, and if you have the time try to consolidate the sections so it's easier to handle. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Sure thing. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

In this diff you assert bad behavior which may be an accurate assessment. But an edit summary which cues the board watchers (but only occasional reader in my case) might get you the help the situation needs. Think of it as good spacing and on-point communication on the pitch. Sorry to critique a seasoned vet but good edit summaries really help me to troubleshoot. BusterD (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@BusterD: I rarely use edit summaries when leaving a comment (as they seem somehow redundant), but if doing so helps board watchers, then I see no reason not to use them from now on. M.Bitton (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Adom (artist)

Can you help stop the vandalism on the page. User rift keeps taking down notable links from the Boston herald. This is someone on Tom Scholz or team. Keep in mind they lost that law suit from a federal judge. It’s as notable as it comes. Please advise.https://www.bostonherald.com/2013/08/21/judge-rejects-rockers-bid-to-ban-ex-bandmates-from-using-boston-name/amp/

 Also can you add this news source as well link as well-

https://ventsmagazine.com/2022/04/28/meet-singer-songwriter-and-producer-adom-former-member-of-the-legendary-band-boston/ Dreykaa (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I won't edit war for you. Please take your concerns to the article's talk page and seek consensus for your proposed changes there. M.Bitton (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed in myself for not giving this to you sooner! You have been a great help creating maps for many articles, don't stop doing what you do! – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Treetoes023: Thank you so much for your words of encouragement. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Minor map adjustment

I have a minor adjustment for the Anglo America map. I'm not too sure about this, but I think that St. Lawrence Island is considered part of Asia and not the Americas so it should be gray. I can't really find anything that says what continent it is a part of though. – Treetoes023 (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Treetoes023: it's part of Alaska. M.Bitton (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Well yeah, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's part of the Americas. The orthographic projection of North Asia includes it as part of Asia. That's actually why I brought it up, I saw it included in Asia in the North Asia map and wondered if it should be included in Asia in the Anglo America map as well or if the North Asia map has an error. – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Treetoes023: It doesn't mean that it isn't either, nor is there a way to prove otherwise. When dealing with concepts with loose definitions, I tend to choose one and stick to it. You'll also notice that St. Lawrence Island is included as part of the Americas in the North America and Americas articles. M.Bitton (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Oh okay, thanks for the clarification. – Treetoes023 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Image

Hello @M.Bitton, I hope you're doing well. I checked all the book but couldn't find page 59. If you did find it, could you please provide me with the link to verify?

Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: Hi. I guess that's the wrong volume. Here's the one that is used in the article (it's found when you look for "Civitates orbis terrarum vol II"). If you are interested, I can look for the high resolution version that I downloaded some time ago. M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Yes we need the high resolution to add it with a source to avoid speculations. Riad Salih (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I will look for it and overwrite the current one. While the higher resolution could be useful, there no speculation about the current as it's properly sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Actually, if you take a look at Wikimedia, there is no source or details provided for the image. The picture looks blurry and suspicious. As I am working on improving the quality of articles, especially on the French Wikipedia, I prefer to source all kinds of information in order to have solid articles. Riad Salih (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: Actually, while not complete (it's missing "vol II") the cited source is amply sufficient to find the original. Its blurriness is not an issue (sometimes, that's all we have). That said, the one that I linked to above is much better, so feel free to update it and its source while I'm looking for the other (which could take some time as I have to sift through thousands of them). M.Bitton (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton After spending several hours linking every piece of the book and zooming in, I have come up with this, what do you think? Riad Salih (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: That looks really good and saves me from looking for the other image. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Could you please upload it to Wikimedia Commons? My internet connection is not good enough to upload it there, it will take a lot of time. Riad Salih (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: Right now, I'm in the middle of something. I will do it tomorrow (after I optimized it). M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Please keep the file in its current PNG format if you upload it. If you change the extension to JPEG, the image quality will be significantly reduced. I'm trying to translate it to English, but it's hard since it's Latin mixed to Old English. Riad Salih (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: I hope you don't mind, but after careful consideration, I opted for the lossy compression as it produced a much smaller file that won't penalize readers with slow connections. The loss of some quality is only an issue if one intends on re-editing the same lossy version (which isn't the case here as you have access to the original). I suggest you adjust the source of the original image that was overwritten. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton I have checked, and it looks fine. I added some information to the file. If you have time, please recheck it to see if I missed anything. Riad Salih (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Riad Salih:  Done M.Bitton (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Reversion

Hello, @M.Bitton. I have noticed your reversion on this article. Please don't remove relevant content without a valid reason

Regarding "Current administering power", Spain was a historical administering power in Spanish Sahara, now known as Western Sahara. Currently, Western Sahara is a disputed territory betweeen the Kingdom of Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic with no "de jure" administration. Spain had relinquished administrative control of the territory in 1976.

On 26 February 1976, Spain informed the Secretary-General that as of that date it had terminated its presence in the Territory of the Sahara and deemed it necessary to place on record that Spain considered itself thenceforth exempt from any responsibility of any international nature in connection with the administration of the Territory, in view of the cessation of its participation in the temporary administration established for the Territory. In 1990, the General Assembly reaffirmed that the question of Western Sahara was a question of decolonization which remained to be completed by the people of Western Sahara.

— Non-Self-Governing Territories, United Nations

I apologize for any inconvenience caused. Best regards. يوسف قناوة (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@يوسف قناوة unfortunately, not many people seem to be aware of the fact that Spain is still considered as the de jure administering power of WS.[1] Best, M.Bitton (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, @M.Bitton.

I would like to bring to attention that Spain has reiterated its cession of its former colony of Western Sahara according to a letter from its Permanent Representative to the UN to the UNSG during the UNGA 31st session.

In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Madrid Declaration of Principles of 14 November 1975, the Spanish Government, as of today, definitely terminates its presence in the Territory of the Sahara and deems it necessary to place the following on record: ... (a) Spain considers itself henceforth exempt from any responsibility of an international nature in connection with the administration of the said Territory, in view of the cessation of its participation in the temporary administration established for the Territory ...

— Jaime de Piniés, Letter dated 26 February 1976 from the Permanent Representative of Spain to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, A/31/56-S/11997

As the sources you stated claims that Spain is de jure still the administering power of Western Sahara, it caused some confusion to me as it may ostensibly conflicts with the statement above. I would appreciate some clarification. Regards. يوسف قناوة (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@يوسف قناوة: it's not a claim, it's a fact that is covered in multiple reliable sources. Spain refuses to accept its role and has been dodging its responsibility for decades for a multitude of reasons. As always, Google is your best friend. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, @M.Bitton.

Please check this link: [2]

With all due respect, this ostensibly weasel-worded reply is your opinion, and I have to respect it. I, too, am able to edit the page and put my references as well, as long as they are official UN documents and therefore are reliable enough to not be reverted/removed, at least not arbitrarily. Sincerely yours. يوسف قناوة (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Flag of Marinid

Hi

Is it possible to upload a sourced possible flag? Panam2014 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Panam2014: sure, but whether it would make it into the article is another issue. Following this discussion (that you are more than welcome to join), we decided to remove the flags and emblems altogether. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Please help with this page I dont know who should I contact thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023%E2%80%9324_Saudi_Professional_League&action=history

People keep adding inaccurate information to this page, as soon as any player name is linked to any club they add it as one of the foreign players (as example recently Marco Verratti)

thank you for your help 108.30.69.227 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

An admin semi-protected the article. M.Bitton (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed in myself for not giving this to you sooner! You have been a great help creating maps for many articles, don't stop doing what you do! – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Treetoes023: Thank you so much for your words of encouragement. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed in myself for not giving this to you sooner! You have been a great help creating maps for many articles, don't stop doing what you do! – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Treetoes023: Thank you so much for your words of encouragement. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Redirection

Hey @M.Bitton

Could you remove the redirection for "2023 Algeria wildfires", please? I intend to create an independent article about Algeria and its wildfires.

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Why, what's wrong with the way it's presented? M.Bitton (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton The article covers North Africa as a whole, but for Algeria a detailed version is better ,as I am trying to do here. Riad Salih (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I obviously can't remove the redirect and leave a blank page. If you want to create a separate article for it, all you have to is replace the redirect with the article's content. M.Bitton (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I was unable to locate the option to edit the page. Riad Salih (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Sharon Azrieli

Hi, can you have a look at the edit history for the above please. I've just reverted a new user for unexplained removal and noticed W1ckedWikiWaikiki (talk · contribs) has removed a lot from the article. [3] which has references and the discography [4] although that is all referenced to Spotify. Looking at the article it does look like it needs clearing up a bit. Knitsey (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Knitsey: as this is a BLP, I won't comment on the removal of content that is either unsourced or badly sourced, but this part might be worth looking into. It appears to be sourced, though most of the sources are inaccessible (the accessible ones are either unreliable or don't mention her name). Looking at the article's history, I'd say that W1ckedWikiWaikiki's edits look similar to those of B00mBam84 and TheLemonOrange, which started right after Abrassard added some content to the article. Given the SPA's, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a spillover from some forum discussion.

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about the subject, but if you are interested in cleaning up the article, you could of course use some content from her website, as well as these sources (please note that I haven't checked them poroperly).123 Best, M.Bitton (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You're a star. I shall have a look at it over this next week and see if anything can be salvaged. Thank you, Knitsey (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Oceania map

I was browsing Wikipedia when I stumbled across this map, and it made me realize that the map I requested is not the best way to visualize Oceania. This is of no fault of your own, the image I stumbled across cheats a bit by making small islands appear bigger than they actually are so they will appear on the globe (at least I think, that's what I assume the small islands magnified tag is for in the file's name), which your map does not. I was wondering if you could make a map of Oceania in the same style as the map I stumbled across, it may not accurately depict the size of the islands in Oceania, but I believe that sacrifice is worth it because it shows that Oceania is not empty but full of tiny islands. Of course as always you do not have to make the map, I know that you are busy and it's okay if you don't want to or can't. However, if you do want to make the map, here are the conventions:

1. Use the same style as the map I stumbled across (including the red circles around the small islands)
2. Center the image on the geographic center of Oceania (13.35°S 178.141667°W / -13.35; -178.141667)

I'm okay whether you make the map or not, the map you already made is more than serviceable, I'm only asking for this image just in case you can make it. – Treetoes023 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Treetoes023: at a glance, I'd say that there is no cheating on that map. It just shows more details, hence the size (1.89 MB, versus the 247 KB that I made). The colour scheme also plays a big role in how the details appear (the grey and green scheme that we use is frankly not great). M.Bitton (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Ohhh, that makes sense. The red color scheme is clearly a much better scheme for a map of Oceania as well, the small islands shown in the grey and green scheme are only visible due to the light green circles that you wisely put around them, the actual islands themselves are invisible to the naked eye. Would you be able to make a map of Oceania in the red scheme that is similarly detailed to the other red scheme map (perhaps a file 2 MB in size)? I know that the grey and green scheme is the norm, but it is clear that it just isn't suited for this map. I think having a map better suited for the subject is more important than consistency with schemes. – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll add it to my low priority to-do list. M.Bitton (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Okay, no rush, take as long as you want. I do have a question though, should I move this request to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop like you had me do last time I made a request directly to your talk page? – Treetoes023 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

No need as this is not a new map per se. M.Bitton (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hey @M.Bitton

Is there a way to verify all the recent edits made to the Algerian portal?

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It's something I usually edit, but i expect our content policies to apply to it (like any other article). M.Bitton (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton I didn't understand your reply. What I meant was, is there a page that is regularly updated to show the latest edits made on articles related to Algeria? This would help in verifying any vandalism or other changes. Riad Salih (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Your best bet is to add all the ones that you're interested in to your watchlist. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Question about The Austrian Expedition to Morocco

Hello M.bitton Why do u keep reverting edits that says it was a moroccan victory even that we have putten 6 sources about it? Mrpf plus (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

we have putten are you saying that you are working with the block evading socks (VICTOHH1 and Gofté_Moorish)? M.Bitton (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

i don't know who these are wdym? Mrpf plus (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

What did you mean by we? M.Bitton (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

i meant by moroccans i clearly didn't even mention those sockpuppets Mrpf plus (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It's funny, but the sockpuppets that I mentioned use we as well. In any case, you are welcome to take this to the article's talk page where the sources will be scrutinized. M.Bitton (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Serial block evader

By the way, in case you weren't already familiar with them, have a look at this. I noticed you had some of the same frustrating experiences with them. User has been socking all year, always same POV (see the archived investigations). R Prazeres (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: I see that our old Garamantes friend has been busy. Thanks for letting me know. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for adding an unsourced change to Morocco

It wasn't worth it, and neither sources said anything about Morocco being 712,550 sq km. Forgive me? Mickey J. Hartford (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

BRICS INFOBRICKS

Under the file it self it here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Infobrics.org_logo.svg It has "English: This is official logo of BRICS"

It is listed as a logo here as well: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q243630

It's used on 14 different languages wikis as a logo under their brics logo. If 14 different wikis uses it as theirs than why don't we?

Either we should remove it from all of the 14 or keep it in the English brics article as well.

Here is their website. http://infobrics.org/ For it being legit an official logo of brics that is the consensus on this website users.

I do not really know but it's not really my place to question it if everyone thinks it is and that is clear by the mere act of how often it is used on here. If we say it's not without any proof then it's basically is undemocratic compare to all of the other users that basically in the act of using it believe it's official. Mathsquare (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Commons and the other wiki projects are not reliable sources. I'm not aware of any consensus or even a discussion on this concerning the BRICS logo. Having looked into it, all I could find is various official logos for the different summits (such as this one), but as far as I can tell, the bloc itself has no official logo. As for "infobrics.org": while it's keeping track of the latest BRICS news, there is nothing to suggest that it's an official website or that the logo that it uses is "the official" one. M.Bitton (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Creponne.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

NotAGenious (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stones latest album

The drummer of the band was the late Charlie Watts.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ralfdetlef: Indeed, but why are you telling me this? M.Bitton (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I must have a look at this, I thought the late Charlie Watts had written the songs.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Kabyle language total number of speakers

What do you mean it "has been discussed"? Ethnologue provided the recent language estimate for Kabyle speakers and it was a reliable source can you explain why you reverted my edits? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean it has been discussed on the article's talk page (Ethnologue's estimate is incorrect). I also suggest you self-revert this edit (as changing other sources with Ethnologue's without consensus, discussion or even a valid explanation is not appropriate). M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I gave an explanation and how is Ethnologue's estimate incorrect? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You read the the article's talk page and please, don't forget to self-revert. M.Bitton (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Curious

Hi M.Bitton, i'm just curious, how can any editor claim if a source is neutral or not ? what are the valid reasons for that, especially if we're talking about Books made by historians in the first place. Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "neutral". Do you have an example in mind? M.Bitton (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton The SPA that just got blocked in the Regency of Algiers article often claimed that sources were not "neutral". what does he mean by that ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No idea. Personally, I wouldn't waste a second of my time trying to work out what an irrelevant SPA means M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You’re right. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit requests

Hi! Please remember to change the edit request template parameter from ans=no to ans=yes when answering edit requests. There are user scripts like User:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper and User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool you can use. Thank you for the work you do! NotAGenious (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@NotAGenious: which edit request are you referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Java (programming language) for example. NotAGenious (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@NotAGenious: that's very strange and surely a one off, because the edit request tool changes the parameter automatically. M.Bitton (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@NotAGenious: on closer inspection, this looks like something that happens when an edit request is malformed. M.Bitton (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry for the inconvenience, have a nice day! NotAGenious (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Same to you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you think?

https://interaction-timeline.toolforge.org/?wiki=enwiki&user=Hero7373&user=Wiggles567&startDate=1694563200

The first time they caught my eye was when they used the edit summary "I agree with the addition"[5] Austronesier (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: thanks. This is very interesting as the chances of two unrelated editors being interested in those random articles are very slim. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

They're blocked. Thanks for taking quick action. –Austronesier (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: it wouldn't have been possible without your support. Thanks again. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Cezayirli Gazi Hasan Pasha

Hello, can you please explain why you think the source I used is unreliable? (you cancelled the last change) Kolya Muratov (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It was reverted because the added content didn't make sense (in that it contradicts what we already know). That could be for one of two reasons (that I mentioned in the edit summary): either the Turkish source is unreliable or it doesn't support what you added. If after reviewing the source you still believe that the content belongs there, then I suggest you start a discussion about it on the article's talk page so that others can weigh in. M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:North Africa

It would be helpful if you would back away from your personalized disputation with Thinker78. I've advised them likewise to try to avoid further conflict with you. The pair of you have basically trainwrecked an RfC that should have fairly easily come to a conclusion, by turning it into a headed two-party pissing contest, and it is now likely to close with no consensus and have to be done all over again. See also WhatamIdoing's advice to you both at WT:RFC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I ask for nothing more and I'm not the one going around to complain about them, but if they keep mentioning me or harassing me by leaving unwanted comments on my talk page (while refusing to take their so-called concerns to ANI), then they'll leave me no choice but to reply. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough. I'll suggest to the other editor they avoid posting here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I just saw what you wrote on their talk page and to be honest I'm quite surprised. Could you please elaborate on Thinker78 and I had a discussion on my own talk page, in which I thought some of M.Bitton's behavior was intemperate and unconstructive as well? While you're at it, what do you think of their forum shopping and the fact that they even changed Wikipedia:Third opinion to suit whatever they're after today? M.Bitton (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's some of what they did (forum shopping spree):

1. they started Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Question_about_RfC_sections where they asked whether my revert from two weeks ago was appropriate. The response of WhatamIdoing was ignored by them.
2. they made an admin request on their talk page to complain about me. Since Bbb23's response wasn't what they were hoping for, they started squeezing the admin and questioning their conduct.
3. they left another comment on User_talk:SMcCandlish#Input_requested asking your "opinion on the {{adminhelp}} template and then went on to complain about the real reason they were there for (see their last comment). If this not not canvassing, I don't know what is.
4. they also started Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Possible_civility_issues.
5. they then modified the Wikipedia:Third opinion to suit whatever they're after today. How can they possibly justify this abuse of process?
6. as if the above wasn't enough, they also left another message on my talk page in what can only be described as harassment.

M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, since they refuse to take it to ANI, I will ping some experienced admins: @Doug Weller, Drmies, and Rosguill: your input on this would be highly appreciated. Thanks.

Background info: I have been extremely civil with them every since our interaction started on Talk:North_Africa#First_sentence_redundancy (back in September). When they canvassed some editors on that discussion, I just reminded that's now how we seek consensus (without making a big deal out of it). Seeing as the discussion was going nowhere, I suggested we start a RfC and gave them the chance to choose the options. The RfC was started and everything that ensued was what you would expect in an average Rfc.

On the 19th of October, they decided all by themselves what the consensus of the RfC is and went on to implement it. I reverted their edit and asked them to wait for the RfC closer to decide what to do next. I also explained to them later on that since they are involved, they are not supposed to determine the consensus. In response to that, they started throwing wiki jargon at me (policies such as WP:TALKDONTREVERT that clearly don't apply to the situation) and then left this very insulting message on my talk page ("reminding" me to read WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, respect the wp guidance and seek consensus for god knows what). Some of what followed is highlighted above. M.Bitton (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You can also add a clear cut personal attack to the list (see diff): Maybe the editor has some life issues. You'll notice at no point did I make any comment about them personally (all my comments were about their behaviour on wikipedia). M.Bitton (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the thread on my talk page is pretty self-explanatory. Neither of you have been ideal participants in the discussion, and its descent into an unproductive verbal brawl has been a two-way street. I've already addressed much of this on my own talk page, including about the other editor effectively closing their own RfC, and leaving you comments that could be taken as WP:FALSECIV. If this has already gone to WP:AN, then it's probably better taken up there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton, disengaging is simply the way to do. Your opponent has wasted an entire day of their life posting here and there; don't do the same. Listen to SMcCandlish. BTW I closed the RfC since it is not going anywhere (it got off to a bad start, as I think you noted somewhere), and so there's no consensus, implicit or explicit, for them to point to. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish and Drmies: your replies are much appreciated. I agree that this has been a total waste of time, so I won't be pursuing it further. @Drmies: not that it changes anything to the rationale of the close, but you closed the discussion, the RfC is right after it (thanks for doing that btw). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've had some way-forward advice, posted here and there, but worth mentioning here, too: [6]. Hope that helps. I don't have "skin in the game" on this topic, but I've see how this tends to work out at other subjects that are hard to pin an exact definition to. The answer is almost always more and better sourcing in the body, so there's clearer material to summarize in the lead, even if we end up having to tell our readers that sources don't really agree on a clear definition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That's something to keep in mind if the subject comes up again, but for now, I'd rather forget about this time sink and concentrate on something else. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Jewish exodus from the Muslim world

Hello there,

Regarding the short description, can you explain why you thought my new version is inappropriate?

I saw that the 1948 Palestinian Exodus page has a similar short description "Expulsion and flight of Palestinians..."

I thought it appropriate to describe the Jewish Exodus as Persecution and Exodus from the Muslim World since the Jews suffered persecution and were subsequently either expelled or emigrated due to persecution. Since the article describes this, I naturally assume it's appropriate to describe this in the short description. Mass Movement of people is rather misleading. Since mass migrations are not the same as forced exile.

Thank you for your time M.Bitton Homerethegreat (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

For two reasons: 1) The the description should be limited to 40 characters (per Template:Short description). 2) the word "persecution" that you added is clearly misleading. M.Bitton (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Belated answer

The October 2023 clashes are not covered, AFAIK. It is not at 2023 Al-Aqsa clashes, or anywhere standalone at present, I don't think. I was planning to fill the gap, but then a lot of other events took over rather quickly! Iskandar323 (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: thanks. This confirms my suspicion and explains why I couldn't find anywhere. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments were struck

Look. I was not intending to canvass. Please do not report me as my comments have been struck. You seem to not be assuming good faith as I have clearly stated I was (1) not intending to canvass and (2) willing to recant the statements. Please assume good faith and accept the recant that I did. I propose a WP:MUTUAL striking of the conversation, aka closing/archiving as an unintended canvassing event. Agreed? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: if I didn't assume good faith, I would have reported you already instead of asking for an explanation. In any case, now that you struck your comments, I see no need for further action. Feel free to archive the discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

In all honesty, you were saying “I’m not answering your questions, but I do not accept the answers you gave to mine”. That isn’t assuming good faith. In any case, I will achieve the discussions when I get back on November 1. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Assuming good faith doesn't mean entertaining the unjustifiable. M.Bitton (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussions have now been closed and archived. M.Bitton (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

i wanted to say sorry

After some thought i came to the conclusion that i was being an ass, specifically a dumb one. While i still believe that that section of the article should be removed it wasn't justified for me to edit war. i would like to clarify that im not a sockpuppet of the other user nor is the other user a sockpuppet of mine. (i still have no idea how to sign on mobile) JackyTheChemosh (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, but very few of us have the courage to own them, so kudos to you. I don't think you're a sockpuppet (the other editor is uncivil and confrontational) and neither does the admin who said that you were acting like their sockpuppet (which is different from being a SP). M.Bitton (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks + Burger

Thanks for fixing my mistake with the Algeria-Israel relations article—I was moving some stuff from some Israel-Hamas war articles (including Siege of Gaza City) without double-checking their reliability. I've addressed the issue on their respective Talk Pages—thank you for the revert. - MateoFrayo (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The 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 2023 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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu

I did Mention that i would like to add an image of Srirangam Temple to The article Tamil Nadu. Sastri676 (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I did mention that your edit request wasn't specific. M.Bitton (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Abdelmadjid Tebboune

Hi, I‘ve seen that you reverted my change within the page about Abdelmadjid Tebboune (see ). I don’t understand why; could you please explain? The political view about Israel is part of the identity of a person, in my opinion. Thank you!FPSalman (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The president says all kind of things on a daily basis, cherry picking one of them (from a source) to stick it in his biography is not how Wikipedia works. M.Bitton (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but somebody's attitude towards Israel and the conflict is not on the same level with the person's favourite ice cream flavour. A lot of biographies about presidents have their own chapter about Israel. See Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.--FPSalman (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Cherry picking a source about something else that just happens to mention somebody does not define the person or what they like. I don't see the point of comparing articles. M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The segment was actually copied from here: Algeria–Israel relations. So I’m assuming it has to be deleted there too? What needs to happen that the president's attitude towards Israel can be included into his article in your opinion? (serious question)--FPSalman (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It may or may not belong in that article, but it certainly doesn't belong in his biography. M.Bitton (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

How does it belong to Erdogan's biography then, who is also a president? It gives the impression that you are the one who is cherry-picking here.--FPSalman (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't compare articles and have no idea what sources are used there and in what context, all I know is that the source that you used is about where where Arab states stand on normalising Israel ties and while it does mention the president among others, the source in question is not about him. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Ottoman and Turkish

Hey @M.Bitton hope you're doing good, regarding the words ottoman and Turkish, i think it would be better if we avoid using the word ottoman prior to 1520 in the article of the regency. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue with avoiding to use any of them prior to that date (Aroudj for instance was neither Turkish nor Ottoman per se at that time). M.Bitton (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @M.Bitton, regarding the recent WP:EWs, I’m starting to suspect sock-puppetry, jumping from one article to another in the same topic and the tendentious attitude look familiar. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi @M.Bitton, If you have time, could you please review my draft article and make any necessary cleanups? Thank you Riad Salih (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: Sure, but it will have to wait until the new year as I don't have a lot of time right now. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Hello M.Bitton: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Wikaviani:, thank you very much! Happy holidays and a happy new year to you and yours. M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Juba

Hi, I saw that you reverted my edits on both Jubas, despite the source that I provided stating that they were considered different. I tought the source was reputable enough, but I am not expert regarding ENWP practices. Could you indicate me what was wrong with them? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

All the sources about "Juba of Mauretania" lead to "Juba II", so I don't see how a single source (about a certain Juba) could be used to turn the redirect Juba of Mauretania about someone who isn't Juba II and then conclude that Juba of Mauretania and Juba II are not the same person. M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I am understanding you right. There were no source on "Juba of Mauretania" before I added a link to one ; I then added a paragraph on Juba II with a second, different, source, albeit they are both part of the same online encyclopedia (which has an article for each Juba). If it's a question of numbers, I can add two others sources on two other ressources further differenciating Juba II and "Juba of Mauretania". That would also lead me to rename the latter as "Juba (writer on metric)" or something similar, as he's never mentionend as being of Mauretania in any of those sources. Would that be fine? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to the article's talk page where others can weigh in. Needless to say that I don't agree with Juba II and "Juba of Mauretania" being described as a different person. As to whether a new article about the writer on metrics should be created, that would depend on whether they are notable or not (I haven't looked into it, so no comment on it at this stage). M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Issues

Hi M.Bitton, its nice to talk to you again. I do not understand why you're so insistant on reverting any of my edits about this map. You had an issue with the overwriting, which in any other case would not cause so much drama, as the map is the same. After re-uploading the map under a new name, to avoid the drama, you're reverting the edits I made to replace the map with one written in text editor. You're more than welcome to edit the map I uploaded to remove whatever is making you so passionate with any of the changes I made, but the way your dealing with this seems petty. Vyvagaba (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know by now, using text editor for maps is the preferred way to upload maps on here, as they are much better to work with. Vyvagaba (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You're not making any sense: I already explained to you what the issues are with the map that you uploaded, so I won't go through them again. Like I said, I will correct the SVG errors and as a matter of fact, I'm in the middle of converting it (by hand) to make it easy to edit. I'm not interested in editing the new map and I see no reason why you're replacing the other one after what we talked about.

whatever is making you so passionate this is not acceptable. What do you mean by that?

the way your dealing with this seems petty which part is petty: asking you to respect the Commons rules or offering to fix what was bothering you? M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Blida

As Blida needs to be made into a disambiguation page, and the first step is to create that page, I will treat the Algerian city as the primary topic, to avoid having to rename the page title. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Since you created the disambiguation page, I will adjust the hatnote accordingly. M.Bitton (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello,

Can I contact you privately regarding a Wikipedia page? Teamtmoran (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

World map

Hi M.Bitton, I saw that you reverted my edits of the world maps. I understand that these maps can be biased to favor the US's political agenda. It doesn't matter what map you use. Every map is biased. I don't like the idea of reverting the progress I have just made in my edits. Instead of reverting the edits, we could use the newest map as a baseline, and then rework it so that it is in balance with the world view. Do you have any specific areas of the newest maps that concern you? If you do, we can work out of those areas so that we can make a better world map. Interstellarity (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter what map you use, why are you changing them and why do we need the latest US POV? Maybe you forgot, but we had a similar discussion a while back when we worked together to keep the maps that you removed updated. M.Bitton (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite get what the benefit is to not having the latest map. Yes, I do remember that discussion a while back, but I think the world map had some changes since then. Since we have a disagreement on what is better, I'm going to ask for a third opinion on whether it is better to use an old or a new map. That way, we can continue to work together on how to make the maps better. I believe it was just the two of us that did so, but having a third set of eyes I think would be beneficial. Interstellarity (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite get what the benefit is of having the latest US political POV (that 1) is based on the unilateral decisions made by a passing president, 2) promotes falsehoods and 3) violates our policies). The other map is not "old". What has changed (other than the US position on certain conflicts)? Is there a specific thing that needs addressing? M.Bitton (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Were you a participant in these earlier discussions? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Responding to third opinion request [7] What page is this dispute on? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Since has been discussed with other editors, I don't see the point in discussing it further. M.Bitton (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: It is for multiple pages. The disagreement is about what map we should use for pages like Geography and Map. Interstellarity (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed your post from the Third Opinion page as having been responded to per @M.Bitton's statement that this "has been discussed with other editors". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That's right. Besides, when someone claims that there is a disagreement, the least you expect them to do is discuss it first. All they had to do was answer a question, but since they refused and the discussion took place without them, I see no need to rehash what was said, especially, since this involves a non-negotiable policy. M.Bitton (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hindu-Arabic numeral

Please give your opinion on recent edits made by a user Jacoblus on the Talk page of Hindu-Arabic Numerals article- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system#Recent_edit_by_Jacobolus

Hu741f4 (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's talk

You seem to have taken issue with some of the things I've said (or haven't said) on Talk:Hindu–Arabic numeral system. I'm very sorry if I've offended you in any way. My only goal there is try to help make that article better, but I feel like the interaction between you and me has taken a turn for the worse. The discussion there—at least between you and me—has become stuck. What can I do to fix that? Best regards, Paul August ☎ 11:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Paul August: my only goal is also to help make the article better, but I can't do that when someone is persistently casting aspersions on me (this has been the case ever since I interacted with them months ago, and we're not talking about a small remark here and there which I tend to ignore). I wouldn't have said anything if you decided to stay out of it, but for you to ignore their barrage of aspersions (with me literally begging them to stop) and to pick on the smallest thing that I said doesn't make sense to me, especially given the fact that you did the same thing on Talk:Arabic_numerals.

How would you feel in you were in my position? M.Bitton (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry that you feel that way. Let me apologize again if I've offended you. Please tell me what I can do to fix things. Paul August ☎ 14:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. What's done is done, I guess. M.Bitton (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. And I'm willing to discuss, and perhaps explain any of my actions you seem to be unhappy with. I have been trying hard, on that talk page, to facilitate a constructive discussion. The only way we can do that is if we treat each other respectfully, and refrain from personalizing disputes, something we haven't been doing. I know you have issues with jacobolus, and I would be willing to try to mediate if you would like. In particular—provided you sincerely believe it would be helpful—I am willing to answer the question you asked me on that talk page:

They have been persistently attacking me for months and you have never ever (not even once) said a thing to them. Care to explain why? M.Bitton (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

and share my opinions about the behavior of both of you. Paul August ☎ 01:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I asked the question on the talk page and insisted that it's answered there for a reason, but that didn't happen and now it's too late. To be honest, I have been trying really hard to forget about the whole thing, so the last thing I need is think about it, let alone discuss it. M.Bitton (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton I don't really know what you mean by "cast aspersions". Your use of that word does not at all align with my intentions, at least as I understand the definition of the word. If you would like to call out any specific comment of mine which you feel attacked your reputation or integrity, I am happy to explain myself in detail.

@Paul August To give a bit of context, I tried to make some edits at Arabic numerals, got into an edit war or two about what I felt were entirely uncontroversial edits, then made a proposal at the talk page which I thought was treated by M.Bitton and another editor in a substantially dismissive and disrespectful way, with lots of sarcastic exclamations, SHOUTING, and complaints I had trouble making sense of. So then I started looking at the history of the page and the talk page, where I noticed that there had been a persistent years-long pattern by the same 2–3 editors of removing from the article Arabic numerals any mention of India, any link to the obviously directly relevant sister articles Hindu–Arabic numeral system and History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, and more generally reversion of any effort at fleshing out the article's basic context. When others repeatedly objected to these edit wars, the responses seemed to me to be generally below the standard I would expect for long-time Wikipedia editors.

I felt like discussion directly on the talk page was going nowhere, so I made a post at the NPOV noticeboard, now archived at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 107 § Editors standing guard to prevent Arabic numerals from even linking to Hindu–Arabic numeral system. Perhaps there's some better venue, or perhaps I could have phrased my complaint in a better way.

M.Bitton apparently felt that this was insulting, but I have never intended any personal insult, and my comments were and are intended as a straight-forward factual description of events, and I really hope we can all get along and maintain basic civility.

M.Bitton: I am sorry if anything I said was personally offensive to you. I didn't then, and still can't really figure out what your motives are. I remain mystified by your editing and discussion style, which seems extremely aggressive and often leaves me feeling disrespected. –jacobolus (t) 03:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Aside: to declare my own "political" goals, such as they are: I am a white person from California who grew up part time in Southern Mexico; my godparents are indigenous Maya peasants. My wife is Chinese. I have spent my life living in cosmopolitan cities and I have friends from all over the world, with a wide variety of religious backgrounds and political ideologies. I would like to see Wikipedia articles about mathematics and the history of mathematics neutrally and fairly represent the achievements and contributions of all cultures and mathematicians, to the best of current scholarly understanding. That includes Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, China, Ancient Greece, India, Persia, Golden-age Baghdad, Byzantium, Central Asia, Muslim Spain, Japan, France, Germany, England, Russia, the United States... I am dismayed when mathematics and history become politicized and apparently turn into ideological battles. I wish I could read sources in Sumerian, medieval Arabic, Neo Latin, Ancient Greek, German, or Indian languages, etc., but since I can't at the very least I try to read original sources in translation where I can, and try to find the best scholarly sources written by expert historians, comparing multiple sources and reading reviews to understand the available evidence as best I can and make sense of their points of agreement and disagreement.) –jacobolus (t) 03:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

With that said though, I am happy to drop the subject if it is distressing to you. I'm not trying to cause you any harm. –jacobolus (t) 03:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Clarification

Hey ! Hope you’re doing good, I wanted to ask you if it’s fine adding an Ottoman Turkish name in the infobox and lead of the Regency of Algiers article. Per WP:common, as this would make things less confusing to Arab readers and would showcase an ottoman affiliation of Algiers as an autonomous state. This would also avert Npovs from changing its Arabic name. Best. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Of all the names that are listed in the footnote, that's the least common and the least relevant. The one that was used by the locals and is consistently used in RS is certainly "al jazair" (I don't see how anyone would challenge that), so if we need to ignore the consensus of the previous discussions and change what's in the infobox, that would be my prime choice. I wouldn't worry about the passing disruptive IPs and socks who have nothing to say about the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright I thought we needed to include the word eyalet somehow…

btw you really think it’s not necessary to point out to Numidia and massinissa as clients ? A good number of sources do so, including this (also please check the notes below)[8] Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"Dchicha" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dchicha has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Dchicha until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 22:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Self-promotion via images

Due to your recent activity around Conceptuel's edits, I think you might be interested in reading Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_24#Self-promotion_via_images. Although many expressed concerns over self-promotion via image filenames, similarly to yourself, in the end the result was that the reverting user was banned for 60 days for WP:Hounding and concerns over the user promoting their images were dismissed on the basis that it was a Commons issue, not an encyclopedia issue. Certainly it is not binding policy but it is a precedent. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

edit: meant to link Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive284#Self-promotion_by_User:Calibrador, the COI page discussion is interesting too but ultimately had no effect. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi M.Bitton. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

trying not to bludgeon the discussion more than I already did

Naturally I don't mind. Questions are good. Repeated wrong answers are bad. I would have expected a Frenchman to make that a mistake because nom=noun in that language. For an American to claim that "chair" is a name because that is what we call the thing is ... proof they don't teach grammar there if you ask me. Anyway. We should ping some people into the RfM from Project Algeria and Project Linguistics I suspect. Any other interested parties? Is there a MoS Project? Let's just not ping ppl more than once

It's probably hard to tell but I don't care much about this. (I was pinged to the talk page originally) It's wrong, but so are a lot of things. But to explain my vehemence, I went to high school in France, where they grade you out of 10 and take off a point every time you omit an accent aigu, so certain things are kind of hard-wired for me at this point.

I don't think it is a loanword, or Wikipedia would know what it means. But let's ask some other people. By the way, since I think you know more about Algeria than I do, am I in fact correct in thinking that it is not an ethnicity? Elinruby (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I will go ahead and post here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linguistics#Requests_for_attention Kinda swamped so I would prefer not to compile a list of editors to ping. Feel free to do that if you want to as long as it's a neutral list, and I think I trust you on that. I plan to just say that issues in the RfM include the definition of "name" vs. "noun" and "what is a loanword?" Seem fair? Elinruby (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

already listed at the Algeria, History and Ethnic groups Wikiprojects. Do not see a place to ask for an opinion about the MoS aspects of this without going full RfC, which does not seem appropriate or like something I really care enough about this to do. Going back to sorting out the Brazilian justice system and the many names of Mohammed ben Othman now. Incidentally, I have not been pinging you at Regency of Algiers because I figure you know it is there, but your input is welcome there. Elinruby (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I know what you mean by the French schools and their general approach to education. I have no idea what happened in that discussion, but there appears to be some misunderstanding between you and the other editor. While I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that "chair" is the common name given to the thing we sit on, the chosen example doesn't help with the clarification of what constitutes a proper name and might be responsible for the confusion. A better example, at least in my view, would be to use a term that you mentioned in the discussion: "settler" is a noun that refers to a class of settlers, making it a common noun, while "Pied-Noir" is a noun that refers to a specific instance of the "settler" class, which would make it a proper noun or proper name if you wish (the two are often used interchangeably). I also believe that it's a loanword (just like Vinaigrette) for which we have a dedicated article.

oh ;) Elinruby (talk) 16

28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether the Pieds-Noirs constitute an ethnic group or not very much depends on whom you ask: their age, where they live, etc., all play a crucial part in how they see themselves. The Pied-Noirs who moved to the South of France and Spain, finding strength in numbers, tend to be more attached to their shared heritage than those who moved up north and had to face the stigmatization alone.

That said, thank you for advertising the discussion and I'll make sure to do the same if I can think of another venue. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I am neutral about "loanword" but my impression is that to qualify for that, the word(s) should be in common usage in English. But that is why I thought of asking linguistics people. I agree that the discussion needs a definition of the term -- ie should it be the the official definition or the one in common use today. Per commonname I think the latter but reasonable minds may differ. The French article has a whole section on this.

The other editor as I see it 1) doesn't listen well and 2) conflates "noun" and "name". For example he "explained" that I was wrong by sending me a wikilink to "proper name" -- which was a redirect to "proper noun", which he was "explaining" was wrong. The "name of a thing" is usually a "common noun" in grammar, in other words "a vinaigrette", whereas Kraft vinaigrette is a freaking name, lol. I don't think he realizes that yet. But clearly the discussion was going nowhere and let's face it, most English speakers have the same issue. Hopefully with that problem out of the way, progress can be made, and if it took me out too oh well. I didn't ask to be in this thing anyway and I really really really need to get the Regency article out of my hair. Hope the above is useful -- Let me know if I am telling you stuff you already know. I'm looking at all the Jewish refugees under the Regency and the origins of the corsairs, is all It was by no means a monolith of specifically French culture and I doubt ~130 years changed that. Elinruby (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

aha all of my other notifications are about this. I hadn't seem that when I wrote the above. I am unsubscribing now. I think you are making the same mistake he did, but ok. I like you anyway ;) Going back to the many names of Mohammed ben Othman. Elinruby (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)o go full

Ha ha ha (I'm just playing devil's advocate). Unsubscribing after dumping me into the middle of something that you didn't want to be part of doesn't sound very fair to me. I think I'll start pinging you from there. (￣ー￣) M.Bitton (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

hahahaha I said yeah well what am I supposed to do? I got pinged there myself and went to look at MoS. When I came back it was a full-scale RM with all of the usual suspects. I got out just in time. Watch, this is going to go full Arbcom if you don't watch out. You think I am joking? I already said I don't want to die on this hill. Elinruby (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I got out just in time No you didn't. M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I said yeah well what am I supposed to do? I told the other guy I would shut up if he did. He is back so I am too. Hopefully the pings will help. Seriously, how do you get ethnic group? I can be convinced. The other guy however thinks the mere fact that he says a thing is supposed to be enough ;) Elinruby (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Why do you feel obliged to reply to them and why don't you simply ask them to substantiate the claims? M.Bitton (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

since he has you trying to do that, and I would rather not feud with you especially since I already owe you an apology from way back when? He keeps pointing to that one section of MoS Elinruby (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You lost me. What do you mean by they have me trying to do that? What exactly am I doing that I shouldn't? M.Bitton (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I answered this. Must not have hit publish. There is a lot going on. It is not up to me to tell you what you "should" be doing, although I do think that PJ guy is mistaken. If you will accept friendly information from me, however, that McCandlish guy apparently wrote alking more thalf the Manual of Style, Or so I hear. FYI. Elinruby (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you meant by they "they have me trying to do that" and now that you mentioned McCandlish, I'm even more confused. M.Bitton (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

so I can see this when I switch to my phone shortly. All it means is that both you and PJ say it's an ethnic group. You are talking more than he is. I do not want to argue with you. Since McCandlish is saying something somewhat different (on a different basis) I am just saying, as someone who wishes you well, that he is considered an authority on MoS. In case you did not know that and were planning to argue with him about it. Not telling you you shouldn't, if that is really what you want to do, just that it might not be a good idea, I do have a few sources, btw, regarding our last conversation, but I am up to my armpits in something else. Can that wait? Elinruby (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)ll both

As far as I can tell, McCandlish is saying more or less the same thing as they're still arguing that it should be capitalized while citing's worth i the same MOS that was mentioned by PE. Obviously, I will argue if I don't agree with an opinion (like them not considering that something that appears in its original foreign form in the target language is not a loan), this is what discussions are for. Of course it can wait. M.Bitton (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Your call. At least you needn't be blindsided now. But I think he is saying Pied noir vs Pied Noir, and I am trying to decide if it is worth engaging with the idea that French speakers will be offended by French capitalization. Probably not. I am just now, two months into this, being told that the Regency had what amounts to a constitution. Hmm. Gotta go now while Nourerrahmane and I are still both online. Elinruby (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Pied-noir or Pied-Noir is more or less the same thing as far as the argument for capitalization is concerned (that's why I ignored it), what's important is that we agree on the fact that it's an ethnonym. M.Bitton (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

New article

Hey, feel free to ignore this, but you seem to be more familiar with the editor who created it and possibly with the topic too(?), so I thought I'd flag Slavery in al-Andalus for you, in case you're interested. Some of my spot-checks made me think there's some WP:OR, but I don't know the topic well enough to judge if it's merely superficial or if there are bigger concerns to raise. (I left some comments on the talk page about the citations, but not willing to judge the rest.) Again, no worries if this isn't worth your time. R Prazeres (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: I am indeed familiar with the modus operandi of the editor who takes a lot of liberties with the sources, cherry picking what they want and misrepresenting them at times (see their latest edit on the Aghlabids article). Unfortunately, dealing with their edits (checking all the cited sources) is a lot of work. That said, If I have time, I will look into the new article. M.Bitton (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for considering. And of course there's no urgency. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion on the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Ngrams

Hi. Re this comment at Talk:Pied-Noir, actually ngrams does distinguish parts of speech. Remind me later and I’ll point you to some examples; mobile now and too difficult. Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I was referring to the French words (usually within French sentences) that are often quoted in the English sources (explained in this comment). Does that make a difference? M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's different. There's little they can do about that, and unless their algo is cleverer than I thought, they won't tag foreign snippets correctly for POS in a majority English text. If you have a good English source that has a fair number of sentence-or-longer snippets in a foreign language embedded in it, I could test that theory. Mathglot (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't think of any offhand, but I'll keep it in mind in case I come across one. M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Did a couple of quick tests of French expressions in English books: fait accompli has a very small number of false 'verb' tags, so they did really well there. Still pretty good with cause célèbre, about 5% mistagged. (In both of these, fait can be n. or v. in French; ditto cause.) They did better than I expected.Mathglot (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of proper nouns and adjectives, as in "les Bretons" and "les gâteaux bretons". M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

How a lack of consensus is determined

Hi, can please help me understand how, when handling an edit request, do you determine that there is a lack of consensus for the request? Much thanks spintheer (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It usually depends on the nature of the request. In your case, the decision was simple since the removal that you suggested was already discussed on the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yeah you're right, my bad on this, and thanks for pointing this out spintheer (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)